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

[Dan Druff]

So anyone disagreeing with me here... let's get back to the main topic of this thread.

The unremorseful rapist who got 6 months in prison.

Tell us a way to stop this from happening again. Tell me which innovative left-wing ideas you have to prevent such a reoccurrence of poor justice.

I'm listening.

If he rapes another women he should be castrated.Repeat sex offendors should be castrated.

I agree with this actually, but what about the proper punishment for the first offense, such as in this case?

The liberals in this thread don't see a need for any action to prevent this miscarriage of justice from reoccurring.

[Hockey Guy]

What the fuck is the sense? You've already told a fucking lawyer that he's wrong & that's his fucking job.

The lawyer in question isn't a criminal lawyer.

Plus we aren't discussing legalities. We are discussing proper strategy to deter and punish criminals, which does not put a lawyer on a higher stage than any other concerned citizens.

Unless you believe that lawyers are always right, in which case, good luck to you.

Whatever, you're right again.

[Dan Druff]

and so dies any chances of Poker Fraud Alert being regarded as anything other than an alt right cesspool.


not with a bang, but with a neo-conservative whimper.

Feel free to chime in with a solution to the problem posed in the OP.

It doesn't make you "alt right" to want to take sentences for serious crimes out of the hands of renegade judges, and ensure proper punishment for horrible deeds which harm other human beings.

[Hockey Guy]

If he rapes another women he should be castrated.Repeat sex offendors should be castrated.

I agree with this actually, but what about the proper punishment for the first offense, such as in this case?

The liberals in this thread don't see a need for any action to prevent this miscarriage of justice from reoccurring.

Not 1 person in this thread has said the sentence was appropriate. Let's start with that fact.

[big dick]

If he rapes another women he should be castrated.Repeat sex offendors should be castrated.

I agree with this actually, but what about the proper punishment for the first offense, such as in this case?

The liberals in this thread don't see a need for any action to prevent this miscarriage of justice from reoccurring.

Not sure but 6 months is laughable.

[limitles]

Yeah everyone else is clueless based on your cherry picking tactics. How did your exceptional society evolve into it's present state? (spiraling out of control) You guys watching Canadian TV?

What are you talking about?

We are discussing crime and punishment here, and how both liberals and liberal-leaning other countries are terrible at it, when it comes to violent crime.

Do you need me to post a list of horrid Canadian criminals who got shockingly light sentences due to the justice system over there?

Still waiting for a different solution to the problem I posed regarding the rapist in the original post.


Let me guess... a pleasant prison experience so he learns not to rape again?

No we're not. We're responding to poliitically influenced dogma you threw up expecting it to fly. You're all in this together. No one party is responsible nor exempt from the bed shitting going on. The two party system has succeded only in dividing and weakening

[Dan Druff]

So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something.

Liberals suck when it comes to violent crime. They suck now, and they always have.

This partially causes conservatives to rise to power when the backlash becomes strong enough.

Dukasis' action with weekend furloughs for violent criminals in Massachusetts was enough to sink his Presidential chances, even though it actually had no bearing on the job of President.

The US people as a whole are sick of liberals telling them that horrible criminals deserve a second chance and minimal disruption to their lives, while the victims and their families suffer for life (or are already dead).

The same line of thinking was what was responsible for California passing a law in the late '70s regarding "life in prison without the possibility of parole" being cruel and unusual punishment (no matter how heinous the crime), and it being banned. Seriously. This got reversed in later years, but liberals actually argued for and successfully passed this law.

Things are no different today. We still have liberals who think that the criminal justice system is simply here to make good little citizens out of horrible people, and that we should forgive past heinous crimes as long as the criminal can rehabilitate. No concern about the damage that was already caused! As long as the criminal becomes a good person AFTER ruining/ending lives, it's all good!

Unbelievable.

[adamantium]

Just to give new listeners an idea of what we are dealing with here

I think it is getting to the point where the US military should get involved when foreign countries fail to put a stop to the scamming of US citizens.

