Oops! correction WAS: Re: OOPS! PowerCOBOL batch compiles
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: OOPS! PowerCOBOL batch compiles
Next: New to COBOL
From: Howard Brazee on 4 Aug 2010 12:46 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:32:44 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >If you're talking about the "War on Terror," the actual goal (and one which >a politican cannot say) is "We are not in this war to win it because it is >unwinnable. Our goal is not to lose." It appears that the #1 war priority of all presidents since WWII is "We won't lose this war on *my* watch". -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 4 Aug 2010 13:30 In article <co2j56li2cg3926dqgkvufentp5k0rtu5b(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:26:26 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>I was taught 'never attribute to malice that which can be explained by >>incompetence'; > >Me too. I'm a big believer in incompetence, and I believe that most >all villains think they're the good guys, or at least they are right >to respond to their injustices. I recall it being pointed out by Socrates that all people do what they do with the belief that they are doing something good, at least for themselves. [snip] >Our society has a value where we don't punish people as much who >either didn't mean to do their crime or who commit their crime in a >state of high passion. That doesn't protect the rest of us though. >Consider, who is the bigger danger to you - the guy who committed a >crime in road rage, or the guy who killed his spouse for the insurance >money? It seems to be a matter of degree, almost an accepting of that-which-is-human; folks are not expected to be in control of themselves at all times, 'anyone can just snap', but not anyone is expected to be able to place the horror of murder in a context where they conclude that planning, forethought and timing are to be dedicated to it. Our society seems to place great weight on intention, the 'mens rea' lawyers talk about, and the greatest opprobrium being reserved for those who premeditatively take another's life after 'lying in wait'. DD
From: HeyBub on 4 Aug 2010 22:21 Howard Brazee wrote: > > Our society has a value where we don't punish people as much who > either didn't mean to do their crime or who commit their crime in a > state of high passion. That doesn't protect the rest of us though. > Consider, who is the bigger danger to you - the guy who committed a > crime in road rage, or the guy who killed his spouse for the insurance > money? There are three, and only three, acceptable reasons for punishment. * To rehabilitate the offender, * To protect society from further depredations by the accused, and * To serve as a deterrent to other similarily inclined. Just punishment SHOULD be different for the heat-of-passion killer and the assassin. If you ever pass a prison where some of the inmates are outside the walls - cutting the grass and so on - be aware that they are almost always murderers! Someone who kills in a fit of passion, who commits a crime of opportunity, is almost always a rule-follower. "Hey squint, check out a broom, sweep the sidewalks, and be back at 4:30" when addressed to a rode-rage murderer will be met by "Yes, boss." On the other hand, the armed robber, the burglar, doesn't follow the rules. He started his escapade with the intent to be a criminal. He won't be back at 4:30.
From: Anonymous on 5 Aug 2010 09:11 In article <dvydnbFpu-rbvcfRnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> >> Our society has a value where we don't punish people as much who >> either didn't mean to do their crime or who commit their crime in a >> state of high passion. That doesn't protect the rest of us though. >> Consider, who is the bigger danger to you - the guy who committed a >> crime in road rage, or the guy who killed his spouse for the insurance >> money? > >There are three, and only three, acceptable reasons for punishment. 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' DD
From: Howard Brazee on 5 Aug 2010 10:52
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 21:21:49 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >There are three, and only three, acceptable reasons for punishment. >* To rehabilitate the offender, >* To protect society from further depredations by the accused, and >* To serve as a deterrent to other similarily inclined. > >Just punishment SHOULD be different for the heat-of-passion killer and the >assassin. I suppose it depends on which of the above reasons dominate. To protect society, it makes sense to look at the criminal who is most likely to repeat his crime. I contend that would be the heat-of-passion killer. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |