RE: Kicka, part 3 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [People] >> Women Only



Message

Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/19/2008 1:25:38 PM)

In that situation, Lexie, I think calling Immigration would be the best option. They obviously aren't fulfilling their current duties and aren't showing signs of being a positive contribution to society.



KatMack -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/19/2008 1:38:38 PM)

Do you know the potential wife well enough that you could talk to her about it? Definitely not a conversation one wants to have but necessary.

--Kat



myka -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/19/2008 1:38:51 PM)

quote:

And I think there are people who were convicted of sexual crimes that they didn't even do.... so they have to live the life of a sex offender when they never even did anything.


I have a friend who was convicted of a 'sexual offense' which was really a minor thing. (an accidental, incidental touch) He is now a sex offender and cannot work in his field. In this instance, I would have no problem with him living near us.



ThursdaysChild -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 5:44:22 AM)

Lexie- Definitely call immigration, or take your friends up on their willingness to call. He needs to be deported.

Myka- That's so sad. Whatever happened to evidence? How can an accidental, incidental touch get someone convicted unless something is seriously wrong with our legal system. And there is. The guilty get off and innocent get convicted. I'm all for victim's rights, but that shouldn't negate the need for proving someone actually did it.

I forget who it was who said her mother said she has to help her father when he's released from prison, but the others are right. It doesn't automatically fall on you. You do NOT have to welcome him into your home unless you feel lead to do so. By God, not your mother. Mothers can often fail to make the distinction. [;)] However, as his daughter, you're to honor him. Therefore you could help him in ways you would help any other fellow human being. Give him a list of churches, job openings, apartment buildings, etc. and say, "Here you go!"



lexie -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 7:44:24 AM)

quote:

Do you know the potential wife well enough that you could talk to her about it? Definitely not a conversation one wants to have but necessary.


I've never met her. I don't see the man anymore either, we know him through a friend. My friends will call immigration though, so I know this situation would be dealt with.

It's such a sticky situation, because it annoys me people come here that way. When my dad immigrated they went through the proper means and so did my husband. So to see people try to get around it irks me. I found out from a friend that her husband was married before to help someone get into the country. It's too late to report it, but even still I don't know if I could do that to my friend's husband. But it's definitely annoying. So many people try to get into this country the legal way, are refused and sent back home to violence and possibly even death, and others treat our immigration system like a joke.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 12:35:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThursdaysChild

Myka- That's so sad. Whatever happened to evidence? How can an accidental, incidental touch get someone convicted unless something is seriously wrong with our legal system. And there is. The guilty get off and innocent get convicted. I'm all for victim's rights, but that shouldn't negate the need for proving someone actually did it.



There are a lot of things about the legal system that bother me; in some ways I can see why they are that way, but in some ways...this is someone's life we're dealing with. I saw a teacher once be accused by this girl.... and the girl ADMITTED that she lied later on, but his entire life and career are messed up now, as well as his reputation. I don't think the girl was even sorry, and I don't think she cared what her lies caused for this man and his wife. I think a big problem is that sometimes there is no proof to be found, even if the person actually committed the crime. But in these kinds of cases, it seems to me that one is guilty until proven innocent.

Another thing that bothers me is about the death penalty-- not the penalty itself, but the fact that a black person and a white person can be found guilty of the same exact type of crime/murder...but the black person gets the death penalty far more often in America. I don't see why that's going on here, if we're really trying to get rid of discrimination.



TammyIsBlessed -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 4:06:31 PM)

Urgent prayer request

I wasn't sure where to post this....

Nathan's sister Deena and her husband Chris live out west. Their best friend Bucky was killed in a head on collision today. His wife Leah is expecting their first baby in about 2 weeks. Chris is a first responder and was the first one at the scene - his friend was already dead when he got there. Please pray for them all.

Edited for clarity.
Also - her due date is in about 6 weeks - so also please pray that this stress will not bring on premature labour.



Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 4:11:18 PM)

Praying Tammy!



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 5:49:24 PM)

praying Tammy


quote:

Another thing that bothers me is about the death penalty-- not the penalty itself, but the fact that a black person and a white person can be found guilty of the same exact type of crime/murder...but the black person gets the death penalty far more often in America. I don't see why that's going on here, if we're really trying to get rid of discrimination.

well, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, you actually have it very wrong......
In 2007, 42 inmates were executed, 11 fewer than in 2006.
* In 2007, 42 persons in 10 States were executed -- 26 in Texas; 3 each in Alabama and Oklahoma; 2 each in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee; and 1 each in South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona.
* Of persons executed in 2007:
-- 28 were white
-- 14 were black
* All 42 inmates executed in 2007 were men.
* Lethal injection was used in 41 executions in 2007; 1 execution was by electrocution.
* Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2006 had capital statutes.

Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up more than half of the number under sentence of death.
Prisoners on death row by race, 1968-2006
* Of persons under sentence of death in 2006:
-- 1,802 were white
-- 1,352 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 11 were of unknown race.
* Fifty-four women were under a sentence of death at yearend 2006.
* The 358 Hispanic inmates under sentence of death at yearend 2006 accounted for 11% of inmates with a known ethnicity.
* Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal histories at yearend 2006:
-- nearly 2 in 3 had a prior felony conviction
-- 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction.
* Among persons for whom arrest information was available, the average age at time of arrest was 28; 1 in 9 inmates were age 19 or younger at the time of arrest.
* At year end 2006, the youngest inmate under sentence of death was 20; the oldest was 91.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 6:09:52 PM)

I meant to say blacks who kill whites, as compared to whites who kill blacks/minorities. The blacks who kill whites are (I think) twice as likely to be executed; not sure if that's the right number, but there is a big gap between the two. I know most of them don't get executed anyway (they can just sit on death row). In some cities blacks are up to four times more likely to be given the death penalty as compared to other races who commit the same crimes. I'm sure there are cities that are more "fair" about it, but overall, it's not a fair system. There are probably a million articles on the subject; I know sociologists publish them all the time.



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 6:31:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22

I meant to say blacks who kill whites, as compared to whites who kill blacks/minorities. The blacks who kill whites are (I think) twice as likely to be executed; not sure if that's the right number, but there is a big gap between the two. I know most of them don't get executed anyway (they can just sit on death row). In some cities blacks are up to four times more likely to be given the death penalty as compared to other races who commit the same crimes. I'm sure there are cities that are more "fair" about it, but overall, it's not a fair system. There are probably a million articles on the subject; I know sociologists publish them all the time.

again, where are your statistics....because according to the Bureau of Justice web site, sentencing for hate crimes (which includes murder, and thus all death penalty cases) breaks down like this.....
anti-white bias....31.8%
anti-black bias....15.9%
anti-american indian bias....4.5%
anti-asian bias.....2.3%
anti-multi-racial bias.....2.3%
anti-hispanic bias....25%
all the other bias' in the stats are for religious or lifestyle bias, so I won't type them out...but they make up for the remaining 18.1%



manda59 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 6:35:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
Another thing that bothers me is about the death penalty-- not the penalty itself, but the fact that a black person and a white person can be found guilty of the same exact type of crime/murder...but the black person gets the death penalty far more often in America. I don't see why that's going on here, if we're really trying to get rid of discrimination.




solo

You're nearly there but not quite.

There is discrimination - but not relating to the race of the accused. It's the race of the victim that seems to determine how likely a person is to get the death penalty. If the victim is white, the perpetrator is more likely to get the DP than if the victim was black.



McGuinessMagee -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 6:36:56 PM)

Praying Tammy! [:(][:(][:(]

Tamara, I hear what you're saying. I guess it's like most things where human beings are involved. It's very subjective. And when you're talking about taking the life of another human being, it really should be a much more objective process.

Kylie[sm=silly.gif]



manda59 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 6:43:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
again, where are your statistics....because according to the Bureau of Justice web site, sentencing for hate crimes (which includes murder, and thus all death penalty cases) breaks down like this.....
anti-white bias....31.8%
anti-black bias....15.9%
anti-american indian bias....4.5%
anti-asian bias.....2.3%
anti-multi-racial bias.....2.3%
anti-hispanic bias....25%
all the other bias' in the stats are for religious or lifestyle bias, so I won't type them out...but they make up for the remaining 18.1%[/color]



Here's a source for you, Sarah:

quote:


Death Penalty Study Examines Sentencing Rates, Executions, Race Statistics

The authors of a new study published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (J. Blume, T. Eisenberg, & M. Wells, "Explaining Death Row's Population and Racial Composition," Vol. I, Issue 1, March 2004, at 165) concluded that Texas' reputation as the leading death penalty state in the U.S. is attributable more to its high number of executions and the large number of murders in the state, rather than to its sentencing rate. Despite leading the country by far in terms of number of executions, Texas is about average in death sentences when compared to its number of murders. Nevada and Oklahoma are the leading states with the most death sentences per 1,000 murders. With respect to race, the study found that the race of the victim in the underlying murder is crucial in deciding who is sentenced to death. Across a spectrum of states, a black person who murdered a white victim is two and a half times as likely to be sentenced to death than a white who murdered a white victim. (New York Times, February 14, 2004).


