How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Polonius**

CorporateLogo wrote:What Polonius said. Disagree with the ACLU on one issue and they're automatically godless Communists out to destroy your rights?

Well, I find the ACLU position on gun control at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical, but it takes the ship where the paying customers want to go, and most contributers are pro gun control. I think it's silly that a group that has consistently expanded personal rights against self incrimination, search and seizure, free speech, etc. would look at guns and say, "it's a collective, not a personal right." I've yet to found a group of people with whom I agree on every policy issue, be it political party, Church, PAC, etc., so I tend to overlook some problems here and there.

And, lets not forget that the ACLU tends to defend some awful people. Lifetime criminals, Neo-Nazis, garden variety tools, and the cranky atheists that don't like Christmas displays at city hall. You are bound to piss people off when you defend these guys, and I don't criticism of the organization personally. (I am, literally, a card carrying member myself. I think it expired, but I still carry it

)

I agree with what I see as a core belief of the ACLU, which is that just because the government or society views a person as a pariah, wackjob, criminal or jerk doesn't mean their rights evaporate. When the rights of anybody can be taken away, it makes us all a little less free.

**Wolfstan**

A true life sentence would do for starters, life means life. Locked away on their own for 23.5 hours aday, no contact with anybody else but the prison staff. Everyday would allow them suffer, the 1st few years they will probably harden to it, but after 10 years I would imagine that the lonliness really starts to kick in. You also have the benefit of if if they are proved to be innocent at a later date you can release them The death penalty leaves no room for mistakes and it obviously isn't working, as people are still being killed in the US.

**Da Boss**

I dunno. I think that prison should be about rehabilitation. Punishment can certainly be part of that, but what you've described doesn't have any element of rehab.

**Lormax**

For those of you against it, would you all be singing the same tune if that was your daughter, or wife, that was raped and murdered by this guy?

**Da Boss**

No, but I wouldn't be thinking rationally then either. I don't think the State should act in the same way as a grief stricken relative consumed with rage.

(That said, I'm not 100% against the Death Penalty, just 99%.)

**Frazzled**

Why not? if the State were thinking rationally most criminals would be neutered and "put down" due to high recidivism rates. If not put down the whole "penal regiment" rears its ugly head. if the State is corporate then these would be the cancer cells rampagig and harming noncancerous productive cells. Those cells are dealt with for the survival of the corporate body, not rehabilitated.

**Polonius**

Lormax wrote:For those of you against it, would you all be singing the same tune if that was your daughter, or wife, that was raped and murdered by this guy?

First off, I'm not sure very many people have spoken against the death penalty per se, only it's application. In fact, my argument was essentially that your hypo above should NOT be the factor used to determine who gets executed. Of course if somebody killed my fiance I'd want them to suffer. I'd want it to be cruel, I'd want it to be unusual, and I wouldn't give a crap about their rights. I would want revenge, and I'd want to take it out on somebody.

And then I'd stop, and I'd realize it wouldn't make me happier, or more content. She'd still be dead, and I'd have seen an ugly side to myself. God willing, I don't have to encounter that, but I would like to think that I wouldn't want to kill the murder. This isn't a legal or political argument that I'm going into, just a personal bit of, I dunno, philosophy. I'm a big believer in the concept of redemption (similar but distinct from salvation). I was raised Catholic, and while I don't practice much any more, I'm still a believer in the idea that belief in the divine must be combined with good works. It's not really a recognized part of it, but I'm firmly of the belief that no matter how awful you are, no matter what you've done, it is always possible to redeem yourself through actions. Because of this belief, on a personal level, I would have a hard time advocating for somebody to die. If they've confessed to the crime and have sought forgiveness, I believe I should accept it. If they refuse, I think they should be given the time to redeem themselves. Please understand, I'm not trying to sell anybody on my ideas here. I'm just trying to explain what it'd do in that situation.

**Polonius**

jfrazell wrote:Why not? if the State were thinking rationally most criminals would be neutered and "put down" due to high recidivism rates. If not put down the whole "penal regiment" rears its ugly head. if the State is corporate then these would be the cancer cells rampagig and harming noncancerous productive cells. Those cells are dealt with for the survival of the corporate body, not rehabilitated.

