Laws and Legality

[Heracles 417]

If it is possible to read that as not racist, then I would be shocked. Second, you do realize that many of the country's poor people live in rural areas? Or not in "ghettos"? Each post you make, I doubt more and more that you've ever been to the United States at all.

The poor here are everywhere. It is something I do not agree with but have to put up with in the US. The issue I have is that there is a huge concentration of poor Americans living in cities. Cities which are post industrial era which now require skilled labor. I have seen it in Phili, Baltimore, LA, Pittsburgh, Virginia Beach, NYC, Richmond, DC to name a few.

All my suggestion was is why not move to other locations where you can find work in order to get out of poverty. I do no give a ###### about what they look like but am more so puzzled over why they just stay in the key legacy cities. There are clearly jobs out there considering the 12+ million illegal immigrants are working here; plus the fact that the country has an extremely low unemployment rate. The difference is that the illegal immigrants want to work to get paid rather than whine about this and that. They actually work pretty hard in tough weather. I see it all the time..

Edited June 28, 2007 by Infidel

[jundp 191]

The other obstacle here is the cultural endorsement of being a gangster and mobster. So many kids aspire to be cool and are gangster wannabes.

None of the kids I know. Maybe you need to stop spending all your time in the ghetto.

I have to say here that I teach high school, in an urban school that is about 40% minority. Even the white kids aspire to be gangsta. It's true. They emulate the style, the language, the attitude. I have also taught a couple of kids who were in a Mexican gang...in Seattle. They were in a gang because they had protection in an area where they felt it was needed. Both young men had since left the gang life, and spoke against it, but one told me that he sometimes missed that sense of family and brotherhood. I'll never understand it, but I can see his pov.

We can as a society/government at least provide basic needs to deter people from taking to crime as a way out. It wont stop all crime, but it will hopefully prevent some people from ending up in the criminal system. Europe and other places around the world, have done a much better job of taking care of their people, than the US has.

But I think there is also a cultural aspect to this. And I don't know exactly where is from.

I realized that a while back. I do not think balanced capitalism is bad but a dog eats dog society just does not work. It never has in over 5,000 years and has always led to the failure of a society and country.

The other obstacle here is the cultural endorsement of being a gangster and mobster. So many kids aspire to be cool and are gangster wannabes. They endorse violence and are now told not to speak up against crime otherwise you will be classified a "snitch". The lack of accepting the 'broken window effect' is also adding fuel to the fire.

How much does poverty or people being in poverty affect the gangster ideal? Because its been so commercialized, it probably does something to instill the idea that gangs and crime are a way out, to riches. When what really happens is they just end up in jail.

Neither of the boys that I taught ever saw gangs as a way to riches, but they did see it as a way to a fake family. The beliefs are misguided, imo, but they are there.

Next, Infidel will solve famine by suggesting that people move to where the food is...

Come to think of it animals seem to have no issue with doing what you alleged I would 'suggest'. And they're stupid.

Same applies with migration and farming in countries like AUS. One must move to fertile areas to survive. Common sense really; even for an animal..

And what do you do about areas of the world in which it is impossible to move "to the food" because you have corrupt governments being supported by other corrupt governments or big corporations, who are supporting guerrilla warfare? Or you have entire villages ravaged by AIDS and famine who cannot move simply because wherever they could move also has no food?

I wouldn't say animals or stupid, but you seem to be implying that humans are. How many animals have to contend with entire groups of people committing genocide, while an entire world looks the other way and says "as long as we don't call it genocide, it's ok"?

Animals often aren't prevented from "moving to where the food is", by say... militias who want to starve the people out; or who take the food out for their hands...

I did not make any assumption about the cause and solutions to famine. The great Caladan is responsible for that. Militias aside, humans for example migrated out of Africa to other lands for a reason..

And millions stayed in Africa, because of pride, heritage, home, land, and quite possibly for many, because they don't have a choice. I'm not sure what your argument is here? You may not be intending to sound this way, but you do come off as racist and anti-African. If I am reading your words wrong, my apologies.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Infidel, you have taken the bait! You disagree in this thread and you will be called a racist, Immigrant hating nazi!

