Crime

[lucille]

Lord knows I am not perfect. But as I go further into schooling I get exposed to more and more stories of downright horrible crime and I do not like what I see. I emailed one of my professors, inquiring about classes for prosecutors..

I hope you will forgive but I can actually see and understand some crime. Those who take when their family is hungry, those who are ignorant of minor statutes (such as jaywalking). I don't condone, but I can understand.

But I am talking of terrible, premeditated, vicious crime.

I have been in want. When my children were young and I was newly divorced we were poor for a while, and then I got a second job, working 7 days a week and things got better. I never considered welfare, I chose to work, or considered theft, I did with less. I do not understand crimes like rape or murder either.

The cost of locking people up is staggering. The cost of trials is staggering. The cost to victims, not only in money but in changed lives, especially when children are involved, is staggering.
Think how much more we would all have if serious crime did not exist.
I suppose I am naive, but I wish people would just weigh their actions prior to committing some of the horrors I hear about.

[krept]

someone who i have a lot of respect for said something like this... "we all dream of a world of sunshine and happiness... Half of us think that would be a great place to live. The other half think it would be a great place to plunder."

The plunder people are often the source of the problem for the serious crimes. I agree, it would be great if violent crime didn't exist. If you were given a choice and could eliminate violent crime or, say, disease causing bacteria and viruses, that would be tough. Either way, we can work on crime and we can work on pathogens... no ruby slippers.

cheers

[Magnum88C]

I hope you will forgive but I can actually see and understand some crime. Those who take when their family is hungry, those who are ignorant of minor statutes (such as jaywalking). I don't condone, but I can understand.
I can also understand crimes of necessity. . .as long as it's real necessity (i.e. stealing to feed your family because you won't work is not a crime of necessity.)

I think the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is BS. How many laws are passed each year that no one even knows about? I know some would abuse that as an excuse, but OTOH, it's like me shooting someone for tresspassing if I don't post fence or signs delineating my property (gee, walking on my property without knowing it's my property is no excuse for tresspassing).

But, what really gets me, is a lot of times minor crime (stealing to feed your family and the like, or especially things that warrant fines) are harshly punished, while the horrible crimes you speak of often go relatively unpunished simply because of a slick lawyer or BS technicality.

It's kind of like the sale of "indulgences" -- if you have enough money to throw around, you can get out of the penalty of your crimes. If you don't have that kind of money, well, we'll punish you for your crime, and add a little more for the crime of not having enough money.

[RIKA]

It's kind of like the sale of "indulgences" -- if you have enough money to throw around, you can get out of the penalty of your crimes. If you don't have that kind of money, well, we'll punish you for your crime, and add a little more for the crime of not having enough money.

Ain't that the truth. The Enron defendents have the best lawyers that money can buy.

RIKA

[Flinter]

So let me ask you a question Lucille, if you dont' mind answering......

Has your position on the death penalty changed since you started studying law?

[lucille]

Here was my position then:

for myself, I think that if someone, for example, were to murder a member of my family, I would deeply feel that this particular penalty would be fitting and appropriate.

Care needs to be taken that no error is made and the wrong person punished; but I cannot imagine being a victim or family and knowing that no justice was done.

I do not have expertise in all the arguments, and I can see things both ways, but some crimes are really terrible and deserve fitting retribution. I remember one time as a nurse I gave care and listened to a little kid, a girl of five or six who had allegedly been raped by a man in her family; I turned him in for investigation and hoped that justice would prevail.
Sometimes we have to see it prevail; I do not want the innocent on either side harmed but I do not want the guilty set free.

My opinion remains the same. I think, if we take someones life, we need to be very sure we are getting the right person; but there are crimes which deserve the final retribution and I believe that in those cases, justice should prevail and capital punishment is that justice.

[Rich Z]

From what I can recall, England used to take the hard core criminals from their society and ship them off to Australia to basically isolate and contain them. Honestly, I would not be a bit surprised at all to find out that this planet has been being visited by aliens since way before recorded history, dropping off the criminal rejects of their own planets so they could permanently be rid of them.

Most of humanity seems ethically crippled and species suicidal in their manner of thinking. The resources of this planet are being consumed at an alarming rate by being put into products designed to fail and then be discarded so you have to buy anew. People would betray their best friends if it meant a pay raise. If someone thinks they can steal from you and not a chance of getting caught, they probably will. Lying is not only condoned socially, but it is pretty much a requirement of survival.

Greed, jealously, resentment, dishonesty, disloyalty, and every other term you can think of to accurately describe the human race are indications of some deep rooted flaw in what we are as a species. Maybe it has always been just a seed, but it seems like lately it has sprouted and taken root with a vengeance. There is something seriously wrong with humanity.

However, on the other hand, I could just as easily make the argument that such attributes are actually normal, and the people lacking them are the defective ones. Having nothing to compare with externally to the human race on this planet, there really is no way of telling if there is some universal standard in the universe that we really can use as a yardstick to measure up to.

I would like to think that altruistic "good" is the general rule in any intelligent race, but certainly there is no natural law at all that would make that so.

[John in AR]

...I wish people would just weigh their actions prior to committing some of the horrors I hear about.

We all hear the stories about the kid who grew up in a bad environment and just needs a second chance to help him turn his life around; and there are the inevitable stories of the 'hooker with a heart of gold'.

But sometimes the bad guys are just bad guys.

[Aslan]

The solution, to me is simple - hold judges and attorneys accountable for bad decisions. If you wrongly convict someone of a capital crime, you should face some sort of penalty. Likewise, if you get someone acquitted and they are caught committing the crime again, you should be punished.

Somewhere along the line, the courts became less about getting to the truth and more about who has the better attorney.

People should be held accountable for the actions.

:devil:

[KJUN]

My opinion remains the same. I think, if we take someones life, we need to be very sure we are getting the right person; but there are crimes which deserve the final retribution and I believe that in those cases, justice should prevail and capital punishment is that justice.