Why not? Well, simply because that's the opposite of how the US was founded, I guess. The power of the state over the individual should be tempered. All that stuff about 10 guilty men going free before 1 innocent is punished. Criminals aren't cancer cells, they're not rabid dogs, and they're not monsters. They're people that have made bad choices, and should be punished for those choices, but they are still humans.

I want to steer clear of Goodwin's law, but what you advocate is a central tenant of most totalitarian, and yes, fascist regimes. The elimination of those that offend the state sounds great as long as everybody agrees on what is offensive. Slippery slope arguments are weak, but governments almost always gain power, not lose it over time. Any system that gives that level of sanctioning power to the government runs the risk of finding more and more people being declared "offensive" or "unfit."

Many, but certainly not all, advocates of the Death Penalty are conservatives who generally like the idea of a smaller, weaker central government. They don't like the idea that the Government can regulate their business, tax their income, take their property, etc. Yet many seem very gung ho on the idea that the government should be more aggressive in taking life and liberty from people. The fight against tyranny is fought on many fronts.

**CorporateLogo**

Polonius wrote:
Well, I find the ACLU position on gun control at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical, but it takes the ship where the paying customers want to go, and most contributers are pro gun control. I think it's silly that a group that has consistently expanded personal rights against self incrimination, search and seizure, free speech, etc. would look at guns and say, "it's a collective, not a personal right." I've yet to found a group of people with whom I agree on every policy issue, be it political party, Church, PAC, etc., so I tend to overlook some problems here and there.

And, lets not forget that the ACLU tends to defend some awful people. Lifetime criminals, Neo-Nazis, garden variety tools, and the cranky atheists that don't like Christmas displays at city hall. You are bound to piss people off when you defend these guys, and I don't criticism of the organization personally. (I am, literally, a card carrying member myself. I think it expired, but I still carry it )

I agree with what I see as a core belief of the ACLU, which is that just because the government or society views a person as a pariah, wackjob, criminal or jerk doesn't mean their rights evaporate. When the rights of anybody can be taken away, it makes us all a little less free.

This is what I was getting at, though I phrased it in a very graceless manner, admittedly.

**Da Boss**

I'm sure most cancer victims would be delighted if we could rehabilitate the cancerous cells rather than lopping them out. Ask any woman who has had a mastectomy, or any man whoose testicles have been lopped off, or of course, anyone with inopperable cancer.
Let me spin the argument on it's head: If your dad, in a fit of rage, killed someone, would you be as gung ho to have him executed? Everyone's got a mother.

**Phoenix**

While I’m generally a supporter of the death penalty as I mentioned before, I do have some reservations about it. The primary thing being the uncertainty the system creates. If there was a way to be 100% sure the guy did it, then I’d be all for it, but there is just a lot of room for error.

One of the biggest places things go wrong is in how the people who really work in the system are graded. How many times have you heard ads for elected officials like judges or district attorneys that go something like this “I’ve locked up thousands of criminals so your streets are safe” or “I have a 98% conviction rate” or “I’ve won 95% of my cases” and the list goes on and on. These sound like impressive records don’t they? The problem with this is that those criminals you locked up are criminals because you locked them up, not necessarily because they committed crimes. A 98% conviction rate is pretty good so long as 2% of the people you brought a case against were really innocent (and they are the ones that walked). The simple fact of the matter is that the people who are pushing things in the system are not judged, graded, or anyway held accountable for actually seeing that justice is upheld. They are simply rewarded for winning cases regardless of if their side is right or wrong.

Police are not a whole lot better. The problem with them is that they not only have rules to follow (which is a good thing) but because of the rules and their general attitude, they can’t ever be wrong. So it hardly matters if a suspect did it or not, if they can make an arrest and testify to what they did / saw then they have done well. And the more resources they spend on going after someone, the less willing they are to admit that they might have made a mistake. This can get so bad that people (I know one personally) end up getting convicted of things that should never have gone to trial in the first place because it’s so blindingly obvious that the cops screwed up. But no one wants to put their neck out and stop the ball from rolling and a good lawyer ends up prosecuting the case and pads their conviction stats.

**JohnHwangDD**

Lormax wrote:For those of you against it, would you all be singing the same tune if that was your daughter, or wife, that was raped and murdered by this guy?

I'm not nearly such a nice guy as Polonius. And I don't have nearly the same capacity of forgiveness.

So if death isn't an option, then what sort of penalty might exist?

