This is why you don't put liberals in charge of law and order

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/us/bro...ail/index.html

Brock Turner is an abhorrent, remorseless rapist, who raped an unconscious girl and showed zero remorse for it.

Despite this, (liberal Democrat) judge Aaron Persky inexplicably handed Brock a shockingly light 6-month prison sentence. Persky did this because he felt that Turner's lack of previous criminal record, along with his young age, made him incompatible with a long prison sentence, and that a short sentence would be best for Brock to get out and lead a normal life.

Of course, this was ridiculous. When you rape someone, you have just committed a horrendous crime, and the focus should not be on how prison will affect the rest of your life. That's your own problem, and you need to serve the proper sentence for what you did.

It was also suggested that perhaps Persky saw himself somewhat in Brock Turner, as Persky was a former athlete at Stanford, like Turner.

There have been many attempts to recall Persky for this awful decision.

Turner was released today after serving just half of his sentence -- 3 months.

As expected, there has been much outrage about Turner's slap-on-the-wrist sentence for something so terrible, but this outrage is mostly coming from the left, decrying his white privilege!

While it is true that Turner is white, comes from a rich family, and had good defense representation due to that fact, this is NOT about white privilege.

This miscarriage of justice is a result of the left, and their decades-long obsession with fighting mandatory minimum sentencing for serious crimes.

The right has been pressing for a long time to remove the power from renegade judges' hands in serious criminal cases, such as rape, murder, and armed robbery. The left has strongly resisted this, claiming that judges should have the right to consider "other factors" during sentencing which would make a lighter sentence fairer. Unfortunately, these "other factors" have been abused by bleeding heart judges, resulting in laughable sentences like this one.

If liberals supported mandatory minimum sentencing for serious crimes, renegade judges like Aaron Persky would not be able to hand down joke sentences to violent criminals.

I understand the need for judges to show leniency in more minor crimes. In cases such as shoplifting, vandalism, and trespassing, it is reasonable not to hand down stiff sentences to a mostly good person who just made a stupid mistake.

However, those convicted of major crimes such as rape and murder deserve zero leniency. It should not matter what prison will do to them. It should not matter if they had a tough childhood, or that they were influenced by a bad crowd. When you have committed a major crime and seriously harmed another human being, you need to pay.

Sadly, idiot liberals today are protesting white privilege, when they can't simply look in the mirror and see that comrades in their own party are responsible for Brock Turner being on the streets today.

These are the same type of "compassionate" geniuses who passed a law in California in the late '70s making life in prison with no parole illegal, as it was deemed "cruel and unusual", no matter how heinous the crime (lol). That law has since been repealed, but the mindset still remains strong among many liberals.

Even though I'm a conservative Republican, I try to understand the other side, and sometimes even find myself partially agreeing with them.

I understand the left's attempts to protect the environment, the poor, and causes such as gay marriage.

I cannot understand the left's view on crime and punishment. It's straight up idiotic and overly idealistic, and greatly favors protection of horrible criminals over serving justice on behalf of the innocent.

This alone is reason enough why I could never be a Democrat, and why I have a very hard time bringing myself to ever vote for one.

Druff, you do know what mandatory minimum really means right? it's a sentencing "guideline". judges don't have to adhere to it. Whatever the judge wants to do, he can do. he's immune to any civil liability (as well as prosecution) as a result of any if his actions on the bench.

so yeah mandatory minimums don't mean shit.


if this kid goes out and rapes again, the judge who let him out isn't liable, neither is the prosecutor who failed to ask for a longer sentence.


and why isn't there outrage on both sides of the aisle here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

Druff, you do know what mandatory minimum really means right? it's a sentencing "guideline". judges don't have to adhere to it. Whatever the judge wants to do, he can do. he's immune to any civil liability (as well as prosecution) as a result of any if his actions on the bench.

so yeah mandatory minimums don't mean shit.


if this kid goes out and rapes again, the judge who let him out isn't liable, neither is the prosecutor who failed to ask for a longer sentence.


and why isn't there outrage on both sides of the aisle here?

---

This isn't true.

Actual mandatory minimums take the decision out of the hands of the judge, and he must hand down a sentence of at least the number of years in prison for that offense.

Here is an idiotic article from a crazy lefty on why there shouldn't be mandatory minimums: http://www.bustle.com/articles/18203...sses-the-point

Here is the funniest line of the article:

Quote:

---

I'm a prison abolitionist: I believe that no one should be in prison ever, and that the United States should embrace a model of restorative justice, rather than a retributive one. Research on restorative justice, in which the goal is to attempt to make good on wrongdoing, shows that people are actually generally more satisfied with the outcome than they are with retributive justice.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Here is an idiotic article from a crazy lefty on why there shouldn't be mandatory minimums: http://www.bustle.com/articles/18203...sses-the-point

Here is the funniest line of the article:

Quote:

---

I'm a prison abolitionist: I believe that no one should be in prison ever, and that the United States should embrace a model of restorative justice, rather than a retributive one. Research on restorative justice, in which the goal is to attempt to make good on wrongdoing, shows that people are actually generally more satisfied with the outcome than they are with retributive justice.

---

:lol

---

Hmm and how are rapists and murderers supposed to make good??? Oh yeah that's right just do like the Shariah law does and make them pay up.. Wait that would work except many of these clowns have no jobs or no way to pay back their victims and besides once they cross that line into violent crime there is very little hope of rehabilitation especially in the case of premediated actions

does anyone else read druff's political posts using rush limbaughs voice?

i am now.

I am going to play devils advocate here. What he did was horrible. Penis was in pants though, not that it matters.


This is Brock Turner.





You sentence him to prison however short, his life is over. Finished. A guy that looks like that will not last more than a 5 day work week. He will get raped, real rape, not that fingering vagina and feeling tits rape. Hardcore biting on the pillow, OZ style rape. Eat his ass with a spoon nightly rape. Some say he deserves that. Fine. As long as you admit that sending him away to prison for a long time is destroying another life in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OSA

I am going to play devils advocate here. What he did was horrible. Penis was in pants though, not that it matters.


This is Brock Turner.





You sentence him to prison however short, his life is over. Finished. A guy that looks like that will not last more than a 5 day work week. He will get raped, real rape, not that fingering vagina and feeling tits rape. Hardcore biting on the pillow, OZ style rape. Eat his ass with a spoon nightly rape. Some say he deserves that. Fine. As long as you admit that sending him away to prison for a long time is destroying another life in the process.

---

That's his problem.

If you rape someone, you can't whine later about your compatibility with prison life after being convicted. Jail isn't supposed to be a country club. If you do the crime, you need to do the time. You shouldn't get off easy because you're a cute twink and prison will ruin you.

If they wanted to separate him from general population for his own safety, that's fine.

But giving him a short sentence so as to "not ruin his life" is a joke.

You lose the right to object to prison's effect on your life once you're convicted of a major crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

While it is true that Turner is white, comes from a rich family, and had good defense representation due to that fact, this is NOT about white privilege.

[

---

:lol2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OSA

I am going to play devils advocate here. What he did was horrible. Penis was in pants though, not that it matters.


This is Brock Turner.





You sentence him to prison however short, his life is over. Finished. A guy that looks like that will not last more than a 5 day work week. He will get raped, real rape, not that fingering vagina and feeling tits rape. Hardcore biting on the pillow, OZ style rape. Eat his ass with a spoon nightly rape. Some say he deserves that. Fine. As long as you admit that sending him away to prison for a long time is destroying another life in the process.

---

That's his problem.

If you rape someone, you can't whine later about your compatibility with prison life after being convicted. Jail isn't supposed to be a country club. If you do the crime, you need to do the time. You shouldn't get off easy because you're a cute twink and prison will ruin you.

If they wanted to separate him from general population for his own safety, that's fine.

But giving him a short sentence so as to "not ruin his life" is a joke.

You lose the right to object to prison's effect on your life once you're convicted of a major crime.

---

I agree with you about the left, but again his punishment will be 100x what he supposedly did to that girl. I understand your sentencing so to speak, but agree with me on that then.

Still, look at those V marks, so hot. I would have him taking cucumbers up his ass as practice in 2 weeks time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krypt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

While it is true that Turner is white, comes from a rich family, and had good defense representation due to that fact, this is NOT about white privilege.

---

:lol2

---

Why you laughing about that?

You realize that the judge who handed him the light sentence was a known liberal, not a good ol' boy conservative, right?

You realize that conservatives are the ones pushing for mandatory minimum sentencing laws which would prevent miscarriages of justice like this, right?

You realize that liberals have been the ones fighting the mandatory minimum sentencing for decades, even involving horrible, major crimes, right?