I don't necessarily see it as justice, and I don't necessarily see it as revenge. I see it as a way to make damn sure that someone who kills a little girl doesn't do it again. That's good enough for me - it lets me sleep at night while supporting the death penalty. I agree with the ideal of "better 100 guilty go free than one innocent dies," too. Obviously, mistakes will be made. We just need to do our best to minimize them. I often wonder: how many of the mistakes were laid on truly innocent men? I think many of the mistakes put peple in jail or on death row who actually deserve it even if they didn't commit that particular crime.

Yes, that's wrong. But I won't say it is completely wrong....

[KJUN]

The solution, to me is simple - hold judges and attorneys accountable for bad decisions. If you wrongly convict someone of a capital crime, you should face some sort of penalty. Likewise, if you get someone acquitted and they are caught committing the crime again, you should be punished.

I believe the above is in error. If evidence is obtained illegally - lets say by search without a warrant - are you saying the judge shouldn't acquit them? So, we are talking about reviking a basic right of everyone just to get one guilty person in jail? I am NOT willing to go that far.....

Also, for major crimes, isn't it the jury of 12 finding a person guilty? The judge is only there for the sentencing from that point. Should all 12 be fined or something? Kinda sounds silly when placed on the table that way, doesn't it? I would support flogging any jurer that didn't understand the idea behine jury nullification, though. :)

Attorneys are just doing a job. They are NOT public employees like cops and judges. It is wrong to treat them differently from, sday, a plumber. They should get the same treatment for lying or hiding evidence that a plumber would for lying about your leaky pipes to run the bill up higher than it needs to be. I say the SAME treatment - no more and no less. The worse they lie/hide, the worse the crime they get charged with. I don't think I've ever stood up for attorneys as a group before - treasure it b/c it is unlikely to ever happen again. :)

[Aslan]

I believe the above is in error. If evidence is obtained illegally - lets say by search without a warrant - are you saying the judge shouldn't acquit them? So, we are talking about reviking a basic right of everyone just to get one guilty person in jail? I am NOT willing to go that far.....

Also, for major crimes, isn't it the jury of 12 finding a person guilty? The judge is only there for the sentencing from that point. Should all 12 be fined or something? Kinda sounds silly when placed on the table that way, doesn't it? I would support flogging any jurer that didn't understand the idea behine jury nullification, though. :)

Attorneys are just doing a job. They are NOT public employees like cops and judges. It is wrong to treat them differently from, sday, a plumber. They should get the same treatment for lying or hiding evidence that a plumber would for lying about your leaky pipes to run the bill up higher than it needs to be. I say the SAME treatment - no more and no less. The worse they lie/hide, the worse the crime they get charged with. I don't think I've ever stood up for attorneys as a group before - treasure it b/c it is unlikely to ever happen again. :)

Ok, I thought this might happen.

If a judge doesn't suppress illegal evidence, the judge deserves to be punished (even if it is simply a reprimand, or having this information disclosed when they are up for re-election or retention)

I'm not in favor or squashing anyone's rights. But I don't recall anywhere that being a criminal was a right?

Some atty's ARE public employees.

Trials are PUBLIC affairs and therefore subject to a lot more scrutiny than say fixing plumbing. There are things that are unethical for a plumber to do that aren't illegal.

Atty's are supposedly held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior - contact your local bar association if you don't believe me. They will tell you so. I believe that in all jurisdictions they are sworn in as part of their getting a license to practice law.

Everyone should be presumed innocent, but no atty should knowingly work to acquit a guilty person. I think client - atty privilege should have certain limitations. I'm not saying to do away with the protection against self-incrimination, but if I admit to my atty that I murdered someone. they should recuse themself from my trial.

The trial should be totally about facts, not about who has the better lawyer.

This is, of course, a pipe dream.

None of what I am proposing should be against any of the rights listed in the Constitution. It's very likely that there's a whole bunch of additional verbiage and clarifications required to make what I am suggesting workable, but it won't happen. There's too much money involved in the law and trial processes.

:devil:

[RIKA]

A fair trial for everybody is an impossibility. Look at OJ and his dream team. Robert Blake didn't have enough money so he spent a lot of time in jail and did worse and now he's supposed to be broke. Now take a look in the mirror. If we were able to get off at all even though innocent we would owe the lawyers for the rest of our lives.

Its all about money money money. There is little or no justice for the average person. Look at Key Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. I think that they are guilty as sin but they have enough money that they will beat the rap and live in luxury for the rest of their lives on their hidden bank accounts. Whats funny is that their lawyers will live better.

RIKA

[Aslan]

Exactly!

It isn't about the truth, it's about the wallet.


:devil:

[KJUN]

> If a judge doesn't suppress illegal evidence, the judge deserves to be punished

I'm confused. If the illegal evidence is treated as such and the BG is acquitted because of that fact, he gets in trouble for acquitting him. If he doesn't treat the illegal evidence as such and they aren't acquitted, then he gets punished for not treating the illegal evidence as illegal evidence.

Either there is a conflict here, or I am misunderstanding you. Maybe I'm just obtuse today, but I am completely confused.

> (even if it is simply a reprimand, or having this information disclosed when they are up for re-election or retention)

Sure - that's a given, but that isn't how I read your earlier post. If I misread it, I'm sorry.

> But I don't recall anywhere that being a criminal was a right?

Well, I won't get into people breaking laws (= criminal) that are unconstitutional since that is another topic altogether. Ignoring THAT possibility, a criminal is still "innocent until proven guilty," correct? They deserve a fair trail. Violating search-and-seizure laws b/c they happen to be a criminal sounds like "ends justify the means" which I do not, nor do I suspect I ever will, support even a little bit!

> Some atty's ARE public employees.

I stand corrected and they probably do deserve greater punishments for lying than a private one would.

> Trials are PUBLIC affairs and therefore subject to a lot more scrutiny than say fixing plumbing. There are things that are unethical for a plumber to do that aren't illegal.

BUT, many attorneys are still private citizens and not public officials. I realize that all analogies are suspect, so take my plumber analogy with a grain of salt, please. I wasn't putting down the scrutiny (plumbers hurt people, attorneys can hurt society - I realize that is a BIG difference). I'm sure, in our hypothetical case, there would be a lot that an attorny could do that was unethical but still legal, too.