I'm an engineer, very hard sciences. I think I could probably keep him alive, helpless, and suffering in constant agony until the day that I died, at which point he would simply starve to death or die of infection due to lack of treatment. In essence, his daily suffering would merely be the physical embodiment of the mental anguish that I would be suffering day after day after day.

At that point, God can do as he will. God's dominion starts at death, while mine would be up to that point.

So all things considered, state-sponsored execution isn't such a bad thing on the whole.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
jfrazell wrote:Why not? if the State were thinking rationally most criminals would be neutered and "put down" due to high recidivism rates. If not put down the whole "penal regiment" rears its ugly head. if the State is corporate then these would be the cancer cells rampagig and harming noncancerous productive cells. Those cells are dealt with for the survival of the corporate body, not rehabilitated.

Why not? Well, simply because that's the opposite of how the US was founded, I guess. The power of the state over the individual should be tempered. All that stuff about 10 guilty men going free before 1 innocent is punished. Criminals aren't cancer cells, they're not rabid dogs, and they're not monsters. They're people that have made bad choices, and should be punished for those choices, but they are still humans.

I want to steer clear of Goodwin's law, but what you advocate is a central tenant of most totalitarian, and yes, fascist regimes. The elimination of those that offend the state sounds great as long as everybody agrees on what is offensive. Slippery slope arguments are weak, but governments almost always gain power, not lose it over time. Any system that gives that level of sanctioning power to the government runs the risk of finding more and more people being declared "offensive" or "unfit."
[\quote]

Actually, this was in reply to the theory that the "offended" had moved historically from the victim to the State and that that was a good thing. I was cautioning: 1) not necessarily correct; 2) agreeing that this is not a good thing. A rational State is a Killer State in this regard. Simple logic of numbers. High recidivism means logically the criminals would be dealt with if its purely the State acting logically. I am not a proponent that this is how it should be (hence my arguing for all of the Bill of Rights).

Many, but certainly not all, advocates of the Death Penalty are conservatives who generally like the idea of a smaller, weaker central government. They don't like the idea that the Government can regulate their business, tax their income, take their property, etc. Yet many seem very gung ho on the idea that the government should be more aggressive in taking life and liberty from people. The fight against tyranny is fought on many fronts.

No. Death penalty advocates generally believe that life is so sacred that the only possible punishment that could equal it is the taking of the life of criminal. There are many of us who would add rape, and child molestation to that list for the same reason, that you have effectively robbed the victim of their life, and that society must show how heinous this crime was, that the only punishment befitting is death. I'm sure not all of us are serious when we're talking explosives etc. but the end result stands.

Its interesting that you added "liberty" to the mix though. What are you trying to argue with that statement, that murderers are getting too severe a sentence with life or otherwise?

**JohnHwangDD**

Phoenix wrote:While I’m generally a supporter of the death penalty as I mentioned before, I do have some reservations about it. The primary thing being the uncertainty the system creates. If there was a way to be 100% sure the guy did it, then I’d be all for it, but there is just a lot of room for error.

I don't think there's ever going to be an absolute 100% when you talk about presenting information to a jury.

But you can get to the point at which alternatives are pretty far-fetched, like a 1-armed man or space aliens or something totally outside of normal human experience.

That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that is, you need to get a dozen men and women to agree that there aren't any reasonable alternatives besides concluding that the accused committed a capital crime. And that's a fairly high bar. It's not so difficult to convince one or two people, especially if you know them. But a dozen strangers? *Much* harder. Just look at YMDC on Dakka!

**Frazzled**

I've yet to convince one person on YMTC of, well anything. Excellent point JHDD.

**Polonius**

jfrazell wrote:
Actually, this was in reply to the theory that the "offended" had moved historically from the victim to the State and that that was a good thing. I was cautioning: 1) not necessarily correct; 2) agreeing that this is not a good thing. A rational State is a Killer State in this regard. Simple logic of numbers. High recidivism means logically the criminals would be dealt with if its purely the State acting logically. I am not a proponent that this is how it should be (hence my arguing for all of the Bill of Rights).

