www.ditl.org

Blip

Chuck might find this understandably cringe-inducing, but as a non-Yank it's bloody funny.

As for Chuck's comment about the DoI, I've never understood the claim to "inalienable rights". If that's the case, then why does the US still permit imprisonment and the death penalty. The original, more nuanced version remains far superior:

No freeman shall be taken captive or imprisoned, or deprived of his lands, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go with force against him nor send forces against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

Maybe it's bloody funny because it's so cringe-inducing. It's like a cheap parody of any 'patriotic' american movie or TV episode. For some reason the end of the review also made me laugh, where the guy starts explaining "Americana".

Captain Seafort wrote:Blip

Chuck might find this understandably cringe-inducing, but as a non-Yank it's bloody funny.

As for Chuck's comment about the DoI, I've never understood the claim to "inalienable rights". If that's the case, then why does the US still permit imprisonment and the death penalty. The original, more nuanced version remains far superior:

No freeman shall be taken captive or imprisoned, or deprived of his lands, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go with force against him nor send forces against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

Well, "unalienable rights" was part of the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. And not to start a whole long debate on this subject but it seems the death penalty has been left to the states to decide.

Because a Convicted criminal isn't a freeman, so it doesn't apply.

In addition, at least we didn't qualify it so it excludes the majority of the people who need the help.

Mikey wrote:In addition, at least we didn't qualify it so it excludes the majority of the people who need the help.

No, you just excluded them de facto rather than de jure. I'm not sure if that makes you better for being more egalitarian in theory, or us for being more honest about ignoring a big chunk of the population.

Sonic Glitch wrote:And not to start a whole long debate on this subject but it seems the death penalty has been left to the states to decide.

That's my point - the option is still available, despite your founding document explicitly rejecting imprisonment or execution.

Deepcrush wrote:Because a Convicted criminal isn't a freeman

Convictions are irrelevant to their status.

Captain Seafort wrote:Convictions are irrelevant to their status.

Being a "Convict" isn't irrelevant to status... it is their status.

Deepcrush wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:Convictions are irrelevant to their status.

Being a "Convict" isn't irrelevant to status... it is their status.

The trouble arises from the long-standing British tradition, since the widespread use of a manorial economic system and a feudal political system, of the bulk of the populace - even the native breed, in more racist days - patently not being free.

Captain Seafort wrote:That's my point - the option is still available, despite your founding document explicitly rejecting imprisonment or execution.

Yeah, except it doesn't. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual" doesn't necessarily determine the law of a land in which you aren't a resident, much less a citizen.

Mikey wrote:The trouble arises from the long-standing British tradition, since the widespread use of a manorial economic system and a feudal political system, of the bulk of the populace - even the native breed, in more racist days - patently not being free.

What does that have to do with an American under Conviction?

Mikey wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:That's my point - the option is still available, despite your founding document explicitly rejecting imprisonment or execution.

Yeah, except it doesn't. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual" doesn't necessarily determine the law of a land in which you aren't a resident, much less a citizen.

I'm not using my interpretation of anything. I'm referring to an explicit statement in your own founding document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I repeat that the original version, with caveats, is superior to the absolute statement adopted by the colonials.

Deepcrush wrote:

Mikey wrote:The trouble arises from the long-standing British tradition, since the widespread use of a manorial economic system and a feudal political system, of the bulk of the populace - even the native breed, in more racist days - patently not being free.

What does that have to do with an American under Conviction?

Nothing. I was referring to the original British language referring to "freemen," as used in Seafort's earlier statement.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:That's my point - the option is still available, despite your founding document explicitly rejecting imprisonment or execution.

Yeah, except it doesn't. Your interpretation of "cruel and unusual" doesn't necessarily determine the law of a land in which you aren't a resident, much less a citizen.

I'm not using my interpretation of anything. I'm referring to an explicit statement in your own founding document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I repeat that the original version, with caveats, is superior to the absolute statement adopted by the colonials.

Again, your misguided interpretation that being found guilty of violating the law of the land somehow doesn't mean that the convict relinquishes some of his rights doesn't change the way things are.

Mikey wrote:Again, your misguided interpretation that being found guilty of violating the law of the land somehow doesn't mean that the convict relinquishes some of his rights doesn't change the way things are.

Does the word "unalienable" have a different meaning in the States? Over here it means "cannot be removed".

In any event, my main complaint isn't about how things are, but Jefferson's evident inability to either a) proofread or b) think through his statements to their logical conclusion. He'd've been better off simply quoting the original rather than paraphrasing it.

Is his language perfect? Absolutely not. But to to use what you call the "original" would be even worse - as in, further from any sort of widespread public rights or idea of freedom for the mass of the populace - than the verbiage that was used.

God, this episode sucked. I remember reviewing it and it makes no sense!