> Atty's are supposedly held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior -

LOL. The local moose lodge, plumber association, and Alien Paranoid Support Group would all say the same thing about THIER group, too. That doesn't make it more than lip service. :)

> I believe that in all jurisdictions they are sworn in as part of their getting a license to practice law.

..and Bush swore to defend the constitution of these united states (instead of calling it a "piece of paper" and forcing the patriot act down our throats.

> Everyone should be presumed innocent, but no atty should knowingly work to acquit a guilty person.

So a lawyer that defends a person who has a shotgun with a 15.95" barrel shouldn't defend him since he is guilty of breaking a law? THE ATTORNY CAN NOT DECIDE WHO IS GUILTY AND WHO IS NOT GUILTY! That is the job of the judge or jury!

> I think client - atty privilege should have certain limitations.

I agree - BIG limitations are needed. However, what about the case where the client admits guilt to a minor crime, but is charged with a major crime? How should the attorny handle that one? Sticky situation in my eyes. Conflicts with my belief at the beginning of this paragraph a little bit. :(

> if I admit to my atty that I murdered someone. they should recuse themself from my trial.

But what if you did it b/c they were threatening to rape and kill your kids and the cops wouldn't do nothing about it. Sort of a "he needed killing" excuse that the attorny agreed with. How would YOU handle that situation in that case? "Right" or "wrong," I'd try to get him to go free. Let's assume that the threat was a serious one and he had acted on the threat already or something....hypotheically speaking, of course.

> The trial should be totally about facts, not about who has the better lawyer.

Dang, but I wish that were 110% true, too. :bawling:

Very interesting points you bring up, though. Thanks for the mental and moral (and ethical) work-out opportunity.
KJ

[Aslan]

> If a judge doesn't suppress illegal evidence, the judge deserves to be punished

I'm confused. If the illegal evidence is treated as such and the BG is acquitted because of that fact, he gets in trouble for acquitting him. If he doesn't treat the illegal evidence as such and they aren't acquitted, then he gets punished for not treating the illegal evidence as illegal evidence.

Either there is a conflict here, or I am misunderstanding you. Maybe I'm just obtuse today, but I am completely confused.

> (even if it is simply a reprimand, or having this information disclosed when they are up for re-election or retention)

Sure - that's a given, but that isn't how I read your earlier post. If I misread it, I'm sorry.


I think you're trying to be too absolute with what I'm saying. The judge has to follow the rules. Illegal evidence should be thrown out and suppressed. A new trial with a new judge and jury should be put together and the bad evidence treated as if it doesn't exist (would be one solution)


> But I don't recall anywhere that being a criminal was a right?

Well, I won't get into people breaking laws (= criminal) that are unconstitutional since that is another topic altogether. Ignoring THAT possibility, a criminal is still "innocent until proven guilty," correct? They deserve a fair trail. Violating search-and-seizure laws b/c they happen to be a criminal sounds like "ends justify the means" which I do not, nor do I suspect I ever will, support even a little bit!


I am not advocating breaking laws as the ends justifies the means. I am for a fair trial. But the problem is defining what exactly is a fair trial?

> Some atty's ARE public employees.

I stand corrected and they probably do deserve greater punishments for lying than a private one would.

> Trials are PUBLIC affairs and therefore subject to a lot more scrutiny than say fixing plumbing. There are things that are unethical for a plumber to do that aren't illegal.

BUT, many attorneys are still private citizens and not public officials. I realize that all analogies are suspect, so take my plumber analogy with a grain of salt, please. I wasn't putting down the scrutiny (plumbers hurt people, attorneys can hurt society - I realize that is a BIG difference). I'm sure, in our hypothetical case, there would be a lot that an attorny could do that was unethical but still legal, too.

> Atty's are supposedly held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior -

LOL. The local moose lodge, plumber association, and Alien Paranoid Support Group would all say the same thing about THIER group, too. That doesn't make it more than lip service. :)



But do they make a LEGAL oath for such that has STANDING WITH THE LAW?



> I believe that in all jurisdictions they are sworn in as part of their getting a license to practice law.

..and Bush swore to defend the constitution of these united states (instead of calling it a "piece of paper" and forcing the patriot act down our throats.



Has the supreme court struck it down as unconstitutional? regardless of how you and I may feel about it, they have the last word on whether it is constitutional or not.

The idea behind the Supreme Court is to make sure that laws are constitutional. Until they rule otherwise, though you may believe that's what Bush did, he legally hasn't. (chew on that and tell me there aren't problems with the courts)


> Everyone should be presumed innocent, but no atty should knowingly work to acquit a guilty person.

So a lawyer that defends a person who has a shotgun with a 15.95" barrel shouldn't defend him since he is guilty of breaking a law? THE ATTORNY CAN NOT DECIDE WHO IS GUILTY AND WHO IS NOT GUILTY! That is the job of the judge or jury!



Well, for example, in this case, my approach would be a lot different than what you're thinking. I think the defense should say "yes, my client is guilty". But the kicker is this: "He's guilty of poor measurement or poor cutting skills". In this case, I think from a factual perspective and from a reasonableness test, he wasn't trying to break the law. Take the gun - probably. If nothing else because he was technically in the wrong. Make him a felon - nope.

But aha! you say, double standard! Nope. I think there should be some reasonableness in the law. Again too many lawyers and too much money has twisted things to the point where common sense no longer apply.

To properly fix things would probably require throwing out the millions of laws and keeping the basics - I'm thinking that the 10 Moses had written in stone would cover a lot of the important stuff...



> I think client - atty privilege should have certain limitations.

I agree - BIG limitations are needed. However, what about the case where the client admits guilt to a minor crime, but is charged with a major crime? How should the attorny handle that one? Sticky situation in my eyes. Conflicts with my belief at the beginning of this paragraph a little bit. :(

> if I admit to my atty that I murdered someone. they should recuse themself from my trial.

But what if you did it b/c they were threatening to rape and kill your kids and the cops wouldn't do nothing about it. Sort of a "he needed killing" excuse that the attorny agreed with. How would YOU handle that situation in that case? "Right" or "wrong," I'd try to get him to go free. Let's assume that the threat was a serious one and he had acted on the threat already or something....hypotheically speaking, of course.



