RE: Mental Health

RE: Mental Health (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 4:13:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I cited accurately, Kirata - mine was quoted directly from WordWeb. The Online version has it as sense 1 of the verb, here: http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=murder What you cited was not the definition of murder as used in the phrase "state-sanctioned murder," to which, you will recall, my objection gave you so much enjoyment. From your link: Noun: murder mur-du(r) 1. Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being What you quoted, instead, was its use as a verb, ignoring the context, which was its use as a noun, and conveniently omitting its meaning as a noun even in the dictionary that you cherry-picked for your post. If that's your idea of citing something "accurately," we have different views on the matter. K.

Aswad -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 4:22:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Try to put yourself in a position where you stare at the same walls for maybe 10 years or more, wouldn't you be willing to cooperate with wardens and regulations for the tiniest bit of change? We had a tour of the nearest prison back in junior high. The prospect of spending any significant period of time in there, even with normal privileges, was not enticing to anyone. And having spent some time in confinement, though not in jail, I'm pretty sure I would go stir fry crazy in jail after about 3-4 years with full privileges. Cut that down to 6-8 months in solitary confinement. I expect most people would comply. In general, people are trained to comply in that way from childhood, as part of the domestication of the human species, and the vast majority bow readily to authority. Prison plays on both those factors. If you cage a wild animal, most of them will submit after a time if their treatment remains porportional to the desireability of their behavior and the cause-effect relation is within their mental ability to grasp. There are a few exceptional species, and exceptional individuals within species, but that is far from a norm in this regard. One of my aunts has been a prison guard for a few years now, and relates that even the 'hardened' criminals tend to be reasonably compliant overall. This, of course, is also a function of the culture in the prison system, as antagonism can provide a vehicle for resisting the resocialization process (adaptation to life in an institution, like a prison). When allowed to go unchecked, a prison can devolve from a confinement unit to a breeding pit for crime and a battleground between guards and inmates. That's why we take the approach we do up here (well, east north-east, relative to you). The counterexample would be the Soviet prison camps, which spawned the Russian mafia. quote: Most people would possibly beg and be willing to offer a limb just for anything that's mentally stimulating. Been a while ago that I stumbled over a study regarding education in prisons, the people who got on the education programs (especially for long term prisoners) were eager to comply with orders, less likely to violate rules and regulations just to not lose that bit of mental stimulation. It's an accurate assessment. Education programs, exercise programs, voluntary labor and so forth are effective in pacifying inmates and easing the transition back to outside life when their sentence has been served. Adapting to a life away from society is more productive for all parties than having no life to live at all. And speaking of begging, I imagine it would probably be a pretty interesting form of edge play, too. quote: it also seems to be pretty much like torture If you don't provide a life to live, albeit behind bars, it is. quote: I was still pretty shaken because I never experienced anything like that. I honestly can't imagine a worse place and that was only a holding cell. Finding worse is trivial. But it is a valuable experience, in terms of insight into the scale of the prison experience. People who are calling out for longer sentences without having spent any time in a cell carry no weight with me. Ignorance may be excused, as with children, but it's not a basis on which to grasp justice, or protect society. Nice to see someone argue with first hand experience under their belt for once. Health, al-Aswad.

PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 5:04:22 PM)
quote: What you cited was not the definition of murder as used in the phrase "state-sanctioned murder," to which, you will recall, my objection gave you so much enjoyment. From your link: Noun: murder mur-du(r) 1. Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being What you quoted, instead, was its use as a verb, ignoring the context, which was its use as a noun, and conveniently omitting its meaning as a noun even in the dictionary that you cherry-picked for your post. If that's your idea of citing something "accurately," we have different views on the matter. Firstly, I omitted the meaning that you mention because I assumed that everyone already knew it, Kirata. It is the meaning I took that was being ignored in favour of that 'legal' sense. I did announce, also, that it was the verbal sense. And, if people were still confounded by my craftiness, I gave them a link to the WordWeb definition. Secondly, you object to my taking the sense of 'murder' as a verb because the verb usage supports my view, whereas the noun-usage doesn't. Damn. I can't use a phrase like 'state-sanctioned murder' - instead, I'm limited to saying things like "Some American state governments murder people". Gotcha . . . . Well, I think I can live with that. Thirdly, I still haven't quite pinned down the point at which you think a good an honourable place like the USA 'executes' people for their 'crimes', whereas a very nasty place like Nazi Germany 'murdered' people for things, like being Jewish, which weren't true crimes at all. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the middle. But where, exactly? Because, as we've already established, we can't place it where 'illegality' stops and 'legality' starts. That wouldn't cover the US - or the UK, for that matter - even in the recent past. It comes inexorably back to the same point, Kirata. We, as people, just have to work out our own morals. We can't trust the state to do it for us. It's not reliable.

Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 5:09:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I still haven't quite pinned down the point at which you think a good an honourable place like the USA 'executes' people for their 'crimes', whereas a very nasty place like Nazi Germany 'murdered' people for things, like being Jewish, which weren't true crimes at all... Well I wish you luck on that one then. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 5:13:26 PM)
quote: And, similarly, it shouldn't be controversial that spending tax money on keeping criminals tolerably happy is a sound policy, because it is demonstrably effective at preventing greater wrongs. We can probably agree that spending tax money on their happiness is- in and of itself- a wrong, since it involves taking money from people who don't want to give up that money. But it's a lesser wrong, even when summed over all the instances. So, in a nutshell, if you treat criminals in a civilized way, they end up being more civilized. If you treat them in a barbaric way, they end up being more barbaric. Makes no sense to me, Aswad. Completely counterintuitive. [;)]

barelynangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 5:32:15 PM)
Peon, i am lost as to your hitler analogy. Outside of the US executes people and Hitler did, there is no comparison though the circumstances are vastly different if my history recall doesn't fail me. Can you explain what you know of the US Criminal legal and penal system and how we sentence people to death and follow through on same and explain what you know of how Hitler sentenced people to incarceration and many times execution. I just don't see the comparison or your sarcasm. Please expound on where you see the comparison. angel

PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 6:10:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel Peon, i am lost as to your hitler analogy. Outside of the US executes people and Hitler did, there is no comparison though the circumstances are vastly different if my history recall doesn't fail me. Can you explain what you know of the US Criminal legal and penal system and how we sentence people to death and follow through on same and explain what you know of how Hitler sentenced people to incarceration and many times execution. I just don't see the comparison or your sarcasm. Please expound on where you see the comparison. angel It wasn't a sarcastic point, Barely. However, I do feel that I've explained it more than a couple of times, now. I'll try it this way: States don't murder, they execute. Execution is legitimate and legal killing; murder isn't. But that was true of Nazi Germany - so, on that definition, the Nazis didn't murder people any more than the USA has, or the UK did in the past. But there's a trick of words, here. Terrorists in Northern Ireland used to call their killings 'executions'. This made their killings 'moral', 'righteous' and 'clean', as far as they were concerned. They might well have talked of the their targets as not being the recipients of terrorist violence, but 'military law'. Their victims were just receiving 'consequences'. This is why, when I see that trick being played, I always call on it. It makes no difference which 'authority' we're talking about or wherever it exists. Its legitimacy is always open to question.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 6:28:13 PM)
fr here's a question that nobody has considered in all this back and forth about the death penalty or life in prison. if some guy you don't know in new mexico kills some woman you don't know. what fucking business is it of yours? what gives any of you the right to punish that person? they did nothing to you. you don't even know them, yet you want to either kill them or lock them away forever. why?

erieangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 10:10:09 PM)
A lot has been going on since I last posted on this thread last night. I need to thank you, Peon, for answering some questions to things I had said because you answered them in the exact same way I would have. I especially liked your analogue of Nazi Germany and was able to pick up your reasoning for using it without further explanation. If we treat people with respect and care we will most often get the same in return. Notice I did not say always. Most often because some people are sociopaths, psychopaths and they have no feeling one way or another about others, only what they want in the moment. However, even when those people commit murder, I don't believe they deserve to die because most of them have no control over how they are. About 400 California prisoners are currently on a hunger strike over 'inhumane' conditions in the state's prisons. The strike is in its third week and state officials have gone to court seeking a court order to force feed the striking prisoners. Force feeding them is supposed to be for their own good, but the state officials have little interest at this time in correcting the inhumane conditions that brought on the hunger strikes in the first place.

barelynangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 5:11:24 AM)
Umm Peon, The US concept of execution is far different from hitlers. The US has laws that have statutes. When someone is murdered someone is arrested for same, they are given a trial and a jury of their peers determine if they are guilty or innocent and if they should be sentenced to death. The Judge then hands down the sentence based on the criteria for that sentence and conviction and the person then has the opporunity to appeal not only the conviction by his peers but the sentence. When that is exhausted -- the State which represents the PEOPLE of that state carries out the sentence. The US does not convict nor do they sentence them to death because of their skin color, their race, their creed or religion or hell even their political beliefs. The people the US executes are being put to death for the breaking of KNOWN laws and that is one of the consequences. The people executed in this country are given every opportunity to defend themselves. Its a PRO defendant criminal system. From what i remember of Hitler, there was only a conviction and it wasn't based usually on actions but instead their religion and race and any other thing he decided he didn't like. There was no trial by peers, and most times there wasn't even a court hearing. The people incarcerated and executed in the Hitler reign were not and did not have any rights whatsoever to defend themselves. There was no appeal of their conviction or sentence. I mean hell if you really want to use exciting words -- why not use the word exterminate -- Hitler exterminated Jews and the US exterminates people convicted of crimes and sentenced to death for same. What Hitler did was a concept of genocide and a concept of mass murder. The executions of criminals convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death in the US is not genocide. Hell the volume in and of itself can't remotely be compared. Your attempt to compare these two concepts are honestly unbelieveable and reaching. The two concepts of execution aren't even comparable, much less your desperation to decide both are murder cause murder sounds cynical and negative than execution and killing. So yes, by our LAWS -- Hitler murdered those people. Even in this day and age, if people are executed in other countries without a trial, we consider it murder. So no, your Hitler analogy doesn't fit this situation. Though i am sure you thik it makes good posting to compare our executions to the reign of Hitler executions. Most people when they utilize words such as murder etc do so because they know the word best in the legal sense. Which means they call it murder when they think its unlawful. Yeah i guess it sounds cool to try and compare Hitler to the US executions of convicted criminals lol but it's not the same concept, its not the same situation, and it's not the same damages. IF someone here in the US decided to start incarcerating and killing Jewish people in a mimic of what Hitler did, they would be tried for murder because here in the US that concept of killing is ILLEGAL. I mean you can go on crying murder but you aren't accurate and just because you see it as one definition doesn't mean most people see it as same. YOU are using murder synonymous with killing. YES the US kills people. No one here has denied same. angel

barelynangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 5:21:45 AM)
Hannah, if some guy kills a woman in New Mexico, i as a resident of TN really don't have any thing with regard to that outside of i think if he murdered the woman with no other aspects involved -- i.e., self-defense, defending others etc etc, its sad and i feel for her and indirectly her family. What business is it of mine, it's what i make it of my business. He has violated laws of his state and in one of the mose offensive way possible -- illegally taking someone's life. IF i lived in New Mexico, the prosecutors are in fact representing ME as a resident of same because they represent the State of New Mexico and are prosecuting someone who violated the laws that the government i was part of the election process has created. I can tell you this -- if the State decided not to prosecute him just cause -- i would raise hell. I don't punish them at all, the State who represents the people hands down a sentence for the crimes they are convicted for. It's not like our laws are secret and people who commit crimes aren't aware of the possibility of what their sentence would be. I am not sure from your post whether you understand how our legal system works in the criminal aspect. When it says the State of Tennessee v whomever, the State is a representative of the people of that State. The State as a representative of the People has a duty to prosecute those people who violate the laws. Indirectly, IT is all of our business when someone violates laws of our State and Country simply because the prosecutors of the State and Federal level are in fact representing the People. ANd yes, Hannah, people who violate laws of the State and Federally do something to each individual of that State and Country -- they have thumbed their noses at the system in place based on a governing bodies elected by the People. Luckily there are degrees of the thumbing lol yes i thumb my nose at speeding laws. But in the end, ya get caught you have to deal with the consequences. Just because people may support the death penalty doesn't mean they are okay with the illegal concept of murdering someone. I understand where you seem to be coming from, most people see a separation of government and the people, however, that's not how the system works in essence of actuality. In this country, the government is the representative of the people. Which is why we have the ability to lobby for change and choose who to vote for in elections. Many people brush off that very important power of the people and say oh well. angel

barelynangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 5:32:55 AM)
quote: About 400 California prisoners are currently on a hunger strike over 'inhumane' conditions in the state's prisons. The strike is in its third week and state officials have gone to court seeking a court order to force feed the striking prisoners. Force feeding them is supposed to be for their own good, but the state officials have little interest at this time in correcting the inhumane conditions that brought on the hunger strikes in the first place. Actually though i am not sure of the motive -- but -- as the prisoners are in the custody of the State, they are responsible for the prisoners. I am curious where your last two lines come from -- you comment as if that is something that was officially said. I can guarantee you that the "good for them" is one of many reasons they need to force feed the prisoners. They are held to liability of one of them dies because they didn't take action to stop these prisoner from harming themselves. So it's also a legal perspective as to why they are probably taking it to court. This way -- to me, if one of them gets harmed by this harm they are doing to themselves, the State will have covered it's ass -- which is a good thing. They will be able to show the steps they took to try and stop these prisoners from harming themselves. Prisoners and families of prisoners like to file lawsuits and for a system already strapped... You speak of these inhumane conditions -- just out of curiosity what have been the outcomes of the lawsuits brought by prisoners regarding same? Is the State violating Court Orders etc. I believe the State of California is in the process of releasing a whole hell of a lot of people from the prison system because of overcrowding and considering shipping prisoners to other states. Finally, 400 prisoners is not a whole hell of a lot in a system that housed 172,000 inmates in 2007, i think its a lot more than that now. It's less than .25 percent of the prison population in 2007. So while it may seem like a lot -- it's really not. Oh yeah, in case people don't realize this -- California is pretty much bankrupt from what i understand and to me, if it comes to California feeding its poor and maintaining those services means prisoners have to deal until the money is found... i just don't see the prisoners as a priority. SHould they get around to it eventually -- yes, but a priority to a state who is struggling with pretty much no money. angel

