Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The concept is Equal Protection under the Law. SR has a valid point - that aspect is covered under sentencing guidelines. Judges are human and not perfect, but guidelines allow for consideration of factors such as above in sentencing.
Absolutely - Equal Protection under the Law is something I support - even for idiots such as some of those on this forum who set themselves in judgment of all, and place themselves and their special privilege groups above the Law.
Time to ignore the Hateful Trolls.
Nothing Cogent or Constructive to contribute other than name-calling and hate. Happy to enjoy the privileges of American Constitutional Republic - while spewing foulness about the military who serves and protects.
Typical DPST.
serves and protects Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Why don't you leave America. You don't belong here pajama boy
It would be nice if true, but statistics show if you are wealthy and white you will do less time than if your skin color has a darker tint.
Bullshit.
Now we can move on to an adult discussion.
Here's how a judge explained it to me ... (he was Caucasian, and taught for a long time at a significant law school) ... "we" expect Hispanics to react to social situations with violence, but we don't expect "White people from the better neighborhoods to do so," so we are harder on the "White people" than the Hispanics. (a close paraphrase). And he said "we"!
Your "assumption" seems to be that Judges are harder on "people of color," because they are "people of color." Or that they are harder on poor people because they have less money.
Your assumption is not founded on fact. It's based on your bias and the bias of whining fools all over the country.
Being in Kansas, I don't know what crime you're talking about. Unless you're talking about the Shepard murder in a whole different state. That was over a drug deal and was very brutal. The indictment is such a case should the same; first degree murder. If convicted, a competent judge can take into account the brutality, the mitigating circumstances, or the subsequent actions of the defendant.
Shepherd was pistol whipped to death in the late 90s. I'm thinking about an instance that happened after 2000 maybe as late as 2010. A kid was tied to a tree and literally stoned. Too many beers since then to remember.
It would be nice if true, but statistics show if you are wealthy and white you will do less time than if your skin color has a darker tint.
Bullshit.
Now we can move on to an adult discussion.
Here's how a judge explained it to me ... (he was Caucasian, and taught for a long time at a significant law school) ... "we" expect Hispanics to react to social situations with violence, but we don't expect "White people from the better neighborhoods to do so," so we are harder on the "White people" than the Hispanics. (a close paraphrase). And he said "we"!
Your "assumption" seems to be that Judges are harder on "people of color," because they are "people of color." Or that they are harder on poor people because they have less money.
Your assumption is not founded on fact. It's based on your bias and the bias of whining fools all over the country.
Whites in 2013 charged with UCR reportable crimes about 5.8 million
Blacks in 2013 charged with UCR reportable crimes about 2.2 million
This is why more often than not. Explain why they do! What happened to them?
On the other hand ... what happened to these guys (White!!!1)
What the fake news doesn't tell you is the history of the person to be sentenced, and the nature of the offense for which they were charged. As has been discussed above: A first offender will not get time or much less time than a repeat offender. If they are looking at time they get a lawyer appointed for them. (And don't try to hand me that crap about "appointed lawyers are not as good"! I know better!)
That's why we need competent judges who know the law and can make rational considerations. We also need a way to remove bad, biased, or incompetent judges. As citizens we have to pay attention to bad laws and repeal them. The laws have to reflect public sentiment and the Constitution.
I'd settle for judges who interpret the law and not make it.
When you all debate sentence ranges, you should really begin at the foundation and purpose(s) for the "assigned" punishment for the alleged crime, and work forward.
The laws have to reflect public sentiment and the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnadfly
I'd settle for judges who interpret the law and not make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
When you all debate sentence ranges, you should really begin at the foundation and purpose(s) for the "assigned" punishment for the alleged crime, and work forward.
For the most part our criminal laws are based on the Christian ethics and beliefs held by those who settled this country and they have remained reflective of those Christian standards.
And for the most part the "assigned" punishment ranges are based on the severity and/or gravity of the consequences of the crime on some sort of sliding scale. Example:
For A LONG TIME stealing of cattle and/or a part of one (e.g. processed beef) by definition was a felony in Texas. That's why cattle rustlers were hung. Again in Texas our laws around carrying weapons had some of the "old West" still written in them ("the saddle bag law" ... carrying while traveling), etc, and the associated laws of defense of self, others, and property.
When one says criminal laws are based on "sentiment" ... it does concern me. General public opinion can shift the focus or emphasis of criminal laws, but for the most part those laws are so called "victimless" laws in which the focus is not protecting a "victim," which results in some intellectual contortions to redefine what is a "victim" and presume the status when it often does not exist ... but is simply used to justify more intrusion.
