L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,700
Why wouldn't tough on crime play well to everyone?+2 for smarmy and twat in the same sentence.
Why wouldn't tough on crime play well to everyone?+2 for smarmy and twat in the same sentence.
Not sure. I guess most criminals vote Democrat.Why wouldn't tough on crime play well to everyone?
Because the criminal justice system is a fucking joke. Because we have more prisoners in the U.S. Than any other country past or present.Why wouldn't tough on crime play well to everyone?
“Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time,” Brooks writes. “Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.”If that sounds like hyperbole. Take an example of Michael Wayne Haley in Texas who was given 16 years in prison for shoplifting a calculator. 14 more years than the actual permitted sentence. When the mistake was appealed Ted Cruz fought tooth and nail for that shoplifter to get the full 16 years, taking the case to the Supreme Court.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html?referer=
Obama proved you could be a lying, incompetent douche and be president. I'd be happy with a douche that did a great job.Or he is just a huge douche.
Were Cruz to be elected he wouldn't have to worry because he will still have a majority in both houses and unlike Obama, he won't spend the first 2 years on one target objective while ignoring everything else while he has that majority.Sounds like a massive jerk who will share Obama's inability to work with the other side of the aisle. So electing him would be voting for gridlock and executive orders. And it would be the Democrats turn to complain about executive orders and the Republicans turn to defend them.
I'll lean on your expertise, if you say he's blameless I'll accept that, but it's still an example of how broken our criminal justice system is.“Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time,” Brooks writes. “Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.”
The thing is, the decision wasn’t really Cruz’s to make. The decision to keep appealing the Haley case all the way to the Supreme Court belonged to then-Attorney General, and now Governor, Greg Abbott.
Consider it this way: When the Obama administration refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, was the uproar directed at Solicitor General Donald Verrilli? Or at his boss, Attorney General Eric Holder?
It's amazing how facts can be manipulated in order to paint a candidate as a devil or an angel.
Yeah, I have no idea how this happened. The fact that the criminal defense attorney allowed it to happen in the first place is an embarrassment to my profession. Not that criminal defense attorneys don't make mistakes, because we do, but that is a pretty massive mistake. And one that should have easily been corrected on appeal. I don't know if this is a broken criminal justice system as much as it is an example of the system being run improperly.it's still an example of how broken our criminal justice system is.
speaking as a person that only vaguely understands the profession, it seems like public defenders are either incompetent or actively working against their clients. Judges sure seem to be out for blood too. Who the fuck thinks that 16 years, or even 2 years is fair for a stolen calculator? Most Wal-Mart employees have stolen more than that.Yeah, I have no idea how this happened. The fact that the criminal defense attorney allowed it to happen in the first place is an embarrassment to my profession. Not that criminal defense attorneys don't make mistakes, because we do, but that is a pretty massive mistake. And one that should have easily been corrected on appeal. I don't know if this is a broken criminal justice system as much as it is an example of the system being run improperly.
It still crime and all the caveats you can throw out are not justifications for being lax on criminal activities. You are big on allegories so your response reminds me of this one. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Because the criminal justice system is a fucking joke. Because we have more prisoners in the U.S. Than any other country past or present.
Tough on crime mostly means tough on poor. It's a way for judges, prosecutors and law men to win cheap points for ruining the lives of people over shit that a rich kid would have not even gotten a slap on the hand for.
If that sounds like hyperbole. Take an example of Michael Wayne Haley in Texas who was given 16 years in prison for shoplifting a calculator. 14 more years than the actual permitted sentence. When the mistake was appealed Ted Cruz fought tooth and nail for that shoplifter to get the full 16 years, taking the case to the Supreme Court.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html?referer=
I am far from alone.Well I'm sure that's what you want to think.
A majority in both houses hate Cruz's guts how could he get them to line up with him.Obama proved you could be a lying, incompetent douche and be president. I'd be happy with a douche that did a great job.
Were Cruz to be elected he wouldn't have to worry because he will still have a majority in both houses and unlike Obama, he won't spend the first 2 years on one target objective while ignoring everything else while he has that majority.