LadyPact -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 5:53:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather fr here's a question that nobody has considered in all this back and forth about the death penalty or life in prison. if some guy you don't know in new mexico kills some woman you don't know. what fucking business is it of yours? what gives any of you the right to punish that person? they did nothing to you. you don't even know them, yet you want to either kill them or lock them away forever. why? Pick one. Because the guy broke the law and if we want to have a civilized society, we kind of need those so that a person not in authority doesn't get to randomly take a life? Because when we let crimes go unpunished, we have anarchy? Because, hey, it worked once, why stop? Because that woman might just have people who care about her? Before I say anything else (general comments now) this has been a completely fascinating thread. Thanks to all of the folks who commented on it. New scenario, just for fun. Let's say I'm in a room with twenty children. Somebody comes in and kills one. When he goes for the second, what should I do? Like it or not, I'm going to kill the son of a bitch. I'm not going to ask him about his hard life, his mental health issues, or anything else. Before that person wipes out twenty innocent lives, he just became a lot less valuable to Me because he already took one. Hold on. I want to put this quote in here: quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig You are wrong and have absolutely no factual, ethical, or moral standing. You know what? I'd actually be ok with that. The nineteen kids left in the room will probably be ok with it, as well as their families, and anybody else who was in danger, either directly or indirectly, from the person who's life I took. In the abstract, that's what capital punishment is. It's not allowing somebody who killed an innocent person to ever have the opportunity to kill again. On average, it does cost more to put someone to death than to imprison them for life. When it's one trial with no appeals, it doesn't even come close. Ten years worth of appeals, and more forensic testing, and more "expert" witnesses, and all of that is what racks up the cost. The 120 people that were convicted and then found innocent? Those were convictions held decades ago before so many of the advances regarding DNA. The same example isn't going to exit twenty years from now with wrongful convictions. The science has caught up to avoiding those mistakes. The capital punishment part of this thread aside, I don't think a person who takes an innocent person's life in an unlawful act should ever draw a free breath again and have the opportunity to repeat the crime. In whatever manner we prevent that is open to debate, but we do have a responsibility to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 7:27:42 AM)
quote: In the abstract, that's what capital punishment is. It's not allowing somebody who killed an innocent person to ever have the opportunity to kill again . LP, I'll leave aside the ethical arguments on that point about 'an eye for an eye' versus 'two wrongs don't make a right', and so forth. For me, the most telling comments on this thread were made by Aswad. The Scandinavian experience is vastly different from the US experience and, re the penal system aside from the matter of capital punishment, pretty different to the UK experience as well. Two really fundamental points stand out, for me. One is that the best policy for an individual isn't the same thing as the best policy for a whole society. The second is that violence breeds violence and civilised treatment breeds civilised behaviour. One corollary of that could that, yes, of course, if you put to death a murderer, obviously he can't murder again. But, if stop putting people to death, far fewer in society as a whole will get murdered. In a nutshell, it's such thoughts and beliefs that make me say, "Yes, I'd understand your desire that the man who murdered your partner ends up dying for it himself. I'd feel the same way. But I can't condone it because it isn't best for society as a whole. It's an understandable - a very understandable - thing, but it's not the right thing." The question that arises for me is this: if it could be shown that a) the level of murders dropped substantially in society as a whole as a result of removing the death sentence, and b) that crime in general, including recidivism, dropped a great deal too - would you say "Yes, I'd like to give this non-punitive, non-retributive attitude a try. I'd still want to see killed anyone who kills one of my loved ones, but I'll stifle that impulse for the good of society as a whole'?

PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 7:47:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel So no, your Hitler analogy doesn't fit this situation. Though i am sure you thik it makes good posting to compare our executions to the reign of Hitler executions. Barely, I'm going to say this one, final time. Try not to project your own emotions onto it: it's not sensationalised. It's political science 101. It's rudimentary. It doesn't matter about the legal system in the USA versus that of Nazi Germany. If the State decides that a killing is legal, then it gets to call that killing 'execution' and it comes as a result of the accused person doing, or being, something. That is that. When you say, "by OUR laws, Hitler murdered those people" - it doesn't matter. By Hitler's laws, they were executed. Actually, it's worse than that: they were 'cleansed'. Do you see? The trick that they pulled was to put their evil beyond any questioning of morality and immorality. It is never an adequate defence. One of the most common things we hear is the line 'no-one is above the law'. But that applies to all those who enforce the law and all those who make it. Governments, their legal systems, all the power they have . . . we, the people, have authority over them, not vice versa. They interpret our morals, we don't interpret theirs.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 8:39:45 AM)
Because "self help" is a bad thing. The last thing I would want is the husband or father or friends of the murdered woman taking "justice" based on their grief, into their own hands. Which is less chaotic and destructive,arresting, jailing, trying and sentencing the murderer, or letting vigilantes catch and torture the murderer, burn down his house, maybe kill someone important to the murderer, and on and on. My son asked me this exact same question (without saying fuck) when he was 5. quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather fr here's a question that nobody has considered in all this back and forth about the death penalty or life in prison. if some guy you don't know in new mexico kills some woman you don't know. what fucking business is it of yours? what gives any of you the right to punish that person? they did nothing to you. you don't even know them, yet you want to either kill them or lock them away forever. why?

erieangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 9:08:10 AM)
barely, Peon has already responded to your empty argument about Hitler vs the death penalty in the US. It is a close analogue, but if you don't like it, look at what is happening in Sudan and other countries where people are being murdered because of who they are. As to your argument that people in the US are not sentenced to death because of the skin color, etc.: Then why it is that the majority of the men on death row are African American or Hispanic? A rich white guy who commits murder is less likely to get the death penalty than a poor black guy who committed a murder under the exact same circumstances. If it is not because of his skin color, then explain what causes this disparage in sentences. Oh, I know the rich white was able to afford good lawyers who were not overworked and who actually fought for the clients while the poor black guy had no funds to hire an attorney and so was forced to accept a legal aid attorney who is over worked and under paid. But isn't the system you seem to have so much faith in supposed to work the same for both men no matter what? As for the 400 in CA. I don't care that it is a low percentage of the prison population in that state. They are doing it to affect change. Gandhi affected change in India with a hunger strike and he was the only one. As for force feeding the prisoners. They are still human beings, they still have some rights despite being in prison and one of those rights is to not eat if that is their wish. So long as they understand that they may be putting their health and lives in danger by participating in the hunger strike there should be no force feeding. Wouldn't it be better to address these prisoners' concerns withing the prisons rather than to force feed them? And the overcrowding of CA prisons can and is traced back to the wrong headed 3 strikes law in that state. Prisons should be used to remove dangerous people from society not to warehouse for 30-50 years people who use drugs or commit other nonviolent crimes. And don't come back at me and say that drug users are violent because the vast majority of the pot smokers I know are not violent criminals. Dealers do tend to be violent, but that is just another argument for the legalization of many drugs--not an argument to lock up users for life. CA may be bankrupt, but when they sentenced so many to prison for life, the state took on the responsibility to feed and care for them. The state has no right at this point to say, sorry but we can't offer humane conditions because we have no money. They need to do what they are legally to do as to the conditions.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 9:08:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather fr here's a question that nobody has considered in all this back and forth about the death penalty or life in prison. if some guy you don't know in new mexico kills some woman you don't know. what fucking business is it of yours? what gives any of you the right to punish that person? they did nothing to you. you don't even know them, yet you want to either kill them or lock them away forever. why? Very much considered... Cuz he could be heading my way, possibly not from New Mexico but if he'd be in another part of the UK or Europe and try and kill me next, or a friend, or a family member, or just somebody else that I don't know but because I don't know them they don't deserve to be killed. So I'm all for putting them into prison and keeping them away from society and/or other possible victims. I'm not comfy with taking a life though, because to do the same as that person did, even if some law claims it is right and it is called an execution, it's still the taking of a life - the same thing that person did. The whole claptrap about that it is legal and laws say that a person can be executed, well one look at history shows how often such laws were abused and later changed because they were considered wrong and barbaric. There is also ample evidence that innocent people ended on death row, doesn't happen often but it happens, what if it would happen to a person who's pro CP? Bet they'd change their tune ASAP...

erieangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 9:29:52 AM)
Something else that has not been considered. A wise man once said that "it is better that 10 guilty should escape than one innocent suffer", English Jurists William Blackstone, circa 1760s Before Blackstone, in 1471 English chief justice John Fortescue said: "Indeed I would rather wish twenty evil doers escape death through pity, than one man to be unjustly condemned." And in 1959, the US Supreme Court in Henry vs the United States said: "it is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens be subject to easy arrest". OTOH, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once remarked that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape". And the founder of the Soviet secret police said "Better to execute ten innocent men than to leave one guilty man alive". And Major Nungo, Colombian military prosecutor has said: "Better to condemn an innocent man than to acquit a guilty one, because among the innocent condemned there may be a guilty man". It seems many in the US today have a mind set similar to that Bismarck, Nungo and the Soviets than of the more rational figures who served as a basis of our legal system. What does that tell us about society? This 10:1 is taught in law schools. It is very much the basis of our legal system as well as the legal systems of most Western countries. It is why the accused have a presumption of innocence.

erieangel -> RE: Mental Health (7/21/2011 9:32:02 AM)
Ok, time for me to go to work.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02