nostradumbass
Tommy Wiseau
The only man to be booked in TNA and not look like a jackass
Posts: 89
|
Post by nostradumbass on Dec 21, 2006 15:51:59 GMT -5
Political thread.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 21, 2006 16:55:37 GMT -5
This is more a social justice thread, not a political one. Before people go and say are system sucks, remember that it is in place to protect people who may be innocent from a single crazy judge who loves to punish people. Rarely, but it does happen, the system pumps out cases like this. Luckily, the two rear canal teenagers can be retried and hopefully send them to an adult prison and let them show them what cruelty is. And next time, they're going to be extremely careful in picking a jury. I highly doubt those two are getting off this time. they are being retried They will get what they deserve Get raped by someone who doesn't enjoy baking dogs at 400 degrees farenheit And there are many people in prison like that. (From what I have seen from prison shows) I wouldn't joke about prison rape, really. Believe it or not, if there's one thing that's proved to be a HUGE roadblock towards prisons fulfilling their "rehabilitation" goal, prison rape is a big candidate. It's actually pretty damn horrifying what goes on in there, and what lots of the guards allow to happen. The whole goal of prison is to rehabilitate, but, the ways things tend to go now, we instead take people who might be going in for, say, mere drug possession, and walk out as hardened criminals with chips on their shoulder and a vendetta against society. Kind of counter-productive, really. As for the OP, while I absolutely despise someone torturing animals, we have to understand that, at times, the justice system isn't going to be perfect, but with good reason. The American judicial system is built on respecting precedent, and the rules in place to decide if someone's guilty or not guilty were incredibly thought out and analyzed before they really went into practice, not just in America, but throughout the course of civilized history. If we begin setting precedents where we disregard some of these rules, we might end up convicting more innocent people than we already do, as that's what most of these protections are there for. Sadly, there are times when crap like this slips through the cracks; however, as it's been said, a new trial's been set, so they're likely not getting away with it. There's plenty wrong with how some people handle the judicial system in this country, but the founding principles of the courts hold up mostly very well today.
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on Dec 21, 2006 17:19:32 GMT -5
This is more a social justice thread, not a political one. they are being retried They will get what they deserve Get raped by someone who doesn't enjoy baking dogs at 400 degrees farenheit And there are many people in prison like that. (From what I have seen from prison shows) I wouldn't joke about prison rape, really. Believe it or not, if there's one thing that's proved to be a HUGE roadblock towards prisons fulfilling their "rehabilitation" goal, prison rape is a big candidate. It's actually pretty damn horrifying what goes on in there, and what lots of the guards allow to happen. The whole goal of prison is to rehabilitate, but, the ways things tend to go now, we instead take people who might be going in for, say, mere drug possession, and walk out as hardened criminals with chips on their shoulder and a vendetta against society. Kind of counter-productive, really. As for the OP, while I absolutely despise someone torturing animals, we have to understand that, at times, the justice system isn't going to be perfect, but with good reason. The American judicial system is built on respecting precedent, and the rules in place to decide if someone's guilty or not guilty were incredibly thought out and analyzed before they really went into practice, not just in America, but throughout the course of civilized history. If we begin setting precedents where we disregard some of these rules, we might end up convicting more innocent people than we already do, as that's what most of these protections are there for. Sadly, there are times when crap like this slips through the cracks; however, as it's been said, a new trial's been set, so they're likely not getting away with it. There's plenty wrong with how some people handle the judicial system in this country, but the founding principles of the courts hold up mostly very well today. Venturing into dangerous territory but... The goal of prisons is not rehabilitation at all. It's to deter and punish people for crimes by taking away their freedom and prevent them from committing those crimes again. When talking about rehabilitation in terms of criminal justice, it is more about work programs, maybe counseling of some kind, or probation where you try to have as little prison time as possible. While there is a push to put more rehabilitation programs in prisons, prison in and of itself is not designed for that goal. Prison is a retribution, deterrence and preventative measure.
|
|
nisi
Vegeta
Da Bears
Posts: 9,868
|
Post by nisi on Dec 21, 2006 18:50:43 GMT -5
Venturing into dangerous territory but... The goal of prisons is not rehabilitation at all. It's to deter and punish people for crimes by taking away their freedom and prevent them from committing those crimes again. When talking about rehabilitation in terms of criminal justice, it is more about work programs, maybe counseling of some kind, or probation where you try to have as little prison time as possible. While there is a push to put more rehabilitation programs in prisons, prison in and of itself is not designed for that goal. Prison is a retribution, deterrence and preventative measure. Actually if you look at most departments of correction, they do still have some kind of formal goal to rehabilitate the offender, at least as part of their formal mission statements. Almost all prisoners are going to be released eventually, so the prisons need to rehabilitate them to some kind of minimum standard of decency. The irony is that although prisons certainly do have a punitive function, THAT'S the one they don't acknowledge in their mission statements--they just talk about protection and rehabilitation, not retribution.
