• 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.

Our Justice System at It's Very Best.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< classy

When a child is shot, you turn it into a political argument to push your anti-gun agenda. What's the difference? >>



Please when we have our arguements about guns its impossible not to use the occurences both for and against gun control in a debate. But to reduce this situation that just happened as being somekind of doing by liberal standards is a joke. How long has the Republicans controlled congress. How many of these laws and judges been blessed by republicans, with their full outright support. I get tired of it always being the liberals. When something is wrong Russy says its the liberals and when its right Russy says its the GOP. Please. Look at all the mess and murders in Republican states. I guess liberals are responsible for them as well.
 
How long has the Republicans controlled congress. How many of these laws and judges been blessed by republicans, with their full outright support

Uh, from what I remember from government class, Congress does not appoint or &quot;bless&quot; judges in state courts. That's the job of the state government, which in Massachussets is (and has been for some time) dominated by liberals.
 


<< classy, we can have a debate and not go into name-calling. I think Russ is extremely intelligent, but just because his opinions allign with a certain political party doesn't make him a minion. I am certain his opinions are _his_ opinions and not direct orders from the GOP. >>



Well you go back and look up all of Russ's posts. They all come with some conservative GOP slant. Hell you can be talking about washing a car and Russ will tell you to find a conservative car wash joint or let it stay dirty.
 
GL said:
Quick question Russ (and I'll let myself be amused as you find the answer). Of what political persuasion was the governer who appointed the first judges (Judge Steele) mentioned in my first linked article?

I think my favorite thing about this thread is that none of the people blaming the liberals for child-killing, the national debt, their personal problems, tooth decay, and the War of 1812 have answered this question.

So? Guys? What about GL's assessment that this has less to do with ideology and more to do with procedure and poor communication? Anyone? Anyone?

Damn dirty liberals! Is there any problem they *aren't* responsible for?

-brennan
 
You do realize that criticizing the justice system is taking the easy way out, right? The justice system can't control what happened to the criminal before they commited the crime; it can't predict when another person will &quot;snap&quot; and commit a crime; it can only punish those people who are actually caught for the crimes they are convicted of, and even then, there's never any assurance that the right person was found. Punishment is generally the worst way of preventing a behavior from happening again, especially punishment from a justice system, that generally occurs months or years after the fact.

We have to accept the fact that SOME (very few) people are just not functioning &quot;normally&quot; in the head-region, and will do things no matter how we try to stop them. Others got where they are because of a whole host of different influences and mental processes, and those influences should be what we're focusing on...not the inability or ability of our justice system to punish someone after the fact.

Do you think that if this person were put to death, that it would persuade other child molesters not to commit a crime? I highly doubt it. The punishment is generally a necessity, but it's also a consequence, not a solution to the problem. Make the laws and punishments as strict as you want, and we still will have crime. There are other areas we should be focusing on as well.
 
classy

But it is political. Conservatives in this country tend to believe in harsh prison sentences and the death penalty. Liberals tend to believe in reform and re-education of prisoners. This guy had been caught before. Why was he even on the streets? A conservative judge would have locked him up a long time ago and thrown away the key. A liberal judge would slap him on the hand and asked him if he could maybe not torture children anymore.
 


<< A conservative judge would have locked him up a long time ago and thrown away the key. A liberal judge would slap him on the hand and asked him if he could maybe not torture children anymore. >>


Would you really find either of these acceptable solutions, Mr. Fett? 🙂
 
Whisper: I only wish I could be as idealistic as you. These &quot;influences&quot; that you speak of are notoriously hard to identify and even harder to fix. To attempt to fix the problems that create criminals in a first place is a noble goal, if not a foolish one. There is just no way that it is going to happen. The government is the only entity with the power to do such a thing, and it is so disorganized and bloated that it could never function in such a capacity. It also has much larger problems on its hands: national security, the debt, the faltering economy, the list goes on and on.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot take such an idealistic stance towards this problem. We have to do what is realisitic and feasible to do. Raising the penalities for criminals will not eliminate crime, but I believe that it will go a long way towards reducing it.

Cheers!
Nick
 


<< classy

But it is political. Conservatives in this country tend to believe in harsh prison sentences and the death penalty. Liberals tend to believe in reform and re-education of prisoners. This guy had been caught before. Why was he even on the streets? A conservative judge would have locked him up a long time ago and thrown away the key. A liberal judge would slap him on the hand and asked him if he could maybe not torture children anymore. >>



Whatever man. I guess if Russ says its so, God himself may as well have said it. His intelligence is just so &quot;superior&quot; to everyone else. Man it must be nice to be perfect.
 
The problems in this case have more to do with: disorganized record keeping, loopholes in the actual written laws, failure to communicate the full criminal record of this nut in subsequent law proceedings, sentences handed down by judges not served, etc. How these problems have anything to do with political persuasion is beyond me.
 
It's only idealistic because we've forgotten that we as a people have the ability to influence our societies and those around us. Many people no longer care what goes on down the street, so long as their house is fine and free of crime. Though of course, there's little that I or you can do to change another person's attitude...but the current thought that, &quot;well, we can't really make a difference in these people's lives, so let's just focus on punishment&quot; is part of the problem as well. And don't worry, I'm not saying that this is the sentiment you expressed in your thread; it's just a common sentiment today.