Well, I may have overstated the extent to which restitution has been eliminated from criminal law. I'm really not sure what you mean by the rest of your paragraph. I would say that a rational state uses the best and cheapest methods to eliminate recidivism. In the current arena, the death penalty is quite expensive due to mandatory appeals and increased death row security. Some, but by no means all of that could be eliminated and still be constitutional, but it's probably always going to be pricier than life in prison. The deterrence factor seems negligible based on all studies. This leaves concepts of retribution (eye for eye) and restitution (compensation to the victims). We clearly disagree on the value of those two aspects of the death penalty, and that's ok.

No. Death penalty advocates generally believe that life is so sacred that the only possible punishment that could equal it is the taking of the life of criminal. There are many of us who would add rape, and child molestation to that list for the same reason, that you have effectively robbed the victim of their life, and that society must show how heinous this crime was, that the only punishment befitting is death. I'm sure not all of us are serious when we're talking explosives etc. but the end result stands.

Its interesting that you added "liberty" to the mix though. What are you trying to argue with that statement, that murderers are getting too severe a sentence with life or otherwise?

If take the concept of retribution as your basis for sentencing, then I can see your point. I'm not sure if I'm able to get past the sheer disconnect that is "Because life is so scared, we have to kill you." I think a better phrasing would be "because life has such a high and irreplaceable value, those that destroy it forfeit their own rights to life." I'm not going to argue against the long term effects of rape, but I'm leery of adding "effectively robbing the victim of life" to the pile of death worthy crimes. Isn't life in prison without possibility of parole effectively robbing the criminal of his life? Again, it becomes a hazy area of drawing boundaries.

I threw in the concept of liberty because most Death Penalty advocates are generally in favor of higher mandatory minimums, three strikes and your out laws, the war on drugs, etc. It was painting a diverse group with a single brush, but given the posts here, I don't' feel totally out of line for assuming many people would consider themselves "tough on crime." I thought I had a point, and I don't think I do. My apologies.

My point isn't to show that the death penalty is bad, or that there are no good arguments for it. I think it was necessary before the modern prison system, and unnecessary now that we can imprison people for life with very, very little chance of escape. I think that it's existence appeals to a primal, dark part of the psyche that craves vengeance. I associate much of the cheer leading for the death penalty as being overly similar to that of a lynch mob. It's pretty clearly just my personal feelings, and I really don't think less of people that support it or anything.

**Polonius**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't think there's ever going to be an absolute 100% when you talk about presenting information to a jury.

But you can get to the point at which alternatives are pretty far-fetched, like a 1-armed man or space aliens or something totally outside of normal human experience.

That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that is, you need to get a dozen men and women to agree that there aren't any reasonable alternatives besides concluding that the accused committed a capital crime. And that's a fairly high bar. It's not so difficult to convince one or two people, especially if you know them. But a dozen strangers? *Much* harder. Just look at YMDC on Dakka!

In practice, in many areas of the country, it's a lot easier to convict then you think. Keep in mind that virtually all criminal cases (90-95%) are handled by plea bargain. The only cases that go to trial are those that are major cases that aren't slam dunk (like murder cases with sketchy witnesses) or are dependents with money. keep in mind that nearly everybody brought into a courtroom is, in fact, guilty. Everybody knows it in the system.

Still, the jury system works really well. It's a great system, the best available, and I think juries make sound decisions. The only thing I'd take away is the victims impact statements. In many states, in the penalty phase, the jury can hear testimony from the victim's family. I don't see the relevance to the issue (was the crime he was convicted of heinous enough for the death penalty), and I think it minimizes those crimes committed against the lower rungs of society.

The biggest racial disparity in the death penalty that black dependents get it more than white ones (although they do), its' that offenders that kill white people get it more often than those that kill black people. IMO, it shouldn't matter if you rape and kill the mayor's daughter or a crack whore: both should receive the same punishment.

In many ways, I actually respect Texas. For them, the death penalty is neither cruel or unusual. It happens all the time, so it's certainly not unusual, and it's done competently and well, with minimal suffering. They have the honesty to show those executed, and their statements. I think if a state finds that Murder, with Malice aforethought is punishable by death, then it should punish many (if not all) of those murders that way, barring plea bargains and the like.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
Still, the jury system works really well. It's a great system, the best available, and I think juries make sound decisions. The only thing I'd take away is the victims impact statements. In many states, in the penalty phase, the jury can hear testimony from the victim's family. I don't see the relevance to the issue (was the crime he was convicted of heinous enough for the death penalty), and I think it minimizes those crimes committed against the lower rungs of society.