|
|
|
Post by Shy Guy on Dec 21, 2006 18:56:15 GMT -5
the part about what they did to the puppy made me sick to my stomach.
sometimes, i think some people vote different, just to be different...like that whacky old woman that said they were innocent.
edit: and why is there 12 people for a jury? why is it an even number and not an odd number, so that way there won't be a chance of an even number of votes?
|
|
Byakugan
Unicron
To my peeps and you fools, say it loud and say it proud, Christian rules!
Posts: 2,525
|
Post by Byakugan on Dec 21, 2006 19:06:12 GMT -5
This is more a social justice thread, not a political one. they are being retried They will get what they deserve Get raped by someone who doesn't enjoy baking dogs at 400 degrees farenheit And there are many people in prison like that. (From what I have seen from prison shows) I wouldn't joke about prison rape, really. Believe it or not, if there's one thing that's proved to be a HUGE roadblock towards prisons fulfilling their "rehabilitation" goal, prison rape is a big candidate. It's actually pretty damn horrifying what goes on in there, and what lots of the guards allow to happen. The whole goal of prison is to rehabilitate, but, the ways things tend to go now, we instead take people who might be going in for, say, mere drug possession, and walk out as hardened criminals with chips on their shoulder and a vendetta against society. Kind of counter-productive, really. As for the OP, while I absolutely despise someone torturing animals, we have to understand that, at times, the justice system isn't going to be perfect, but with good reason. The American judicial system is built on respecting precedent, and the rules in place to decide if someone's guilty or not guilty were incredibly thought out and analyzed before they really went into practice, not just in America, but throughout the course of civilized history. If we begin setting precedents where we disregard some of these rules, we might end up convicting more innocent people than we already do, as that's what most of these protections are there for. Sadly, there are times when crap like this slips through the cracks; however, as it's been said, a new trial's been set, so they're likely not getting away with it. There's plenty wrong with how some people handle the judicial system in this country, but the founding principles of the courts hold up mostly very well today. Not really joking about the rape. Those two morons deserve whatever they get. (And I mean negatively)
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Dec 21, 2006 20:23:37 GMT -5
This is more a social justice thread, not a political one. That being said, it is involving politics. I know it's at the mod's discretion, but the the moment this all turns ugly (which is seemingly happening with the discussion of policies from state to state, and the continued name calling of this juror who went against the other eleven), I'll be very disappointed if this thread is allowed to continue. I have my opinions on this story too (and did some looking to make sure I have a proper perspective from different sources), but it seems rather naive to say that it's simply a social justice thread when there are many things being said that seem to go against the rules of the board. If we cannot advocate violence against wrestlers, why is it now acceptable to advocate violence against two private citizens, regardless of their acts and their percieved guilt?
|
|
|
Post by The Jeebus on Dec 22, 2006 11:16:59 GMT -5
edit: and why is there 12 people for a jury? why is it an even number and not an odd number, so that way there won't be a chance of an even number of votes? There is no difference between 6-6 and 5-6. In the states in America that allow majority verdicts (if there are any, but I'm sure there are), whether that be after a certain amount of time or a certain number of trials, a majority verdict must be reached after 11 (or at least 10, it depends) jurors come to the same conclusion. Any less than that, and it's a hung jury, and the trial continues. Now, in my opinion, the majority verdict law is wrong. It saves time and money for the longer trials but the whole purpose of trials is for the case to be absolutely resolved rather than just having most of them convinced. If a jury is supposed to represent the community, you'd think that having all of them finally agreeing with each other and reaching one verdict after months and months of deliberating is more reassuring to the community. The only downside, I suppose, is that one juror could be an absolute psycho who refuses to agree with the other 11 because he ignores the evidence, because he has a vendetta against someone on trial or the police or for whatever reason, which could draw out the case needlessly or could turn every other juror's verdict around because they'd be tired of it by then and just don't care enough to continue. I dunno if they eventually randomize the jury in the case of an extremely prolonged jury though. And yes, I hope this juror changes her direction. I can't possibly imagine two guys being wrongly accused of cooking a puppy in an oven. I mean... WTF!?
|
|