That should come out in the facts. There really should be some real common sense applied with facts. Self-defense is a valid defense. In this case we'd hopefully not be trying to hide the fact that the client did in fact kill the person, but we'd be trying to determine if it was JUSTIFIED or not. That's the difference in my mind. It should be about determining if the guy really needed killing or not. (and if so, then the police should be held accountable for failing to act.)



> The trial should be totally about facts, not about who has the better lawyer.

Dang, but I wish that were 110% true, too. :bawling:

Very interesting points you bring up, though. Thanks for the mental and moral (and ethical) work-out opportunity.
KJ

I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking, just in our explanations.

:devil:

[RIKA]

There are two measures that we are talking about, I think. There is the letter of the law and there is the spirit of the law. The first, the letter, is easy to administer. The second, the spirit, leads to all kinds of complaints about unfairness/descrimination etc. etc. Add in the factor of money and the unscrupulous ambulance chasing lawyers who sue for a split fingernail and it gets more interesting. Attorneys appointed to defend indigent clients have little interest in their job other than getting finished as soon as possible. Highly paid (and most others) attorneys soak their clients for $100's of dollars per hour fees for work that their law clerks and paralegals do while claiming that its their own billable work for full price.

Remember when the average person was able to "read" law and be able to practice as an attorney? Wonder if it wouldn't be so bad an idea now. With the law its not so hard to look up precedents and such. Much of being a lawyer from what I understand is being able to make a presentation in court (procedure & form) and not so much a knowledge of the law (I know that Lucille will jump me on this).

And then what about the lawyers who charge hundreds if not thousands of dollars to have a will/contract/agreement/bill of sale etc? Truth is that their secretary opens up her selection of legal CD's and merely selects one and fills in the blanks. The lawyer then thrusts out his chest and presents it to you to sign while claiming that the document is his own sweat stained and perfect work. Just write the check chump.

Crap. Its all a racket.

Flak jacket on.

RIKA

[lucille]

I think you're trying to be too absolute with what I'm saying. The judge has to follow the rules. Illegal evidence should be thrown out and suppressed. A new trial with a new judge and jury should be put together and the bad evidence treated as if it doesn't exist (would be one solution)
:

This in fact is what happens sometimes. There are 'suppression hearings' and tainted evidence is in fact suppressed.
However, it is not always clear when and if presented evidence is tainted; if on appeal it is clear that the evidence presented at trial made a difference in the outcome, and is illegal, the case is remanded for a new trial.

[lucille]

There are two measures that we are talking about, I think. There is the letter of the law and there is the spirit of the law. The first, the letter, is easy to administer. The second, the spirit, leads to all kinds of complaints about unfairness/descrimination etc. etc. Add in the factor of money and the unscrupulous ambulance chasing lawyers who sue for a split fingernail and it gets more interesting. Attorneys appointed to defend indigent clients have little interest in their job other than getting finished as soon as possible. Highly paid (and most others) attorneys soak their clients for $100's of dollars per hour fees for work that their law clerks and paralegals do while claiming that its their own billable work for full price.

Remember when the average person was able to "read" law and be able to practice as an attorney? Wonder if it wouldn't be so bad an idea now. With the law its not so hard to look up precedents and such. Much of being a lawyer from what I understand is being able to make a presentation in court (procedure & form) and not so much a knowledge of the law (I know that Lucille will jump me on this).

And then what about the lawyers who charge hundreds if not thousands of dollars to have a will/contract/agreement/bill of sale etc? Truth is that their secretary opens up her selection of legal CD's and merely selects one and fills in the blanks. The lawyer then thrusts out his chest and presents it to you to sign while claiming that the document is his own sweat stained and perfect work. Just write the check chump.

Crap. Its all a racket.

Flak jacket on.

RIKA


No flak, Rika. You are entitled to your opinion.
I do disagree with your analysis: the VAST majority of cases are settled and do not go to court so the attorney's ' courtroom presentation' has no bearing; and it is in fact difficult to collect precedent as backup for one's case just because of the staggering amount of precedent available; even with online computer law services like Westlaw and Lexis.
And, I do not think it is all a racket.
I can tell you that I have a relatively low paying job working in a poverty area school because I love children and I want to help them; as a nurse I have choices and could have an easier, higher paying job elsewhere. I put in way more than 40 hours and am not paid for the excess hours; and I go to school on top of that.
I intend to take that same mindset with me when I get my law license. I think there are good honest attorneys and I want to be one of them. I know there are the other kind, but I can't help that. I have met unethical doctors and nurses too, I do not think a lack of ethics is confined to only one profession.
As I said, Rika, you are entitled to your opinion: about the profession of law, about me, about anything else. I think my track record of hard work speaks for itself; I do ask that you not prejudge me but rather wait and see that I will comport myself with integrity, and be a credit to my profession.

[RIKA]

I have met unethical doctors and nurses too, I do not think a lack of ethics is confined to only one profession..

Very true. I have an issue with unethical doctors too. How about the doctor who has his secretary repackage all the free samples he gets from the drug detail people and then the doc sells them at retail to his patients? Ever seen a practicing gynecologist pass out dead drunk face smushed into his pizza in a public restaurant? I knew one that used to do that until he finally blew his brains out. Has the issue of malpractice come up in class yet and how hard it is to get one doctor to testify against another doctor?

As I said, Rika, you are entitled to your opinion: about the profession of law, about me, about anything else. I think my track record of hard work speaks for itself; I do ask that you not prejudge me but rather wait and see that I will comport myself with integrity, and be a credit to my profession.

Don't take my thoughts personally, Lucille. We know nothing about each other except for what we have posted on this board. I have no doubt but that you will be a real asset to the community and hope that you won't be seduced by the dark side of the profession. Though I don't talk about it, I have some ties to the legal and medical community and have heard some of them talk freely, often bragging, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These people are real jerks and not counted among my friends any more. Others with whom I have remained friendly are fine people. So you see, Lucille, I am not kitten blind nor am I baseing my thoughts on mere prejudice but rather first hand fact and the testimony of their peers who are of sterling character.

Have a nice weekend.

RIKA

[glynn]

Cases being remanded or tossed out over tainted evidence, or cop misconduct are very, very rare. Many times more rare than during the days of the Warren Court. That stuff's basically ancient history.

[glynn]

The "just us" system KNOWS that up to 10% of guys where DNA could be a factor are innocent of the crime they are serving time for. However, the Supremes have held that letting them have new trials or be freed would inundate the courts with suits by the other 90%, so they KNOWINGLY are leaving the innocent in prison. They claim that nearly all of them are guilty of SOMETHING that merits plenty of prosecution, and in a helluva lot of cases, they are right.

If you had been where I have, heard what I've heard, you'd never take a step anywhere without your handgun, and without real ability with it, as well as hand to hand skills. And the fed inmates are WAY better, in most cases than state inmates. Nearly all fed crimes are money crimes, and non violent. 60-70% are dope, or about some other crime committed to get money with which to buy dope. Legalize dope, and 70% of "crime" would go away overnight. That would leave 4x as many resources to punish REAL crime.

[Aslan]

Can you provide the citation for your assertion about the supreme court? That's the sort of thing the press would go ape over and the ACLU would be inundating us with.

I suspect that this is probably folklore or a distortion of fact.

Because we still hear of cases today where DNA evidence is overturning convictions from even decades ago. If your assertion were correct, this would not be happening.

But, I'm willing to be educated - if you can provide the citations.

Otherwise, I'll remain skeptical.

:devil:

[Terry G]

"And the fed inmates are WAY better, in most cases than state inmates." This statement, of which I have extensive personal knowlege, is false. There is no line seperating State of Federal inmates, just type of crimes and jurisdictions. This is a fairly tale promoted by Federal inmates to spout their "superiority". It does not exist. Thousands of "State" inmates are locked up in Federal prisons for a variety of reasons. Many thousands of Federal inmates will do State time after their release from Federal sentences. All crimes commited on Federal reservations are "Federal " crimes, no matter what the crime is. This statement is as false as you can get.

[gripper]

Glynn, I DO agree with you (up to a poin t) on the "Just Us"system.I don't even have to cite my own past and ongoing experience.Go online for a current case,today's issue of the Lowell Sun,the family court judges.Thjen add in teh Boston mob trials,Joe Salvatti doing 30 years when the Feds KNEW he wasn't the guy...hell thats not even the whole state,thats jsut Greater Boston.There ARE some decent judges&court officers,there is just too many of their moral opposites around.

[glynn]

As usual, terry is full of it. Nearly all Fed crimes are money crimes. About the only violence is robbery of some sort, with the exception of military crimes and crimes on Indian reservations. Over 70% of all Fed crimes are DIRECTLY dope-related, and half of the remaining 30% are done to get the money to BUY dope (mostly cocaine, but Meth is gaining rapidly).

[glynn]

I'll ask a buddy about the Supremes, next time I write him. I've heard of it several times. Did you know that you can't buy stock in the federal prison system's factory (Unicor) unless you work for the Feds? Did you know that the Feds knowingly let illegal alien inmates work in Unicor? In fact, that's the MAJORITY of such workers. did you know that Unicor is allowed to bid on huge military and state and Fed gov't contracts? Since the average wage is 50c an hour, GUESS who is awarded those contracts?

[Terry G]

As usual, terry is full of it. Nearly all Fed crimes are money crimes. About the only violence is robbery of some sort, with the exception of military crimes and crimes on Indian reservations. Over 70% of all Fed crimes are DIRECTLY dope-related, and half of the remaining 30% are done to get the money to BUY dope (mostly cocaine, but Meth is gaining rapidly).Read my post slower, John. I didn't say anything about money crimes or what percentage are releated to drugs. I said that the alledged "superiority" of Federal inmates is a joke, as a large percentage of Federal inmates are either prior State inmates or are currently serving Federal time before their State time kicks in. When the Washington D.C. DOC cashed in, all the inmates went to the Federal system. When Camp Hill, PA prison was shut down due to rioting all of the inmates went into the Federal system. State inmates are routinely "boarded" in the Federal BOP for their protection. There is no hiearchy in State and Federal Prisons. A convict is a convict. Period. As to most Federal drug crimes being "non-violent", that critter is rare. In the greatest percentage of drug arrests where a large quantity of drugs are involved, there is either violence or the threat of violence somewhere in the drug chain. In the thousands of inmates I have had contact with, (both State and Federal) almost everyone had a story of a drug deal gone bad. From their strung out "friend" stabbing them over a rock of crack, to a high dollar 5 kilo coke exchange that turned into a bloody shoot out in a high rent district penthouse. It's a pipe dream (pun intended) to spout off about non-violent drug crime.

[BigEd63]

It's a pipe dream (pun intended) to spout off about non-violent drug crime.

That seems the mantra of some of the ones that want certain drugs legalized.

On the flip side I've also heard that cutting down on the violence is another reason to make some legal.

Odd how someone boasts on occasion about having to supposedly draw down on people while a dealer. But insists drug dealing is a non-violent crime. :rolleyes:

[Coyote]

One of the main reasons I feel drugs should be legalized - at least many drugs currently prohibited - is that I feel their prohibition leads to increased violence and a culture of control.

Gun control, IMO is largely the child of drug prohibition. Also recent Canadian legislation allowing the police to read chatlogs and text messages without a warrant was passed off as a useful tool for tracking down dial-a-dope operations. Of course, neither gun control nor invasions of privacy does anyone any good.

[John in AR]

One of the main reasons I feel drugs should be legalized - at least many drugs currently prohibited - is that I feel their prohibition leads to increased violence and a culture of control.
That's exactly what happened with alcohol prohibition, yet for some reason, history is not allowed to be studied on this topic.

IMO, the fedgov wants as many 'regular' people as possible, to be criminalized. If someone sees themselves as a criminal or even as a 'bad person', they have less resistance to outside control of their lives. That's been the tactic of most of the thugs in history, once they've reached the throne of power. (Hitler blatantly admitted this, openly acknowledging that you can't impost your will on "innocent" people.)

[RIKA]

And still no one learns from history.

RIKA

[glynn]

Look at the dummies, right here on this forum, who insist that Big Brother should be able to stop them from having abortions, using dope, etc. Brainwashed know nothings.

[KJUN]

Glynn,

I'm not going to delete the above post because it is in krept's "personal" forum, but I sure as heck hope he decides to delete it when he sees it. I'll leave it for him to take fix. However, STOP the name calling or you'll get another 3-day vacation before you the day's done.

KJ

[gripper]

Many folk such as myself hold pro-life beliefs.My beliefs have nothing to do with religion(although its one of the few points of aggreement the RC Church&I hold),but rather a question of provable sciece....no one has provewn exactly when life begins.Until that day comes ,I err on the sid eof caution and assume the Vatican stand on Conception=Life to be accurate.Up until that point,as far as I'm concerned:anything goes. And no,I don't want the goobermint to have any role in abortion either way,be it fnding it with my tax money,or backing up prohibition with snoops and minders.I prefer people to be honest with themselves and not rule out the prospects of their own epphany on the subject.BTW,Glynn ;how was your break?

[glynn]

hey, a name is a reflection of reality. When they earn the name, it fits.

[Aslan]

hey, a name is a reflection of reality. When they earn the name, it fits.

That's a two-edged sword - you might want to think about that. You've been banned on almost every board. You've been given a lot of "names" by a lot of people. Guess that's a reflection of reality?

You spout stuff like this and then wonder why your site did so poorly. I guess it's everyone else's fault - right?


:devil:

[andy]

I"m intensely capable of vicious, premeditated exactment of remedial "medicine", for punks who have it coming, due to past uncalled for crap that they've done, and other crap that they've PUBLICLY said that they'd LIKE to do. I'll stand in front of God for having done such, no problem at ALL.

[RIKA]

I"m intensely capable of vicious, premeditated exactment of remedial "medicine", for punks who have it coming, due to past uncalled for crap that they've done, and other crap that they've PUBLICLY said that they'd LIKE to do. I'll stand in front of God for having done such, no problem at ALL.

Legendary perfection in a person's own imagination doesn't make them bulletproof or immune from being badly injured themselves. As for God, I don't think I would want to be you when I stand before him.

RIKA

[andy]

So? We've many times proven that I dare many things that almost nobody else does. The fact that your tiny minds can't concieve of anyone being able to do what I've done (and will do) doesn't mean that such men don't exist. It just proves that you have tiny minds, that's all.

[RIKA]

So? We've many times proven that I dare many things that almost nobody else does. The fact that your tiny minds can't concieve of anyone being able to do what I've done (and will do) doesn't mean that such men don't exist. It just proves that you have tiny minds, that's all.


:D Tiny minds huh?

RIKA

[Aslan]

So? We've many times proven that I dare many things that almost nobody else does. The fact that your tiny minds can't concieve of anyone being able to do what I've done (and will do) doesn't mean that such men don't exist. It just proves that you have tiny minds, that's all.

Who is we and what have you actually proved to anyone?

:devil:

[Magnum88C]

Well, I guess maybe he has dared things most of us wouldn't.

I mean, he did have sex with his wife. . .

[RIKA]

Are you sure? :laugh01: :laugh01: :laugh01:

RIKA

[B.FRANKlin]

Criminals don't think like us. The BEST way to deal with criminals is to catch them in the act, and KILL them. Wounding them might get you sued. And it is NOT better to "let 100 guilty go free so 1 innocent might live"! That "1" will be grieved over, but 99 potential victims will not need to be.
Yes, we need to be sure we have the right criminal. That*&^%$#@sob Clinton should have built more CSI labs instead of putting 100,000 USELESS cops on the streets! Cops (and the govt.) can't protect you from ANYTHING! They only come around AFTER a victim has been created. Ultimately, YOU are your own best defense. Criminals LOVE unarmed people. They won't love me, I'll make sure of that!

[andy]

It's still easy to take you. What saves you is that 99+% of criminals don't have a CLUE about guns at all, much less about decent tactics. Most barely know the diff between revolver and autopistol, rifle and shotgun, and when it comes to DA vs SA, or deer slugs in a 12 ga, forget it, they are clueless.

[Hard Ball]

"forget it, they are clueless."

Hmm, you do seem clueless on many subjects. Perhaps it is due to your criminal background.

[andy]

yeah, you SAY that a lot, old man, but when I challenge you to PRODUCE some instances of same, you NEVER deliver. Those who know me know that it's cause you CAN'T. :-) There's a reason for that inability, old man. It's just not true.

[Coyote]

And it is NOT better to "let 100 guilty go free so 1 innocent might live"! That "1" will be grieved over, but 99 potential victims will not need to be.

I disagree completely. When you kill/imprison that "1" you kill an investigation - into who the real perp is. Nevermind the fact that hey, the state just victimized the guy/gal who was thrown in the tank... I would much rather have 100 crooks trying to rob me than 100 cops busting my door down for something I never did.

In my mind this is why a concealed carry type program is so important, and why I'm so pissed off we don't have one up here. We let guilty people go free all the time, thats just the way it is, and we can improve on that with modern forensics but there are always going to be killers out there. It is OUR responsibility to make sure that we take measures to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

[Aslan]

Criminals don't think like us. The BEST way to deal with criminals is to catch them in the act, and KILL them. Wounding them might get you sued. And it is NOT better to "let 100 guilty go free so 1 innocent might live"! That "1" will be grieved over, but 99 potential victims will not need to be.
Yes, we need to be sure we have the right criminal. That*&^%$#@sob Clinton should have built more CSI labs instead of putting 100,000 USELESS cops on the streets! Cops (and the govt.) can't protect you from ANYTHING! They only come around AFTER a victim has been created. Ultimately, YOU are your own best defense. Criminals LOVE unarmed people. They won't love me, I'll make sure of that!


And if you were the "1" it'd be ok? I think not. Besides it isn't just the one. It's his family, his wife, his kids, his parents, his brothers and sisters...