A lot of the time, these scammers exist in concentrated communities. Would love to see the US military just basically go into these communities and put bullets in the heads of those involved with the scamming. Once word of this got around, I bet it would stop or become severely curtailed.

I know that in Nigeria, entire towns are dedicated to scamming, and they will attempt to kill any police coming to arrest them. Seems like a perfect spot to drop bombs on those internet cafes which are only used for scamming.

It's 2015, and threats to the US don't just come from violent attacks anymore.

[Dan Druff]

I agree with this actually, but what about the proper punishment for the first offense, such as in this case?

The liberals in this thread don't see a need for any action to prevent this miscarriage of justice from reoccurring.

Not 1 person in this thread has said the sentence was appropriate. Let's start with that fact.

Yes, but several people in this thread have attacked me for my conclusions (that we need mandatory minimums), and then we've had suggestions that we go with horribly permissive criminal justice systems seen in other countries.

So again, no solution proposed here yet aside from the one I put forward.

[limitles]

So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something.

Liberals suck when it comes to violent crime. They suck now, and they always have.

This partially causes conservatives to rise to power when the backlash becomes strong enough.

Dukasis' action with weekend furloughs for violent criminals in Massachusetts was enough to sink his Presidential chances, even though it actually had no bearing on the job of President.

The US people as a whole are sick of liberals telling them that horrible criminals deserve a second chance and minimal disruption to their lives, while the victims and their families suffer for life (or are already dead).


The same line of thinking was what was responsible for California passing a law in the late '70s regarding "life in prison without the possibility of parole" being cruel and unusual punishment (no matter how heinous the crime), and it being banned. Seriously. This got reversed in later years, but liberals actually argued for and successfully passed this law.

Things are no different today. We still have liberals who think that the criminal justice system is simply here to make good little citizens out of horrible people, and that we should forgive past heinous crimes as long as the criminal can rehabilitate. No concern about the damage that was already caused! As long as the criminal becomes a good person AFTER ruining/ending lives, it's all good!

Unbelievable.

"So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something."

Forest for the trees.

[adamantium]

Not 1 person in this thread has said the sentence was appropriate. Let's start with that fact.

Yes, but several people in this thread have attacked me for my conclusions (that we need mandatory minimums), and then we've had suggestions that we go with horribly permissive criminal justice systems seen in other countries.

So again, no solution proposed here yet aside from the one I put forward.

Well if there were other lawbreakers on his street maybe you could send in the armed forces and just shoot everybody

[limitles]

One possible soution.......more walls

[Dan Druff]

So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something.

Liberals suck when it comes to violent crime. They suck now, and they always have.

This partially causes conservatives to rise to power when the backlash becomes strong enough.

Dukasis' action with weekend furloughs for violent criminals in Massachusetts was enough to sink his Presidential chances, even though it actually had no bearing on the job of President.

The US people as a whole are sick of liberals telling them that horrible criminals deserve a second chance and minimal disruption to their lives, while the victims and their families suffer for life (or are already dead).


The same line of thinking was what was responsible for California passing a law in the late '70s regarding "life in prison without the possibility of parole" being cruel and unusual punishment (no matter how heinous the crime), and it being banned. Seriously. This got reversed in later years, but liberals actually argued for and successfully passed this law.

Things are no different today. We still have liberals who think that the criminal justice system is simply here to make good little citizens out of horrible people, and that we should forgive past heinous crimes as long as the criminal can rehabilitate. No concern about the damage that was already caused! As long as the criminal becomes a good person AFTER ruining/ending lives, it's all good!

Unbelievable.

"So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something."

Forest for the trees.

I have disagreed with my own party many times, and stated so out here.

I was against the rise of the Tea Party.

I have never supported Trump, and will not be voting for him.

I was partially for Obamacare, but just felt it was implemented incorrectly.

