 |
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Because it does dilute the idea of what terrorism is, plus, who the hell has said shopping for harsher punishment is valid? maybe 25 to life with chance of parole, as the legislature wrote the statute, is the correct punishment for this act, NOt life in prison without the possibility of parole, which is what is being sought.
Courts can't add things to the consitution. Check the document. Its very clear. |
In this country it it doesnt matter what the document says it matters what the courts say. Seperation of church and state is the supreme law of the land on the same footing as any written portion of the constitution is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Because it does dilute the idea of what terrorism is, plus, who the hell has said shopping for harsher punishment is valid? maybe 25 to life with chance of parole, as the legislature wrote the statute, is the correct punishment for this act, NOt life in prison without the possibility of parole, which is what is being sought.
Courts can't add things to the consitution. Check the document. Its very clear. |
maybe and maybe not. the legislature wrote both laws and it will be up to the courts and the jury to decide whether the defendent is guilty of either of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
The DA is paid with Tax money, as are the jurists and the judge. You support one crime to prosecute another? |
You're talking about something completely different. I seriously doubt it costs that much more to charge him with the terrorism stipulation than it does to charge him with 2nd degree murder, but either way, I believe that the court system is a valid function of government and it's proper to charge people with crimes.
The funding of the system may be another (irrelevant in this case, because the funding won't change no matter what charge is used) matter, but I certainly don't oppose the existence of a judicial system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Except that the terrorism statute, just like the hate crimes statute, exists becuase certain crimes are seen as so much worse they deserve exceptional punishment.
This DA is stretching that definition in order to punish an individual, but it destroys the intent of that statute. What is each time someone from one race killed another person and deemed it a hate crime, simply becuase of the differeing races, then you destroy the meaning of the hate crime statute. All while the law already more than deals with the situation. |
Ok so you object to gang members prosecuted as terrorists because you feel the law with the lesser penalty more than deals with the situation. I disagree. At least now we know where we both stand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
True, the cost of incarceration will be different, but I've already stated that I have absolutely no objection to jails and the judicial system.
On the other hand, I DO have a problem with providing prisoners with weight rooms and cable. Let's cut out that kind of **** and call it even, OK?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the cost of incarceration will be different, all of which we will steal from you. Expect a personal call from the taxman. |
yes the cost will certainly be different. If the released prisoner becomes a repeat offender it will be significantly more expensive to deal with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Oh, and of course my solution would have just been for someone with concealed carry to pull out his handgun and pop the ****er in the first place. Then we wouldn't even be talking about this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and of course my solution would have just been for someone with concealed carry to pull out his handgun and pop the ****er in the first place. Then we wouldn't even be talking about this. |
Except that if they're gangsters their fellow gang members will hunt you down and execute you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Maybe not, if they had to face the prospect of a minimum of mandatory life in a maximum security prison with no possibility of parole (and in some states the DP), and that's assuming none of them got shot in the process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
And possibly your family as well. When a certain individual, Stalin, did that (killing innocent people and families as well as opponents) it was called the Terror. Guess why?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Well, then that's what the police are for. And the courts/prison system. Pretty tough to retaliate against anyone's family when your ENTIRE gang is charged with domestic terrorism and gets a mandatory sentence of life in prison, isn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
-I edited this into my earlier response but it's probably long enough after the fact that I should repost it here rather than expecting anybody to re-read the previous pages-
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
There is no clarification of what the phrase means in the constitution- criminal statutes are more detailed than that-not the same. This is not a game of guessing what long dead men thought-this is looking at the statute on the books and deciding which is proper. |
The men involved in drafting the constitution were not generally dead much less long dead when the courts added seperation of church and state to the US constitution.
I should also point out that the first amendment is worded as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
You seem to be claiming that this is somehow vague which allowed for the courts to step in and clarify it to mean that no government entity of any branch of government shall make any statement, expression, or action that may be construed as endorsing or belonging to any particular religon whether congress makes a law or not.
I would like you to point out where the vagueness of the 1st amendment is and how the anti terrorism law was somehow less vague than the first ammendment was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Per the same Definition used against Gang Members (and KKK)
you could state that violent members of Anti-Abortion Groups (who intimidate or even murder Abortion Doctors [AFAIK there have been some cases in the past]) are to be considered terrorists.