No, it's not better to sacrifice the one.

Does it stop at the one? maybe two would be better odds, if you have two suspects, get them both. It two's good, then three can't be that bad either. At what point does the number become unacceptable?

Maybe if the bad guy was white, we just lock up all the white guys in the city? Or if he was black, then all the black guys, if he was oriental...

Nope. I don't buy the whole premise that any number of innocents is an acceptable number.

But that's me.

:devil:

[gripper]

No arguments from me Aslan....between shortcuts ,and making their own action;I wish more lEO's would figure out that no good comes out of that path....not to mention all the enemies they make out of people who otherwise would support them....but now are quite comfortable with the notion of fighting right down to the sidewalk with them if pushed enough.

[andy]

Criminals DO think like a helluva lot of other people. They just aint as scared of cops and jail as you are, that's all.

[gripper]

If that is directed at me;you may have misunderstyood what I say. I do not readily give ground to anyone if I believe I am right.This is not determined by whether or not they have a badge.Afraid of them?No,not in particular.But I guess I also apply th esame standard to anyone;case by case basis.I neither reflexively genuflect nor utter curses and threats.Rest assured,I do not /will not go anywhere unwillingly without some serious "exterior factors".I figure for now,try to preserve my options and choices. If that fails;I can always pull the pin.

[Terry G]

Criminals DO think like a helluva lot of other people. They just aint as scared of cops and jail as you are, that's all.I don't think fear is the major factor. It's taking responsibility for one's actions. If I do "A" I could go to prison, therefore I do "B" which is not to do something that would place my freedom in jeopardy. Although this is a generalization, many criminals don't fear jail/prison because the hassle of everyday life is taken care of for them. Food and medical care is provided, no tough decisions because they're told what to do 24/7, and the stress of competing with the rest of society is removed.

[B.FRANKlin]

Inept prosecutors make "plea bargains" usually because they aren't good enough to find evidence legally. The ACLU and liberals started "the poor criminal" syndrome and trying to find a "root cause" of crime. The cause does NOT MATTER! Why a criminal commits a crime is simple; they are STUPID, IGNORANT morons that think (?) they can get away with it. And jail is so nice these days (thanks to the ACLU) that the slimeballs have it better in jail than working for a living. Criminals don't think like us, they don't have any respect, honor, or normal human emotions. They don't give a damn about anything. The only things they think about is "what can I do to not get caught next time?"
Prisons used to be horrible places to be, and for good reason! Prisoners did not deserve any rights because of whatever they did to be imprisoned for. Then the bleeding heart liberals and the communist run ACLU got in on (the money) and made prisons be welcomming places of refuge for the poor, neglected, underpriviledged, harried criminals. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ? Prisoner's RIGHTS???
From now on, lets just kill criminals. Shoot them dead at the scene of their crime! Just make sure it's the right BG.

[lucille]

Inept prosecutors make "plea bargains" usually because they aren't good enough to find evidence legally. The ACLU and liberals started "the poor criminal" syndrome and trying to find a "root cause" of crime. The cause does NOT MATTER! Why a criminal commits a crime is simple; they are STUPID, IGNORANT morons that think (?) they can get away with it. And jail is so nice these days (thanks to the ACLU) that the slimeballs have it better in jail than working for a living. Criminals don't think like us, they don't have any respect, honor, or normal human emotions. They don't give a damn about anything. The only things they think about is "what can I do to not get caught next time?"
Prisons used to be horrible places to be, and for good reason! Prisoners did not deserve any rights because of whatever they did to be imprisoned for. Then the bleeding heart liberals and the communist run ACLU got in on (the money) and made prisons be welcomming places of refuge for the poor, neglected, underpriviledged, harried criminals. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ? Prisoner's RIGHTS???
From now on, lets just kill criminals. Shoot them dead at the scene of their crime! Just make sure it's the right BG.

I don't know where to begin, here, except that I take issue with a lot of this post.
Plea bargains are made to streamline the legal process. Currently, the courts are clogged and only 3-6% of cases actually go to trial, most criminals plead out. If all cases went to trial, the wheels of justice would turn so slowly that the criminal would essentially have little deterrence to quit criminal activity.

The criminal conviction process robs society of a huge amount of wealth but I see no easy alternative and this thread is all about thinking through that problem. I do believe in capital punishment for SERIOUS crime:

My opinion remains the same. I think, if we take someones life, we need to be very sure we are getting the right person; but there are crimes which deserve the final retribution and I believe that in those cases, justice should prevail and capital punishment is that justice.

But the 'shoot 'em all' mentality does not work for me. For one thing, some crimes do not deserve death. I wrote in my initial post:

I hope you will forgive but I can actually see and understand some crime. Those who take when their family is hungry, those who are ignorant of minor statutes (such as jaywalking). I don't condone, but I can understand.

I also take issue with the above post that maintains
Criminals don't think like us, they don't have any respect, honor, or normal human emotions.
Again,my initial post had to do with murder, rape and so on. I cannot begin to fathom how those people think because I have never murdered or raped.

I have in the past worked in a jail and many of the inmates obviously had normal human emotions; just because someone errs and passes a bad check and gets locked up for it does not mean he suddenly is devoid of *all* the thoughts and emotions normal people have. In fact, sometimes for these white collar crimes one lockup is all it takes and those people, after they get out, go on to lead good and productive lives.

I am not trivializing crime and started this thread because the cost to society is too high when people engage in serious crime. I work hard and don't think I should have to pay excessive amounts of money in taxes because other people make the wrong choices.

And yet, minor crimes in my opinion do not deserve a Draconian 'shoot 'em on the spot' mentality. After all, who among us has not broken the law? I myself admit to getting a speeding ticket in my subdivision, doing 30 instead of the posted 20.

There are no easy answers, here.

[KJUN]

> Plea bargains are made to streamline the legal process. Currently, the courts are clogged and only 3-6% of cases actually go to trial, most criminals plead out. If all cases went to trial, the wheels of justice would turn so slowly that the criminal would essentially have little deterrence to quit criminal activity.

Ahhh, but his point is that if the penalties for committing crimes WERE really bad, then the number of people committing those crimes wouldn't be as high = fewer cases. I would like to add that if we'd get rid of the millions of victimless crimes that should NOT be crimes (including the stupid paperwork "crimes), then the workload would be lower.

That number, though, sounds like it includes speeding tickets, etc. to get it artificially low. Does it?

[lucille]

I found a statistic in my textbook that shows 95% of all federal convictions (which do not include minor crime and stuff like speeding tickets) were secured by a guilty plea which means only 5% go to trial so it looks like the # is not in fact artificially low.
Perhaps you are correct, that a stiff sentence, speedily administered, would have deterrent value. The problem is that pleas generally give a somewhat lesser sentence (although I recently took a day to visit the Houston court system and the prosecutors were recommending jail time in nearly every case I heard) versus the longer time that might be given after a trial, but with the resulting huge delays from the trial process.
I do however think that the basic system of trial, including public defense, is a necessary part of protecting those who may in fact be innocent of the charges brought against them.
I also think that in capital cases the delays of many, many years before justice is given is ridiculous.
I think we are all in agreement here, at least I hope we are, that the guilty need to be punished but the truly innocent need to go free.

[KJUN]

Any guilty plea or conviction should include public flaying IMO. It won't kill them - it is just a spanking for an adult. The embarassment would likely be enough to deter a LOT of people.....

The rule against cruel and unusual punishment is misunderstood, I believe. For punishment to work, it must not be fun or even nuetral. It must be "cruel." If it is too common, it is not a deterrent, so it must be unusual.

Although a punishment can be too cruel and too unusual. I'm not advocating nailing someoene's genitalia to an antpile for running a redlight! LOL.

[B.FRANKlin]

I wasn't talking about "minor crime". And it depends on what Lucille deems minor. I was referring to felonies, committing a crime with a weapon (gun, club, knife, etc.), robbery, rape, kidnapping, murder, assault with criminal intent and other serious crime. And, of course, be sure it's the right BG.
Way too many people are jailed for minor misdemeanors, victimless crimes, and petty stuff that, a few years ago, would have been just a fine.
A dead criminal is not going to hurt anyone else. If they are so stupid as to commit a felony crime, they are not smart enough to live among us. Some people (not enough) do learn that jail is not for them and do become responsibile citizens. But jail is now so cushy that most criminals don't give a damn if they return for some "easy living" time.
How many times have mad dog prosecutors sent innocent people to prison just because the prosecutor refuses to admit he is wrong and somebody else did the dirty deed? How many deadly dangerous criminals plead out to lesser offenses for less time than they deserve, then get out and do the same thing (or worse)? Sometimes a bleeding heart has no place in court. And neither do plea bargains for serious crimes.
Criminals, and andy, don't think like us.

[Gecko45]

Any guilty plea or conviction should include public flaying IMO. It won't kill them - it is just a spanking for an adult. The embarassment would likely be enough to deter a LOT of people......
Umm, last time I checked, being flayed would kill you. Perhaps you mean flogged?

In which case I agree with you. And it isn't even anti-American, as public flogging was a common practice in the first several decades of this country's existance, never mind the century or so of time before that as colonies.

[andy]

flogging has killed more than one man, the way it used to be done. Believe me, it would change very little. Nobody figures on being caught, or they don't care about the result. A life sentence doesn't scare them a bit worse than a 5 year sentence. Look at how many of you are PETRIFIED at the idea of a weekend in the county jail. :-)

[KJUN]

I meant flogged. Thanks.

I'm not scared of prison time. I just know how ashamed I'd be for havinbg spent time in prison for doing something I know (or should know) was wrong. Being in prison is like catching a STD. It happens, but it is NOT something to brag about later.

[andy]

depends upon what it was for. I have no problem with being jailed for having made silencers and smg's. There's lots of laws that EVERYONE should openly violate, EVERY DAY, until they are repealed. I trusted people that I should not have. It's not going to happen again.

[RIKA]

I'm not scared of prison time. I just know how ashamed I'd be for havinbg spent time in prison for doing something I know (or should know) was wrong. Being in prison is like catching a STD. It happens, but it is NOT something to brag about later.

Well said.

RIKA

[lucille]

There's lots of laws that EVERYONE should openly violate, EVERY DAY, until they are repealed.

Andy, if you are opening the traditional debate about civil disobedience, it is a complicated debate and very much a two edged sword.
I think we all agree that there are laws that are not well thought out; but the theory of law in general is that the structure does offer a measure of protection to those living in society.
There are numerous exceptions to this, as some laws seem to be designed to protect only a small sector of the population.
So you need to expand upon your theory here, to say exactly what part of this traditional legal debate you are advancing.

[blueboy]

any law pertaining to personal choice, like dope or guns, and any law that is Prohitim Malo by law, not by any harm done to the innocent.

[gripper]

Mala in se refers to those acts whose evil is self evident(rape , murder ,short eyed behavior etc) Mala prohibidum are those acts prohibited by administrative whimsy ,legislative fiat ,drunks voting in th eHouse after midnight( or in the case of Sen Kennedy,0900am) you get the idea.

[andy]

We need to repeal at least 90% of the laws, and do away with Federal law enforcement all together. All crimes are committed in some state, the state should prosecute (or not). All we've done with federalizing everthing is create a huge, very dangerous Big Brother.

[gripper]

No argument here....let them go back to working on thoseboring mala in se cases;you know;the old fashion murder,rape,theft,robbery assault cases.ones that were not weighed with all those"aggravating" terms like "hate crime","assault weapon"whatever.Oh;but wait,DA's wouild not be as readily able to prance around the evening news working on the two step handwring and demand another law.

[lucille]

any law pertaining to personal choice, like dope or guns, and any law that is Prohitim Malo by law, not by any harm done to the innocent.

I disagree. Giving dope to kids, for example I consider is wrong and is not a matter of choice because they do not have the maturity to make a choice when they are very small.

[andy]

why do kids have MONEY with which to buy dope, hmm? Know how expensive it is? figure at LEAST $100 a week for any sort of habit that would actually harm anybody. If they use sex as payment, there's another crime that is real, and prosecutable.