isn't this the sort of case we should consider it for?
quote:Rep. Bob Ney pleaded guilty Friday in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling investigation, the first lawmaker to confess to crimes in an election-year scandal that has stained the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration.
Standing before Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, Ney pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements. He acknowledged taking money, gifts and favors in return for official actions on behalf of Abramoff and his clients.
What's the price of selling out your constituency and violating your oath of office:
quote:The 52-year-old lawmaker faces a maximum of 10 years in prison. Huvelle said prosecutors had agreed to recommend a term of 27 months, and said federal guidelines suggest a fine of between $5,000 and $60,000.
Ney did not resign his seat. Several officials have said the congressman is financially strapped and needs his $165,200 annual paycheck and benefits as long as he can continue to receive them.
Political corruption, to me, is a case where the DP actually makes sense. It likely would actually cut down on offenses as the cost-benefit analysis of taking bribes would be greatly shifted and these are generally the people who actually think about that sort of thing before they commit their crimes. Also, it would underscore that we consider that responsibility does actually come with power and that the commitment you make to serve the American people is actually a serious one.
I'm not saying that we should automatically use the death penalty in all cases of political corruption, but I do think it's something that should be definitely considered as a possible penalty.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Also, for clowns.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We wouldn't have any politicians left. They'd all be dead (actually... is that a bad thing?)
And any living politicans would be constantly acused by the other side whether they were guilty or not, so nothing would ever get done. (Again... is that a bad thing?)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mr. Squicky--Many people would agree that the death penalty should be used in cases of treason, and selling your vote is, in my opinion, high treason.
Erosomniac--Hey I'm a clown (professional as well as Santa's helper, Easter Bunny and Bingo Caller)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I would much rather see them sent to labor camps.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
erosomniac
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wouldn't be in favor of the death penalty for (massive) political corruption, although I am (sometimes-I change my mind a bunch on this) in favor of the death penalty for other crimes.
Life in prison with hard labor, on the other hand, I would wholeheartedly endorse. It's just, to me, part of what politicians sign up for-or it should be. It's not just sycophantic staffers, perks, power, prestige, media time, and jet-setting.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The death penalty for nonviolent offenses? Seriously? Wow.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, Will, are you against the death penalty for treason then?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I knew extrodinary rendition was good for something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are degrees and types of treason, Mr. Squicky.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There are degrees and types of treason, Mr. Squicky.
Right. Obeying Russians is worthy of death. Obeying a corporation earns you a fat retirement package.
I'm strongly in favor of punishment for political corruption. It'd be the first time some of these quivering fat whores knew fear of the law. Does anyone remember how frightened Congress became when the FBI found hundreds of thousands of dollars in some Louisiana Democrat's office?
The first step toward a transparent government, I think, is to force all elected officials to publish all their financial data. It'll be way harder to buy politicians if everyone knows who's paying.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Right. Obeying Russians is worthy of death. Obeying a corporation earns you a fat retirement package.
This must be what I meant.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Obviously, there's a difference between someone who smuggles weapons technology and someone who relaxes environmental rules. But is it so large between someone who eases trade regulations for China and someone who arranges profitable deals for them at American cost? What about speeding drugs through the FDA (from Bayer, if it's acceptable from domestic companies) and setting up environmental protection laws based on intentionally false or biased data? What, really, is the effective difference between a foreign agent who infiltrates our government to influence policy to another's profit -- and a senator who can be paid to influence policy to another's profit?
And yeah, sorry if I've been snippy. I'm still catching up on the work I missed while I was down with SARS, and I'm not putting too much thought into anything else. My bad for exaggerating your position, dude.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...I think people may have misunderstood my remark. I was writing directly after and responding directly to this:
quote:The death penalty for nonviolent offenses? Seriously? Wow.
I brought up trason, not to say that policital corruption is treason, but to present a capital crime that is non-violent.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Yes, I am (against death penalty for treason). Especially if treason is redefined to include irregular business practices.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The constitutional definition of treason has two parts: 1) levying war against the United States, and 2) adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
The first is certainly violent. The second may not be - in fact, the most common form of conviction is sheltering a saboteur or agent from a military opponent. While the act may not be violent, it can be likened to conspiracy to levy war - agreement/adherence seem to be parallel elements, and providing aid and comfort are overt acts.
In that sense, if viewed as a conspiracy with the opposing armed forces, this is a violent act. Conspirators are held responsible for the crimes of their co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. Further, if A conspires with B and B with C for the same objective, then A can be found to be a co-conspirator with C even if they have never met and don't know each others' identities.
So while sheltering a German saboteur is not something we would call a violent act, under the law, it very well could be viewed that way.
I would generally oppose the death penalty for mere sheltering. If the shelterer knew the saboteur was committing violence, then I would classify it as a crime I would consider the death penalty for.
Edit: BTW, the Rosenbergs weren't convicted of treason for turning over the bomb to the USSR, but rather espionage. That was an example of non-violent crime leading to execution. In practice, no one in the U.S. has been executed for anything but murder or conspiracy to murder since 1964. There are laws on the books in some states allowing it for sexual assault and (at the federal level) drug trafficking. At the bottom of this page are the four non-homicide crimes that can result in the death penalty.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
erosomniac