The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Ulmus on May 23, 2011, 06:43:29 PM
-
Normally I stay away from the political stuff, but this is nuts! :o
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0524-court-prisons-web-20110523,0,5716379.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0524-court-prisons-web-20110523,0,5716379.story)
-
Here's what they were thinking. Blame the "war on drugs", three strikes laws ,and mandatory minimums. Blame the fact that judicical discretion in sentencing has been all but revoked. Blame the fact that the correction's officer's union is one of the most powerful players in Cali politics. Blame the fact that in these times no one wants to raise taxes to pay for prisons, even while they cheerfully vote to increase sentences (gee, might there be a connection ::))? The bottom line is that a whole lot of folks are in jail who don't need to be there. Because of a lot of grandstanding pols who won't take responsibility, we are left with a mess. A lot of evil SOBs will get out, a lot of low level guys will stay in. End the drug war, give judges back some discretion in setencing, and stop with the bumper sticker crap like "three strikes" and "zero tolerance", and go with solutions that work like drug court diversion programs, and we wouldn't be in this mess. Not to mention securing our borders and deporting criminal illegals upon arrest. If we did these things we'd have plenty of room for the bad guys. Rant over. >:(
FQ13
-
FQ's opposition to 3 strike laws and Mandatory minimum sentencing is typical liberal stupidity.
But he is right about "War on some drugs BS and no money for more prisons, Ca. would rather spend it on benefits for illegal aliens, and fighting the will of the people on same sex marriage.
-
Don't forget the $200k/year lifeguards.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_re_us/us_lucrative_lifeguarding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_re_us/us_lucrative_lifeguarding)
-
FQ's opposition to 3 strike laws and Mandatory minimum sentencing is typical liberal stupidity.
I would suggest that you are wrong. It is neither stupid, nor liberal. Rather, supporting those things is pure statism (whether it be liberal or conservative) and an affront to the Constitution. Here's the cliff notes version of why. Taking away judicial discretion concentrates too much power in the executive branch. With judicial discretion, a judge decides on a sentence varying between a minimum and maximum set by the legislature. With "three strikes" and mandatory minimums that discretion (read common sense) is removed. The sentence is set by the charges filed by the DA. Judges are either appointed by the Governor/President and approved by the Senate, or independenlty elected. Either way, they are either accountable to the electorate, or to people who are. DA's are unelected bureacrats accountable to no one, who get promoted on their conviction rates. Do you trust a judge, or a 30 year old DA more to decide a fair sentence for a crime? Its that simple.
The sad thing is that before Reagan and Tip O'Neill's drug war in 1986, the feds got it right. They set up the US Sentencing Commision. It laid out a reccomended guideline sentence for federal crimes. You were to get between X and Y years for a given offence. Mitigating and aggravating factors were specified (was it a first offense, did you use violence, etc.). Then the drug war came along and mandatory minimums came into play where the mules got more time than the kingpins, and anyone who called BS was "soft on crime". Review your history Tom, I think you'll find that you are on my side on this one.
FQ13
-
Sorry FQ, but judges lost common sense all by themselves. Liberal judges are the reason for minimums and three strikes, not the other way around.
-
Sorry FQ, but judges lost common sense all by themselves. Liberal judges are the reason for minimums and three strikes, not the other way around.
And conservatives are that much better? Look, we either have three co-equal branches using checks and balances or we don't. You don't get to say the SC, Congress or the President should have the last word depending on whether they are from your team or not. If that were the case, the only thing seperating us from Somalia would be better guns. The conservatives need to live with Roe, and the Liberals need to live with Heller. Otherwise its the law of the jungle. If all that matters is the last election, you have no right to bitch about BO, or the fact that Gore and Bush let the SC peacefully decide the 2000 election. Its the rules of the game, more than any specific outcome, that preserve a Constitutional Republic. It is preserving the rules, and the priciples of the Constitution that matter, even if the specific results are scewy, that lets us continue on. You don't emasculate the judiciary because you don't like some rulings. You just pick better judges. Seriously, less than 700 votes seperated Bush from Gore. Their followers hated each other. Was there a single murder? No. They just went to court and accepted the outcome. That alone should be enough reason to preserve an independent judiciary.
