|
|
Stories we should know more about.
|
Posts:
13,080
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(8505 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 9:41 PM
|
Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
Can't believe the science that can't be proven, yet can't dismiss the consequences that are not for us to decide.
I'm just wondering about the pollution behind rebuild everything for global warming.
Hey, it beats the shit out of wars.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,346
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(8504 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 9:03 PM
|
None of that was persuasive PW.
Make it a federal crime? Holy Batshit! That should cure it, forthright, eh?
Aggravating circumstances are already addressed and accomodated within the sentencing guidelines, and you know it. That's rather the entire purpose of such guidelines.
Discrimination in the legal system? Is there part of the law that previously said that gays or other groups were somehow exempt from the law, or not covered by the law?
Of course not, and you know it.
Borderline sophistry PW.
These hate crimes are an exercise in mental masturbation, as you have just demonstrated.
Praising the Emperor's New Clothes, superfluous, politically correct in some circles.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,626
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
13,080
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(8502 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 2:41 PM
|
Obama Touts Asia Trade for US Economic Recovery
Forget San Jose.
Well, one of the biggest and most profitable exports out of California is agriculture. CA oranges to Shanghai. NY chocolates and candies to Shanghai. Nuts, porks, and others...
or
Can we sell F22, the aircraft that can't fly in rain to Japan?
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8501 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 2:27 PM
|
> GZ
>
> If a justice system has failed because certain humans
> failed in their application of the law (slaps on
> wrist, etc) then how can writing another law remedy
> that human failure?
It remedies it by taking it out of their hands if necessary.
> We already have minimum
> mandatory sentences, and they have been a spectacular
> failure, as far as delivering justice goes.
I wholeheartedly agree, but that's apples and oranges.
> Specially trained law enforcement? Pardon my
> skepticism, but I don't find that a very convincing
> justification for this.
Specially trained law enforcement?
>
> The cases you refer to expose an inadequate justicee
> system, but the big question is can writing the law
> differently correct errors committed by those who
> administer the system? I'm not convinced.
Well, nothing is perfect, but it will greatly reduce them.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,859
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(8500 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 2:21 PM
|
> > What charge(s) should Fort Hood's sniper be
> charged
> > with?
> >
> > Hate crime, terrorism, serial / mass killer,
> murder,
> > assault with a deadly weapon. Or should have be
> let
> > off on a psycho charge?
> >
> > Personally I think his conscious was killing
> him, (
> > and others), and the lack of pussy pushed him
> over
> > the edge.
> >
> > What is Hasan guilty of?
>
> Murder with aggravating circumstances.
PW, (and others)
I agree with you. He should receive multiple counts of that charge. Plus assault with a deadly weapon.
But I also think the Doc was crazy and no one diagnosed his problem. So he rationalized it into a religion related objection. You can't pick your battles.
That fact that a Major singled out other members of the military should also be considered. Therefore unlike the 9/11 Gitmo detainees. Hasan should be tried in a military court, and subjected to their laws.
But since he committed a crime in Texas, he will be tried in a criminal court, and sentenced to the death penalty. Despite he was an officer who committed a crime on a military base.
It was a truly heinous crime. Worse yet, the wounded still have to go to Afghanistan with their injuries. there are not enough that are willing to go to a useless war. I heard an average of 6 servicemen per week commit suicide, (at Fort Hood), rather than go overseas.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8499 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 2:18 PM
|
> PW
>
> I'm glad you acknowledge the role of sentencing
> guidelines and sentence enhancement.
>
> If we can already enhance a sentence for various
> elements under the present system, what do we gain
> with this new statute?
To add this circumstance to the list of aggravating circumstances, and to trigger federal jurisdiction, if need be.
>
> "safeguards in place for victims" you say. A victim
> is a victim. Statutes do not protect a victim, they
> merely allow punishment for the offender within a
> legal structure.
They protect the victims from discrimination in the legal system.
> I say we gain nothing but another level of
> bureaucracy, or whatever it might be called. This is
> vindictive behavior, nothing more. If an offender
> can already be punished under the present system, all
> this provides is more punishment.
Yes, it elevates the crime to one with aggravating circumstances, and therefore a stiffer penalty. Vindictive? I dont know...seems no more vindictive than enhancing punishment for other aggravating circumstances, like the victim being under 12 or pregnant, the victim being tortured, done for pecuniary gain, etc. There are 18 of them in PA.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,346
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(8498 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 1:58 PM
|
GZ
If a justice system has failed because certain humans failed in their application of the law (slaps on wrist, etc) then how can writing another law remedy that human failure? We already have minimum mandatory sentences, and they have been a spectacular failure, as far as delivering justice goes.
Specially trained law enforcement? Pardon my skepticism, but I don't find that a very convincing justification for this.
The cases you refer to expose an inadequate justicee system, but the big question is can writing the law differently correct errors committed by those who administer the system? I'm not convinced.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,346
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(8497 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 1:53 PM
|
PW
I'm glad you acknowledge the role of sentencing guidelines and sentence enhancement.
If we can already enhance a sentence for various elements under the present system, what do we gain with this new statute?
"safeguards in place for victims" you say. A victim is a victim. Statutes do not protect a victim, they merely allow punishment for the offender within a legal structure.
