• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The reason for a death penalty

What exactly does that mean?

That they will kill again?
That they will always too much of a danger to society to release them. This would be decided by the courts, so don't bother asking me exactly what that would entail. Each case is different. There is no scenario to stick to.
 
Last edited:
Are you psychic, or are you secretly living with Claus?

or I could be Claus' sock-puppet as one poster (I won't name names but here's a clue...he's an atheist) said is entirely possible since I asked him for the same evidence Claus has asked for.
 
That they will always too much of a danger to society to release them. This would be decided by the courts, so don't bother asking me exactly what that would entail. Each case is different. There is no scenario to stick to.

How about a hypothetical case? Just make up an instance of any kind where a criminal would be "unrehabilitable", thus allowing for a death sentence. With the hypothetical, please provide examples of what would make this particular criminal unable to be rehabilitated. Thanks.



Santa
 
How about a hypothetical case? Just make up an instance of any kind where a criminal would be "unrehabilitable", thus allowing for a death sentence. With the hypothetical, please provide examples of what would make this particular criminal unable to be rehabilitated. Thanks.



Santa
Okay, how about a prisoner who, over a significant period of time, talked about nothing except how he was going to "get even" or one who continually tried to attack anybody who approached him.
 
Okay, how about a prisoner who, over a significant period of time, talked about nothing except how he was going to "get even" or one who continually tried to attack anybody who approached him.

How would you define a "significant period of time"? Does it differ from prisoner to prisoner? What types of basic criteria would help determine this time frame? In the case of someone who tried to attack anyone who approached him...would this person be evaluated for legal sanity? How long do you allow him to continue attacking until he is determined to be too much of a threat? Is it ok to put him to death if he is mentally deficient?

Just a note...

This is a hypothetical case, therefore, please feel free to avoid statements like "it all depends" or "each circumstance is different". I am interested in specific examples where putting someone to death, under the types of conditions you mentioned, could actually occur. Thanks.



Santa
 
How would you define a "significant period of time"? Does it differ from prisoner to prisoner? What types of basic criteria would help determine this time frame? In the case of someone who tried to attack anyone who approached him...would this person be evaluated for legal sanity? How long do you allow him to continue attacking until he is determined to be too much of a threat? Is it ok to put him to death if he is mentally deficient?

Just a note...

This is a hypothetical case, therefore, please feel free to avoid statements like "it all depends" or "each circumstance is different". I am interested in specific examples where putting someone to death, under the types of conditions you mentioned, could actually occur. Thanks.

Santa
*cues up Strauss*

*Scratchy LP noises*

The strains of a waltz, now named "The Head of a Needle Waltz," wafts through the forum. (Please, make sure your halo is correctly adjusted to avoid clanging it off of the other dancers' haloes.)

The entire point of the justice system is to deal with each circumstance's different evidence. Tricky has made that very clear. The matter of going from the theoretical to the practical is the difference between pointless pedantry, and absolutist philosophical musings, and real life in the here and now. Kant remarked on the limitations of philosophy, or as he put it, the limitations on pure reason, an observation from a very talented philosopher that modern idealists seem to ignore time and again.

I share Tricky's view that life in prison with no chance for parole is a crueller, as in a less merciful sentence than execution.

DR
 
Last edited:
*cues up Strauss*

*Scratchy LP noises*

The strains of a waltz, now named "The Head of a Needle Waltz," wafts through the forum. (Please, make sure your halo is correctly adjusted to avoid clanging it off of the other dancers' haloes.)

The entire point of the justice system is to deal with each circumstance's different evidence. Tricky has made that very clear. The matter of going from the theoretical to the practical is the difference between pointless pedantry, and absolutist philosophical musings, and real life in the here and now. Kant remarked on the limitations of philosophy, or as he put it, the limitations on pure reason, an observation from a very talented philosopher that modern idealists seem to ignore time and again.

I share Tricky's view that life in prison with no chance for parole is a crueller, as in a less merciful sentence than execution.

DR

So, rather than address the questions, your answer is "we won't know until that circumstance arises". I have stated already that I would be happy with a simple EXAMPLE. Just a hypothetical case with some details where it would be better to kill them than imprison them. You claim hypotheticals cannot be applied to real life, therefore, they are unnecessary, but when asked for real life examples, the answer is, "it depends". It would appear to me like the questions were being avoided.


