• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kiss Sends Man to Prison - for Life

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik

Either the law isn't retroactive or it IS and he's committed his first more-than-two felony after the law was instated. I'm not sure.

All I know is that I like the idea of keeping habitual offenders off the street. I *think* it's a pretty good deterant, but that just means more taxes going for prisons instead of schools.
Click to expand...

As long as their putting dangerous people in jails and not drug addicts, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

Drug addicts aren't dangerous?
Click to expand...
Not all of them.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but as a general statement, there's nothing standing between drug addicts and being dangerous. Many drug addicts ARE in prison BECAUSE they are dangerous.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik

Either the law isn't retroactive or it IS and he's committed his first more-than-two felony after the law was instated. I'm not sure.

All I know is that I like the idea of keeping habitual offenders off the street. I *think* it's a pretty good deterant, but that just means more taxes going for prisons instead of schools.
Click to expand...

As long as their putting dangerous people in jails and not drug addicts, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

Drug addicts aren't dangerous?
Click to expand...
Not all of them.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but as a general statement, there's nothing standing between drug addicts and being dangerous. Many drug addicts ARE in prison BECAUSE they are dangerous.
Click to expand...
Actually, many(most) drug addicts are in prison because they were in possesion (using or selling, etc) drugs..
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: joedrake
Actually, many(most) drug addicts are in prison because they were in possesion (using or selling, etc) drugs..
Click to expand...

Yeah, so?
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean they were "dangerous". You'd have to look at each person on a case by case basis to make that judgement.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
he suddenly grabbed her and kissed her. The woman pushed Meyrovich away, but he took hold of her again and sucked her on the neck, stopping when a neighbor walked in.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a kiss.

Good riddance to that guy.
Click to expand...

not sure about the good riddance part though...
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik

Either the law isn't retroactive or it IS and he's committed his first more-than-two felony after the law was instated. I'm not sure.

All I know is that I like the idea of keeping habitual offenders off the street. I *think* it's a pretty good deterant, but that just means more taxes going for prisons instead of schools.
Click to expand...

As long as their putting dangerous people in jails and not drug addicts, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

Drug addicts aren't dangerous?
Click to expand...

They can be, but then they'd go to jail for committing violent crimes. Putting them in jail for being addicted to drugs is just stupid.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik

Either the law isn't retroactive or it IS and he's committed his first more-than-two felony after the law was instated. I'm not sure.

All I know is that I like the idea of keeping habitual offenders off the street. I *think* it's a pretty good deterant, but that just means more taxes going for prisons instead of schools.
Click to expand...

As long as their putting dangerous people in jails and not drug addicts, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

Drug addicts aren't dangerous?
Click to expand...

They can be, but then they'd go to jail for committing violent crimes. Putting them in jail for being addicted to drugs is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Drug addiction is the driving force behind their violent crimes.
 
I think most of those three-strikes laws, your first strike has to be among a specific set of crimes - sex crimes, armed robbery, murder, etc. You don't get put on a three-strikes track for simple possession.

While I dislike "zero tolerance" type laws, I am 26 years old and have never even been thrown in the drunk tank for the night. It's not hard to stay out of trouble. The first time you got arrested, maybe it you made a stupid mistake. Second time? Maybe you were framed. Third time? You're not worth keeping around.

About the only thing I'd change about three-strikes laws is that after your third strike, you are immediately taken out behind the courthouse and shot in the head. If knowing that stealing that candybar is going to mean death or even life in prison and that's not enough to deter you, then you are categorically incorrigible and should simply be removed from existence.
 
Originally posted by: Jzero
I think most of those three-strikes laws, your first strike has to be among a specific set of crimes - sex crimes, armed robbery, murder, etc. You don't get put on a three-strikes track for simple possession.

While I dislike "zero tolerance" type laws, I am 26 years old and have never even been thrown in the drunk tank for the night. It's not hard to stay out of trouble. The first time you got arrested, maybe it you made a stupid mistake. Second time? Maybe you were framed. Third time? You're not worth keeping around.

About the only thing I'd change about three-strikes laws is that after your third strike, you are immediately taken out behind the courthouse and shot in the head. If knowing that stealing that candybar is going to mean death or even life in prison and that's not enough to deter you, then you are categorically incorrigible and should simply be removed from existence.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Meyrovich had been convicted of nine prior sex offenses before the kiss.
Click to expand...

sounds like he should be in prison for the rest of his life. sounds like he should have already been in prison when he did his latest crime
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik

Either the law isn't retroactive or it IS and he's committed his first more-than-two felony after the law was instated. I'm not sure.

All I know is that I like the idea of keeping habitual offenders off the street. I *think* it's a pretty good deterant, but that just means more taxes going for prisons instead of schools.
Click to expand...

As long as their putting dangerous people in jails and not drug addicts, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

Drug addicts aren't dangerous?
Click to expand...

They can be, but then they'd go to jail for committing violent crimes. Putting them in jail for being addicted to drugs is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Drug addiction is the driving force behind their violent crimes.
Click to expand...

So they should go to jail because they might commit a violent crime?
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
So they should go to jail because they might commit a violent crime?
Click to expand...

Be reasonable.

They go to jail because they've committed violent crimes. Those that haven't are in jail because society has deemed that drugs should be against the law or that the government has determined that drugs are too much of a danger to society for whatever reason and the people have not petitioned the government to change the laws if they disagree.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Drug addiction is the driving force behind their violent crimes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and guns kill people.

edit: if drug addicts commit violent crimes, punish them for the VIOLENT crime aspect.
 
He tried to force the kiss on the woman NOT once, but TWICE!!!!!

Now he will get all the kisses he want to from Bubbas....LOL

Oh yeah, he is 60 years old too, what a old fart pervert.
 
I am opposed to "3 Strikes" laws on basic principle. If anyone should be locked up for life under Measure 11, it's Steve Doell.
 
Originally posted by: Triumph
He's obviously a sexual predator, so no big loss. If it was a peck on the cheek from a man whose previous two strikes were non-violent drug offenses, then sure I'd disagree with it.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: Nik
he suddenly grabbed her and kissed her. The woman pushed Meyrovich away, but he took hold of her again and sucked her on the neck, stopping when a neighbor walked in.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a kiss.

Good riddance to that guy.
Click to expand...

What would have happened in the neighbor didn't walk in??? :Q

Actually, we'd never know. This kind of brings up the Minority Report problem...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top