Be rich and the law will not apply... (Dallas: 2014, legal)

[jsChicago]

Originally Posted by wxf848

I don't know that I'd link justice with deterrent. However, I'm not opposed to having a minimum term of confinement. My wish is that we'd emphasize rehabilitation and restoration into society, and get away from the "you hurt someone so we'll hurt you back" attitude. Whatever the minimum term is, it needs to be suitable for getting the convict back into society rehabilitated.

I suppose we're on opposite sides of that particular coin. If you just murdered four people and destroyed the lives of their loved ones I'm not interested in returning you to society; I'd much rather see you swinging from the end of a rope.

By the way, I signed a petition to have that useless judge removed from the bench. If anyone else is interested, here's the note they sent me:

Note to forward to your friends:

Hi!

I just signed the petition "Governor Rick Perry: Take Judge Jean Boyd off the Bench" on Change.org.

It's important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link:

LINK

Thanks!

[wxf848]

Originally Posted by jsChicago

I suppose we're on opposite sides of that particular coin. If you just murdered four people and destroyed the lives of their loved ones I'm not interested in returning you to society; I'd much rather see you swinging from the end of a rope.

Perhaps surprisingly, I don't disagree. I hold lifetime imprisonment, or execution, suitable for the unredeemably guilty (it isn't a proper word, but I mean it slightly differently than "irredeemably"). The question is whether he's unredeemably guilty. My belief is that we should decide what to do with him, and then do it. Either get rid of him forever, or rehabilitate him for reintroduction into society. Don't mix the two. Don't just lock someone up and let him out later and expect him to be better.

To me, it isn't about punishment, it's about removing the unsuitable from society. Doing evil, hurting people, should be left to the evil. Society should not make it an objective to hurt people in revenge. Rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated and remove those who can't be.

[lonestar2007]

Originally Posted by wxf848

Society should not make it an objective to hurt people in revenge.

I've never understood the reasoning of those who consider punishment as revenge. Used to be, gowing up kids were taught right from wrong by various methods. Sometimes a stern talking to fit the occasion, sometimes a time-out or a grounding and sometimes kids got the daylights whipped out of them for doing something that was really bad. Was that revenge? No. But in most cases it worked. If you were normal and not some mental case and not just a completely mean through and through psycho kid, it taught you that you didn't want to repeat the behavior that resulted in a good whipping or otherwise good punishment. EX: Put your hand on a hot burner and the next time you will remember, oops! that's not a good thing to do, if this helps explain it any better for the bleeding hearts.

By the same means, deal out no punishment to a wayward kid and his actions only get worse. No consequences you know.

We had a little boy who lived down the block from us as a kid. He would get a new bicycle every year for Christmas. Why? Because he completely destroyed his during the year and could cared less that he did. We, on the other hand, got one bike with the warning, that was it. Tear it up and it's gone, there wouldn't be another bike bought for us.

Guess what? Our bikes lasted through childhood.

We did something wrong that we knew we'd be in serious trouble if we got caught and we were scared to death to do it. LOL Get a few of my Daddy's whippings and you better believe, it stuck with you. We stopped and thought about the consequence before we ventured out on a wrong doing. Did we ever think we were being punished as a revenge? No, even as kids we knew better. We knew we were being punished so that the next time we'd remember the punishment before we disregarded right from wrong and done something we knew we shouldn't have been doing.

But those days seem to be well behind us and now society is suffering the consequences because of this new generation and the fact that far too many of them haven't had to suffer any consequences because of their actions.

Oh well, this is what we get for being too indifferent and too lazy to discipline our children, so I guess why even bother talking about it, nothing is going to change except for the worse. Yep, as you can tell, I'm completely disgusted by all of it and especially by the indifferent attitudes of a lot of people. Well, if something happens to them as a result of our lenient society, then I suppose we'll hear them hollering like little piggies caught under a gate. EXCEPT for the liberal ones who will still believe that it wasn't little Johnnie and Nancy's fault that they don't take responsibility for their actions, it is the parents fault and therefore no punishment should be handed out to them and therefore the cycle continues.

While I firmly believe it is the parent's responsibility to teach right from wrong to their kids, I feel it is ultimately the individual (kid) who is responsible for his/her actions and they need to pay a price for their wrong doings.

At some point people (and this includes kids) have to take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming their parents or anyone else even if the parents were p*ss poor role models, if the kid has a brain, they know they are doing wrong.

As in this case, the judge letting this kid off with a mere slap on the hand is only compounding his problems and society will have to contend with him again. No lesson was learned here.

[Huckleberry3911948]

people being upset about this i understand. what i dont understand is when they let OJ go people cheered in the streets.

[lonestar2007]

You are so right. That's another one I will never understand. Crazy.

[wxf848]

Punishment can be rehabilitative or it can be revenge. I hold any non-rehabilitating punishment to be a harm done by society.

[wxf848]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

people being upset about this i understand. what i dont understand is when they let OJ go people cheered in the streets.

I think that's about hero worship. He was their hero, and it spoke well of them that the person they admired wasn't found guilty of murder. I think it was more of a personal affirmation than a belief that he wasn't guilty.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

people being upset about this i understand. what i dont understand is when they let OJ go people cheered in the streets.

Originally Posted by wxf848

I think that's about hero worship. He was their hero, and it spoke well of them that the person they admired wasn't found guilty of murder. I think it was more of a personal affirmation than a belief that he wasn't guilty.

Many people see criminal justice as a game, entertainment a competition, that is won or lost. The country did the same thing with George Zimmerman and others. Their team won, so they cheered.

[Acntx]

This thread is beginning to veer off topic. Please get back to the original topic of this thread. Thanks.

[loves2read]

Is there any accuracy to the info I saw on line that his parents contributed money to the judge's re-election campaign?
She has said that she won't run for office again--which is just acknowledging the fact that she couldn't GET re-elected...
If they did give money-then she should have recused herself from the case
if she didn't then I think her decision is reviewable and maybe reversible...

There are several civil lawsuits against the boy/parents since he is a minor
will a civil judgement be expunged by bankruptcy?
which means the families of those injured or killed would still be denied compensation