Santa
 
I share Tricky's view that life in prison with no chance for parole is a crueller, as in a less merciful sentence than execution.
You two benevolent and worldly souls might perhaps take this up with such incarcerated inmates, explaining to them how cruelly they have been treated and how they should demand to be killed instead? Document your progress in developing their understanding of cruelty.
 
Okay, how about a prisoner who, over a significant period of time, talked about nothing except how he was going to "get even" or one who continually tried to attack anybody who approached him.

Then, you are killing them not for the crime they did - since other murderers are not killed - but for the crime you think they will do in the future.

Not only is it straight out of "Minority Report", you also got rid of the principle of "innocent until proved guilty".

Wanna rethink your position?
 
You two benevolent and worldly souls might perhaps take this up with such incarcerated inmates, explaining to them how cruelly they have been treated and how they should demand to be killed instead? Document your progress in developing their understanding of cruelty.
Why waste my time talking to garbage society has disposed of to rot in a human land fill?

You are welcomed to do so, I'd rather do pretty much anything else.

DR
 
Life in prison is a death sentence. Life just lets them know where they are going to die and takes more time to accomplish that feet. How is drawing life out of someone slowly more civilized?

If that's how far you want to stretch it, a "Not Guilty" verdict is a death sentence.
 
Of course I feel my position is superior, else I wouldn't hold it, right?:D

But you see, given that there are so very many cases and situations, it is extremely unlikely that the choice to execute is wrong in every single case. I know it is hard to sift through those cases and decide which ones those are, but that is what our legal system is for.

While it is true that both of our positions are based on moral, hence emotional stances, one of them is absolutist. I do not argue that every murderer should be executed, not even most of them, not even many of them. Just a very few of them that, by the best examination we can give, are not rehabilitatible and the courts should have the ability to make that decision and act in the way that they think best addresses it. The argument that there are never any such cases is an absolutist position which, by it's nature, does not allow a case-by-case examination of the decision to execute or not. I tend to shy away from absolutist solutions of anything.

I have no doubt that there are many murderers who should be executed. My position is that we shouldn't execute the murderers that should be executed. There is a greater "should" at work here.

In the immortal words of William Munny:
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

The following is fallacious and is not meant as an argument to support my viewpoint. But still...I don't understand how America can blithely assert the moral superiority of capital punishment given the company it keeps on this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png
 
A Lousy Hypothetical Case

How would you define a "significant period of time"? Does it differ from prisoner to prisoner? What types of basic criteria would help determine this time frame? In the case of someone who tried to attack anyone who approached him...would this person be evaluated for legal sanity? How long do you allow him to continue attacking until he is determined to be too much of a threat? Is it ok to put him to death if he is mentally deficient?

Just a note...

This is a hypothetical case, therefore, please feel free to avoid statements like "it all depends" or "each circumstance is different". I am interested in specific examples where putting someone to death, under the types of conditions you mentioned, could actually occur. Thanks.
Okay, Santa, you want a more detailed hypothetical case? Here's one.
*******

Louse cracked one eyelid as he lay on his cot when he heard the footsteps echoing ever louder in the metal hallways outside his cell. The sinister grin that began to play about the corners of his mouth was made into an even more hideous rictus by the uneven, globby scars on his cheeks which made his smile look positively skeletal. “This should be fun,” he thought.

Three keys turned simultaneously and the outer door to the cell opened to reveal the warden, flanked by two enormous and heavily armed guards standing on the other side of the six-inch thick reinforced plexiglass that formed the second cell wall. Almost invisible behind the hulking guards was a small man with a balding head and neatly trimmed goatee. He wore a tastefully understated tie.

“Let me guess,” sneered Louse, “You’ve come here to rehabilitate me some more, right?”

“I am in fact here to help you,” said the small man with a faint tremor in his voice.

“On your feet, scum,” barked the warden, as the guards brought their weapons into a more ready position.

“What if I don’t wanna be rehabilitated any more”, said Louse, faking a yawn.

“Then we’ll make you,” said the warden grimly, knowing that he would do no such thing. There was no way he was letting any of his guards get in the cell with Louse. He wasn’t going to another funeral.

“Whatever you say, Warden,” Louse replied with a contemptuous drawl. Louse stood up. He wasn’t very impressive to look at, but the warden knew that contained in that stringy, pale body was the mind and nerve of a heartless, homicidal madman. No. Not a madman. Louse wasn’t mad. He was just mean as hell. “What you got to say to me today, Shrunk?” which was what Louse liked to call the diminutive psychiatrist.

“We’re going to try some regression again, Louse”, said Shrunk, “This time we’re going to go back to the first time you killed someone. Can you remember what you were thinking?”

“Yeah, I remember,” mused Louse. “I was thinking, ‘That’ll be the last time you beat me at Monopoly’, and you know? It was!”

“How do you think that made his family feel?” continued Shrunk, trying to pierce Louse’s armor of nonchalance.

“Wouldn’t know,” Louse shrugged. “They all died in the fire. I spent two years at reform school for that one, till I busted out. That’s the longest anybody’s ever held me. The psychiatrist shuddered involuntarily. Louse wasn’t exaggerating. The man was a regular Houdini. “After that, the Principle turned up with his throat slit. Go figure.”

“If we ever get the evidence to nail you on that one…” the warden began.

“You’ll do what?” Louse interrupted with a jeer. “I’m already serving three life sentences. You can’t execute me. You can’t torture me. What are you gonna do? Rehabilitate me some more? Evidence? Pah!” he spat.

The warden just fixed Louse with a menacing stare. Louse was right. There wasn’t a thing he could do. It was against the law to force prisoners to do hard labor, or even make license plates. They could simply sit down and refuse to work. With Louse, you didn’t want to even try, since he was so devilishly clever at turning things to his own advantage, like the time he had broken out of Daratsville, killing three inmates a guard and a weimaraner with a sharpened license plate.

“I know what you’re thinking,” Louse whispered with an evil wink. “That warden turned up dead too. So did the prison psychiatrist,” he said, fixing his stare on Shrunk. The tiny psychiatrist backed off a step and looked even smaller. “Ain’t it funny how these things keep happening to all the people I meet?”

“Louse, won’t you let us try to help you,” ventured Shrunk, gathering up his courage, “Surely you don’t want this for the rest of your life?” he said gesturing at the barren surroundings.

“You don’t know what I want,” Louse said quietly, “But I do, and I’m gonna get it too. And you ain’t gonna like it much. The Warden hated when Louse spoke in this quiet voice. It was so cold and calculating, almost as if he had his next escape already planned. The lack of threats was more frightening than the false bravado that so many of the other lifers used, especially since Louse had a way of making the things he wanted come true.

“Okay Louse,” said the Warden tersely, “We’ll be back next week. Maybe you’ll want to talk then.”

“You do that, Warden,” Louse taunted in a singsong schoolboy voice, “And when you come bring some more of that wonderful evidence with you. I sure do love looking at scrapbooks.”

The four men backed off and shut the outer door. The three keys turned in the locks again. Louse listend to them go with a serene smile still on his face. When the echoes of the footsteps died, he lay back down on his cot and started thinking about his plans again while repeating a little toneless mantra. “Evidenssssssssce”, he hummed.
 
Last edited:
Okay, Santa, you want a more detailed hypothetical case? Here's one.
*******

Louse cracked one eyelid as he lay on his cot when he heard the footsteps echoing ever louder in the metal hallways outside his cell. The sinister grin that began to play about the corners of his mouth was made into an even more hideous rictus by the uneven, globby scars on his cheeks which made his smile look positively skeletal. “This should be fun,” he thought.

Three keys turned simultaneously and the outer door to the cell opened to reveal the warden, flanked by two enormous and heavily armed guards standing on the other side of the six-inch thick reinforced plexiglass that formed the second cell wall. Almost invisible behind the hulking guards was a small man with a balding head and neatly trimmed goatee. He wore a tastefully understated tie.

“Let me guess,” sneered Louse, “You’ve come here to rehabilitate me some more, right?”

“I am in fact here to help you,” said the small man with a faint tremor in his voice.

“On your feet, scum,” barked the warden, as the guards brought their weapons into a more ready position.

“What if I don’t wanna be rehabilitated any more”, said Louse, faking a yawn.

“Then we’ll make you,” said the warden grimly, knowing that he would do no such thing. There was no way he was letting any of his guards get in the cell with Louse. He wasn’t going to another funeral.

“Whatever you say, Warden,” Louse replied with a contemptuous drawl. Louse stood up. He wasn’t very impressive to look at, but the warden knew that contained in that stringy, pale body was the mind and nerve of a heartless, homicidal madman. No. Not a madman. Louse wasn’t mad. He was just mean as hell. “What you got to say to me today, Shrunk?” which was what Louse liked to call the diminutive psychiatrist.

“We’re going to try some regression again, Louse”, said Shrunk, “This time we’re going to go back to the first time you killed someone. Can you remember what you were thinking?”

“Yeah, I remember,” mused Louse. “I was thinking, ‘That’ll be the last time you beat me at Monopoly’, and you know? It was!”

“How do you think that made his family feel?” continued Shrunk, trying to pierce Louse’s armor of nonchalance.

“Wouldn’t know,” Louse shrugged. “They all died in the fire. I spent two years at reform school for that one, till I busted out. That’s the longest anybody’s ever held me. The psychiatrist shuddered involuntarily. Louse wasn’t exaggerating. The man was a regular Houdini. “After that, the Principle turned up with his throat slit. Go figure.”

“If we ever get the evidence to nail you on that one…” the warden began.

“You’ll do what?” Louse interrupted with a jeer. “I’m already serving three life sentences. You can’t execute me. You can’t torture me. What are you gonna do? Rehabilitate me some more? Evidence? Pah!” he spat.

The warden just fixed Louse with a menacing stare. Louse was right. There wasn’t a thing he could do. It was against the law to force prisoners to do hard labor, or even make license plates. They could simply sit down and refuse to work. With Louse, you didn’t want to even try, since he was so devilishly clever at turning things to his own advantage, like the time he had broken out of Daratsville, killing three inmates a guard and a weimaraner with a sharpened license plate.

“I know what you’re thinking,” Louse whispered with an evil wink. “That warden turned up dead too. So did the prison psychiatrist,” he said, fixing his stare on Shrunk. The tiny psychiatrist backed off a step and looked even smaller. “Ain’t it funny how these things keep happening to all the people I meet?”

“Louse, won’t you let us try to help you,” ventured Shrunk, gathering up his courage, “Surely you don’t want this for the rest of your life?” he said gesturing at the barren surroundings.

“You don’t know what I want,” Louse said quietly, “But I do, and I’m gonna get it too. And you ain’t gonna like it much. The Warden hated when Louse spoke in this quiet voice. It was so cold and calculating, almost as if he had his next escape already planned. The lack of threats was more frightening than the false bravado that so many of the other lifers used, especially since Louse had a way of making the things he wanted come true.

“Okay Louse,” said the Warden tersely, “We’ll be back next week. Maybe you’ll want to talk then.”

“You do that, Warden,” Louse taunted in a singsong schoolboy voice, “And when you come bring some more of that wonderful evidence with you. I sure do love looking at scrapbooks.”

The four men backed off and shut the outer door. The three keys turned in the locks again. Louse listend to them go with a serene smile still on his face. When the echoes of the footsteps died, he lay back down on his cot and started thinking about his plans again while repeating a little toneless mantra. “Evidenssssssssce”, he hummed.

Well, I got what i asked for. :)

I do have a couple of questions regarding this fictional character and his role in your "let's kill em if they can't be beneficial and productive to society" ideal.

1.) For how long to you continue attempting "treatment" or "rehabilitation" before executing this prisoner?

2.) How certain we that this prisoner is not "insane". He certainly could be a killer who simply enjoys the wholesale slaughter of others, or he could be a man with a mental defect or disease that compels him to behave in this fashion.
a.) If he truly is not mentally deficit in regards to his behavior. How might one distinguish the above behavior from actual "insanity"?
b.) If there is a mental defect or disease, would it still be "ok" to excute this prisoner?

3.) In much the same vein as your response to how a terminally ill prisoner might be beneficial to society, I could easily state that a prisoner such as the one above could prove most beneficial to the study of psychopaths and other research into the criminal mind. Here is your statement for reference.
Tricky said:
Actually, they could be. They could be useful in learning how to treat the terminally illl and lessen suffering for society in general. Of course, every case is different.


While I may come across as a bit sarcastic, however, I am not, and I thank you for the hypothecal. :D


Santa
 
Well, I got what i asked for. :)
Hope you liked it. I had fun writing it. I've never written pulp fiction before.

1.) For how long to you continue attempting "treatment" or "rehabilitation" before executing this prisoner?
Until it is determined that it is having no effect.

2.) How certain we that this prisoner is not "insane". He certainly could be a killer who simply enjoys the wholesale slaughter of others, or he could be a man with a mental defect or disease that compels him to behave in this fashion.
In my opinion, it makes no difference. A crazy killer is just as dangerous as a sane killer. Of course, one could make the argument that anybody who murders is insane. Again, I say "so what?". "Innocent by reason of insanity" is, in my opinion, a faulty verdict. I'd say, "Guilty but insane", and then work on determining if they could be cured.

a.) If he truly is not mentally deficit in regards to his behavior. How might one distinguish the above behavior from actual "insanity"?
You might not be able to. All you can do is try. See above.

b.) If there is a mental defect or disease, would it still be "ok" to excute this prisoner?
In my opinion, yes, if it is determined he cannot be cured. Being insane could likely make them even more unpredictable and thus more dangerous.

3.) In much the same vein as your response to how a terminally ill prisoner might be beneficial to society, I could easily state that a prisoner such as the one above could prove most beneficial to the study of psychopaths and other research into the criminal mind. Here is your statement for reference.
I'm not sure too many psychiatrists would want to take the case. Sure it's possible though. I'm willing to allow case-by-case examination. If sombody is willing to work on making them useful, then fine. If they're not, well, what do you do, store them until someone is? Makes no sense to me.

But on that note, I might throw in that I'm greatly in favor of execution (if there must be one) by dissection. If you can use their parts for transplants, then that's a benefit. After all, dead is dead. Sadly, this is not going to fly these days. People seem to think a dead body is somehow sacrosanct. Heck, I'm even in favor of Soylent Green. Waste not, want not.

While I may come across as a bit sarcastic, however, I am not, and I thank you for the hypothecal.
You are welcome. I'm trying to be as non-sarcastic and unemotional as I can be too because this is such a hot-button issue. Well, except for the story.;)
 
Last edited:
Hope you liked it. I had fun writing it. I've never written pulp fiction before.

It was well done and a much better read than some boring, droll, "well, here you go, answer".


Until it is determined that it is having no effect.

Ah, now herein lies the rub. I know how you are you going to respond, but I am going to ask it anway. What exactly IS no effect? How much progress is too little. Couldn't an intelligent prisoner use the idea of a little progress here, a little progress there, just to keep himself alive? Would an abuse like this be even more straining on a system that can ill afford additional expenses?


In my opinion, it makes no difference. A crazy killer is just as dangerous as a sane killer. Of course, one could make the argument that anybody who murders is insane. Again, I say "so what?". "Innocent by reason of insanity" is, in my opinion, a faulty verdict. I'd say, "Guilty but insane", and then work on determining if they could be cured.

Would this also apply to some with alzheimer's? What if an older man killed someone because he was having a memory flashback? He certainly would be insane, and a potential danger to society. He would not be able to be rehabilitated, do you execute him? I am not a mental health expert, however, I would venture to guess there are many such psychological disorders or diseases that may cause a person to act in such a way that would result in murder. If modern medicine cannot cure them, then society should kill them? What if a treatment is developed a year later, 5 years later, 10 years later? Now you have executed "criminals" who may have been curable and able to rejoin society as a productive member.


In my opinion, yes, if it is determined he cannot be cured. Being insane could likely make them even more unpredictable and thus more dangerous.

See above.


I'm not sure too many psychiatrists would want to take the case. Sure it's possible though. I'm willing to allow case-by-case examination. If sombody is willing to work on making them useful, then fine. If they're not, well, what do you do, store them until someone is? Makes no sense to me.

Some might be facinated by such as case, so long as security precautions are always in place. The point is, much like a terminally ill patient may further studies about his own condition, so might a psychopath as you described.

