Mandatory minimum sentencing

Beefy said:
Dammit. :(
Click to expand...

Speaking of that hot ride, does it look something like this?

hot-tub-car.jpg
 
Mandentory Min's are a terrable thing as they remove the human element to Justice. Clearly there needs to be a human element, that is why we have judges.
 
Jarod said:
Mandentory Min's are a terrable thing as they remove the human element to Justice. Clearly there needs to be a human element, that is why we have judges.
Click to expand...

Lets just have computers sentence people. It'd be faster and probably less prone to mistakes.
 
I still like the middle age method. Kill people for everything but stealing. For stealing, cut off their hands. America should be run like the middle ages, those guys really knew what they were doing.
 
American police forces are corrupt too. Maybe not universally so, but they have their issues.

Boston, Miami, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have police departments involved to some degree in protecting and assisting narcotics traders.
 
Ok, ok, but what about paedophiles? You guys are all dealing with the easier realm of drugs.

There are people like ib1yysguy who has stated that baby rape (and this was caught on tape and they confessed, so %100 certainty of guilt) was not that bad because the baby is too young to be traumatized. Scum like that, if on a jury, would recommend tiny sentences if that, so it's important to have at least a minimum sentence so that juries with ib1's on them or other Liberal Democrats who coddle disgusting criminals would not allow them to get away with small sentences.
That would be a disgrace to their victim and frankly dangerous for society.

What we really need is fewer rules but stronger sentences for those few rules.
 
TheDanold said:
Ok, ok, but what about paedophiles? You guys are all dealing with the easier realm of drugs.

There are people like ib1yysguy who has stated that baby rape (and this was caught on tape and they confessed, so %100 certainty of guilt) was not that bad because the baby is too young to be traumatized. Scum like that, if on a jury, would recommend tiny sentences if that, so it's important to have at least a minimum sentence so that juries with ib1's on them or other Liberal Democrats who coddle disgusting criminals would not allow them to get away with small sentences.
That would be a disgrace to their victim and frankly dangerous for society.

What we really need is fewer rules but stronger sentences for those few rules.
Click to expand...

Our country's legal system is based on a verdict reached by a jury of peers. I don't believe that the state should be flooding prisons we can't afford to pay for just so that some Republican can say he's "tough on crime".

By the way I doubt 1by would say that again. I vaguely remember the conversation.
 
Warren said:
Our country's legal system is based on a verdict reached by a jury of peers. I don't believe that the state should be flooding prisons we can't afford to pay for just so that some Republican can say he's "tough on crime".
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with that, these laws arose for a reason and yes granted they have issues, but this is where I as a parent seperate myself from a lot of the (single) Libertarians. I do not want child molesters and paedophiles out on the street, at all. I don't really care how some politician wants to sloganize that, but the bottom line is that paedophiles and other of the worst scum and abusers need to be put away for as long as possible.
My kids and others safety is not going to hinge on some leftwing Liberal jury/judge in San Fran who think like ib1 and want criminals not punished. Remember criminals travel and are free to go to children in any part of the country.
Mandatory minimum sentences are one safeguard against them being able to do so.

Warren said:
By the way I doubt 1by would say that again. I vaguely remember the conversation.
Click to expand...
ib1 hides how he truly thinks. Remember he laughed along with Grind at when he thought my image of BAC was blackface and then pretended to be offended.

Same thing with the baby rape thing, he said what he said CLEARLY stating it did not cause physical OR mental trauma and then backtracked when the outrage came in.
 
I am fine with Pedophiles and rapists and the murderers that killed just to kill being in jail forever. If that was the issue here we would all be on the same sheet of music. But our prisons are overcrowded because of all the rapists, pedophiles and sociopathic murderers in there. They are over crowded because people are spending time for non violent drug offenses. The fact that a woman got 27 years for doing nothing more than wiring some money to someone is insane. In most states Rapists do less time than she was originally sentenced to. Even ten years is too much and whoever started this post was right, because she had no knowledge of the day to day activities in this venture she got to go to prison longer than some people that probably had more culpability than her because we reward snitching even though no "mr big" is ever brought to justice for his participation.
 
It isn't to punish people that we should put child molesters in prison until the day that they die, it is because the recidivism rate and the causation for the child to later become a molester themselves creates the strongest reason to take these people out of society.
 
Please. Sex offenders have some of the lowest reoffence rates out of any criminals. With reform hardly any recommit. Why should we punish the 90% who don't recividate to get back at the 10% who might? Sure, it would incapacitate those 10%, but 90% of those going to jail for life would've been able to go back into normal society had we not just acted on a knee-jerk angry instinct. Wouldn't that be a crime in and of itself?

Barring that, I'm not really against second or third strike laws for sexual or violent offenders. But we really need to get reform in there, so that we don't have to send as many people back to prison. Our prisons currently are just crime re-training facilities.
 
Last edited:
TheDanold said:
Ok, ok, but what about paedophiles? You guys are all dealing with the easier realm of drugs.

There are people like ib1yysguy who has stated that baby rape (and this was caught on tape and they confessed, so %100 certainty of guilt) was not that bad because the baby is too young to be traumatized. Scum like that, if on a jury, would recommend tiny sentences if that, so it's important to have at least a minimum sentence so that juries with ib1's on them or other Liberal Democrats who coddle disgusting criminals would not allow them to get away with small sentences.
That would be a disgrace to their victim and frankly dangerous for society.

What we really need is fewer rules but stronger sentences for those few rules.
Click to expand...

Stronger sentences?

Are you crazy?

We already have stronger sentences. Six times longer than in Europe. It's proven not to deter crime. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again whenever it's clearly not working.
 
Last edited:
TheDanold said:
Ok, ok, but what about paedophiles? You guys are all dealing with the easier realm of drugs.

There are people like ib1yysguy who has stated that baby rape (and this was caught on tape and they confessed, so %100 certainty of guilt) was not that bad because the baby is too young to be traumatized. Scum like that, if on a jury, would recommend tiny sentences if that, so it's important to have at least a minimum sentence so that juries with ib1's on them or other Liberal Democrats who coddle disgusting criminals would not allow them to get away with small sentences.
That would be a disgrace to their victim and frankly dangerous for society.

What we really need is fewer rules but stronger sentences for those few rules.
Click to expand...

For a guy who is always accusing people of lying, you continually lie about what I said. Lies by omission are still lies, Dano.
 
If by "not that bad [...] recommend tiny sentences" you're referring to me saying the baby rapist (who never penetrated the child and didn't physically harm him) shouldn't get the death penalty (which is what I said), then you are lying.

If you mean anything else, then you're also lying since you're misrepresenting what I said.
 
The real problem with states like Californias three strikes laws is that they are far too broad. It's all good until you have to put somebody in jail for life without parole for stealing razor blades or something like that.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If by "not that bad [...] recommend tiny sentences" you're referring to me saying the baby rapist (who never penetrated the child and didn't physically harm him) shouldn't get the death penalty (which is what I said), then you are lying.

If you mean anything else, then you're also lying since you're misrepresenting what I said.
Click to expand...

If it means anything, I also think that giving him the death penalty would be too harsh. Of course, I don't believe in the death penalty. You were a little bit flippant in your response but I don't really see why Dano made such a big deal out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top