2329 replies to this topic

[brvheart]

AmScray, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 12:29 PM, said:

Yeah, that's a pretty 'odd' sentence in light of the facts. Still, for every one of those, there are twenty who do five years in prison plus 10 years of probation plus restitution plus fines plus court costs plus a forever-felony plus an essentially ruined life."They should have thought of that before they..." is a topic for another discussionAs far as sentencing goes, complete and utter ruination of someones life is pretty much the baseline penalty for most all offenses- I've seen this issue from more angles than any of you can even imagine- and it's ugly, so I'm really not wringing hands of injustice when someone gets a light sentence, on the basis of the other 99 cases just like it that turned out differently.

Employers can only hold felonies against you from the last like 5 or 7 years, correct?I know nothing about felonies.

[Mercury69]

brvheart, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 3:46 PM, said:

Employers can only hold felonies against you from the last like 5 or 7 years, correct?I know nothing about felonies.

lol

[Balloon guy]

AmScray, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 10:29 AM, said:

Yeah, that's a pretty 'odd' sentence in light of the facts. Still, for every one of those, there are twenty who do five years in prison plus 10 years of probation plus restitution plus fines plus court costs plus a forever-felony plus an essentially ruined life."They should have thought of that before they..." is a topic for another discussionAs far as sentencing goes, complete and utter ruination of someones life is pretty much the baseline penalty for most all offenses- I've seen this issue from more angles than any of you can even imagine- and it's ugly, so I'm really not wringing hands of injustice when someone gets a light sentence, on the basis of the other 99 cases just like it that turned out differently.

Then you would be interested in this:Cliffs: Norway killer who killed 77 people will only get maximum of 21 years for crime

[AmScray]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 3:40 PM, said:

Cliffs: Norway killer who killed 77 people will only get maximum of 21 years for crime

And now, the rest of the story...They have what amounts to civil commitment procedures that can keep him locked up forever which, in a case like this, is essentially a guarantee. Granted, their criminal justice philosophy is very, very different from ours. They believe strongly in forgiveness and rehabilitation, we are a 'punishment only' nation. In particularly heinous cases (this, the Lockerbie bomber, etc) Europe seems goofy and we appear to be on the more desirable road but ultimately, they realize the hugely negative consequences of giving into the temptation to make sweeping policy based on outliers and worst case scenarios. They're smart enough to realize they don't want to wind up like us.

[AmScray]

brvheart, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 12:46 PM, said:

Employers can only hold felonies against you from the last like 5 or 7 years, correct?I know nothing about felonies.

Different states have different laws but as long as criminal records go back to forever, those laws are totally ineffective since management will just run the check, back-burner the ex-offenders application and hire someone else. In most of Europe, a conviction becomes 'spent' after a period of time living crime free and is sealed as a matter of procedure. In the United States, in a lot of states, Felony convictions are essentially a lifelong punishment.Federal offenses are all lifelong with no relief mechanism whatsoever (short of a Presidential Pardon, which only relieves post-conviction disabilities and does not expunge the record) some states have expungement procedures but in the age of private databases, even that's becoming ineffectual. Also, none of that addresses the digital artifacts of an offense that remain online forever (unless you live in a country with "Right To Forget" legislation).For example, the local newspaper isn't going to take down the police blotter with your name in it. That's there for good. There's a hugely lucrative business in the mugshot extortion racket, where they take public mugshot records, optimize them to your name and city so your mugshot is high on Google whenever anyone searches your name, then charges $69 to "remove" it... Problem is, there are so many mugshot sites now running this scheme, getting one removed from the internet can be thousands of dollars, in some cases, impossible.I have a relative who runs a high-turnover business- her stories of what she's found when googling applicants are hilarious.

[brvheart]

So you're saying that crime doesn't pay?

[ShakeZuma]

yeah maybe those people should have thought about that before they broke the law

[AmScray]

ShakeZuma, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 5:24 PM, said:

yeah maybe those people should have thought about that before they broke the law

Amen, brother.

[hblask]

AmScray, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 5:39 PM, said:

They're smart enough to realize they don't want to wind up like us.

Wait til they start getting a few cases like this, then they'll be singing a different tune. You can't just go light on people like this.

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 9:18 PM, said:

Wait til they start getting a few cases like this, then they'll be singing a different tune. You can't just go light on people like this.

And thanks to the activist conservative judges on the Supreme Court, they could strip search her if they felt like it! Ah, freedom...