That's from here: Death Penalty Info.Org

(if you scroll down to the piece I quoted, there is a link to a PDF file giving more info.)

Here is a link to a page relating to Race and the Death Penalty - if you look at the second table down, it gives figures for Race of Victims and then the third one is for Interracial Murders:

National Statistics on the Death Penalty & Race



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 6:50:59 PM)

quote:

Across a spectrum of states, a black person who murdered a white victim is two and a half times as likely to be sentenced to death than a white who murdered a white victim. (New York Times, February 14, 2004).

no offense, but where exactly did that newspaper article get their information from.....I do not doubt there is some bias, but referencing a newspaper article as a source is like referencing some random post I make as a source. Where is the original source....the NY Times is not a reliable source (esp when you consider their bias in a lot of other ways)...they are definitely not a neutral source.
the links I can't get to right now...will read them later when I can.....gotta go deal with the screaming 2yo who was put on the potty...lol



manda59 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 6:53:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
no offense, but where exactly did that newspaper article get their information from.....I do not doubt there is some bias, but referencing a newspaper article as a source is like referencing some random post I make as a source. Where is the original source....the NY Times is not a reliable source (esp when you consider their bias in a lot of other ways)...they are definitely not a neutral source.


It's in the piece, Sarah. The NY Times source is the following:

quote:

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (J. Blume, T. Eisenberg, & M. Wells, "Explaining Death Row's Population and Racial Composition," Vol. I, Issue 1, March 2004, at 165)


- the link in the piece goes through to the actual study.



magdaleine -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 7:40:24 PM)

Tammy, how awful for those killed in the accident and for those who love them. I will be praying. {{{{{{{Tammy}}}}}}}



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 8:40:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: manda59

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
Another thing that bothers me is about the death penalty-- not the penalty itself, but the fact that a black person and a white person can be found guilty of the same exact type of crime/murder...but the black person gets the death penalty far more often in America. I don't see why that's going on here, if we're really trying to get rid of discrimination.




solo

You're nearly there but not quite.

There is discrimination - but not relating to the race of the accused. It's the race of the victim that seems to determine how likely a person is to get the death penalty. If the victim is white, the perpetrator is more likely to get the DP than if the victim was black.


Yeah, I posted again and said what I had meant to originally. I think I had a brain blankout the first time... but I had been up all night. :0

quote:

With respect to race, the study found that the race of the victim in the underlying murder is crucial in deciding who is sentenced to death. Across a spectrum of states, a black person who murdered a white victim is two and a half times as likely to be sentenced to death than a white who murdered a white victim.


That's what I was talking about.



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/20/2008 9:36:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: manda59

quote:

ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
no offense, but where exactly did that newspaper article get their information from.....I do not doubt there is some bias, but referencing a newspaper article as a source is like referencing some random post I make as a source. Where is the original source....the NY Times is not a reliable source (esp when you consider their bias in a lot of other ways)...they are definitely not a neutral source.


It's in the piece, Sarah. The NY Times source is the following:

quote:

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (J. Blume, T. Eisenberg, & M. Wells, "Explaining Death Row's Population and Racial Composition," Vol. I, Issue 1, March 2004, at 165)


- the link in the piece goes through to the actual study.

oh sorry...missed that...I was busy dealing with kids at the time I read it.

I understand you now Tamera....and agree...I was not understanding your first post



ThursdaysChild -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/22/2008 4:26:32 PM)

Hi, ladies. Bumping this up to the first page. [:D]

You know, if we got rid of circumstantial evidence and used the Bible's criteria for condemning someone to death, there would be less of that. Two eyewitnesses required and if they were found to be lying, they were put to death. That could solve a few problems right there.

I'd type more but I'm about to fall asleep at the computer. 'Night, ladies.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/22/2008 4:28:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2


quote:

ORIGINAL: manda59

quote:

ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
no offense, but where exactly did that newspaper article get their information from.....I do not doubt there is some bias, but referencing a newspaper article as a source is like referencing some random post I make as a source. Where is the original source....the NY Times is not a reliable source (esp when you consider their bias in a lot of other ways)...they are definitely not a neutral source.


It's in the piece, Sarah. The NY Times source is the following:

quote:

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (J. Blume, T. Eisenberg, & M. Wells, "Explaining Death Row's Population and Racial Composition," Vol. I, Issue 1, March 2004, at 165)


- the link in the piece goes through to the actual study.

oh sorry...missed that...I was busy dealing with kids at the time I read it.

I understand you now Tamera....and agree...I was not understanding your first post


You didn't misunderstand the first one. I just didn't say it right the first time. :)

It was the race of the victim, not just the race of the person who did the killing.



Brandy -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/22/2008 4:59:25 PM)

Not to derail but I have a thought I want feedback on..

This may sound cruel to some so please don't flame me or get evil towards me, it's simply a thought process I'm in the middle of and want input on.

I was watching tv this morning, Rachael Ray to be exact, and a commercial came on for Christian Children's Fund. On the bottom it was scrolling 'stats' on starvation, it said 27,000 children will die tonight from starvation but I can help make a difference.

Two things bug me on this front.

1. If I wanted to make a contribution or 'foster' a child why wouldn't I do it for a child here in my own country? Why do I have to put my money towards taking care of another country's problem?

2. If 27,000 children die from starvation due to lack of resources in their area... is that not the earth running some population control? In order for some to live, some must die. ? My husband is in part to 'blame' for this second train of thought, he's mentioned it time and time again when we see these commercials. I guess I've picked up the idea from him.

I do want to add that in a situation where my spouse or myself were from one of these countries then YES I would donate/sponsor/whatever, but if neither myself or my spouse are, what are my obligations?

I'm not saying the two above statements/questions are my views to any solidifying degree, they have been rolling around in my head for a while now.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/22/2008 5:48:04 PM)

I think God calls people to only help those within their country in some instances. Otherwise, I think we should help everyone as Christians. Geography and nationality don't really matter; a person in need is a person in need. Missionaries for example; they're (according to most of them) called to help those in other countries, not just in America. I understand that...and some missionaries are called to stay in the country. Non-missionary Christians can be the same way. I guess if you don't hear God saying one way or the other, then help PEOPLE in need, regardless of nationality and geographical regions. What makes me obligated to help isn't that I'm alive and breathing-- it's that I'm a Christian, and the Christian part bring other duties I can't expect of non-Christians.

With the poor/homeless I know that are lacking food, money, etc., they can at least visit a shelter for a free meal; some can get some clothes from shelters... shoes, get a shower, etc. But in some countries, there is none of that. There's no shelter or mission...or kind-hearted stranger to give them McDonald's coupons. Some of the diseases there (such as the one where the babies look pregnant from starvation) I rarely see in the American poor. The poor people I know in America, even if they're homeless, have better resources than the impoverished and starving in some of the third-world countries. They often have nothing as a resource other than maybe some rice or grain...and dirty water that gives them parasites (and they are nasty-looking parasites).

As for population control...and aside from Thomas Malthus :), when the population can't be sustained, some will die or the population will adapt...or both, and there are a ton of other things that can happen. The problem I see is that this does NOT have to be the case; the world CAN sustain these populations, but, they don't have the resources there for various reasons. If our political and economic situations were exhanged, for example, between America and the poor parts of Africa, we'd be the ones dying off. That's not population countol that HAS to exist; it exists for a number of reasons anyway though.

Anyway, that's just how I think about it. I'm called to help all people, but God does call people to help sectors rather than the whole. I understand that, and I'm not attacking anyone whose calling that is. It's just not my calling. :)

(PS If the Bible says something about whom we should and should not help, according to nationality, I'd like to hear it. The only things I've seen say "the poor" but are not that specific.)



isaacsmom -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/22/2008 5:55:10 PM)

Good post, Tamara.

I also agree that our obligation as Christians entails everyone. I think the Lord lays different burdens on each of our hearts. Some have burdens to help locally, some have burdens to go abroad or support abroad monetarily. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone not having a burden to support the starving children in Africa. The Lord may choose to accomplish something different through that person. Or it can change throughout our lives. Maybe the Lord will lead us to help in a number of ways, locally and abroad throughout our lifetime.

quote:

2. If 27,000 children die from starvation due to lack of resources in their area... is that not the earth running some population control? In order for some to live, some must die. ? My husband is in part to 'blame' for this second train of thought, he's mentioned it time and time again when we see these commercials. I guess I've picked up the idea from him.


As for this, I have really never thought of it that way. Hmm. It sounds really awful. But it's something to think on.



spitzu -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/22/2008 6:02:03 PM)

The way I see it is people are people and it doesn't matter where they're from or why they live there. If they need help, they need help, and if I can help them, why shouldn't I? I think different people are called to different things though.

I do hate those commercials. I think they mostly are there just to guilt people into action and doing something like that only out of guilt isn't a good way to approach it.



Page: <<   < prev  87 88 [89] 90 91   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI