361–370 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Offtopic, but minimum sentences are nuts. What's the point of judges and juries etc if we make the law so aggressive that they hardly have a say anymore?
Juries ultimately have the final say in conviction. Its well within their right to go not guilty for any reason. Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it, but juries aren't there just as a logical check on laws as written and facts as presented. Juries are a check on the legal system and laws themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Offtopic, but minimum sentences are nuts. What's the point of judges and juries etc if we make the law so aggressive that they hardly have a say anymore?
Juries ultimately have the final say in conviction. Its well within their right to go not guilty for any reason. Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it, but juries aren't there just as a logical check on laws as written and facts as presented. Juries are a check on the legal system and laws themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Offtopic, but minimum sentences are nuts. What's the point of judges and juries etc if we make the law so aggressive that they hardly have a say anymore?
Juries ultimately have the final say in conviction. Its well within their right to go not guilty for any reason. Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it, but juries aren't there just as a logical check on laws as written and facts as presented. Juries are a check on the legal system and laws themselves.
Well, defense lawyers love it, the only thing they hate is not being allowed to mention it to juries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Juries ultimately have the final say in conviction. Its well within their right to go not guilty for any reason. Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it, but juries aren't there just as a logical check on laws as written and facts as presented. Juries are a check on the legal system and laws themselves.
If you look up the terms “no reasonable jury” and “judgment of acquittal,” you can learn more.
But that's not inconsistent with what GP said.
I could have been that guy, and worse. When I was 19 I got caught selling a bunch of MDMA at a night club. Undercover police caught me, and by God's grace they chose to let me go. MDMA had just begun to carry a minimum 10 yr prison sentence throughout the state. I had no idea what I was doing in my life, like I was asleep and not awake, until I got caught that night. About 15 minutes into the interrogation at the sce…
Offtopic, but minimum sentences are nuts. What's the point of judges and juries etc if we make the law so aggressive that they hardly have a say anymore?
Minimum sentences don't impact the juries say, which doesn't extend to sentencing in the first place, at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My life circumstances were such that I needed a job in a new area where that's all I was qualified to do (meaning I can breathe) while earning enough to live on. Software engineering is not an option within 90 minutes of here. Even if I could get a job in software here and it paid the same, software is significantly more stressful than my current job, the future is unsure as tech is always changing, the people I work…
That’s it folks, corrections officers and prisoners are more friendly/outgoing than most of us tech workers. Fuck every single one of us
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He did give him back his life. But how is it possible that his life was at risk at all? Why a 10 year sentence for taking drugs? The government should simply not have that power.
Like the other person said, it was for selling, not taking. Also, I think someone should have the power to keep the public safe, whether government, or a society-sponsored group. The cops were undercover DEA with previous experience going underground in places like Colombia. They had been in rough places. Their focus was mainly hunting the big guys: suppliers. End-chain young people trying to make a quick buck is low…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could just make criminal background checks unlawful, which is the case in Ireland. There is police vetting for people who work with the vulnerable and certain key jobs, but the average person will never face vetting for a job.
The problem with this is that it encourages crime. I know a really nice guy who went to prison for "stealing" cable TV. He's an electrician and a convicted felon. He is exceptionally productive, and has a ton of sense, but he's also a thief. His time in prison (in Texas) may have been what changed him, but he will never stop stealing. After knowing him, I would not hire a convicted criminal who spent time in prison /…
This is the attitude that needs to change. There is no proof that one act of theft results in a person having an uncontrollable urge to steal for the rest of their life.
I'm always amazed at this country in which incarcerating someone for 10 years (!!) for non violent drug dealing is economical, but public healthcare and education aren't.
It starts to make more sense when you look at the 13th amendment: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Private prisons are in the business of cheap labor, not rehabilitation. It would be extremely expensive to effectively change the lifestyles of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If locking large numbers of people up for inordinately long times prevented crime, the United States would be the safest place in the world. We have 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prison population. We are one of a dwindling number of countries that will lock up a child for life (there was a SCOTUS case baring automatic life sentences for minors, but it leaves a loophole wide enough for a semi to…
> If locking large numbers of people up for inordinately long times prevented crime, the United States would be the safest place in the world. Comparing between countries with massively different demographics is pointless. The US simply has far more criminality than other wealthy nations. > We've tried highly punitive mass incarceration for decades and it's failing horribly. That's not my take-away. We had a massive…
Yes, that is exactly related to the point OP was trying to make? Where does this crime come from? Maybe instead of useless, if not counter-productive mass incarceration, we should focus on rehabilitation and more importantly improving social injustices that are the causes of the higher crime rate sin the US.