You need to look beyond the ivory tower of your college campus sometimes, and see life for how it really is.

Liberals are just really out of touch when it comes to crime and punishment.

When you look back at elections where Democrats get beaten down, you can trace some of the reason to the public's frustration with the left being light on crime.

And when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences for heinous crimes, the public is overwhelmingly behind it. Take a look at when states put mandatory minimum sentencing on the ballot as propositions. These don't just win, they overwhelmingly win. I'm talking about like 85/15 margins. I saw several of them on California ballots over the years. Sadly, none had to do with rape, though.

The American people are pretty conservative as a whole when it comes to crime and punishment, especially major crime. Democrats have ignored this for decades, instead inserting their idealistic, pseudo-high-minded hippie ideas over what really constitutes justice.

The only good thing about this is that it gives conservatives a nice weapon to win elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Liberals are just really out of touch when it comes to crime and punishment.

When you look back at elections where Democrats get beaten down, you can trace some of the reason to the public's frustration with the left being light on crime.

And when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences for heinous crimes, the public is overwhelmingly behind it. Take a look at when states put mandatory minimum sentencing on the ballot as propositions. These don't just win, they overwhelmingly win. I'm talking about like 85/15 margins. I saw several of them on California ballots over the years. Sadly, none had to do with rape, though.

The American people are pretty conservative as a whole when it comes to crime and punishment, especially major crime. Democrats have ignored this for decades, instead inserting their idealistic, pseudo-high-minded hippie ideas over what really constitutes justice.

The only good thing about this is that it gives conservatives a nice weapon to win elections.

---

Wow. Cherry picking or what? I'm sure anyone with a political bent could produce many court decisions that, if skewed by political influences, would fit their conspiratorial beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Liberals are just really out of touch when it comes to crime and punishment.

When you look back at elections where Democrats get beaten down, you can trace some of the reason to the public's frustration with the left being light on crime.

And when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences for heinous crimes, the public is overwhelmingly behind it. Take a look at when states put mandatory minimum sentencing on the ballot as propositions. These don't just win, they overwhelmingly win. I'm talking about like 85/15 margins. I saw several of them on California ballots over the years. Sadly, none had to do with rape, though.

The American people are pretty conservative as a whole when it comes to crime and punishment, especially major crime. Democrats have ignored this for decades, instead inserting their idealistic, pseudo-high-minded hippie ideas over what really constitutes justice.

The only good thing about this is that it gives conservatives a nice weapon to win elections.

---

Wow. Cherry picking or what? I'm sure anyone with a political bent could produce many court decisions that, if skewed by political influences, would fit their conspiratorial beliefs.

---

I don't know what you're talking about.

Even the biggest left-wing liberals will typically admit that conservatives are tougher and harsher on sentencing violent criminals than liberals are.

I'm not bending statistics or cherry-picking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Wow. Cherry picking or what? I'm sure anyone with a political bent could produce many court decisions that, if skewed by political influences, would fit their conspiratorial beliefs.

---

I don't know what you're talking about.

Even the biggest left-wing liberals will typically admit that conservatives are tougher and harsher on sentencing violent criminals than liberals are.

I'm not bending statistics or cherry-picking.

---

Yeah you are or you would have documented all cases and the results based on judgenents perceived as left or right leaning. Obv, it can go either way. Prisons are overloaded with many who are put away for their "vices" while others, who are as immoral as the ones prosecuted, think they are rightious in their hard line stance

I realize that this is hard for most of you to believe, but judges are human beings. They make mistakes. BTW Druff, we did have a type of mandatory minimum sentencing in California under "three strikes". It was an absolute distaster, because you "law and order" republicans didn't want your taxes raised to pay for it. As a result, truly dangerous felons were being released to make room for small time drug dealers and thieves.

Druff, you are parroting the failed rightwing "punishment" philosophy. Norway has shown that the opposite aporoach works so much better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-n...essful-2014-12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

I realize that this is hard for most of you to believe, but judges are human beings. They make mistakes. BTW Druff, we did have a type of mandatory minimum sentencing in California under "three strikes". It was an absolute distaster, because you "law and order" republicans didn't want your taxes raised to pay for it. As a result, truly dangerous felons were being released to make room for small time drug dealers and thieves.

---

Come on, this isn't true and you know it.