After all they use Violence/Murder to propagate a social Agenda (i.e. say "No" to Abortion)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
GePap (and I've been enjoying your counter-posts, you are very consistant) my point was not that gang members and Stalin were the same. My point was what constitutes "Terror," and implicit then what the definition of terrorism can include. A person living in a gang-controlled area, red-lined by law enforcement, lives a life of much greater terror than the average citizen of a country targeted by a major terrorism attack (Israel and Iraq are two exceptions, that's why I specified "a"). Stalin's "Terror" does not fit the definition of terrorism because as you state he was the regime. To me, for the people living through it, it WAS the same. Random, violent, unpredicable, targeting family members. Terror is terror, and should be punished.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
GePap (and I've been enjoying your counter-posts, you are very consistant) my point was not that gang members and Stalin were the same. My point was what constitutes "Terror," and implicit then what the definition of terrorism can include. A person living in a gang-controlled area, red-lined by law enforcement, lives a life of much greater terror than the average citizen of a country targeted by a major terrorism attack (Israel and Iraq are two exceptions, that's why I specified "a"). Stalin's "Terror" does not fit the definition of terrorism because as you state he was the regime. To me, for the people living through it, it WAS the same. Random, violent, unpredicable, targeting family members. Terror is terror, and should be punished. |
The original definiton of Terror (in a political sense) was during the French revolution, and meant to describe the political murder going on as the revolutionaries got rid of their enemies- over time the definition has changed to where it is today, but one thing has always been constant- the Terror is different from fear spread by criminals- Terror is more than just making people live in fear, which is what people living in crime riden area do. Terrorist don't aim to make people live in fear, their aim is to shock, and to use that shock to force change. That makes it different from Fear, which is what everyone here thinking this is OK is really talking about.
What Stalin did was a great Terror, and certainly people lived in fear, much fear, but what makes what Stalin did State Terror (not terrorism) was its aim-it was not run of the mill repression, which also makes people afraid (are we saying that dictatorial regimes are inherently terroristic?) but that the aim was to cleanse the state of threats to his power permanently.
This is the disticntion that people are not making, and they are not making it because they are misusing the word Terror- a simple thing to do in English, as so many words are so similar- but lets not forget what Terror means- its not just fear, its closer to Awe, or Horror, ie, fear and apprehension based on the enormity of something, on the "grandeur" of something. Stalin's Terror was Awesome, as was the Terror of the Jacobins. What AQ does is very often Awesome, specially massive attacks. Given the modern definiton of terrorism, even mundane political killing becomes Terror, but there is a line- mundane, run of the mill criminality, banal criminality, that of gangs, does NOT count as terror. Yes, I am sure people who live in crime ridden areas live in fear, but fear =/ terror.
That steps its an abuse. Its essentially destroying the very worth of the distinction.
And all because one DA is not happy with 25 to life, and feels life without possiblity of parole is what he feels like shopping for.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
GePap, the DA is using the strategies provided to him by a broken system. Think about it. A child is dead, due to gang violence which by definition is not accidental. He uses a law to go after individuals who fit the definition, though admittedly not the spirit of the law.
If that is what it takes to lock up this kind of person permanently, so be it. The legislature can amend the law at any time it wishes, and those actions have been taken when laws needed to be rewritten. If you want to argue that it's not a good system, the way DA's, judges, juries, laws, and plea bargains interact in the United States, I won't argue. But as someone who lived in the New York area, as long as the DA does not step over the line (concealed evidence, perjury, etc.) and the individual involved receives due process, I am not going to complain ovrly much. I am much more concerned with the sad quality of government provided defense attornies (legal aid) than I am over stretching the law like this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
GePap, the DA is using the strategies provided to him by a broken system. Think about it. A child is dead, due to gang violence which by definition is not accidental. He uses a law to go after individuals who fit the definition, though admittedly not the spirit of the law.
If that is what it takes to lock up this kind of person permanently, so be it. The legislature can amend the law at any time it wishes, and those actions have been taken when laws needed to be rewritten. If you want to argue that it's not a good system, the way DA's, judges, juries, laws, and plea bargains interact in the United States, I won't argue. But as someone who lived in the New York area, as long as the DA does not step over the line (concealed evidence, perjury, etc.) and the individual involved receives due process, I am not going to complain ovrly much. I am much more concerned with the sad quality of government provided defense attornies (legal aid) than I am over stretching the law like this. |
If the system is "broken", ask the legislature to change the law and up the penalties for killing kids, or simply the penalty for 2nd degree murder.
You don't "fix" a broken system by abusing it and streching definitions (and weakening them in the process).
I also live in the NY system, and given what my job is, yes, the public defender system is horribly underfunded, and getting good legal advice here if you are poor is hard- that said, even if we had a GREAT public defendor system, this is an abuse.
And perhaps, even if you don't like it, maybe 25 to life is the right punishment for this crime- at least, that is what the legislature felt was appropriate for the crime that youth committed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
A killer is a killer.
I think the error is that we have "terrorism" laws. Bin Laden is a murderer, just as this man allegedly is. That ought to be enough.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-12-2004 04:10
GePap posted something intelligent and right for the first time in a while! 
|