Also, the compassionate words spoken here for all the poor souls on this planet are as empty and vacant as the ppl speaking them. Compassion doesnt heal the wounds of a child nor fill the stomachs of the starving. Compassion with no action is purely making the speaker of compassion feel better about themselves. Its the same as standing next to a person starving and saying how sorry you are and walking away.

Ok categorize me!

[Heracles 417]

I wouldn't say animals or stupid, but you seem to be implying that humans are.

well come

And millions stayed in Africa, because of pride, heritage, home, land, and quite possibly for many, because they don't have a choice. I'm not sure what your argument is here? You may not be intending to sound this way, but you do come off as racist and anti-African. If I am reading your words wrong, my apologies.

Yes I do a have a problem with the attitude of some middle and lower class African Americans. Heck yes. They're caught in a I am the victim blame game. Doing the same old thing. Using the same old excuses while so many people from various backgrounds, cultures and races have come to the US with nothing and built quite a nest egg for themselves. So no they are not going to get any sympathy from me. Only questions..

Edited June 28, 2007 by Infidel

[GaryC 7]

Mandatory minimums are dumb, just like zero tolerance policies in schools. Mandatory minimums tie the judge's hands; poor Jean Valjean can't get a break if it's his third baguette. In keeping with my general policy against asinine legislation, I'm against tying the hands of the smart people we pay to use discretion.

The relationship between law and punishment is quite complex. Retribution is an important aspect of it, but I think the most important function of law is to segregate someone from society when they're damaging it by ignoring the rules.

Exactly.

Gary, we have separation of powers and thank God the Founding Fathers of this country had such foresight - to prevent power to be concentrated. You give way too much leeway to the legislative and executive branches of government while seemingly dismiss the judicial branch as irrelevent.

You need to educate yourself some more. We already have mandatory sentencing for some crimes. I would like to see every criminal law with mandatory minimums.

You ask me why I want minimum sentencing for crimes? To guard against loony tune judges that let child molesters off because they think treatment is better than punishment. Because of rich people that can buy their way out of jail. Because of politically connected people that can influence judges. I firmly believe in law and order. I also believe that laws are not meant to be broken because you don't like them.

[Heracles 417]

If I am reading your words wrong, my apologies.

I forgot to add a very well written post. You took the time to understand and comprehend what someone else is saying..

You disagree in this thread and you will be called a racist, Immigrant hating nazi!

Yes. Plus the your wrong I am right attitude of some here.

If some like Caladaaaaan and co want to enter a pissing contest, I'm in.. They just shouldn't start crying when things get heated up and personal; as many take it to that level but cannot take the heat. Which has happened numerous times in other threads in the past..

Edited June 28, 2007 by Infidel

[GaryC 7]

I am going to subject you to an editorial by Bill O'Reilly. I know that just because it comes from him you will discount it but what he has to say makes sense. Please try to read it with an open mind and then tell me where you think he is wrong without getting into your personal dislike for him.

He speaks about "relativism". I believe that is what Steven and others are trying to propose as a way of dealing with breaking the law. I think relativism is wrong. I give you this editorial because it sums up how I feel about it. Again I ask you to put aside your dislike for O'Reilly and read what he has to say.

The failure to punish child rapists: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

Millions of Americans can't believe these judges who give light sentences to adults who rape kids. Right now, “The Factor" is trying to remove get Ohio Judge John Connor removed from the bench for giving a man who raped two young boys probation.

The attorney general of Ohio will join us shortly.

As we saw in Vermont, where Judge Edward Cashman sentenced the rapist of an 8-year-old girl to 60 days in prison, there are some American who don't believe in punishing violent crime.

Now many of these people subscribe to a philosophy of relativism. That is a theory which says there's no absolute right or wrong. All moral values are relative. What's wrong for you is not wrong for your neighbor if he or she doesn't think his or her actions are wrong.

That's what the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is all about. Those loons believe it's OK to rape kids because they want to. That's what Al Qaeda is all about. Those maniacs believe it's fine to kill innocent civilians because Allah wants them to. In fact, the Al Qaeda crazies think they'll go to heaven if they kill women and babies. And relativism is what Dr. George Tiller practices in Kansas, where for $5,000, he'll extract a baby from the mother's womb and drill a hole in the baby's head. Tiller is a leader in performing partial-birth abortions.