What Trump is saying is not inaccurate.This has been a major news story all week and she is endorsing the Republican frontrunner.
And then Trump said this.
So yeah Trump and her made it part of the election.
But we're already lax on criminal activities, provided the person looks a certain way or belongs to a certain economic class. The problem is that we have a two tiered justice system that believes rich people who commit vehicular homicide should get probation, and people who steal calculators should go to prison for 16 years. So the problem with criminal justice isn't the "criminal" portion but the "justice".It still crime and all the caveats you can throw out are not justifications for being lax on criminal activities. You are big on allegories so your response reminds me of this one. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Speak on it brother.But we're already lax on criminal activities, provided the person looks a certain way or belongs to a certain economic class. The problem is that we have a two tiered justice system that believes rich people who commit vehicular homicide should get probation, and people who steal calculators should go to prison for 16 years. So the problem with criminal justice isn't the "criminal" portion but the "justice".
Our system of punishment has become so schizophrenic and based mostly on status, race, and whether or not a prosecutor thinks you're guilty, that we've effectively criminalized suspiciousness more than the violation of any specific law.
You are again using one thing to justify another and deficiencies to excuse bad situations. What I am saying is why then wouldn't you applaude someone who is firm on crime across the board.But we're already lax on criminal activities, provided the person looks a certain way or belongs to a certain economic class. The problem is that we have a two tiered justice system that believes rich people who commit vehicular homicide should get probation, and people who steal calculators should go to prison for 16 years. So the problem with criminal justice isn't the "criminal" portion but the "justice".
Our system of punishment has become so schizophrenic and based mostly on status, race, and whether or not a prosecutor thinks you're guilty, that we've effectively criminalized suspiciousness more than the violation of any specific law.
Because we have so many laws, it's very likely you commit a crime on a daily basis and don't even realize. I must also reiterate how disproportionately large our prison population is. "Tough on crime" sure as hell isn't fiscally responsible when you consider we pay 60k per year per prisoner, that doesn't even account for the cost of prosecuting and (if they're unfortunate enough to have a public defender) defending them.You are again using one thing to justify another and deficiencies to excuse bad situations. What I am saying is why then wouldn't you applaude someone who is firm on crime across the board.
Besides what you're talking about, equal enforcement of the laws has never been achieved in human history. Hypothetically it would be fair if it were ever possible, but we've never had a law that wasn't used disproportionately against a particular demographic, we've never had a government particularly concerned with fairness, or equality. Don't sell me "tough on crime" based on an unachievable ideal. That's like selling Jim Crowe based on "separate but equal."You are again using one thing to justify another and deficiencies to excuse bad situations. What I am saying is why then wouldn't you applaude someone who is firm on crime across the board.
So I will just conclude that because of practical and financial reasons it is better to wink at crime than it is to try to enforce and prosecute it. That may play well in some quarters but I cannot accept that approach as being good for the population and society at large. God help us, if that is a prevailing attitude.Because we have so many laws, it's very likely you commit a crime on a daily basis and don't even realize. I must also reiterate how disproportionately large our prison population is. "Tough on crime" sure as hell isn't fiscally responsible when you consider we pay 60k per year per prisoner, that doesn't even account for the cost of prosecuting and (if they're unfortunate enough to have a public defender) defending them.
Are we better off for having a shoplifter spend years in prison and hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money? Are we better off having a segment of the population that's virtually unemployable? What are the economic ramifications of trashing someone's ability to ever have a well paying job?
If crimes were evenly and fairly enforced the entire population would be in prison. I very much doubt there is anyone in the country who's never committed a crime. God help us if we're all held to the standard that our current prison population has been.So I will just conclude that because of practical and financial reasons it is better to wink at crime than it is to try to enforce and prosecute it. That may play well in some quarters but I cannot accept that approach as being good for the population and society at large. God help us, if that is a prevailing attitude.
I think we have a different working definition of crime.If crimes were evenly and fairly enforced the entire population would be in prison. I very much doubt there is anyone in the country who's never committed a crime. God help us if we're all held to the standard that our current prison population has been.