FQ13
-
Ulmus, with as much kindness as I can muster I feel I must point out the egregious error in your initial question: It presumes thought was involved. This so-called solution is based upon political expedience. When a state government has been so stupid for so long, the only solution is additional stupidity on the monumental level we see here.
But, to add some more kindling to the blazing fire, the drug laws are beyond foolish. Sentencing someone to hard time for a few ounces of weed makes no sense. Putting the "mule" in prison until hell freezes makes even less sense. Sentencing a herion addict to prison makes less sense, yet. The drug wars have been lost. We should recognize it and move on. Become the supplier and tax the sh!t out of it.
And three strikes requires some level of judicial descretion lest you wind up with a guy serving a life sentence for snagging a pizza without paying. It's happened in Ca.
-
It's called putting the threats where they can't hurt any decent people.
Let the scum kill each other.
Cam Edwards on NRA News has stories every single day about judges letting scumbags walk for violent crimes from assault to rape and murder. Judges can not be trusted to punish those who threaten society because to many of them are stupid liberals or getting paid off.
The number one method of lowering crime is to PUNISH violent criminals.
As for FQ, 5000 years of human experience says he an idiot, but like all liberals HE knows whats best. ::)
-
It's called putting the threats where they can't hurt any decent people.
Let the scum kill each other.
Cam Edwards on NRA News has stories every single day about judges letting scumbags walk for violent crimes from assault to rape and murder. Judges can not be trusted to punish those who threaten society because to many of them are stupid liberals or getting paid off.
The number one method of lowering crime is to PUNISH violent criminals.
As for FQ, 5000 years of human experience says he an idiot, but like all liberals HE knows whats best. ::)
And this is relevant to the debate how? We agree on punishing violent offenders. Where we part company is sticking some low level toady muling 5 kilos of coke with a life sentence, while the guy who hired him walks with a few years for ratting on his boss under the mandatory minimum frame work we have now. We part company on "three strikes" laws that, as Crusader correctly noted, will send someone up for life for a petty crime without the jury being informed of the consequence of their conviction. I'm fine with sending scumbags away for all day. Where I have issues is when the little people become collateral damage in someone's re-election campaign. The solution is to choose better judges, just as the solution to our larger problems is to elect better leaders. Ultimately, its on us. Shortcuts will always bite you on the ass.
FQ13
-
I already agreed that the whole "War on some drugs" is pointless, expensive , and counter productive, so half your argument is BS right there, 3 strike laws get stupid people out of the way, if they can't keep count of their petty crimes f*ck'em.
Judges are appointed by politicians and the last Presidential election proves that to many people like you are to ignorant and lazy to make electing good ones possible.
How's that "Hope and Change" treating you ?
-
...3 strike laws get stupid people out of the way, if they can't keep count of their petty crimes f*ck'em.
Tom, I've got to come in on the side of the Quaker on this (did I say that???)
Fifty percent the people have an IQ below 100 (though at times it looks as if that percentage is much higher) and that makes 'em below average. If we put all the idiots away for commiting stupid crimes, a huge proportion of the population would be serving life sentences and the rest of us would be signing over our paychecks to support them.
Look, say some 18-year-old punk does a strongarm robbery, gets caught and serves 6 years of a ten-year sentence. He gets out, finds he's unemployable because he's still stupid and now he has a record. He hits another 7-11, gets twenty bucks and a carton of smokes. He gets caught again and serves another dime. This time, while in prison, he decides to get his GED, goes on and takes a couple of college courses, picks up some trade skills and decides to turn his life around. But when he gets out, he's still unemployable because now he's a two-time loser. With no money and getting hungry, he decides to steal a package of ground meat and a dozen eggs by hiding them in his pants. The value of the crime is under $10.
