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

[Dan Druff]

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

[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.

[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?

[LarryLaffer]

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


case in point sir.

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.

[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.

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.

[limitles]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[LarryLaffer]

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.

[LarryLaffer]

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.

[Dan Druff]

" 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:

[Dan Druff]

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".

[Dan Druff]

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)

[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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[limitles]

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

[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.)

[adamantium]

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

[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

[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