lucky
Sr. Member
Karma: +19/-26
Posts: 300
you have been exposed!
|
 |
« on: October 26, 2007, 04:42:52 PM » |
|
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1193387916264590.xml&coll=2here is what really has me ticked And State Sen. Shirley Smith, a Cleveland Democrat, said at a hearing Wednesday she thought the bill would disproportionately affect blacks. wtf? are they saying blacks commit more crimes then whites? are you allowed to say that even if its true? regardless if this law would "disproportionately affect blacks" then are we saying that blacks need to be able to commit crimes and get away with it? i just couldnt believe what i was reading and i figured it would be a great topic for 1 of 2 reasons. a) just to laugh at the idiot who actually said that or 2) <---  id actually like to see if someone credible actually agrees with this statement. i also am in favor of the 3 strike law because i live with (practically) a career petty criminal and i know a few others who may actually become scared straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,099
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2007, 05:01:17 PM » |
|
She has no buisness saying that. Whether it's true or not is irrelevent. If she had half a brain she would know that our legal system is slanted toward black people anyway with minimum sentencing (i.e. rock cocaine gets you more prison time than powder cocaine... for some reason).
And governments have no right to enforce race crimes and punish those criminals any more than a normal criminal world be.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,065
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2007, 05:24:52 PM » |
|
I am against the three strikes legislation. It may affect blacks more than whites, it's very possible. Still, I don't think policy should be tailored around what color someone's skin is, in any way. It has a bad effect on people which is why I'm opposed to it.
Instead of helping to scare people straight, I think it would just have the effect of increasing the inmate population. If it were focused more on violent crime, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
lucky
Sr. Member
Karma: +19/-26
Posts: 300
you have been exposed!
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2007, 05:44:15 PM » |
|
I am against the three strikes legislation. It may affect blacks more than whites, it's very possible. Still, I don't think policy should be tailored around what color someone's skin is, in any way. It has a bad effect on people which is why I'm opposed to it.
Instead of helping to scare people straight, I think it would just have the effect of increasing the inmate population. If it were focused more on violent crime, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
crime is crime right? i mean some are much worse then others but repeat offenders obviously have no regard for the law and the people they commit their crimes against. i mean 3 strikes gives you 2 freebie crimes as it is. dont you think criminals would settle down more if they knew they couldnt mess up again? its solely putting their future in their own hands. i personally dont even have 1 strike and nor do i need it. i know this is another topic but i believe inmates should pay for themselves so over crowding would be a factor. more criminals = more funding for another prison. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,065
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2007, 06:18:56 PM » |
|
Sure, crime is crime, but between you and me, I don't give a rat's ass about "crime", or who has what amount of respect for the law.
Personally, I have almost zero respect for it. I break the law on a regular basis. If the law is one I don't agree with (like marijuana laws, or if they were to ban all handguns, or even *gasp* driving over the speed limit) I feel that I can violate it at my own whim (and risk). I have much better reason than legality to not steal from people or be violent. I worry about people who's sole motivation to act in a responsible manner toward each other is threat of incarceration, I don't trust them.
TBH, if a man's worst crime is stealing (causing another a loss), I don't see how locking them up for longer (causing the taxpayer a greater loss) will necessarily help the situation.
Laws are laws and crime is crime, but I see no reason to over-burden tax funds by locking away non-violent offenders for greater lengths of time.
What I care about is reducing the ills caused by criminality, not criminality, or the law itself. Violence has more of a negative effect than property crimes (or victim-less crimes), so I'm more worried about the violent criminals than habitual thieves.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
micfranklin
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2007, 06:23:46 PM » |
|
The 3-strikes bill is too slippery slope anyway and has too much potential for abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lucky
Sr. Member
Karma: +19/-26
Posts: 300
you have been exposed!
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2007, 10:17:31 AM » |
|
Sure, crime is crime, but between you and me, I don't give a rat's ass about "crime", or who has what amount of respect for the law.
Personally, I have almost zero respect for it. I break the law on a regular basis. If the law is one I don't agree with (like marijuana laws, or if they were to ban all handguns, or even *gasp* driving over the speed limit) I feel that I can violate it at my own whim (and risk). I have much better reason than legality to not steal from people or be violent. I worry about people who's sole motivation to act in a responsible manner toward each other is threat of incarceration, I don't trust them.
TBH, if a man's worst crime is stealing (causing another a loss), I don't see how locking them up for longer (causing the taxpayer a greater loss) will necessarily help the situation.