So you're arguing for less time for crimes including murder?

Whats wrong with victim statements? He's convicted of the crime, but now the sentencing phase occurs. Surely testimony to the impact of what has occurred should be taken into account? After that occurs in civil legislation-why here? Its incredibly relevant wand was put in place in states because there were too many occurrences happening of demonstrably light sentences (also a spur for mandatory sentencing laws).

How does it minimize crimes committed against the lower rungs of society?

**George Spiggott**

How did he get so fat on a prison diet? *goes to check the calorific value of bread and water*

I blame 'the system', he wouldn't be to fat to kill if 'the system' hadn't over fed him.

**JD21290**

life sentance.
spend atleast 5 hours a day exercising.
half food for the rest of his life to ensure this wont happen again.

**Polonius**

jfrazell wrote:
So you're arguing for less time for crimes including murder?

Whats wrong with victim statements? He's convicted of the crime, but now the sentencing phase occurs. Surely testimony to the impact of what has occurred should be taken into account? After that occurs in civil legislation-why here? Its incredibly relevant wand was put in place in states because there were too many occurrences happening of demonstrably light sentences (also a spur for mandatory sentencing laws).

How does it minimize crimes committed against the lower rungs of society?

I'm not sure how you got that I want lighter sentences. In a death penalty case, after a person is convicted, there is a separate penalty phase where the jury then must vote on if the person should be executed. In every other case, the judge makes the ruling, and even in DP cases, the judge can overturn a death sentence. the Jury hears testimony about the murder, about aggravating factors like prior arrests, prior planning, simultaneous crimes, lack of remorse, etc., as well as mitigating factors such as mental illness, coercion, whatever.

A victims impact statement doesn't touch on what happened, how it happened, or why it happened. It generally is about who it happened to, and how it affect them. They're allowed in civil trials because the goal is to determine what the level of damages are. In a criminal trial, it's all about an act and a state of mind, neither of which have any relation to what impact the crime had on a family.

Don't even get me started on mandatory minimums and the stripping of judicial independence. It's a rant for another day. In general, I think that a judge that sees all of the facts and circumstances has a better ability to hand down sentences than a legislature.

A VIS can only work if it shows how awful the crime was. If a prostitute with no family is killed and raped, how will do it? If a well groomed white family speaks eloquently about their loss, isn't' that more effective than a family of immigrants? A jury should be given the facts of the crime, and the facts of the convicted to determine if his culpability reaches the necessary level.

**sebster**

jfrazell wrote:I am not sure about "similar bodies," but as the ACLU has put forth briefs supporting Washington DC's confiscatory position on firearms, and a slew of other interesting things, I'd take that they are defending my rights as incorrect.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, I probably have expressed myself very clearly.

1) There are a group of people who will argue for gun laws on the basis of needing gun laws to defend them against their own government. When talking about guns, they will base their arguments around personal freedoms being absolute, and will show a considerable distrust of government.
2) These same people will be utterly contemptuous of bodies like the ACLU, who are concerned primarily with protecting the rights of individuals against government. These people will be in favour of most draconian measures taken or desired by their government.
3) Holding both beliefs is really weird. As an example, on another forum a month ago I was talking to this guy in two different threads. In one thread he was talking about how he needed his guns in case his government ever got out of line and took away his freedoms. In the other thread he was defending the wire taps and gitmo and other policies of the Bush admin, not seeing how these were the very abuses of personal freedom he needed his guns to stop.

I wasn't necessarily directing this at you, but it does seem to be a uniquely American phenomenom.

**JohnHwangDD**

Polonius wrote:In practice, in many areas of the country, it's a lot easier to convict then you think. Keep in mind that virtually all criminal cases (90-95%) are handled by plea bargain.

Still, the jury system works really well.

In many ways, I actually respect Texas. For them, the death penalty is neither cruel or unusual.

True. But I imagine it's pretty rare to get someone plead to a capital crime. What's the incentive? They only execute you once?

Totally agreed. It may not be perfect (nothing will ever be), but it's about as good a system as once can imagine, given that it necessarily depends upon people.

The biggest thing is to simply enforce the laws, and then to punish accordingly. The biggest failing is to not punish, or to punish selectively, because then the whole system starts to break down.