I say we gain nothing but another level of bureaucracy, or whatever it might be called. This is vindictive behavior, nothing more. If an offender can already be punished under the present system, all this provides is more punishment.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,010
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(8496 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 11:57 AM
|
JET
> I agree with you that establishing motive is
> important for both the investigation phase and in the
> trial phase of any crime.
>
> My problem with all this is that it seems to be a
> slippery slope.
>
> If, in addition to the crime committed, a person can
> be charged with having what are essentially "illegal"
> thoughts, then how long will it take before our
> illustrious legislators decide to pass a statute
> regarding these illegal thoughts?
The slippery slope was a downward spiral of a failed justice system letting people off with a slap on the wrist for violent murders and other crimes.
Now these crimes will be treated as they always should have been, but weren't, by establishing motive.
Law enforcement will be specially trained and resources made available to identify individuals and groups targeting specific groups for specific reasons.
> If a crime is committed, fine--prosecute the
> offender, as we have done forever.
That's the problem. What these cases exposed was glaringly inadequate justice system, so the Byrd and Shepherd families fought for years to make sure that offenders will be prosecuted appropriately as motive will be factored in.
> That's justice.
It is now.
>
> But if a person is charged with an additional offense
> because of his thought processes, well, I think that
> is a dangerous path to go down.
The perpetrators won't be charged with additional offenses. Thought processes are already used as factors in determining mental culpability, and why they weren't used in these cases is a miscarriage of justice that has now been remedied.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8495 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 11:22 AM
|
> What charge(s) should Fort Hood's sniper be charged
> with?
>
> Hate crime, terrorism, serial / mass killer, murder,
> assault with a deadly weapon. Or should have be let
> off on a psycho charge?
>
> Personally I think his conscious was killing him, (
> and others), and the lack of pussy pushed him over
> the edge.
>
> What is Hasan guilty of?
Murder with aggravating circumstances.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8494 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 11:21 AM
|
> So you're saying that through "hate crime
> legislation", a sentence for a crime can be
> enhanced?
Yes.
>
> Isn't that the purpose of Sentencing Guidelines?
Yes. It's part of the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines already include aggravating circumstances, which are more harsh than the same crime committed without them. This is just an aggravating circumstance added to the list.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8493 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 11:19 AM
|
> My problem with all this is that it seems to be a
> slippery slope.
Have no fear.
>
> If, in addition to the crime committed, a person can
> be charged with having what are essentially "illegal"
> thoughts, then how long will it take before our
> illustrious legislators decide to pass a statute
> regarding these illegal thoughts?
No. They are not charged with an additional crime for their thoughts. It becomes an aggravating circumstance to the crime they committed. They are being charged for the act, not the thoughts. If all the defendant did was think hateful thoughts against gays, there could be no charge.
> If a crime is committed, fine--prosecute the
> offender, as we have done forever. That's justice.
Sometimes with aggravating circumstances, as we have been doing.
>
> But if a person is charged with an additional offense
> because of his thought processes, well, I think that
> is a dangerous path to go down.
It's not an additional offense.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,645
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8492 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 11:15 AM
|
> prettywitty,
>
> Well put. Love the moniker as well; concise, to the
> point, and, well, witty.
>
> OF COURSE hate crimes are by their nature redundant
> (presumably), but more importantly, simply missing
> the point.
I don't think it's redundant. I just think it adds an aggravating circumstance to the crime, which is something that happens all the time, when warranted. This just defines the aggravating circumstance, and triggers the ability for the feds to step in if need be.
> As in, if you meet all the criteria for
> having committed Murder I (or II, or III for that
> matter), the law does not attempt (nor should it) to
> establish what was in your mind when you did it.
Actually, the defendant's state of mind is often relevant.
> Hate crime legislation is certainly ONE example of
> liberal left politics run amuck, although, like most
> liberals,
Though I don't agree, I do understand the other side of the argument in that regard. However, the bennies of safeguards in place for victims so they are not discriminated against in pursuing justice far outweigh any negatives liberals have to withstand for their "bleeding hearts."
Besides, why shouldn't it be an aggravating circumstance? It is one.
We use aggravating circumstances all the time. Take murder, for example. In PA, there are aggravating circumstances that elevate the degree of the crime and/or the sentencing. In PA, there are 18, some of which include the victim being 12 or younger, the act being particularly heinous, torture, in commission of a felony, multiple murders, pecuniary gain, the victim is a government employee (cop, fireman, DA, etc.), victim is pregnant and so on. This just makes targeting the victim for their sexual orientation (or other protected class) an aggravating circumstance. I see nothing beyond the pale about that.
> I'd certainly be reticent about expressing
> that sentiment openly, given the open Repubelican
> right-wing hostility toward and more than
> opportunistic antagonistic approach towards all
> things liberal.
Yes, it's seething.
>
> GOP. The new NAZI's. Hey, we're God fearing, and
> mostly (and increasingly) white too!
Onward Christian soldiers
>
> LOL! Same song, different verse, pointed at a
> different generation, just to be "clever." Those
> wily Republicans!
>
> DaN
LOL
|
|
|
Posts:
1,859
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(8491 of 8535)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 21, 2009 11:04 AM
|
What charge(s) should Fort Hood's sniper be charged with?
Hate crime, terrorism, serial / mass killer, murder, assault with a deadly weapon. Or should have be let off on a psycho charge?
Personally I think his conscious was killing him, ( and others), and the lack of pussy pushed him over the edge.
What is Hasan guilty of?
|
|
|
|
|