Laws are laws and crime is crime, but I see no reason to over-burden tax funds by locking away non-violent offenders for greater lengths of time.
What I care about is reducing the ills caused by criminality, not criminality, or the law itself. Violence has more of a negative effect than property crimes (or victim-less crimes), so I'm more worried about the violent criminals than habitual thieves.
ok well i didnt compare murders to thieves so please dont compare criminals with speeding. and to address your concern about a man's worst crime is stealing arnt we talking about a man who was caught 3 times? talk about not caring about the punishment. so why wouldnt making the punishment more harsh be a good thing? sure you have your career criminals who are dumb enough to do it even if facing the death penalty, but those who have just a lil sense would see that stealing isnt worth the consequence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lucky
Sr. Member
Karma: +19/-26
Posts: 300
you have been exposed!
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2007, 10:18:12 AM » |
|
The 3-strikes bill is too slippery slope anyway and has too much potential for abuse.
what type of abuse are you refering to? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2007, 06:29:33 AM » |
|
While I agree that somne laws are just plain ignorant, I support this 3 stricks law. We are not talking about speeding here, we are talking about serious crimes.
A person who would steal from someone to the extent that they would be affected by this law would do much more serious crimes as well.
The problem as I see it though is that yes the prisons are overfull and expensive to run. But if managed properly they could pay for themselves. Put the damned prisoners to work. AND I MEAN HARD WORK. There aare any number of jobs they could do that could make the prison self supporting. PLUS maybe teach the person a useful skill so just ,maybe they do not end up in prison again.+
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
neorealist
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +33/-33
Posts: 1,116
Mod of further light
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2007, 09:27:37 AM » |
|
She has no buisness saying that. Whether it's true or not is irrelevent. If she had half a brain she would know that our legal system is slanted toward black people anyway with minimum sentencing (i.e. rock cocaine gets you more prison time than powder cocaine... for some reason).
And governments have no right to enforce race crimes and punish those criminals any more than a normal criminal world be.
rock cocaine has a higher sentencing b/c its a more potent version of cocaine...its a delivers a more concentrated, hence its a stronger drug; therefore a stronger sentence is appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on. - Robert Bloch
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,099
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2007, 10:25:08 AM » |
|
She has no buisness saying that. Whether it's true or not is irrelevent. If she had half a brain she would know that our legal system is slanted toward black people anyway with minimum sentencing (i.e. rock cocaine gets you more prison time than powder cocaine... for some reason).
And governments have no right to enforce race crimes and punish those criminals any more than a normal criminal world be.
rock cocaine has a higher sentencing b/c its a more potent version of cocaine...its a delivers a more concentrated, hence its a stronger drug; therefore a stronger sentence is appropriate. I'm sorry, but you're wrong: "One gram of pure powder cocaine will convert to approximately 0.89 grams of crack cocaine. The DEA estimates that crack rocks are between 75% and 90% pure cocaine."SOURCE500 grahms of rock cocaine gets you a minimum 5 years. Only 5 grams of powder cocaine gets you that much time.  SOURCEMinimum sentencing are inherently racist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
micfranklin
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2007, 10:41:56 AM » |
|
The 3-strikes bill is too slippery slope anyway and has too much potential for abuse.
what type of abuse are you refering to? Abuse by the justice system that's supposed to be "fair and balanced." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lucky
Sr. Member
Karma: +19/-26
Posts: 300
you have been exposed!
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2007, 05:54:17 PM » |
|
The 3-strikes bill is too slippery slope anyway and has too much potential for abuse.
what type of abuse are you refering to?Abuse by the justice system that's supposed to be "fair and balanced." yes, i agree..... but your really not answering the question.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
micfranklin
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2007, 06:19:13 PM » |
|
The 3-strikes bill is too slippery slope anyway and has too much potential for abuse.
what type of abuse are you refering to?Abuse by the justice system that's supposed to be "fair and balanced." yes, i agree..... but your really not answering the question. I guess what I should've said was that it's possible for the charges placed on people are bound to be overkill on something. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lucky
Sr. Member
Karma: +19/-26
Posts: 300
you have been exposed!
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2007, 06:56:49 PM » |
|
The 3-strikes bill is too slippery slope anyway and has too much potential for abuse.
what type of abuse are you refering to?Abuse by the justice system that's supposed to be "fair and balanced." yes, i agree..... but your really not answering the question. I guess what I should've said was that it's possible for the charges placed on people are bound to be overkill on something. but that happens with or without a 3 strike policy. thats a whole diffrent issue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
