The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

View Poll Results: What do you believe is the larger deterent to crime?
Flogging/Whipping Post 1 10.00%
Swift Death Penalty 1 10.00%
Forced Reading of FUBlue/Dakota's Posts 8 80.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 01, 2006, 04:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skahtboi
I am for moving the pitching plate back to the 43' mark, as we have already discussed in another thread. I am against any mandating of safety equipment by either the governing body of the game, or by the government itself. If parents, players, and coaches have concerns, then they certainly should be able to figure out what they need to in the area of safety equipment without it being forced upon them. I could also see approving the reduction in the COR of the ball, as Steve proposed.
SP changed to a .44 COR, but it was stated that the compression has more bearing on the ball's exit speed. It was proposed for FP also, but I cannot remember why that wasn't changed.

With all the headaches we have been through with the bats, helmets and facemasks, haven't you people caught on yet? The moment something is mandated, everyone will cheer UNTIL they realize it will take more than a year to develop a base line for safety, determine the standard, have NOCSAE approve it, run it through their probationary period prior to final approval and then ALL the equipment previously used on a voluntary basis is no longer legal equipment.

Even though something like this is with good intentions, it is fraught with issues, softball, personal and legal.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 09:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
With all the headaches we have been through with the bats, helmets and facemasks, haven't you people caught on yet?
Who are you talking to when you say "you people?" If you reread my post, you will note that I said I am "against mandating" any equipment changes for safety reasons. I believe that parents, players and coaches should realize what they have available to them in the safety equipment without anyone mandating its use.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 10:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skahtboi
Who are you talking to when you say "you people?" If you reread my post, you will note that I said I am "against mandating" any equipment changes for safety reasons. I believe that parents, players and coaches should realize what they have available to them in the safety equipment without anyone mandating its use.
I understand that, but knowing that, you should realize I wasn't speaking to you, Scott
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 01:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skahtboi
Please support this by quoting any relevant portions of the US or any state's constitution.
I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.

Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.

Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 02:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUBLUE
The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..."
True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 03:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.
I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude . They are currently preparing a rebuttal on why it is WOULD be in context of the constitution (and as an extension, case law decisions) for this type of law to be made.

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do." Then again, this guy has more experience with the legal system than many practicing lawyers!

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

HAVE A GREAT DAY!
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 03:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
...But the two kids who have been to New Jersey (at least until they were caught) do agree that....

NEW JERSEY IS RUN BY IDIOTS!
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 03:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUBLUE
I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude .
Quote:
The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do."
You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

Quote:
Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.
No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...
Quote:
It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!
...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

Quote:
HAVE A GREAT DAY!
You, too.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 05:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUBLUE
I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.

Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.

Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!
Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".

There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?

In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.

I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 09:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...
...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

You, too.

I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 09:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".

There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?

In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.

I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime
I think this is a great response, Mike. You bring up points already debated in class. Can you give supporting documentation (and, further, enough public support) to return the whipping post? Can you document that it would actually deter crime? Or, would it cause criminals to, as you put it, go to one without it? This is the MEANINGFUL conversation that happens in a good debate!

I do not have the document in front of me, but I will look for it, so you know I'm not making this up. A study done several years ago showed that punishments do not deter most crimes. The study was about the death penalty (the ultimate punishment in the minds of some). It showed that most murders will openly admit that they did not care what the penalty was; they were going to commit the murder. Having talked to several muderers (as their teacher) they honestly did not care what the penalty was...they were going to do it.

Crimes of necessity? A great topic for debate! Having already debated this, my class decided that there should still be a penalty, but (again, from their experiences) it was still worth it to commit the crime (i.e. stealing money for food or rent or whatever they deemed necessary).

They only way to truly and accurately define necessary and proper is to ask the person who wrote it...and they've been gone for 200 years, so it's up to our ELECTED officials to determine the meaning of necessary and proper.

Then again, with enough public support, any rule can be changed (see ASA men's FP pitching rule over the last 10 years)!
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 11:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Actually, being from the last state to give up the whipping post, I have been involved in the discussion of the deterent, but that was 35+ years ago. I don't have the time for research, at least not at this time, but if memory serves me correctly, the statistics showed a substantial increase in crime in the state once the judiciary stopped sentencing people to a public flogging/whipping.

As far as people commiting the crime regardless of the sentence, I would question the results of your research unless additional parameters were posed to those interviewed. For example, how many thought they were going to be caught? How many believed if caught, they would actually be convicted and, if so, receive the maximum sentence permitted. How many began their day knowing they would be commiting a crime? How many got up in the morning knowing they were going out and killing someone that day? Would the answer be the same if there was no question that, if caught, they would die? No other options, no 20 years on death row while an indefinite number of appeals are filed. In and out of court and directly to the chair/stretcher/rope/wall?

(Please note, late at night and using "they" simply in a generic form, grammar be damned!)
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 02, 2006, 11:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
The main problem is there is very little "punishment".

For nearly all misdemeanors, you will be cited out. Even if arrested on a No Bail warrant for FTA Jail or something like that, you will be cited out.

The county jails are full and the criminals know it.

If you are remanded from the court room to serve say 20-30 days, its very common for the you be out on the streets before the Judge has left for the evening.

You already receive time and 1/2 for "good behavior" - compounded by the fact the jails will release you = you will likely do little time at the county level.

So this means, if you are sentenced to 8 months and you do 2 days and they let you go because they are full, that will be considered as serving your entire sentence.

Then there are work release, probation, behavioral, and diversion programs.

Most probation is court monitored, known as conditional sentence -very few are actual on formal probation where they must report to a probation officer or are subject to the serious threat of a search waiver.

The criminals know the game and they work the system well.. for instance, the real smart criminals will refuse probation and just insist on serving their entire sentence in jail, knowing that they will be released early and not have to deal with the hassle of Violation of Probation issues.

The Justice system is essentially a contract betwen criminals and most are more than willing to not comply with its terms, and as such become the winners.

There are the good people who dont get in trouble with the law.. to those types, the justice system holds a great deterrent effect.

For the criminal element, it is a side line hassle, especially at the county level. Those that mess up and find themselves in prison arent doing so well. but the main criminal element.. the minor level slime balls - they ride free.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 03, 2006, 02:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUBLUE
I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?
You haven't addressed the issue at all; only hurled insults, declared self-proclaimed expertise, and revealed yourself to be, apparently, only able to demean instead of debate. Apparently you are used to intimidating people. Good luck with that.

You are the one who declares things about me based on a shallow reading of what I am saying. If you are such a great government teacher, why is it you have still not addressed the issue of limited powers of the federal government?

So, oh great government teacher, what DO you think about enumerated powers? Does the concept have any meaning left? Do you think that is a good thing?

Can you debate an issue without belittling? Are you used to indoctrinating or teaching? Do you allow contrary views in your class, or do you intimidate, ridicule, and insult and call that debate?

Bottom line: I don't care what you "think" since it seems you have forgotten how.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 03, 2006, 06:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The county jails are full and the criminals know it.
Another issue swift execution of given punishment would handle. Instead of 6-month sentence, make it 30 lashes and 1 month. This should also create a positive turn in the expense of operating correctional institutions.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yet further proof blindzebra Basketball 1 Sat Dec 17, 2005 06:18pm
Legislature doing something positive! The Roamin' Umpire Football 0 Sun Apr 17, 2005 08:11am
Look ref...proof Dudly Basketball 19 Thu Jan 13, 2005 09:35am
Why coaches are idiots. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Basketball 44 Wed Jun 19, 2002 01:01am
Officials getting the positive press Ron Pilo Basketball 5 Sat Feb 23, 2002 05:25pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1