[akoff]

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 5:42 PM, said:

And thanks to the activist conservative judges on the Supreme Court, they could strip search her if they felt like it! Ah, freedom...

lets hope they are the same ones that save us from the health care package....kind of funny isn't it.

[CaneBrain]

akoff, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 6:39 AM, said:

lets hope they are the same ones that save us from the health care package....kind of funny isn't it.

I think the fact that the mandate was originally a conservative idea is funny.

[timwakefield]

Somebody definitely needs to save us from providing healthcare for all our citizens. What could be worse!

[akoff]

timwakefield, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 7:31 AM, said:

Somebody definitely needs to save us from providing healthcare for all our citizens. What could be worse!

if you had said that without the sarcasm it would have been spot on...so close but so far

[Balloon guy]

timwakefield, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 7:31 AM, said:

Somebody definitely needs to save us from providing healthcare for all our citizens. What could be worse!

Making our citizens dependent on the government for everything, thus losing our freedom.

[timwakefield]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 11:03 AM, said:

Making our citizens dependent on the government for everything, thus losing our freedom.

Would you rather be dependent on the government for healthcare or not have healthcare? Pretend those were your options.

[Balloon guy]

timwakefield, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 8:07 AM, said:

Would you rather be dependent on the government for healthcare or not have healthcare? Pretend those were your options.

Would you rather be free to run your own life or have the government tell you how you will love? Pretend those were your options.Healthcare is not a right.

[Balloon guy]

And it looks like we are winning the war...we are down to the last few terrorists.

[Balloon guy]

Tim, I think it's time you guys on the far radical left got a little education about how things really are.The left bases all their political decisions on feelings. Motives are much more important than results. It's why you guys feel so superior to the right.You created welfare and think " Now poor people will have their basic needs met "Therefore anyone who is not for your brand of welfare must want poor people to not have their basic needs met, hence the "starve the poor" rhetoric you guys love to use to distract from the failure of welfare.The right thinks: "Now the poor will be dependent on the government and never break away from poverty"The actual results: Generations of poor people, largely minority, do not work, do not want to work, and want the government to give them everything.Sure some people are helped, some people use welfare for the safety net, but more and more welfare has become a cancer, and those people it has affected are lost. You can write them off from being productive parts of society ever. We could help people without destroying most of the lives we are trying to help.Now you want to 'give' people healthcare.You think: " People should be able to have all their sicknesses cured "Therefore anyone who is against free healthcare must " Want people to die on the steps of a hospital for want of basic healthcare"You fail to understand that the opposite of feelings based decisions is not 'feeling the opposite' about the subject.The right doesn't want the government to have complete control over your ability to control your own healthcare. In America your taxes are much lower than socialist countries with 'free' healthcare. This means you are free to take that extra money and choose to get the best insurance, the worst, none at all. It is your freedom to choose. No one should be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare because that person chose to instead buy a jet ski.The notion that people cannot make their own choices to protect themselves so we must force them is also abhorrent to the right. Of course some people will buy stupid things instead of things they should. The entire lifted truck industry is based on this. Do you think a government that tells you what you can and cannot buy is better than not letting some idiots be idiots?You want to bring the entire country down to the level of the worst examples. People who do stupid things should be the ones we base laws for the entire populous. We on the right believe that people are smart enough to be free. Free to choose a monster truck, free to own a gun, and free to choose their own plan to handle any future illnesses. And sometimes people will drive their monster truck off a canyon wall, shoot themselves while cleaning their gun, and not be properly insured for an illness that they get. These people have to deal with the consequences. Pretending we can save everyone from the consequences of their action is insane. But the left is trying to do just that, and they are willing to give away all the freedom of their birthright to do it.

[timwakefield]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 11:15 AM, said:

Would you rather be free to run your own life or have the government tell you how you will love? Pretend those were your options.Healthcare is not a right.

You didn't answer my question at all.And why do you get to decide whether or not healthcare is a right? Could you at least attempt to explain that statement? It's meaningless without an explanation, because the obvious comeback is, "But it should be." Why is primary education a right? Whatever rights American citizens have are simply what the government decides we should have, or should have protection from. So no, healthcare is not currently a right of every American, but it will be if the Democrats get their way.

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 11:47 AM, said:

You created welfare

No I did not. You seem to think everybody to the left of the Republican party is one person. I think that's where your problem starts. Cue you saying, "Nuh uh cuz Democrats do whatever you're accusing me of and do it way worse!"