I suspect I forget more about this issue and constitutional law then you will ever know so you can 86 that nonsense about typing slow. Interference with a meeting is something that should be prosecuted. and your analogy is deficient.
There is quite a bit of dissent over whether 3 strikes reduces crime rates. Https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/mid-south/do-3-strikes-laws-prevent-violent-crime The case you cite has nothing to say about reducing violent crime rates. In fact, the offender didn't commit violent crimes for any of his convictions. This case was about whether 3 strikes constituted cruel and unusual punishment. It has nothing to do with your point.
true or false-a violent criminal who is incarcerated has a much lower chance of harming innocents, than one on the streets.
the case I cite -you apparently didn't read my post-it was a case I rejected as being sound since it involved non-violent crimes that most likely should not have been felonies in the first place
Acceptable or not acceptable is not what you're claiming. You're claiming free speech rights are being taken away. That's completely wrong. Why do you not understand what free speech rights mean?
Not posting some BS you want is not posting untruths. The untruths you intentionally post is making up stuff NO ONE has said. Again, worthless posts. Engaging with posts that are not honest is not worth anyone's time.
I would say that given the society inside a prison, he's more likely to offend against other inmates. Innocence is not part of the determination of whether a crime has been committed. Were I to shoot a dope peddler, the crime is still murder. You know, I'm starting to doubt you were a lawyer. You obviously don't understand the Constitution, relevance or even basic rhetoric.
I couldn't care what you believe. I would rather have a violent mope attacking other violent mopes than innocents on the streets. As to the bolded statement-The makes no sense.
Other people seem to understand it. The statement I was replying to referred to innocent victims. The relative guilt or innocence of the victim is not relevant to whether a crime has been committed. Your hypothetical violent mope is not necessarily attacking other violent mopes. Most convicts are there for non-violent offenses. Quite honestly I don't care what you believe either. Your takes on the law and the Constitution, even simple logic leave much to be desired.
you are wrong. For example, if someone insults or harasses a person and the victim of the harassment then beats the harasser, the "guilt" of the attacker is less than if someone beats a person up because the victim is say Jewish or black. I also noted that I don't think non-violent offenders should be in prison. Should I repost that since you apparently missed that fact
You will note in this thread people will not discuss their actual fear but intellectualize, i.e., talk of anything but their fears-they produce political partisan views they either agree or disagree with. Most people will use politics as a platform to avoid discussing fear. Political opinions generating fear makes no sense. It in fact is used as a symbol or surface level discussion to avoid the real fear it might trigger in someone. The closest people I have seen on this board even admit fear are those in favour of owning guns. Some of them are quite clear it is their fear of fellow Americans that causes them to own a gun. At least they admit it. Trump has been able to manipulate peoples' anxiety and fear using scapegoats to blame things on and to present simplistic magical instant solutions to what people think they fear, i.e., social change, inflation, war, global warming. Trump provides simplistic cures for these fear inducing elements and so you won't see any Trumpet on this board manipulate how Trump's entire platform is based on inciting fear and presenting himself as the only saviour to protect against it. Trump regurgitates the Jesus has come as saviour message only posing himself as Jesus and the Jesus saviour story to calm down peoples' fears has been used by all societies since homo sapiens feared the dark, death, lightening and thunder/ As primates our litany of fears that cause anxiety are limitless and we look to an alpha male or God to save us from them. Fear is simply an anxiety incited by not understanding and being able to understand and sothen control an event, person or phenomena. This is why people create conspiracy theories. It provides simplistic easy cause and effect phenomena with a hero to stop the conspiracy's evil. The only difference between the ape called homo sapiens and other apes is we indiscriminately kill when frightened. The other apes kill when directly threatened but are not as quick to rely on it-its usually a second or third resort after warnings. Humans do not necessarily warn.
"Internal lawlessness" = crimes committed inside the United States, particularly random or planned crimes involving violence, rioting, rampaging, arson, smash-and-grab robberies, etc., etc., etc. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. But as far as "crime and punishment" is concerned, shouldn't the primary focus be on who committed crime -- not what their education level is/was? I will be the first to agree with you that we badly need to overhaul our public education system, improve it from inception to execution, and fund it much more appropriately. But skin color or education-level doesn't really speak to who actually committed crimes, and whether or not the actual sentences served brought about a change in future behavior. Again, I refer you to those horrific recidivism statistics.
Of course it should be on who committed crime. But that wasn't always the case in USA. Part of the systemic racism we had for decades and decades. But the topic/question was/is, does longer incarceration rates actually reduce crime? I just posted a story with data on that topic. And asked, did longer incarceration times reduce crime?
What I noticed was the nation spends about a trillion dollars on weapons and wars against other countries, while more people are concerned about attack by someone inside this country or by loss of healthcare. I'm not sure all the weapons we have are going to help us with the problems real people are actually worried about.
The overall picture is one in which prison sentences are usually not nearly fully-served, and that's a key part of the equation. It also contributes directly to the terrible recidivism stats I provided. We can volley trigger-concepts like "systemic racism" back and forth all day long. But I've never seen anything that suggests convicts of any color kept in prison for their full terms go on committing crimes. It may seem overly simplistic, but it's nevertheless true that criminals kept inside prisons do not go on committing crimes while they're incarcerated, either, and that, along with the shocking recidivism statistics, makes the case for much longer prison sentences an obvious one.
What good will that do? Other than keep them out of society a little longer. Unless the goal is to never let criminal out. Eventually most all get out. And if they haven't been trained or have any skills to function in society, they will go back in.
I went with starvation....... based on my very negative impression of what Biden and Trudeau seem to be aiming for..... for whoever it is that is passing them a script to read for them....... ...... Do Biden's advisors and Trudeau's advisors seem to want to crash the markets? ? Do Biden's advisors want to create an economic crisis? No 8 vote(s) 38.1% * Yes 11 vote(s) 52.4% I certainly hope not???? 2 vote(s) 9.5% I hope so... because I know how to invest no matter which way this goes! 0 vote(s) 0.0% Change Your Vote
