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

[Dan Druff]

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.

[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?

[Dan Druff]

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.

[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:

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.

[ftpjesus]

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:

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.

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

[sonatine]

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

[LarryLaffer]

i am now.

[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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[Krypt]

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.

[

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[limitles]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Dan Druff]

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.

[LarryLaffer]

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.