As for stricter punishments reducing crime: I will never feel that strict punishment is the best way to reduce crime. I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, but I'd rather at least try to rehabilitate someone first before I just slam the cell door on them. The moment someone realizes that everyone else has written them off as a lost cause, a troublemaker, a criminal, etc., they'll begin living up to that image, and adopt it as their own. Idealistic or not, I'd rather be hopeful about a person's turning their life around than to not offer them such a chance in the first place.

edit: I'd also rather be hopeful that I will some day spell hopeful as hopeful instead of hoepful, but that's a different hope entirely.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many violent criminals get released earlier than they should because of overcrowding in the jails and clogged courtrooms? And aren't there like half a million or so non-violent drug offenders in jail? And on average, don't conservatives tend to push for harsher drug sentencing? So is it *maybe* a *teensy* bit possible that liberals aren't *entirely* the only ones to blame for every societal ill involving violence?

Guess what? Real life is a hell of lot more complicated than just &quot;liberals want to hold everyone's hand and let violent criminals loose.&quot; If you think it's that easy, you *have* to grow up. Please.
 
guess we could sum up the judicial system as incompetent, disorganized, and ignorant when you mixed it with politics.

 
Someone earlier asked who appointed the first judge.
www.s-t.com/daily
Judge says farewell to decades of 'doing justice'
Sometimes-controversial Judge Walter E. Steele, New Bedford's top judge, reluctantly steps down this week, 22 years after he was sworn in as a district court judge in 1974 by then-Gov. Francis W. Sargent. He turns 70 today.
Judge Steele has been involved in several controversial and highly publicized cases, one time as the special prosecutor in the Chappaquiddick case involving Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. He also was the judge in the case involving the June 1981 rape of a Brigham and Women's Hospital nurse by a group of physicians. He sentenced the physicians to six months in prison.
In a more local case, Judge Steele still defends his February 1994 decision to throw out crucial genetic evidence in the case against Jeffrey Fowler of Fall River, who was accused of raping and killing a 2-year-old child. The decision threw Bristol County District Attorney Paul F. Walsh Jr. into a mid-court furor, engaging in a shouting match with the judge. The case is under appeal.

www.s-t.com/daily/
BOSTON -- Former Gov. Francis W. Sargent, a moderate Yankee Republican who won a reputation as an environmental activist, died yesterday at his home in Dover. He was 83.
Sargent was considered a moderate, if not liberal, Republican; he had to be to get elected in a heavily Democratic state.

 


<< Critics attacked him for such ''patronage'' appointments. In 1974, his judicial appointments also became an issue when his Democratic rival, Mr. Dukakis, claimed 14 judges he had named failed to meet standards of a judicial screening panel. >>


http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/19981023/LN_002.htm

Gasp! Liberal Democrats claiming that judges appointed by a liberal Republican aren't supposed to be there? The same judge who, at the beginning of the long criminal spree of this nutcase, gave him a leniant sentence? Something's wrong here dontcha think? By the way; this governor's &quot;liberalism&quot;-label came from his conservationist views of the environment, his opposition to the Viet Nam war, and his dislike for a Republican VP.

The party-line has long since run out boys. But I can go on with more information if you'd like to dig some more up and try to misrepresent it😉
 
The FDA is no better than the judicial system. It's the same up in Canada, the HPB and CHFA that regulate the drug/health industry pander to big multinational companies. It sickens me. Democracy is dead.

Anyways, I must digress.
 
In California all the nut cases were put out on the streets by Ronald Regan. They were laying around in mental hospitals having a ball and living off the state. Then we had a crime wave so we built tons of new prisons and out them there. That cost alot of tax money, though, so to cut down on cost we don't do any real rehabilitation. We have crowding too so after we pump um up on weights and have them teach each other better crime techniques we send um back out with 200 dollars to feed again. You are insane.

I can't wait till things are sufficiently conservative that all of you are in jail. At last I will be safe.
 
BigD's solution to crime:

1st offense: current pansy-ass &quot;reform&quot;-oriented sentencing, gives them a chance to rectify their mistake
2nd offense: non-parolable time in a hard-labor prison - makin stuff, doin real work...
3rd offense: electric chair
Murder/rape (conclusively, witnesses, etc): see 3rd offense

We don't just need more prisons we need labor camps, chaingangs, etc. And don't give me any of that &quot;human rights&quot; crap. You give up your privilege to vote when you become a felon, you should also lose other privileges. As lazy as most americans are, I think the 2nd offense punishment would be worse to them than the chair...
 
GL
One thing to keep in mind in any discussion about stuff like this is the big difference between what the terms liberal and conservative mean in Canada as opposed to the US. In the US the terms liberal and conservative have really become caricatures of little use in day to day discussion. Liberal in the US is generally used to denote the political view that there is no problem that government cannot solve if given enough resources to do so. Conservative on the other hand has come to mean the viewpoint that government can do nothing right no matter how many resources are given it. I doubt any &quot;liberal&quot; or &quot;conservative&quot; here is consistent in these views 100% of the time. The terms for the most part have become insults to be tossed around willy nilly in any political discussion. It would be much better to just debate issues like this absent the liberal and conservative terms but then rational discussion would have to take over and we cannot have that now can we?
 
<<This lady has every right to &quot;bitch&quot; the man entered her car and attacked her son. If your gona drop the AX everytime a parent makes a mistake the same should go for you too. Hey in know, the next time your kid falls and skins her/his knee you should be locked up for child endangerment.>>

If a child falls it is not the fault of the parent. If a child is left alone without supervision and he/she gets hurt, it is the fault of the parent.

<<Do YOU have kids? If you can't leave your 7 year old alone for a couple minutes, then you fscked up in raising them through their early years. Some great parent you must be.>>

Yes, I do. And yes I am a great parent. Leaving a 7 year old child in a car by hisself is called neglect. In today's society, with predators, etc., you are an idiot to leave someone that young all alone.

Grow-up. When you mature enough to understand what a parental role is, feel free to argue, until then shut the f*ck-up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top