death penalty pros

Mark Emmert Wants to Fix College Football. Here's How

The NCAA is finally getting serious about this whole corruption thing . Again. We know because President Mark Emmert says so.

Of course, we've already covered a few ideas for helping to fix college football and amateurism by paying players a modest stipend during their time at school. But the other side of that has to be a new way of dealing with those who will still break the rules.

Some of that can be done by the NCAA, though not all of it. There's a role for the NFL and even government, believe it or not, to play.

So, assuming Emmert is serious -- and, really, sometimes it's hard to tell -- here are a few ideas on how to truly crack down on corruption in college football. Some of them aren't anywhere close to ideal, and some of them might even be a little draconian for my taste. But maybe they can at least start the ball rolling on real reform at the NCAA and other levels.

Make impermissible benefits a cause of civil action. Many states already have laws that threaten repercussions against agents who break NCAA rules. Those that don't should pass them and there should be a federal law . There also ought to be similar laws for boosters, though Logan Young found out that the lack of a specific law doesn't necessarily mean you can't be prosecuted. The flip side is that, even if prosecutors are prompted to act by the recent spate of stories, it's difficult to get a conviction in a lot of these cases. And there's also the little detail that prosecutors have murders and stuff to deal with.

So we need a vehicle for punishing rogue agents and boosters that has a lower threshold for a verdict but still has some teeth to it. Enter civil court. States could pass laws specifically allowing states to recoup the value of the scholarship given to a certain player and the total value of the benefits if the benefits offered by an agent or a booster cause that player to be declared ineligible. The laws should also allow juries to consider the costs of missed television or bowl opportunities when deciding damages. An agent or booster facing the prospect of paying tens of thousands or possibly even hundreds of thousands of dollars (particularly when legal costs are factored in) if found guilty based on a preponderance of the evidence might very well reconsider giving a player an iPhone. And schools would have a more tangible reason to go the civil route than prosecutors have to go the criminal route: Namely, money.

the wokkies: Death Penalty pros

You have all seen the movies when people are strapped in the electric chair ready for death.  The reason they are in the chair is because they committed some sort of serious crime.  IN the movies, when people are strapped to the chair it isn't present day.  Very few states use the electric chair anymore, that was famous in the early 1900's.  It was discontinued because it was a hassle and lethal injection was easier.  Although many people are against the death penalty as it is taking away life, there are reasons in favor of it. A victim's family can be at peace and have closure.  Families of victims have stated when the murderer of the loved one is sentenced to death, the execution brings closure knowing he/she will not be able to due harm to others.  Since society has a high interest in preventing murders, it should use the strongest punishment to deter murder. "Finally, the death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out.

Death

What Is Death?

The Penalty

Death, A Life

The death of "why?", the decline of questioning and the future of democracy