Just everyday crap, Bad Behaviour – just let loose

[sinnnn]

ummm…cutie….because it was national still doesn't mean we all will hear it……Kisses.

[Anonymous]

obviously  :

[Janine Dee]

Sinnnn got to it first. There are a lot of national stories that I miss. Another crazy person getting their own media circus… I'm glad I did.

I try to stay informed, but an individual assault gaining national attention? If anything I think that's a problem with the media… it was sensational so they hyped it. An individual assault like that should NOT have been a national story in my opinion.

As far as the judges/judiciary/legal system. While I do not support vigilante justice (I can't trust the public's intelligence.) I do believe in capital punishment, I do believe that there are crimes that warrant it.

Not as a deterrent, but simply as a punishment equal to the crime. It has to be truly horrific, but there are some acts you just forfeit your right to human consideration.

An example to show what I am talking about… another story that was hyped for it's horrific nature that I did catch was about a little girl who was kidnapped, assaulted, murdered (I think drowned) and disposed of in a suitcase.

The woman deliberately murdered a little girl… even life imprisonment is too lenient to me.

[sinnnn]

Babe I think all child molestors and rapist  an murders of children deseve death.  I have no sympathy for those who can inflict harm on someone so small. so harmless.  They are a gift to be cherished, if you can't respect or take care of such a great gift you should keep your dick or your damn legs closed.  They are to damn easy on these molestors.  Justice says all the right words when they need our votes but when its time to put up, they shut up.  Had one molestor go an killed a family and kidnapped the boy and girl.  Only one survived.  Repeat offenders being let loose pisses me off.  Makes me think the judges need to go threw what that child went threw and maybe then they will think twice about letting a repeat offender off.

[Janine Dee]

They would argue that if you let people judge with emotions then you get cases like that woman who put the wrong man behind bars for 10 years for rape. Their argument would be that only through the following of established rules can justice even be considered.

My counter would be that while that is all well and good the overwhelming focus on the accused needs SOME counterbalance.

A favorite example of mine is what they call “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” what that says is evidence that was obtained in a way that violates the accused rights is inadmissible.

So if the police coerced a subject to tell them where to find a murder weapon that has the subjects fingerprints on it, that could be tossed out because the police found it in a way that breaks the rules. Mind you not that the evidence looks tampered with, just that it wasn't obtained properly.

Irrefutable evidence tossed out simply because the police either did wrong of their own, or made a simple f-ing mistake. It would be one thing if they simply charged the cop with crimes of his own, but the courts are willing to let violent criminals go free because their precious procedures weren't followed to the letter.

[Lover]

We may not forget, all rules are made to protect unguilty people. So if you sometimes read about obviously criminals coming free, just because an evidence wasn't found in the right way it's hard to understand.

But how many unguilty people ould have been arrested, if these rules are deleted? You in the States and most of all here in Western Europe are “proud” about free government under the law; that you are unguilty until they have the evidence; that (sometimes ) torture is forbidden.

I don't wanna finish that. Though it's very often (in the name of fighting against terror) softened today.

[Janine Dee]

There is a website called “The Onion” it was parodying the news long before John Stewart. I remember finding an article on their archives about “The ACLU defends a mans right to burn down the ACLU.”

The idea was that they were SO set to defend the mans civil liberties that they defended his right to commit arson on THEIR headquarters.

It's not gotten to that point because those who say “It's better 100 guilty men go free then 1 innocent man be convicted.” can order themselves up police protection.

However the rest of us are left to those 100 and the recidivism rate.

100 to 1 is considered acceptable, one HUNDRED. If only half of them re-offend that still 50 crimes that could have been prevented.

Yes there is a chance that officials could abuse their powers to arrest and detain, but is this any better?

So the guy who assaults me doesn't have a badge? Is that supposed to make me feel better?

[Lover]

I'm not sure that I understand you Janine. Do you think, it's better to arrest unguilty people than to search for the criminals?
It's a stupid compare to say 100:1; those, who are saying this, know it. I don't know if “manslaughter argument” is the right term, but I hope you know what I mean.

You may not forget, each unguilty person arrested means, the guilty person is free and will go on!

And I am sure, it's easy to criticize government under the law; it's allowed to do in a free country. If you are living in a country, where it's forbidden or you even do not have these rights, you will change your mind.

[Janine Dee]

No, the 100 to 1 ratio is a quote about how the American legal system is set up. The reason they have so many rights is because they would rather have a guilty man go free then an innocent man be imprisoned. It was even taken to the 100 to one extreme. It IS meant to be an extreme, but is also meant to show their feelings on the matter. They would truly have those 100 go free as long as 101 was innocent.

I'm not saying it's easy Lover, what I am trying to say is that nature moves to balance, and we should too. When a caffeine overdose is a viable defense I call that imbalanced.

[Lover]

I agree with balance. A cafffeine overdose is as silly as most of the arguments about bad parents or severe childhood.

Though it's a different; we are talking about balance in distribution now. I was talking about finding guilty people.

[Janine Dee]

Finding guilty people is both fine and wonderful. The issue is that there is such a fear that they might not actually be guilty that the system believes it would be better to let a guilty person go free to be on the safe side.

[Adera]

I can't believe this guy is walking free -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Fouganthine

[Lover]

Crazy and unbelievable.

[Janine Dee]

I'm not wondering why he's out. I'm wondering why he's breathing. I mean a list like that? Are people THAT opposed to capital punishment? An animal goes rabid we put it down so it can't hurt anyone else? How many will that psycho be allowed to kill?

[sinnnn]

Really, you got ppl that will ignore a human cry for help so they can rescue a animal.  See no one really cares til it happens to them.  You'll hear bout cancer victims, but you brush it off.  Until a family member gets it and then we are fighting the good fight against the disease.  If he is killing regular ppl, who well it get shrug off.  But when he kills someone of means or a kid then thats when ppl open their mouth. 

Some ppl just refuse to see things beyond their circle in life til it happens to them.  These criminals will get theirs when they hurt the “wrong” ppl.  Its sad really.  I have notice so many ppl that are repeat offenders get away with so much.  But rob a councilmember, or someone in his family.  Someone of means. Then news pump up his criminal history and then everyone rallies to get stronger laws.  Stronger justice.  Sadly these rallies don't last long.  In a way we let them free.  If we don't fight when there is no news pumping up stories, if we don't fight before someone of “importance” get hurt, if we don't stand up and say something. Then yes ppl like that will go free. 

[Author]

Posts