You'd give him life???
It'd be cheaper to feed him on the outside than put him back in prison.
-
It isn't that hard to count to 3, If the chump can't manage that he will never be employable any way.
I read a statistic one time that the average thief commits something like 25 crimes for every time he (or she ) is caught.
It's like Mason told Dixon, "We got to draw the damn line somewhere"
-
Three strikes and you're out is fine as a guideline. Making it an immutable rule is stupid. Just another example of the "zero tolerance" crap that gives bureaucrats something to hide behind so they don't have to make decisions that they might be held accountable for. Just more power to "the system."
There really should be some sort of review board that looks at the judges decisions and grades them on the correctness of the decision. Just like the NFL/MLB/NBA officiating staff gets reviewed and rated. Screw ups still happen but there is a meritocracy - ref the playoff and/or Superbowl and make big bucks for the good ones; get sent down to college level at lower pay or booted altogether for the bad ones.
-
This over crowding situation has led to a memo being sent to all law enforcement in California:
RE: Warning Shots
Attention all front line officers:
In the past we have warned against warning shots toward the ground due to the fact that they could "bounce," and we have advocated that all shots be aimed slightly above the average perp height of 5'10". Today, in response to the prison over crowding issues, we are requesting that every officer lower their warning shot point of aim by 8.5 inches ;D
-
In a perfect world, The punishment would fit the crime and once it was served, the EX-con would be restored to full citizenship--Gets to own guns, gets to vote, no red flag on a employment background check, and they have a chance for a clean start.
None of this second-class citizen cr@p--sorry, third class--illegal aliens have an easier time getting jobs.
We all agree the system (ALL THREE BRANCHES) is corrupt. How do we reboot the constitution??
-
I think 3 strikes and your out is a good idea, its just so many things are felonys its a joke.
-
TAB,Ichiban, and RW have valid points.
RW is talking about how it USED to be, when Frank James, and John Wesley Hardin were released from prison, their guns were returned to them, ( there is a Constitutional clause that no one convicted of a felony can hold public office )otherwise there were no limitations on them.
Ichiban is correct that this is another example of "zero tolerance/zero initiative" however with the number of "activist judges" appointed by agenda driven politicians simply stipulating enhanced sentences for habitual offenders does not seem to get the job done.
Commenting on TABs post, there are 2 types of crime, they have Latin names I can never remember but in short there are things that are crimes because they are "evil", rape, robbery, murder, etc..
There are other things that are crimes because they violate arbitrary rules, Speeding, selling "illegal" drugs, money laundering, these should not be classed as felonies because they are not "bad", they are just "against the rules".
-
We're all fools for allowing our prison system to exist without it being forced labor. I realize the problems with prisoners competing for jobs and labor contracts at "slave labor rates". But storm, and other natural disaster cleanup? Send them to Haiti to work! Helping local neighborhoods like churches do when we go on mission trips. You get the idea. Crap people either don't want to do, or isn't getting done for financial reasons. Escape? Misbehavior? Put an implant in these delinquents that on command releases lethal poison. They already "have no rights" according to law. Don't like the treatment? DON'T COMMIT A CRIME!!!
Gas station attendant was telling me the other day that when it gets to hot, cold, rainy, whatever. Homeless people will walk into his store, pick up a bottle of pop, some candy, walk outside, sit down on the curb and enjoy their treat till the cops get there to take them to a nice comfy jail cell for the night. "There's nothing ANYONE can do about it." >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
BS!!!! >:(
-
into the 60's in Boston, when cold weather was approaching all the bums and wino's would pitch a rock through a store window and get locked up till Spring.
-
Do you trust a judge, or a 30 year old DA more to decide a fair sentence for a crime?
FQ13
I trust neither. Lawyers are asshats. Judges are lawyers. Therefore, judges are also asshats.
-
What are they thinking?
I'll bet it was one of three things.
"It's for the children."
"Death to Kulaks ! "
"Che lives! "