**JohnHwangDD**

sebster wrote:I wasn't necessarily directing this at you, but it does seem to be a uniquely American phenomenom.

What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

**sebster**

JohnHwangDD wrote:What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

Everyone is hypocritical, my own country is certainly no exception.

But this particular bit of hypocrisy seems uniquely American.

**Mannahnin**

I agree with almost everything Polonius (and to some extent Sebster) has posted. Thanks very much.

**JohnHwangDD**

sebster wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

Everyone is hypocritical, my own country is certainly no exception.

But this particular bit of hypocrisy seems uniquely American.

Oh, OK, that's fair.

Of course, the first part is endemic to Americans because we're one of the few countries for which the citizenry actually have the explicit right to personal ownership of guns.

The second part is whereever the government thinks it knows best, so it's rampant throughout the world. For example, the Brits seem to have no concept of non-surveillance - they're perfectly happy to have cameras *everywhere*.

**grizgrin**

JohnDD: Well, I dunno about happy with it. I hear different views on it from different brits I work with, and there are a LOT of them. Some are appreciative of the fact that the surviellance keeps people from just setting gak ablaze at random. Seems the whole yob culture over there, combined with a view on ASBO's by some youth as a badge of honor rather than a notice form authority and government that they are screwing up, is kinda outta control.

Some others are really hacked off by the fact that there is one camera "watching" in the country for every 14 people or so, if their own papers are correct.

Some think that more are needed, some think that less are needed.

Few are happy with the situation as it stands now.

Not too familiar with exactly how much representation John Q. get s in the passage of laws back in blighty. Not too sure how much say they have, nor what had ot be given in order to sacrifice so much freedom.

Certainly not trying to degrade the Brits or their laws and society, but that's just what's come up in my conversations with them. And this is phrased all PC for you guys, because NONE of them would have been NEARLY as nice sounding about it, regardless of their stance. They seem to be people who are pretty stubboorn, and pretty opinionated, and they are fairly blunt. Again, not bad things, but it can take some getting used to if you are not from their culture. It can take some REAL getting used to.

Oh, and John? Don't mind sebster. He just seems to enjoy trolling for Americans. He does it quite a bit. You never see him attacking anyone else, funny that.

**Polonius**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
sebster wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

Everyone is hypocritical, my own country is certainly no exception.

But this particular bit of hypocrisy seems uniquely American.

Oh, OK, that's fair.

Of course, the first part is endemic to Americans because we're one of the few countries for which the citizenry actually have the explicit right to personal ownership of guns.

The second part is whereever the government thinks it knows best, so it's rampant throughout the world. For example, the Brits seem to have no concept of non-surveillance - they're perfectly happy to have cameras *everywhere*.

It's hypocrisy, but there's actually a pretty compelling social reason for it. Gun ownership isn't just a an abstract right, it's a fact of life. Most people own a gun (I'm pretty sure), and those that don't usually know somebody that does. It's a continually practiced right, much like say... political speech is. Nobody in the US would stand for the total loss of guns, or political speech, because they are a central component of the culture.

Many of the rights that the ACLU and other civil liberties groups have perused have been at the fringes of the culture. Sure, we like the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and a right not to incriminate yourself, or the right to an attorney; but for most people they're abstract. They don't break the law or get falsely accused of it. The average gun owner is a red blooded american patriot, the average guy getting a public defender or getting interrogated by the cops is a scum bag.

So, while it's hypocritical, a big part of it is just self bias: why worry about rights that you don't use or need (or think you need).

And trust me, Americans get fired up about far more than guns, but we're unique in our zest for them.

**sebster**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, OK, that's fair.

Of course, the first part is endemic to Americans because we're one of the few countries for which the citizenry actually have the explicit right to personal ownership of guns.

The second part is whereever the government thinks it knows best, so it's rampant throughout the world. For example, the Brits seem to have no concept of non-surveillance - they're perfectly happy to have cameras *everywhere*.

Sure, having gun ownership written into the constitution makes the US position a lot different to elsewhere in the world. My source of puzzlement is more to do with being nominally so concerned with personal rights at one point, and so disinterested or condemning of the bodies that really do protect our civil rights.

As grizgrin said, the situation in Britain is a lot more complicated than that. Its driven by government response to tabloid media driving up fears of rising crime and immigration, and despite strong support from Daily Mail readers, there's been plenty of resistance and complaints.