But on that note, I might throw in that I'm greatly in favor of execution (if there must be one) by dissection. If you can use their parts for transplants, then that's a benefit. After all, dead is dead. Sadly, this is not going to fly these days. People seem to think a dead body is somehow sacrosanct. Heck, I'm even in favor of Soylent Green. Waste not, want not.

I would not be in favor of actually executing them, however, the general concept of "harvesting" useful organs from dead prisoners sounds like an idea with merit.


You are welcome. I'm trying to be as non-sarcastic and unemotional as I can be too because this is such a hot-button issue. Well, except for the story.;)

While I seldom get involved, I truly enjoy the hot-button issues and only tend to be sarcastic when I get it first, USUALLY.



Santa
 
Life in prison is a death sentence. Life just lets them know where they are going to die and takes more time to accomplish that feet. How is drawing life out of someone slowly more civilized?

Assuming the prison system is well run, lifers can live, within the context, meaningful lives on the inside. They laugh, they think, have jobs, go to classes, they do a whole bunch of things except leave the barbed wire. I spend a lot of time with people with no real chance of leaving prison. It is a sad life, few of them would choose to be there, but it is not, and should not be, elongated torture for those able to behave within the parameters of the inside. This greatly reduces costs and risks for guards.

The ones that can't behave get locked in strip cells with no freedom of personal movement. Those in general population refer to this as "jail."

Unfortunately, there is a great gap in the amount of due process one recieves in a death penalty case versus one resulting in Life without parole. The former requires many levels of review and the drama of the sentence attracts greater scrutiny. West Virginia is the worst example, one can be sentenced to life in prison without having an appeal heard by any court as there is unlike other states no appeal of right.

I've fleshed out my overall position of capital punishment, that it is more of an economic issue than a moral issue in several threads somewhere else, but then again I'm a law and economics guy... The short version is as prosperity increases, a society increases its value of life as life expectancy rises and at the same time there are more resources to put towards both rehabilitation and containment.

The enhanced value of life brings about less tolerance for executing the innocent. The increased prosperity allows for a better examination of guilt and innocence, and also the ability to build more secure prisons.

The core question is this: is the cost of resources needed to satisfy the degree of distaste of wrongful execution more than the net benefit of execution as opposed to Life/no parole.

I say they are right now.

Take me back to 1750, when people would die of basic disease and it was a struggle for most people to keep food on the plate, and we have a different answer. Keeping some dangerous maniac that has killed someone caged would cost quite a bit, all of which would come from people struggling (by today's standards) to get by. Tolerance for an accident would be higher, and resources far less. So we have a more widespread death penalty.

Some look back on this as somehow barbaric, but I am at a loss to what they could reasonably do about it...
 
Appropriately enough, there was an article in today's NY Times that frighteningly mirrors Tricky's short story...but it is real life. I hope you can access it without a subscription.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/nyregion/10death.html

From the article, Ambrose Harris, after being convicted of rape and murder and during the sentencing phase:

So remorseless was Ambrose A. Harris for raping and shooting a young Pennsylvania woman in the back of the head that he mockingly dabbed his eyes with a handkerchief as the victim’s father sobbed on the witness stand.

And during his incarceration in a correctional facility:

In 1996, a Superior Court jury sentenced Mr. Harris to die for that crime, but not before he could kill again. As he awaited the outcome of an appeal, he flattened another death row inmate’s skull by climbing on top of a stool and jumping down on the man’s head over and over until he was sure the job was finished.

But the article goes into Harris's background:

Yet like so many violent criminals, Mr. Harris is the product of a turbulent upbringing. According to court testimony, his mother, recalling once to a social worker how she never wanted children, said that the doctor who delivered Ambrose had to throw water in her face to force her to push during labor.

When Mr. Harris was a boy of 12 growing up in Trenton, he was committed to a state mental hospital for more than a year. Doctors noted then that he was “violent and homicidal,” with an I.Q. of only 78.

Should a convicts background and mental capacity be taken into consideration during the sentencing phase?
 
I think that blog excessively demonizes anally molesting newborn babies to death. I mean don't get me wrong, you really really shouldn't anally molest newborn babies, but really it's not as bad as they say. Newborn babies can barely grasp the idea that there is a world beyond their nose, let alone that they are being raped. Anally raping newborn babies is therefore not significantly worse than any other way of killing newborn babies.

Pls seek professional help. Seriously.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom