alanschu

How many people replay games as often as that? I loved playing Rescue Raiders on my Apple IIe, but I don't particularly long to play it. I did get an option to play it again not too long ago and did. It was fun because of the nostalgia, but I doubt I'd be disappointed if that opportunity never presented itself again. I played through Metal Gear Solid probably about 3 or 4 times. I started to replay it again with a friend on his PS2, but we didn't make it past Raven in his tank before moving on. The unfortunate thing is that these games are not new. The thrill of playing them rarely comes close to the excitement of playing it the first time. Every now and then a kick of nostalgia will build up and my friends and I will play some old NES and stuff, but it's hardly the end of the day if we would not be able to play them. I see backwards compatibility as added fluff.

It's a much slower paced game that I have historically played, but so far it seems pretty neat.

TOFTT = Take one for the Team. So yes. I zipped through the manual and the tutorials, and thought it was a good idea to just dive into the main campaign! I think I'm going to start a smaller scale one now. A lot of stuff to think about, and I'm still learning the game. Although I did whoop-ass on a submarine with a ASW taskforce I created out of pearl harbour. That felt cool!

It's not a sidestep. I have doubts as to how important backwards compatibility really is for most people. It's just an opinion, since I don't have the facts nearby (nor does anyone else). It's nice the Oerwinde values it. I'm sure there are other people that genuinely do as well. But that doesn't mean that he is (or is not) part of a small minority.

Heh, this game is pretty deep.

That's nice. I'm sure you're not the only one. I was never debating how much Oerwinde likes the backwards compatibility option though.

No, I was asking a question. Actually, it has everything to do with what you believe. You believe that executing them is a more effective form of justice than something like life without parole. You've written quite a bit here, but said nothing. What have I said in previous posts goes against anything you just wrote here? I agree that people have a legitimate right and a claim not to be harmed or molested. I also recognize that others have the right to not be killed as well. You comment about how if we take these rights seriously, we have to enforce them. No kidding. I've never said otherwise. Based on what? You interpretation of the Social Contract? It's funny that you criticized me for thinking all killing is equal, when you're doing the same here (and yes, I have read your part on intent below...more on that later though). It's simple, when a man murders, he denies the right to his own life. If he doesn't like it, tough bananas. He should have thought about that first. The thing is, to "purge" the murderer, you don't need to execute him. You certainly seem to be giving off the impression that all murderers are equal. But your assessment of murderers is too general, and too absolute. You say that it's "tough ****" because they should have thought about the consequences before they murdered someone. Ignoring the fact that murders are often crimes of circumstance, and in a situation when people are no longer rational. To say that the guy that murdered someone that he caught As a final question, if a Person A murders Person B, and Person B is later found out to have been a murderer himself, would you let Person A off the hook? And more importantly, does the current judicial system? Because of our society's legal system does not see things that way, I question the validity of your interpretation of the Social Contract. Because the way you describe it, Person A should be free to go, because Person B's life was forfeit and he no longer had any right to his life. Well, accidental killings aren't murders, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing that into a discussion about capital punishment for capital crimes has to do with anything (unless you're discussing the isolated incident of the original post, which this thread has evolved quite a ways past, and I certainly wasn't referring to in the post you quoted). As for homicidal negligence and accidental killings deserving some sort of restitution, no kidding. You're just writing words, without contributing anything. No one here thinks that the guy in the first post should not receive some sort of punishment, nor have any of the people against the death penalty felt that murderers (since the topic shifted more to the death penalty) should avoid any type of restitution. Saying that they should be punished is just stating the obvious. Now back to intent, obviously intent has to be taken into account (another statement of the obvious). Unfortunately, our judicial system does not punish people because they committed a crime. They punish people because evidence leads to "proof" that they committed the crime. Intent is exactly the same. Concluding intent is based upon interpretation. Interpretation made by falliable people. People that get emotional, irrational, fatigued. People that have latent biases and even prejudices. And sometimes, even malicious people seeking personal gain at the expense of others. In other words, determining intent is not an easy thing to do. And despite all you've said in your recent post, you still haven't provided me with a good reason why execution serves justice better than life without parole. All you said was a bunch of philosophy about how you feel the world should be. So, I'll ask again: What good reason is there for executing someone, rather than putting them in prison for life without parole? I think it's a straight forward question personally. And you have mentioned Slobodan Milosevic (which I'm not sure necessarily parallels well to a discussion about capital punishment and domestic law, though I assume you mention him as an example of someone that you can safely feel deserves to die) a couple of times now. I have no doubt that he probably would have received the death penalty (had he not died prior to sentencing). You talk about how there's a difference between him an John Q Public, because he's a murderer and John Q Public isn't. Is there any difference though, between John Spenkelink and Milosevic? A man that commits mass genocide, and a petty criminal that happened to kill a man. And finally, to go back to my post that you quoted, what purpose would executing a man that "deserves to die" like Milosevic have? Killing him does not undo the damage that he has done. I'm going to assume he probably wouldn't have much opportunity to commit genocide in the future. How much difference in closure would their really be. I can see some initial public outcry, but how many people even know someone like Charles Manson (whom I feel would be executed today) is even still alive. Is there a significant number of people that were affected by the actions of his family that still want him dead? Would people still be clamouring for the life of Milosevic in 20 years if he was put in prison for life without parole? Maybe they do. I don't know. I am sketpical as to whether or not it offers significant long term benefits to the victims if the criminal is executed rather than put in prison and forgotten about. I doubt I'll really ever be able to find evidence one way or the other.