I have sided with Democrats on environmental issues and corporate liability.

I am not a sheep who blindly supports everything my party says and does.

However, I can still laugh at liberals being clueless, hypocritical, and unrealistic.

[big dick]

So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something.

Liberals suck when it comes to violent crime. They suck now, and they always have.

This partially causes conservatives to rise to power when the backlash becomes strong enough.

Dukasis' action with weekend furloughs for violent criminals in Massachusetts was enough to sink his Presidential chances, even though it actually had no bearing on the job of President.

The US people as a whole are sick of liberals telling them that horrible criminals deserve a second chance and minimal disruption to their lives, while the victims and their families suffer for life (or are already dead).

The same line of thinking was what was responsible for California passing a law in the late '70s regarding "life in prison without the possibility of parole" being cruel and unusual punishment (no matter how heinous the crime), and it being banned. Seriously. This got reversed in later years, but liberals actually argued for and successfully passed this law.

Things are no different today. We still have liberals who think that the criminal justice system is simply here to make good little citizens out of horrible people, and that we should forgive past heinous crimes as long as the criminal can rehabilitate. No concern about the damage that was already caused! As long as the criminal becomes a good person AFTER ruining/ending lives, it's all good!

Unbelievable.

Yeah but if the NRA didn't have such power( gop backed) then we wouldn't have nearly as much crime as we do. Europe is liberal and they have a lot less crime than we do in the u.s.. Why is that? It's because of the bullshit gun laws, and the right wing backs the NRA. So explain that.
That little faggot who killed all those kids should never have had a gun, it's pretty hard to slaughter 20+ people with a kitchen knife.

[Hockey Guy]

Not 1 person in this thread has said the sentence was appropriate. Let's start with that fact.

Yes, but several people in this thread have attacked me for my conclusions (that we need mandatory minimums), and then we've had suggestions that we go with horribly permissive criminal justice systems seen in other countries.

So again, no solution proposed here yet aside from the one I put forward.

You gave your opinion & then a lawyer gave his opinion & you summarily dismissed it. As a matter of fact your very first sentence in response was "you are wrong".

What's the sense in taking you seriously? You say you're "listening" but you're really not.

[limitles]

"So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something."

Forest for the trees.

I have disagreed with my own party many times, and stated so out here.

I was against the rise of the Tea Party.

I have never supported Trump, and will not be voting for him.

I was partially for Obamacare, but just felt it was implemented incorrectly.

I have sided with Democrats on environmental issues and corporate liability.

I am not a sheep who blindly supports everything my party says and does.

However, I can still laugh at liberals being clueless, hypocritical, and unrealistic.

That's akin to saying everyone from the South is inbred. Bad example

[Dan Druff]

So many people have become so partisan and so obsessed with their own party's dogma that they can't stop and consider that the opposing party might be correct about something.

Liberals suck when it comes to violent crime. They suck now, and they always have.

This partially causes conservatives to rise to power when the backlash becomes strong enough.

Dukasis' action with weekend furloughs for violent criminals in Massachusetts was enough to sink his Presidential chances, even though it actually had no bearing on the job of President.

The US people as a whole are sick of liberals telling them that horrible criminals deserve a second chance and minimal disruption to their lives, while the victims and their families suffer for life (or are already dead).

The same line of thinking was what was responsible for California passing a law in the late '70s regarding "life in prison without the possibility of parole" being cruel and unusual punishment (no matter how heinous the crime), and it being banned. Seriously. This got reversed in later years, but liberals actually argued for and successfully passed this law.

Things are no different today. We still have liberals who think that the criminal justice system is simply here to make good little citizens out of horrible people, and that we should forgive past heinous crimes as long as the criminal can rehabilitate. No concern about the damage that was already caused! As long as the criminal becomes a good person AFTER ruining/ending lives, it's all good!

Unbelievable.

Yeah but if the NRA didn't have such power( gop backed) then we wouldn't have nearly as much crime as we do. Europe is liberal and they have a lot less crime than we do in the u.s.. Why is that? It's because of the bullshit gun laws, and the right wing backs the NRA. So explain that.
That little idiotic who killed all those kids should never have had a gun, it's rpetty hard to slaughter 20+ people with a kitchen knife.

Those spree killings are a tiny percentage of all murders in the US.

Most are committed by hardened criminals who would still have accessed to guns, even if totally outlawed.

The US has had a violent crime problem and a violent culture from the start. It's not the same as Europe, and never will be. Try European laws here, and our violent crime issues would get worse, not better.

I am actually for a modification of gun laws to prevent high powered weaponry from landing in the hands of citizens who can use them for murder.

It should also be noted that deranged criminals who want to kill mass people can do so without guns, such as constructing homemade bombs. The Boston Marathon terrorists, for example, committed their crimes without guns (well, until they were already on the run after the crime was committed). The terrorist in Nice committed his crime with a large truck.

[adamantium]

Yes, but several people in this thread have attacked me for my conclusions (that we need mandatory minimums), and then we've had suggestions that we go with horribly permissive criminal justice systems seen in other countries.

So again, no solution proposed here yet aside from the one I put forward.

You gave your opinion & then a lawyer gave his opinion & you summarily dismissed it. As a matter of fact your very first sentence in response was "you are wrong".

What's the sense in taking you seriously? You say you're "listening" but you're really not.

Stop that or I will google examples of mild sentencing i Canada and paste my findings in this thread

[Dan Druff]

Yes, but several people in this thread have attacked me for my conclusions (that we need mandatory minimums), and then we've had suggestions that we go with horribly permissive criminal justice systems seen in other countries.

So again, no solution proposed here yet aside from the one I put forward.

You gave your opinion & then a lawyer gave his opinion & you summarily dismissed it. As a matter of fact your very first sentence in response was "you are wrong".

What's the sense in taking you seriously? You say you're "listening" but you're really not.

The "lawyer" didn't give his opinion as a lawyer. He gave it as a liberal private citizen who didn't approve of Three Strikes, stating that it caused prison overcrowding.

I said he was wrong because Three Strikes has contributed very little to the prison overcrowding problem.

There are criticisms out there of Three Strikes, but overcrowding of prisons isn't really one of them, given the relatively low volume of such cases compared to the number of people incarcerated in CA.

The way you're framing it, you're making it sound like I told a corporate lawyer he's wrong about corporate case law.

[limitles]

Yeah but if the NRA didn't have such power( gop backed) then we wouldn't have nearly as much crime as we do. Europe is liberal and they have a lot less crime than we do in the u.s.. Why is that? It's because of the bullshit gun laws, and the right wing backs the NRA. So explain that.
That little faggot who killed all those kids should never have had a gun, it's rpetty hard to slaughter 20+ people with a kitchen knife.

Those spree killings are a tiny percentage of all murders in the US.

Most are committed by hardened criminals who would still have accessed to guns, even if totally outlawed.

The US has had a violent crime problem and a violent culture from the start. It's not the same as Europe, and never will be. Try European laws here, and our violent crime issues would get worse, not better.

I am actually for a modification of gun laws to prevent high powered weaponry from landing in the hands of citizens who can use them for murder.

It should also be noted that deranged criminals who want to kill mass people can do so without guns, such as constructing homemade bombs. The Boston Marathon terrorists, for example, committed their crimes without guns (well, until they were already on the run after the crime was committed). The terrorist in Nice committed his crime with a large truck.

Man you keep throwing up these lob pitches. "It should also be noted that deranged criminals who want to kill mass people can do so without guns,"

Criminals are typically in for the buck. The majority of murders are crime related but they are directed towards "competition" within that community. Your weekly mass murder rampage, is a result of some lunny who picks up a semi autiomatic at the drive through liquor store.

Which politcal party signed off on that?