Even the biggest critics of three strikes aren't claiming it is causing prison overcrowding. Sentences lengthened due to three strikes are only a small percentage of overall prison sentences in California, and of those, many of them would have been long anyway simply due to the fact that the criminal would have gotten a long sentence independent of the three strikes law.

Three strikes was not "an absolute disaster", but rather was actually effective at removing many dangerous criminals from the streets --- ones already with a history of serious felonies.

The only problem with three strikes was that the third felony didn't have to be as major -- or even as close to as major -- as the first two. So you had people sentenced to a minimum of 25 years for "minor" third felonies, and that didn't sit well with a lot of people. The law should have been modified, not scrapped.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not you agree with the three strikes law, that's not what I meant by mandatory minimums, and you also know that.

Three strikes set a minimum based upon previous convictions.

I'm talking about mandatory minimums based upon the CURRENT conviction, and its severity.

LOL @ your explanation that the judge was "human and makes mistakes". Come on. How does one "mistakenly" sentence a rapist showing zero remorse to just 6 months in prison? That's not a mistake. That's a horrible renegade judge who used his personal feelings about the defendant (in this case, a fellow Stanford athlete who would have a tough time in prison) to give a slap-on-the-wrist sentence for a terrible crime.

In fact, your argument that judges are "human and make mistakes" is an argument FOR mandatory minimums, thus removing that "human mistake" element from sentencing for serious crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

I realize that this is hard for most of you to believe, but judges are human beings. They make mistakes. BTW Druff, we did have a type of mandatory minimum sentencing in California under "three strikes". It was an absolute distaster, because you "law and order" republicans didn't want your taxes raised to pay for it. As a result, truly dangerous felons were being released to make room for small time drug dealers and thieves.

---

Come on, this isn't true and you know it.

Even the biggest critics of three strikes aren't claiming it is causing prison overcrowding. Sentences lengthened due to three strikes are only a small percentage of overall prison sentences in California, and of those, many of them would have been long anyway simply due to the fact that the criminal would have gotten a long sentence independent of the three strikes law.

Three strikes was not "an absolute disaster", but rather was actually effective at removing many dangerous criminals from the streets --- ones already with a history of serious felonies.

The only problem with three strikes was that the third felony didn't have to be as major -- or even as close to as major -- as the first two. So you had people sentenced to a minimum of 25 years for "minor" third felonies, and that didn't sit well with a lot of people. The law should have been modified, not scrapped.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not you agree with the three strikes law, that's not what I meant by mandatory minimums, and you also know that.

Three strikes set a minimum based upon previous convictions.

I'm talking about mandatory minimums based upon the CURRENT conviction, and its severity.

LOL @ your explanation that the judge was "human and makes mistakes". Come on. How does one "mistakenly" sentence a rapist showing zero remorse to just 6 months in prison? That's not a mistake. That's a horrible renegade judge who used his personal feelings about the defendant (in this case, a fellow Stanford athlete who would have a tough time in prison) to give a slap-on-the-wrist sentence for a terrible crime.

In fact, your argument that judges are "human and make mistakes" is an argument FOR mandatory minimums, thus removing that "human mistake" element from sentencing for serious crimes.

---

three strikes wasn't a disaster? i'd like to see some statistics to back that up please. because in the real world, that shit was more than a disaster. it was Hurricane Katrina FEMA type disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Druff, you are parroting the failed rightwing "punishment" philosophy. Norway has shown that the opposite aporoach works so much better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-n...essful-2014-12

---

So many problems with this.

First off, yes, punishment should be part of sentencing. When someone commits a crime, they need to suffer a consequence for it. Rehabilitation is nice, but many criminals can't be rehabilitated, and even for those who can, that should not excuse what they have already done.

For example, if when we met at the Rio, I smacked you across the face with a tire iron and caused permanent damage to your facial structure, I don't think you'd be satisfied if I was given a light prison sentence, even if God himself came down and told you I would never commit another crime in my life.

Simply put, ability to rehabilitate should not minimize the crime one already committed. That's common sense, not right-wing lunacy.

Regarding Norway, they are a different society with a much lower violent crime problem than the US. What works there doesn't necessarily work here.

Furthermore, their prison system as described in that article is a slap in the face to crime victims. Criminals should not get a rent-free nice resort to spend their years of "punishment", even if it's found that this somehow reduces recidivism. It makes a mockery of the punishment portion of the sentence in the first place.

And if there's no punishment aspect, why have laws at all?

BTW, you shouldn't be cheering Norway's criminal justice system. It became the joke of the world after the Anders Breivik case. Anders killed 77 people, yet was sentenced to "21 years preventative detention". While the "preventable detention" allows them to keep him longer if he's determined a danger to society, it's a tragedy that he has any chance to get out if he proves he's a "changed man".

LOL Norway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Come on, this isn't true and you know it.

Even the biggest critics of three strikes aren't claiming it is causing prison overcrowding. Sentences lengthened due to three strikes are only a small percentage of overall prison sentences in California, and of those, many of them would have been long anyway simply due to the fact that the criminal would have gotten a long sentence independent of the three strikes law.

Three strikes was not "an absolute disaster", but rather was actually effective at removing many dangerous criminals from the streets --- ones already with a history of serious felonies.

The only problem with three strikes was that the third felony didn't have to be as major -- or even as close to as major -- as the first two. So you had people sentenced to a minimum of 25 years for "minor" third felonies, and that didn't sit well with a lot of people. The law should have been modified, not scrapped.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not you agree with the three strikes law, that's not what I meant by mandatory minimums, and you also know that.

Three strikes set a minimum based upon previous convictions.

I'm talking about mandatory minimums based upon the CURRENT conviction, and its severity.

LOL @ your explanation that the judge was "human and makes mistakes". Come on. How does one "mistakenly" sentence a rapist showing zero remorse to just 6 months in prison? That's not a mistake. That's a horrible renegade judge who used his personal feelings about the defendant (in this case, a fellow Stanford athlete who would have a tough time in prison) to give a slap-on-the-wrist sentence for a terrible crime.

In fact, your argument that judges are "human and make mistakes" is an argument FOR mandatory minimums, thus removing that "human mistake" element from sentencing for serious crimes.

---

three strikes wasn't a disaster? i'd like to see some statistics to back that up please. because in the real world, that shit was more than a disaster. it was Hurricane Katrina FEMA type disaster.

---

I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster.

The only bad thing I've heard about it was that criminals with two prior serious felonies were getting sentenced to 25 years after committing a third minor felony.

But that's the type of thing that can be fixed with reform, not a reason to scrap the whole law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

three strikes wasn't a disaster? i'd like to see some statistics to back that up please. because in the real world, that shit was more than a disaster. it was Hurricane Katrina FEMA type disaster.

---

I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster.

The only bad thing I've heard about it was that criminals with two prior serious felonies were getting sentenced to 25 years after committing a third minor felony.

But that's the type of thing that can be fixed with reform, not a reason to scrap the whole law.

---

the law was scrapped because it was deemed un-constituional. you know who deemed it that way? the SCOTUS.

are we going to argue with the SCOTUS now too?

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/0...onstitutional/


case in point sir.

Quote:

---

Justice Antonin Scalia explained the court’s decision to declare the provision unconstitutional, noting that there is nothing in place that would ensure this law would be carried out fairly or in an undiscriminatory manner.

Scalia wrote, for the 8-1 majority, that “it has been said that the life of the law is experience. Nine years’ experience trying to derive meaning from the residual clause convinces us that we have embarked upon a failed enterprise.”

---

and who appointed him 30 years ago? Regan. so it seems to me it's not a left thing anymore is it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster.

The only bad thing I've heard about it was that criminals with two prior serious felonies were getting sentenced to 25 years after committing a third minor felony.

But that's the type of thing that can be fixed with reform, not a reason to scrap the whole law.

---

the law was scrapped because it was deemed un-constituional. you know who deemed it that way? the SCOTUS.

are we going to argue with the SCOTUS now too?

---

Huh?

No, it wasn't.

It still exists in CA, and was modified in 2012 to address the non-serious-felony problem I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

---

California's Three Strikes sentencing law was originally enacted in 1994. The essence of the Three Strikes law was to require a defendant convicted of any new felony, having suffered one prior conviction of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison for twice the term otherwise provided for the crime. If the defendant was convicted of any felony with two or more prior strikes, the law mandated a state prison term of at least 25 years to life.

On November 6, 2012 the voters approved Proposition 36 which substantially amended the law with two primary provisions:

The requirements for sentencing a defendant as a third strike offender were changed to 25 years to life by requiring the new felony to be a serious or violent felony with two or more prior strikes to qualify for the 25 year-to-life sentence as a third strike offender.

The addition of a means by which designated defendants currently serving a third strike sentence may petition the court for reduction of their term to a second strike sentence, if they would have been eligible for second strike sentencing under the new law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

three strikes wasn't a disaster? i'd like to see some statistics to back that up please. because in the real world, that shit was more than a disaster. it was Hurricane Katrina FEMA type disaster.

---

I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster.

The only bad thing I've heard about it was that criminals with two prior serious felonies were getting sentenced to 25 years after committing a third minor felony.

But that's the type of thing that can be fixed with reform, not a reason to scrap the whole law.

---

" I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster."

Yeah, statistics would be a good place to start. Try it Druff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

the law was scrapped because it was deemed un-constituional. you know who deemed it that way? the SCOTUS.

are we going to argue with the SCOTUS now too?

---

Huh?

No, it wasn't.

It still exists in CA, and was modified in 2012 to address the non-serious-felony problem I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

---

California's Three Strikes sentencing law was originally enacted in 1994. The essence of the Three Strikes law was to require a defendant convicted of any new felony, having suffered one prior conviction of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison for twice the term otherwise provided for the crime. If the defendant was convicted of any felony with two or more prior strikes, the law mandated a state prison term of at least 25 years to life.

On November 6, 2012 the voters approved Proposition 36 which substantially amended the law with two primary provisions:

The requirements for sentencing a defendant as a third strike offender were changed to 25 years to life by requiring the new felony to be a serious or violent felony with two or more prior strikes to qualify for the 25 year-to-life sentence as a third strike offender.

The addition of a means by which designated defendants currently serving a third strike sentence may petition the court for reduction of their term to a second strike sentence, if they would have been eligible for second strike sentencing under the new law.

---

---

see my above post, El Jefe.

Im a democrat(well mostly) and I hope this fucker gets raped daily. He should have gotten 10 years+ the judge is obv a dickhead.
So your 'liberal" theory is bullshit
Just because a person isn't a true racist and supports unions and national healthcare doesn't make him a pussy.
Oh yeah and I say tax the living shit out of the rich too while were at it, greedy cocksuckers.

Quote:

---

The Three Strikes Laws across the nation have now been gutted so that in the states where this approach has been implemented, it must be completely rewritten now if it is to exist at all.

---

huh?

are you still living in 2012? because it's 2016, and that was struck down in 2015. or am i reading that wrong......

no i'm not.

you're so gung ho about making this issue into a partisan thing (and blaming the liberals as always) that you somehow can't listen to reason or facts.


anyone who thinks that we should have a three strikes rule is wrong. just plain wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster.

The only bad thing I've heard about it was that criminals with two prior serious felonies were getting sentenced to 25 years after committing a third minor felony.

But that's the type of thing that can be fixed with reform, not a reason to scrap the whole law.

---

" I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster."

Yeah, statistics would be a good place to start. Try it Druff.

---

i somehow missed that. Druff, do you HONESTLY believe Hurricane Katrina, and the FEMA aftermath wasn't a fucking disaster with a captial fucking D? please tell me you're not this obtuse.

or do you just choose to believe it was hunky dory the way they handled it bc the sitting president was a republican? I bet if that happened when Obama was president you'd be pulling a giant 180 with this thinking and declaring it the worst disaster ever in the united states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

" I'd like to see some statistics to back up that it was a disaster."

Yeah, statistics would be a good place to start. Try it Druff.

---

i somehow missed that. Druff, do you HONESTLY believe Hurricane Katrina, and the FEMA aftermath wasn't a fucking disaster with a captial fucking D? please tell me you're not this obtuse.

or do you just choose to believe it was hunky dory the way they handled it bc the sitting president was a republican? I bet if that happened when Obama was president you'd be pulling a giant 180 with this thinking and declaring it the worst disaster ever in the united states.

---

We are talking about 3 strikes here, not Katrina. I didn't say Katrina wasn't a disaster.

Not to hijack the thread to a different topic, but yes, Katrina was a disaster and handled poorly by both Bush and FEMA.

But you know who was even worse at handling it, and more at fault for the Katrina disaster? The state and local governments of Louisiana at the time, both run by Democrats. They had a lot more influence on what was going on there, and they shit the bed big time -- worse than FEMA did. This includes corrupt (and since incarcerated) NOLA mayor Ray Nagin.

Below is a picture of the school buses "used" by Democrats to evacuate New Orleans residents from Katrina:

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/up...otos646541.jpg

:fail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by big dick

Im a democrat(well mostly) and I hope this fucker gets raped daily. He should have gotten 10 years+ the judge is obv a dickhead.
So your 'liberal" theory is bullshit
Just because a person isn't a true racist and supports unions and national healthcare doesn't make him a pussy.
Oh yeah and I say tax the living shit out of the rich too while were at it, greedy cocksuckers.

---

You aren't a typical liberal. You seem all over the map politically, from what I've seen.

I think you could best be described as a "law and order liberal".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryLaffer

Quote:

---

The Three Strikes Laws across the nation have now been gutted so that in the states where this approach has been implemented, it must be completely rewritten now if it is to exist at all.

---

huh?

are you still living in 2012? because it's 2016, and that was struck down in 2015. or am i reading that wrong......

no i'm not.

you're so gung ho about making this issue into a partisan thing (and blaming the liberals as always) that you somehow can't listen to reason or facts.


anyone who thinks that we should have a three strikes rule is wrong. just plain wrong.

---

You're incorrect.

Three Strikes is still on the books in California, and in many other states.

In fact, there was a ballot measure pertaining to modifying Three Strikes which didn't make it onto the actual ballot, but nevertheless wouldn't have existed at all if you were correct that it ended in 2015:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_%...tiative_(2016)

And yes, I blame Democrats for any situation where a criminal gets off lightly, due to laws passed by Democrats which make such light sentencing possible.

Universally, it's Republicans always pushing for tougher sentencing for violent criminals, and Democrats trying to give them more ways to wiggle out of punishment.

You can try to spin this whichever way you want, but that's the fact of the matter.

If you want to argue that the Democrats are correct in their quest for lighter punishments for violent criminals, I'll laugh at you, but at least you'll be arguing a matter of opinion.

It is not a matter of opinion that Republicans are MUCH tougher on violent crime. They definitely are. Decades of legislative history proves it.

It is fun watching liberals in yet another contradictory position.

They have a situation where a woman was victimized by a rich, white male and got away with it -- perfect liberal complaint fodder.

However, at the same time, this horribly light sentence was enabled by both a liberal judge and permissive laws passed by liberals.

So now you have feminist left-wingers saying, "We need mandatory minimums for rapists!", while other liberals are shouting them down, asking, "Are you crazy? You are doing exactly what the right wants here!", and then these feminists scream back, "Well what about the rape victims? Are you just going to stand by and let this happen again???"

The solution stands right before us, but that requires liberals to admit that conservatives were right all along about minimum sentencing.

Reminds me of how callously dismissive most liberals are when it comes to punishing heinous criminals, until someone they know is the victim, and suddenly they are shouting from the mountaintops that things have to change.

It's easy to claim to be "compassionate" for the perpetrator if you don't personally know the victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

And yes, I blame Democrats for any situation where a criminal gets off lightly, due to laws passed by Democrats which make such light sentencing possible.

Universally, it's Republicans always pushing for tougher sentencing for violent criminals, and Democrats trying to give them more ways to wiggle out of punishment.

You can try to spin this whichever way you want, but that's the fact of the matter.

If you want to argue that the Democrats are correct in their quest for lighter punishments for violent criminals, I'll laugh at you, but at least you'll be arguing a matter of opinion.

It is not a matter of opinion that Republicans are MUCH tougher on violent crime. They definitely are. Decades of legislative history proves it.

---

"Universally, it's Republicans always pushing for tougher sentencing for violent criminals, and Democrats trying to give them more ways to wiggle out of punishment.

You can try to spin this whichever way you want, but that's the fact of the matter".

Dont see any facts. Try supporting your opnion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

And yes, I blame Democrats for any situation where a criminal gets off lightly, due to laws passed by Democrats which make such light sentencing possible.

Universally, it's Republicans always pushing for tougher sentencing for violent criminals, and Democrats trying to give them more ways to wiggle out of punishment.

You can try to spin this whichever way you want, but that's the fact of the matter.

If you want to argue that the Democrats are correct in their quest for lighter punishments for violent criminals, I'll laugh at you, but at least you'll be arguing a matter of opinion.

It is not a matter of opinion that Republicans are MUCH tougher on violent crime. They definitely are. Decades of legislative history proves it.

---

"Universally, it's Republicans always pushing for tougher sentencing for violent criminals, and Democrats trying to give them more ways to wiggle out of punishment.

You can try to spin this whichever way you want, but that's the fact of the matter".

Dont see any facts. Try supporting your opnion

---

You might as well ask me to prove that the sun rises in the east.

You won't find a single law passed regarding tougher punishment of violent crime which was supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, aside from perhaps "hate crime" legislation, which was only opposed by some Republicans because it assigned "reasoning" to penalties for crime. (That is, many Republicans felt that beating someone up to steal his wallet should carry the same penalty as beating someone up because he's gay.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Druff, you are parroting the failed rightwing "punishment" philosophy. Norway has shown that the opposite aporoach works so much better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-n...essful-2014-12

---

So many problems with this.

First off, yes, punishment should be part of sentencing. When someone commits a crime, they need to suffer a consequence for it. Rehabilitation is nice, but many criminals can't be rehabilitated, and even for those who can, that should not excuse what they have already done.

For example, if when we met at the Rio, I smacked you across the face with a tire iron and caused permanent damage to your facial structure, I don't think you'd be satisfied if I was given a light prison sentence, even if God himself came down and told you I would never commit another crime in my life.

Simply put, ability to rehabilitate should not minimize the crime one already committed. That's common sense, not right-wing lunacy.

Regarding Norway, they are a different society with a much lower violent crime problem than the US. What works there doesn't necessarily work here.

Furthermore, their prison system as described in that article is a slap in the face to crime victims. Criminals should not get a rent-free nice resort to spend their years of "punishment", even if it's found that this somehow reduces recidivism. It makes a mockery of the punishment portion of the sentence in the first place.

And if there's no punishment aspect, why have laws at all?

BTW, you shouldn't be cheering Norway's criminal justice system. It became the joke of the world after the Anders Breivik case. Anders killed 77 people, yet was sentenced to "21 years preventative detention". While the "preventable detention" allows them to keep him longer if he's determined a danger to society, it's a tragedy that he has any chance to get out if he proves he's a "changed man".

LOL Norway

---

They cannot only keep him longer they can keep him for life, and if you think for 1 second they wont do just that you are the dumbest kike alive.
Funny story about kikes in Norway, we have like none

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamantium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

So many problems with this.

First off, yes, punishment should be part of sentencing. When someone commits a crime, they need to suffer a consequence for it. Rehabilitation is nice, but many criminals can't be rehabilitated, and even for those who can, that should not excuse what they have already done.

For example, if when we met at the Rio, I smacked you across the face with a tire iron and caused permanent damage to your facial structure, I don't think you'd be satisfied if I was given a light prison sentence, even if God himself came down and told you I would never commit another crime in my life.

Simply put, ability to rehabilitate should not minimize the crime one already committed. That's common sense, not right-wing lunacy.

Regarding Norway, they are a different society with a much lower violent crime problem than the US. What works there doesn't necessarily work here.

Furthermore, their prison system as described in that article is a slap in the face to crime victims. Criminals should not get a rent-free nice resort to spend their years of "punishment", even if it's found that this somehow reduces recidivism. It makes a mockery of the punishment portion of the sentence in the first place.

And if there's no punishment aspect, why have laws at all?

BTW, you shouldn't be cheering Norway's criminal justice system. It became the joke of the world after the Anders Breivik case. Anders killed 77 people, yet was sentenced to "21 years preventative detention". While the "preventable detention" allows them to keep him longer if he's determined a danger to society, it's a tragedy that he has any chance to get out if he proves he's a "changed man".

LOL Norway

---

They cannot only keep him longer they can keep him for life, and if you think for 1 second they wont do just that you are the dumbest kike alive.
Funny story about kikes in Norway, we have like none

---

LOL @ a country where a guy who kills 77 people gets a 21-year sentence and they have to "decide" to keep him for longer.

You don't see a problem with that?

Brainwashed Scandi sheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamantium

They cannot only keep him longer they can keep him for life, and if you think for 1 second they wont do just that you are the dumbest kike alive.
Funny story about kikes in Norway, we have like none

---

LOL @ a country where a guy who kills 77 people gets a 21-year sentence and they have to "decide" to keep him for longer.

You don't see a problem with that?

Brainwashed Scandi sheep

---

Well ABB is insane, so if this was in the US it would be insanity and no jail time