There's always going to be exceptions. It wasn't so much a query as to who here still plays old games. The thing is, if you were the only person that still played old games (which I doubt), then I'd suspect backwards compatibility would be a moot point for companies to provide. So, as I said, it depends on how often people on the whole keep wanting to play their old games or as angshuman pointed out, are interested in the older library of a games if you don't own the older console (though I wonder how much impact these people would have. Sure you might have some people that might as well fill out their game library with some of the PS2 games, especially when the game library is still small at release. But if the PS2 game isn't worth buying a much cheaper PS2 for to play, would it really impact someone that doesn't own the original system? The only people I see really making up this part are those that wish to hold of buying a system because a new one is around the corner). It's good that you like FFT (I love that game) and the Suikodens. I still play Ultima VII (a 1993 game) on occasion. But I rarely miss the lack of backwards compatibility for old DOS games. Maybe if I am trying to play an old game that I missed out back in the day. Even then I require an emulator because my computer is a million times way to fast for it. The thing is, if your current console didn't support it with backwards compatibility, would you actually stop playing those games? Or would you just put up with the inconvenience of having two consoles?

That makes sense to me. I can understand that. I used to be in favour of the death penalty because I used to think that prisons were ineffective and murderers didn't deserve to live. Even now, if we could have 100% guarantee that only the most vile of murderers would be executed, I'd probably be in favour of it. Or at least not mind. But when people can be awarded public defenders that refer to their defendants as a "niggerman" and fall asleep during their trials, I'm a bit skeptical about the whole ordeal. According to that Nation article I posted earlier, funding was granted for Death Penalty Resource Centers, which meant that they were able to afford quality lawyers. Much of the work done by the lawyers from these centers focused on corrupt cases that the prosecution was presenting. Heck, there was a guy on Penn & Teller's Bull**** who's public defender didn't bother notifying the court that his client was in prison for a different crime when the murders occurred, and hence could not have committed the murders. Now I don't think that the defense attorney necessarily withheld that information, but rather that he was just a subpar attorney and didn't bother investigating little details like that.

Fair enough, there is that sample as well. I don't own a PS2 (nor an XBOX), so I could see some value added. But I still feel it's overrated.

I was hoping for a response to my post. That's too bad. In any case, what is a good reason for killing someone. It can't be to protect others, since life without parole effectively does the same thing. It can't be cost, since it's much cheaper than death row (for good reason too). You spout off fatuity about how it should be made more efficient and should only take 5 years. Why five years? Why the short time span for an innocent person to prove his guilt? What good reason is there for executing someone, outside of a your concept of "justice?" How is "justice" not served in a lifetime without parole, but is served if you decide to execute someone?

That was a goofy game.

I'm named alanschu! And what I mean by that is I am TOFTT.

I don't care about the stats, just the wins.

It depends on how often people on the whole keep wanting to play their old games. Because video games put you in positions that I'm not capable of being in in real life. Unfortunately, my abilities to compete in NASCAR racing is a bit limited at this time. As is my ability to be a superspy/ninja ala Sam Fisher. That's nice and I don't disagree, but I've seen many good games get overlooked because of poorer graphics, and crap games get a ton of attention because they look nice.

I enjoyed the Dark Brotherhood quests.

I am finding it less of a problem to go back to older games with older graphics than I have in the past.

No, a link that the numbers haven't changed. Well seeing as there are no clinics to go get free booze, supplied by the govornment, I cannot answer your "what if". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does the cost have to do with anything? If someone is drunk, they are supposed to find different means of getting home rather than driving. These same drunk people could also theoretically drown in their own vomit if left unattended. You stated that there would have to be facilities in place since people would be incapable of driving. Bars don't require facilities to keep intoxicated patrons around, nor do they need to keep additional people around in case someone drowns in their own vomit. So why would a clinic providing drugs (whether free or for a small cost, since you have issues with the cost) suddenly have to provide the same results. Why couldn't someone on drugs take a cab home, while an intoxicated person could?

Wow, Im shocked! I would have easily belived that those percentages could be reversed (76% recidivism). Quick question about Table 2 though, I think Im misreading it. The top category "All sexual offenders" states 24% recidivism at 15 years. Five categories down we have "Offenders with previous sexual convictions..." which shows 37% recidivism at 15 years. Where am I going wrong here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the "previous sexual convictions" means that that person was already in for committing sexual recidivism (i.e. they are currently in for at least their second, if not more, sexual crime). Not surprisingly that these people would be a higher percentage of being a repeat offender, since they already were at the 0 year time point of that study. I find it kind of interesting though, that people with a history of multiple sexual convictions at the starting point, weren't actually higher. Well, when the popular opinion is once a sex offender, always a sex offender. You say that that number still looks bad, even the 1.8% number, and justify castration. Look at it from the other side. You just castrated 98.2% of the thousands of prisoners going out on parole that will not commit another sexual crime, "just to be safe." Furthermore, analyzing the 24% (or 1.8%) helps with profiling to help determine if people should be let out on parole. Uh, how often to people typically escape from prison? Furthermore, what's to stop this same person from trying to escape from Death Row? This type of fatuity just astounds me. I mean, once recidivism is shown to perhaps not be as high as the media portrays it (and being solved with life without parole anyways), you want to start killing people (most of which will not kill again) because of a possibility that the "bugger may escape and continue his crime?" I have to ask for some sort of statistic about the likelihood of escaping from prison, because I can't find anything. How exactly do you speed the process up? In what ways is it not very efficient? I mean, you already have people having their appeal process cut short because of defense attorneys failing to file the paperwork in time. You can't just magically make things go faster, unless you want to start glossing over the information with the intent to make things as quick as possible. The only real way to make it more efficient that I can think of would be to hire more people, but then you're just condensing the cost over a smaller time frame, not reducing it. Don't just say "that's not for me to know." You state unequivicolly that the process is not very efficient. How so? For all we know, it's as efficient as it possibly can be. Unless you consider those annoying things like appeals as hindrances to efficiency. Yes, the numbers are always underestimates. As for the innocent lives saved versus lives lost, I can show you a list of people exonerated after receiving the death penalty (and will in a bit). A problem with finding innocent people that have been executed is that there's a bit less motivation to continue investigating someone that has already been executed (since they're dead!). Also, when discussing innocent lives lost to repeat offenders, you have to also make sure you take an appropriate subsample of that list, because you can only use the innocent lives lost to a repeat offender that would have been executed. I have no idea how I can figure that information out. Go here to find a list of people exonerated. One thing to note is that the average number of years between being sentenced to death and exoneration is 9.2 years. That's 123 people, which might not seem like a lot, but there has only been 1057 executions since 1976. So that's more than 10%. You can go here for a small list of people executed despite doubts about guilt. I know the list isn't complete, because it excludes people like Caryl Chessman and the like. Furthermore, I don't feel as though the crux is the innocent lives saved compared to the innocent lives lost. You can effectively eliminate the potential innocent lives lost by putting them in for life without parole. Barring extreme situations such as escaping from prison, this has the same effect as executing the prisoners. No one (outside of prison at least). As for innocents executed, the big issue I have is that it's possible for people to use the death penalty for their own personal gains. Check out this article for an interesting take on the death penalty. It's from The Nation, which I've been told is less than unbiased (who isn't though, especially in the case of the death penalty). I still strongly recommend reading it, and making your own opinion. While not utilizing proper citations, they do talk about various analyses done by 3rd parties, as well as cite case studies. As a result, it's easier to corroborate the stories from other sources. I'm also not big on the casual dismissal of articles by just stating "Oh, it's <blank> and therefore biased." If someone can show me some articles and studies demonstrating the awesomeness of the death penalty, I'll be more than happy to read up on them. The article talks about a lot of fun stuff that I never considered, such as the fact that most death penalty states have their judges elected, and overturning death sentences can lead to their political opponents campaigning against them with the "favoring the rights of criminals over the rights of victims" position. So it's political suicide to do so. Death Penalty cases also create great opportunities for district attorneys, and at times they have built cases around hiding evidence, or using a snitch in prison who lies in exchange for a reduced sentence. There's also issues with juries, who are made up of people just like you and me. The same people exposed to the overrepresentation of capital crimes, and recidivism, in the media. The same people that feel if they don't go for the death penalty, then the revolving door that is prison will let them out in short time, and will have them kill again. There is also issues as to how well the juries understand their own state laws, and whether they recognize whether there are alternatives to the death penalty (such as life without parole). There's also the idea that prosecutors intentionally try to keep juries ignorant of this sort of stuff, which J. Mark Lane (an attorney) published in Is there life without parole? A capital defendant's right to a meaningful alternative sentence (1993). Not to mention that murders typically aren't rich, and typically get crappy public defenders. One black defendant was represented by a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Not to mention black people being judged by all white juries. And you better hope your public defenders aren't overworked and miss the deadline for your appeal, or your execution's efficiency may have just been bumped up a few notches. Mortis Nai gave us a big discussion about Good and Evil Bad, Right and Wrong, and used it to justify his position on the death penalty. In addition to attacking my character and calling me a hypocrite (while unfortunately not really responding to anything I had to say to him), I found it strange that while he acknowledges that there will always be bad people, he didn't seem to overtly consider that these same bad people could in fact be the ones issuing the death penalty itself. (He was also incorrect about the average stay on death row being a death sentence, and how many people die waiting to be executed. According to The nation, the average stay is 11 years, and if you don't like that source, Texas is 10.43 years, and Florida is 12.19 years. I think that this is where part of problem comes in...is when people start using their hearts (and hence, emotion). Since the protection of people (as apparently the financial investment required for death row) can satisfied with life without parole, what point is there to killing someone? The two big arguments seem to be to prevent them from killing again, and to keep the costs of the penal system down. And both of these seem to be satisfied with a life without parole. And given prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not make up a large chunk of the prison populace, they don't really contribute to prison overpopulation.

My apologies, senor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wasn't a criticism. Just stating that I also made the link. I suppose I should have put something along the lines of how I agreed with the assessment, because I actually hadn't said anything along those lines yet.

Backwards compatibility is overrated.

Sooooo, how long until we get that board update?

It was a "year in review," so they were linking to past articles they did over the past year.

I was making the comparison to the drug discussion as well.

I'm not convinced recidivism rates are as high as we may think. These numbers are from Canada: The National Parole Board's Performance Monitoring Report for 1999-2000 shows that the violent recidivism rate for offenders on full parole is down from 2.6 % in 1995/96 to 1.8 % in 1999/00. Violent recidivism refers to offenders who were released on day parole, full parole or statutory release and were subsequently convicted of a crime of violence such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, forcible confinement and armed robbery. The media overrepresents things to sell its product. Just like how they overrepresent capital crimes, I think they also overrepresent recidivism, at least for capital crimes. The media is not stupid. People get shocked and all uppity if someone that committed a heinous crime commits another one. Check this out as well. Going down to Table 2, the number of sex offenders that have not committed a Sex Offense crime (i.e. sexual recidivism) is 76% after 15 years. But I thought it was "Once a sex offender, always a sex offender!" Granted, my numbers come from Canada, but I'd be quite surprised if the numbers in the United States where significantly different. And in Canada people still have the idea that our prisons have revolving doors as well. Recidivism is more a problem for smaller scale crimes from what I can tell. And since you mentioned it, if someone is considered a risk to be a repeat offender, life without parole still works. And ironically, it's cheaper than a 10 year stay on death row. And since I missed this earlier: You can't really make it more cost effective. The reason why it's so expensive is because there's those annoying habeas corpus and due process deals. The only way to make it more cost effective is to speed the process up, which I certainly am not comfortable in doing. Unfortunately, sometimes "open and shut" cases are determined, 20 years later, to not actually be an open and shut case. And that was the case with Derek Jamison.