I worry about the innocent person who in defending themselves "breaks" the law according to a judge who feels that self defense does not mean taking a life even accidentally. A hero could end up in prison for years because of a bad judge or a decent judge whose hands are bound by bad law.
For the most part our criminal laws are based on the Christian ethics and beliefs held by those who settled this country and they have remained reflective of those Christian standards.
And for the most part the "assigned" punishment ranges are based on the severity and/or gravity of the consequences of the crime on some sort of sliding scale. Example:
For A LONG TIME stealing of cattle and/or a part of one (e.g. processed beef) by definition was a felony in Texas. That's why cattle rustlers were hung. Again in Texas our laws around carrying weapons had some of the "old West" still written in them ("the saddle bag law" ... carrying while traveling), etc, and the associated laws of defense of self, others, and property.
When one says criminal laws are based on "sentiment" ... it does concern me. General public opinion can shift the focus or emphasis of criminal laws, but for the most part those laws are so called "victimless" laws in which the focus is not protecting a "victim," which results in some intellectual contortions to redefine what is a "victim" and presume the status when it often does not exist ... but is simply used to justify more intrusion.
Of course the Constitution takes precedent. But if slavery falls out of favor or denying women the right to vote the court should take notice. Neither of those two were protected by the Constitution but were allowed by lesser laws.
I worry about the innocent person who in defending themselves "breaks" the law according to a judge who feels that self defense does not mean taking a life even accidentally. A hero could end up in prison for years because of a bad judge or a decent judge whose hands are bound by bad law.
Are you now changing the subject matter of your thread?
If so your hypothetical, aside from being a highly remote possibility, ignores the purpose and benefit of appeals.
Persons who are innocent have been punished for a long time, and not usually because of a "bad judge" or a "bad law"! It's been usually because of "bad law enforcement investigators" and/or "bad prosecutors" who have fabricated and/or suppressed evidence.
A "bad" outcome is usually not "the law's fault."
What upsets folks just as much (if not more) is a "guilty person" who "gets off" based on a "legal technicality" like a violation of the Fourth Amendment by LE or the suppression of evidence by the prosecutor. I have seen "not guilty" persons "get off" by a violation of the Fourth Amendment by LE, as well as the 6th Amendment by a prosecutor ... by turning over a eye witness to INS to ship home and out of the country.
Personally, I don't look upon the 4th Amendment or supression of evidence (Due Process) as "legal technicalities," but that's just me, I guess.
Here's how a judge explained it to me ... (he was Caucasian, and taught for a long time at a significant law school) ... "we" expect Hispanics to react to social situations with violence, but we don't expect "White people from the better neighborhoods to do so," so we are harder on the "White people" than the Hispanics. (a close paraphrase). And he said "we"!
Your "assumption" seems to be that Judges are harder on "people of color," because they are "people of color." Or that they are harder on poor people because they have less money.
Your assumption is not founded on fact. It's based on your bias and the bias of whining fools all over the country.
The only crime of which I am aware that is created by "the Constitution" is treason. Can you think of another?
Your argument is flawed. The constitution is about protections and defining crime. A judge should follow the law but what if judge ruled someone should be beaten as a penalty. The constitution protects the defendant from this.
Are you now changing the subject matter of your thread?
If so your hypothetical, aside from being a highly remote possibility, ignores the purpose and benefit of appeals.
Persons who are innocent have been punished for a long time, and not usually because of a "bad judge" or a "bad law"! It's been usually because of "bad law enforcement investigators" and/or "bad prosecutors" who have fabricated and/or suppressed evidence.
A "bad" outcome is usually not "the law's fault."
What upsets folks just as much (if not more) is a "guilty person" who "gets off" based on a "legal technicality" like a violation of the Fourth Amendment by LE or the suppression of evidence by the prosecutor. I have seen "not guilty" persons "get off" by a violation of the Fourth Amendment by LE, as well as the 6th Amendment by a prosecutor ... by turning over a eye witness to INS to ship home and out of the country.
Personally, I don't look upon the 4th Amendment or supression of evidence (Due Process) as "legal technicalities," but that's just me, I guess.
Not as uncommon as you think. How many have been urged to plead guilty to a lesser charge (which they are not guilty of) to avoid the possibility of jail time?
Not as uncommon as you think. How many have been urged to plead guilty to a lesser charge (which they are not guilty of) to avoid the possibility of jail time?
happens to blacks all the time. white pajama boys like you don't know your stuff
