Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd want the court to consider whether the doors were wide open and the owner posted their "away" days on Facebook and Twitter.
I'm not talking about your personal opinion though.
If you break in someone's home or steal their car, nobody would try to argue that you're less culpable because of something the victim did. You still committed a crime. The same should apply to rape victims. The argument that victims "do" something to be victimized is taking us back 100 years.
It's also interesting that the same posters from the bully thread who argued that victims "did" something to be bullied are now all over this thread arguing the same about rape victims. But the fact remains, we have to teach our kids respect for others and to keep their hands to themselves. Even if that seems unfair in their minds.
To increase incarceration, there needs to be more prison space. And the same crowd that thinks the solution for the country that already incarcerates more of its population than any nation on Earth also not only refuses to fund the criminal justice system, it slashes its funding whenever the opportunity arises. So initial sentences may increase, but those incarcerated will simply be cycled out before their sentences are complete just to make room for the newly-sentenced.
Thus, even if the entire premise of more incarceration = less crime (it demonstrably doesn't, as many states and countries have achieved relatively low crime rates while maintaining relatively low incarceration rates) were correct, it wouldn't work because the resources to implement it would not be there.
All most people want is the satisfaction of hearing about a harsh sentence. Their attention span is too limited to actually follow through and pay attention to see if the crime rate is actually reduced - but, as I noted above, that's not really their concern.
Without more prisons the trend turns to the overcrowding of prisons. In 2007 California declared a state of emergency with regard to overcrowded prisons. The the legislature came up with funds to build more prisons when faced with the possibility of a federal takeover:
This is democracy in action. The problem is that voters are too ignorant of the issues and facts to make good informed decisions. The Persky recall case is a perfect example.
Without more prisons the trend turns to the overcrowding of prisons. In 2007 California declared a state of emergency with regard to overcrowded prisons. The the legislature came up with funds to build more prisons when faced with the possibility of a federal takeover:
This is democracy in action. The problem is that voters are too ignorant of the issues and facts to make good informed decisions. The Persky recall case is a perfect example.
I'm glad that some people understand the problem.
At this point in the thread, there is quite a big of redundancy. However, I think it might be useful to relate some personal experiences. I live and practice law in a state where--thankfully--there is no judicial recall law. There are retention elections in which a judge must run every eight years. We had several particularly high caliber attorneys in the area in which I practice. All of them would have made excellent trial court judges. None of them could be persuaded to seek appointment as a judge. I spoke to a couple of them about it. The replies I got were always the same. For them, it would have meant a drop in their salary to become a judge. However, they did like the idea of fixed vacations, being part of the state health insurance plan, and having a retirement plan. The idea of having to run in regular retention elections though was very unappealing. One of them imagined a scenario where citizens decided all the judges were "soft on crime" and organized a campaign to vote "no" on all judicial ballots as a form of protest.
In a state with recall elections, like California, the problem would have been infinitely worse. I can promise you California is not getting the best attorneys to serve as judges because the best would not serve with a feature like that in the law. A bad law is a bad law whether it is used once in seventy years or once every seven months. Lynching is bad whether it only occurs once or twice too.
The issue of ignorance among the general citizenry is a complicated one. I just received my primary election ballot in the mail. The truth is that I don't know any of the candidates who are running for school board and one of the two county commission seats up for election. So, I guess I'm guilty of being ignorant too. My inclination is simply not to cast a vote in either of these two races. I personally think we vote for too many public offices. I don't know why we vote for a county treasurer, a county clerk, a county auditor, and a county surveyor. Does a republican county surveyor, survey crooked lines ? Honestly, I think we would be better served by having most of these positions appointed positions with a career civil service track. If the person holding the office commits a crime, he can be charged with a crime and removed from office.
The same is true for the judiciary with one more wrinkle. The county surveyor doesn't make decisions about who is going to jail and who is not. Judges make these decisions and they are always going to be controversial. I think both the public and the judiciary is ill served by any system that requires judges to run for election and certainly by a system that has judicial recall elections. I have talked to some non-lawyers about judicial elections. Most of them could not even name a single judge on the bench. Yet, these are the people who can cast a judge out of office if they read about a single decision of his that they do not like. It would seem to be a ridiculous system.
The problem with bad laws is that they have a way of sticking around. The general citizenry probably isn't going to agree to repeal judicial elections because it involves "giving up power". I remember one woman who once told me that during judicial retention elections she made a point of always voting "no" on at least one judge because it was her way of thumbing her nose at the system.
The problem I have with the public being able to do this is the public is indirectly influencing the sentencing portion of the trial. If judges know that the public will not like the sentence, he/she might be more apt to put down a harsher sentence even though the crime doesn't warrant it just because they don't want to be recalled. Of course, it could go the other way around as well.
That would only happen if her teenage daughter got drunk and passed out at a house party and was gang-raped by half a dozen teens who then posted the video on UselessTube and sent photos to everyone in the community.
It takes a depraved person to take advantage of another that is unconscious.
Rep +1 Baptism by fire into a judge recall movement.
If your home was burglarized, would you want the court to consider what you were wearing at the time? Or how much you had to drink when someone broke into your home? Would you want the perpetrator to get off Scott free because you had been drinking when he broke into your home? The criminal is still guilty regardless of these irrelevant facts.
Let's use a more accurate analogy, Priscilla. Let's say I have a guest in my home, and he later leaves with some valuables. The next day I wake up and accuse my guest of burglary, while he claims I gave him those valuables. If I was so intoxicated the previous evening that I have no idea what I said, what I did, and no memory of what even happened, yes, the court should absolutely consider that when deciding whether a burglary occurred or not.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigmatico
Let's use a more accurate analogy, Priscilla. Let's say I have a guest in my home, and he later leaves with some valuables. The next day I wake up and accuse my guest of burglary, while he claims I gave him those valuables. If I was so intoxicated the previous evening that I have no idea what I said, what I did, and no memory of what even happened, yes, the court should absolutely consider that when deciding whether a burglary occurred or not.
Let's use a more accurate analogy, Priscilla. Let's say I have a guest in my home, and he later leaves with some valuables. The next day I wake up and accuse my guest of burglary, while he claims I gave him those valuables. If I was so intoxicated the previous evening that I have no idea what I said, what I did, and no memory of what even happened, yes, the court should absolutely consider that when deciding whether a burglary occurred or not.
No. He still stole from you. It's still theft.
And the analogy doesn't really work here, as the victim was not in Brock's home and not even on a date with him.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
No. He still stole from you. It's still theft.
And the analogy doesn't really work here, as the victim was not in Brock's home and not even on a date with him.
It's not stealing, if someone gives you something.
And it's well-known that people who are drinking are much more generous/foolish than sober people. That's why charity galas get the partygoers drunk before the live auction, because they'll make much more money.
And why, if you're in Vegas and betting heavily, you'll get top shelf drinks brought to your table free of charge.
Because everyone knows you'll be impulsive with your giving if you're drinking, and it's completely legal.
Because if you get your own self drunk and decide to spend 5K on a beach house weekend package, hey, sorry 'bout that. Sign here, please.
Last edited by ClaraC; 06-19-2018 at 09:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? Honestly, I think we would be better served by having most of these positions appointed positions with a career civil service track. If the person holding the office commits a crime, he can be charged with a crime and removed from office.