Now all the things I've mentioned should be condemned by righteous human beings all over the world — the rape of children, the execution of civilians, the third trimester destruction of babies are all against civilized behavior. At least they used to be.

But in today's world, we have people defending all of those actions. Judge Connor said that child rapists had a disease. University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill said many of the Americans murdered on 9/11 deserved it for working in a capitalistic system. A variety of pro-abortion groups think Dr. Tiller is a hero.

Those people all have one thing in common — they are relativists. They reject judgments about behavior.

Right now, Europe has embraced relativism with a vengeance, which is why the USA can't count on Europeans in the War on Terror. Britain is the exception, but the rule over there is little or nothing is worth fighting for.

"Talking Points" strongly believes there can be no justice without a strong definition of what is right and wrong. If adults who rape children are allowed to avoid punishment in favor of rehab, then we should just do away with criminal statutes altogether. There's no greater danger to the world today than moral relativism. It allows the destruction of children. It allows the horror of terrorism. And all of us must understand that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188084,00.html

[Dan J 277]

Mandatory minimums are dumb, just like zero tolerance policies in schools. Mandatory minimums tie the judge's hands; poor Jean Valjean can't get a break if it's his third baguette. In keeping with my general policy against asinine legislation, I'm against tying the hands of the smart people we pay to use discretion.

The relationship between law and punishment is quite complex. Retribution is an important aspect of it, but I think the most important function of law is to segregate someone from society when they're damaging it by ignoring the rules.

Exactly.

Gary, we have separation of powers and thank God the Founding Fathers of this country had such foresight - to prevent power to be concentrated. You give way too much leeway to the legislative and executive branches of government while seemingly dismiss the judicial branch as irrelevent.

You need to educate yourself some more. We already have mandatory sentencing for some crimes. I would like to see every criminal law with mandatory minimums.

You ask me why I want minimum sentencing for crimes? To guard against loony tune judges that let child molesters off because they think treatment is better than punishment. Because of rich people that can buy their way out of jail. Because of politically connected people that can influence judges. I firmly believe in law and order. I also believe that laws are not meant to be broken because you don't like them.

You do realize that without treatment, those convicted of sex offenses have a very high recidivism rate. Punishment alone doesn't work on a brain thats wired all wrong. They will only go out the same as they went in.

The only way you can reduce the likelihood that a sex offender will not commit another crime is through therapy or other mental health treatment.

[Heracles 417]

The only way you can reduce the likelihood that a sex offender will not commit another crime is through therapy or other mental health treatment.

Which in reality does not work. How many cases are there out there where so-called rehabilitated sex offenders have been released only to molest or kill children again. To be honest we do not have the technology to treat these sort of people. Then again they are a different kettle of fish as they are sick.

Whereas do you think someone who goes out and shoots a store clerk, point blank, for being told to wait in line should be sympathized with. Or that guy just the other day who shot a police officer five times with absolutely no regard for his life. These cold killers or law breakers should be punished and harshly to be honest.

[jundp 191]

I wouldn't say animals or stupid, but you seem to be implying that humans are.

well come

And millions stayed in Africa, because of pride, heritage, home, land, and quite possibly for many, because they don't have a choice. I'm not sure what your argument is here? You may not be intending to sound this way, but you do come off as racist and anti-African. If I am reading your words wrong, my apologies.

Yes I do a have a problem with the attitude of some middle and lower class African Americans. Heck yes. They're caught in a I am the victim blame game. Doing the same old thing. Using the same old excuses while so many people from various backgrounds, cultures and races have come to the US with nothing and built quite a nest egg for themselves. So no they are not going to get any sympathy from me. Only questions..

HAHAHA I just realized what I wrote. "Animals or stupid." Ooops. That doesn't give much credibility to what I wrote Especially since I am a teacher.

No, I understand what you're saying, because I see it too, but I have seen it in different races of people of similar socio-economic backgrounds. I am originally from New Orleans, and have seen the before and after effects of Katrina as well. I think I misread, as I thought you were applying this to all Africans in general.

If I am reading your words wrong, my apologies.

I forgot to add a very well written post. You took the time to understand and comprehend what someone else is saying..

Thank you. When I do post off topic, I do try to understand. We're a very multicultural and multipolitical (is that a word?) board. But, like everyone, I do often jump to conclusions.

You disagree in this thread and you will be called a racist, Immigrant hating nazi!

Well, I hope you aren't referring to me. Because first of all, I said that the words came off as racist. I would never accuse someone that I don't know of being a racist. As for the rest of your post about people using false compassion, how do you know that I (or others) do nothing to help? Therefore the same rationale you are applying to posters calling others "immigrant haters" or "nazis" (and as the future wife of a German, I take offense) (ok, not really) should be applied to yourself. You have no clue whether or not the people here showing compassion actually feel it or do anything in life to bring such compassion to fruition. And, last time I checked, compassion was a good thing. Doesn't mean it should be blind or empty, but one certainly shouldn't be afraid to show compassion.

[Heracles 417]

The one observation I have made about certain communities in America who cry poor is that if you where to build something like a brand new $20 million dollar school, I bet anyone that within 6 months that school would look like it was transfered from Baghdad. So when people say poverty alone and no cultural attitudes is to blame for crime, that is just wrong. My parents generation who did not have 10 cents to their name did not damage public property and actually respected what was not theirs and others in general.

Hence why Oprah did not bother spending 2 cents on a school in the US as she knows nowadays most poor kids simply do not give a ###### about learning.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Infidel

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hence why Oprah did not bother spending 2 cents on a school in the US as she knows nowadays most poor kids simply do not give a ###### about learning.

Excellent point!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hence why Oprah did not bother spending 2 cents on a school in the US as she knows nowadays most poor kids simply do not give a ###### about learning.

Excellent point!

Dumb point. You don't know her reasoning - and I might just as well ask what is the point of any US funded foreign aid charity or philanthropic project.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mandatory minimums are dumb, just like zero tolerance policies in schools. Mandatory minimums tie the judge's hands; poor Jean Valjean can't get a break if it's his third baguette. In keeping with my general policy against asinine legislation, I'm against tying the hands of the smart people we pay to use discretion.

The relationship between law and punishment is quite complex. Retribution is an important aspect of it, but I think the most important function of law is to segregate someone from society when they're damaging it by ignoring the rules.

Exactly.

Gary, we have separation of powers and thank God the Founding Fathers of this country had such foresight - to prevent power to be concentrated. You give way too much leeway to the legislative and executive branches of government while seemingly dismiss the judicial branch as irrelevent.

You need to educate yourself some more. We already have mandatory sentencing for some crimes. I would like to see every criminal law with mandatory minimums.

You ask me why I want minimum sentencing for crimes? To guard against loony tune judges that let child molesters off because they think treatment is better than punishment. Because of rich people that can buy their way out of jail. Because of politically connected people that can influence judges. I firmly believe in law and order. I also believe that laws are not meant to be broken because you don't like them.

By doing that, Gary, can you not see that you're putting your faith in legislation over jurisprudence. You are assuming that because a law was legislated, that it is sound and just. You assume that anyone who doesn't abide by such a law deserves some form of punishment.

Take this case for example:

"Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

"Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...law/loving.html

... this was only 40 years ago, Gary. So if you and I went back in a time machine, you'd be singing the same tune? That all crimes should be punishable with mandatory sentences???

[Traviesa 0]

I never thought I would ever agree with Infidel. But I was born in DC, I've spent all of my life in PG County (where I as a white person am a minority) and there's a LOT of truth to what he says. Whether or not it's pretty, it's how things are. I see it every day-I've seen it all of my life. My husband come here with nothing and end up making more money than me. Whereas an ex-coworker who was born and raised in the US with every opportunity at her fingertips was happier to live off the system and find ways to "cheat" the system than earn an honest dollar. We have everything free here-public education, there's no excuse whatsoever for that certain segment of society to NOT take advantage of the opportunity to better themselves. I know life can be hard, but the reality is the POOR person in the US is much better off than the AVERAGE person in many other countries. You cannot deny this is true-there's a reason we don't have nice restaurants in PG County-the customer base has an overwhelming sense of entitlement and tips poorly. This REALITY is evident in every little part of life here. People love to play the victim.