Something Trump is wrong about..
-
(queue fake angry black woman accent) Giiiirl, don't you be putting words in my mouth. (imagine emjoi of said black woman doing that head bob thing)
On the previous page, I quoted you saying that and I replied.
I want to be clear, I'm telling you there are two principle ways to write laws. One writes them to avoid putting the innocent in prison, releasing the guilty who go on to become repeat offenders. The 10% was a hypothetical, arbitrary number. The other option is to create a strict penal code that keeps the guilty in prison with a higher number of innocent.
Repeat offending is extremely high, even with the current system where we allow innocent men to go to prison. Even in Europe where the motto is "we don't punish, we rehabilitate", repeat offending it extremely high.
I might agree with your "just lock them all up" preference, if the state didn't do illegal things and also prevent people from investigating the case properly. If we start locking corrupt DAs, police, etc, etc, then your stance would have more "juice".
DAs, police and others actively fight against DNA testing even when a private group is willing to pay for it. Take a time machine back to when GWB first ran for President as Gov of Texas. There was a man scheduled to be executed and GWB wouldn't delay the execution to wait for the DNA results. The man was executed on scheduled. About 3 weeks later the DNA results cleared him of the crime. GWB maintained that he never executed a guilty man because LEGALLY the man was still "guilty" when he was executed.
I've told the story of the 4th of July 76 rapes in my home town. The police stitched up a well known and extremely lovely mentally disabled man in the town. The police manipulated him into confessing, even though he didn't do it. 20ish years later, one of the Innocence Project type groups proved he never did the rapes and that he was stitched up by the police and the DA 100% knew about it.
Those two options are on a continuum. As long as people are judged by circumstantial evidence, our choice will remain on that sliding scale. The feminism argument you keep going back to (sigh) puts a higher number of innocent in jail; it also adds an element of tribalism to the argument and if you're going to insist upon that, then you must also bring into this discussion the disproportionate number of blacks in jail, which complicates things a lot.
Discussing groups/people that advocate for innocent people to be sent to prison disgusts me so I'm gonna always talk about it.
I was falsely accused of rape by a vindictive cunt because she wanted us to take her our "gay clubbing" and I didn't want to go to the other side of town. Under the feminist campaign of JUST BELIEVE, I would have been locked up FOREVER just on her claim. I was arrested and thrown in jail for nearly 24 hours while I waited for the police to view the pub's CCTV. The state refused to prosecute her for making a false statement to the police and wasting police time. Both are felonies. I couldn't do a private suit against her because no lawyer wanted to take the case because I would be viewed as the evil penis man who's victimizing her.
Black people make up 13% of the US population.
Black people commit 56% of the murders in the US and 54% of all violent crimes in the US.
Blacks make up 44% of cop killers. I can't find a stat for wounding cops by race.
Blacks are 26% of those shot (wounded or killed) by police.
Whites only out pace their portion of the crime stats in what I would call pretty minor crimes, like sex in public places and drinking alcohol in public/public drunkenness. Whites are by far the biggest bootleggers of moonshine.
Blaming whites for the crimes of blacks is racist by saying that blacks have no agency. We could go back to before the welfare days when blacks committed far less crimes and they were married at a high rate than white.
Prior to welfare, blacks had 8% to 10% higher marriage rates than whites. Blacks had the 2nd highest marriage rates after far east Asians. Now blacks have by far the worst marriage rates in the US.
-
I might agree with your "just lock them all up" preference, if the state didn't do illegal things and also prevent people from investigating the case properly. If we start locking corrupt DAs, police, etc, etc, then your stance would have more "juice".
DAs, police and others actively fight against DNA testing even when a private group is willing to pay for it. Take a time machine back to when GWB first ran for President as Gov of Texas. There was a man scheduled to be executed and GWB wouldn't delay the execution to wait for the DNA results. The man was executed on scheduled. About 3 weeks later the DNA results cleared him of the crime. GWB maintained that he never executed a guilty man because LEGALLY the man was still "guilty" when he was executed.
I've told the story of the 4th of July 76 rapes in my home town.
Do you think law enforcement is growing more or less corrupt as time passes? A trip back in time through cinema will show you clearly that 1) people feared the death penalty and 2) the cops were corrupt, especially in the south. The previous generations of civil rights lawyers have neutered the Death Penalty and corruption in the police force isn't anywhere near what it was during Gotham times.
Is it perfect? No. But it's worlds better than it had been and with body cams and other new technologies, it's getting better, not worse.
As for DNA. John Oliver did a report on it showing how unreliable it is. That's not a secret. If you pay attention to the news you'll see two kinds of reporting, one where someone is wrongly convicted through DNA and the other where they are exonerated. In the end, people are tried and prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and DNA is just one tool to that end. Eliminate this method of deciding if one is guilty or not and you'll eliminate the corruption in the bureaucracy, too.
To your other point, you're not going to like it, but you can find exceptions to anything. I've called these the extremes and they're not useful in arguments.
Black people make up 13% of the US population.
Black people commit 56% of the murders in the US and 54% of all violent crimes in the US.
Blacks make up 44% of cop killers. I can't find a stat for wounding cops by race.
Blacks are 26% of those shot (wounded or killed) by police.What do you think about cholesterol? Good or bad? How about salt intake? What is the ideal diet? How about what causes cancer?
All these questions are answered weekly in the press using new sets of data gathered from yet another person reinterpreting statistics. The old adage is true: You can find anything you want in the numbers, especially when lay people are interpreting them.
Another analogy is The Bible. In the hands of a learned priest or scholar, the books within have clear contextual meanings. Put those same books in the hand of the average person and all hell breaks loose. This is the danger of you and I using statistical evidence to back up a given claim like what you're citing. If I were inclined I could easily go online and pull numbers to back up literally anything I wanted to. It's less frustrating to speak broadly and generally to uncover the truths in these situations.
Let me say that a very different way. We've all the potential to be Laci Green.
Prior to welfare, blacks had 8% to 10% higher marriage rates than whites. Blacks had the 2nd highest marriage rates after far east Asians. Now blacks have by far the worst marriage rates in the US.
The stories I've heard to explain this are that The War on Drugs incarcerated a disproportionate number of black men for minor crimes. Concurrent to that, black women were told they could get welfare if they weren't married. If these are both true then the Democrats and Republicans helped destabilize black families.
-
For clarity; 4th of July 1976, not 76 rapes on the 4th of July.
++++
DAs, police, etc, etc are just as corrupt as always. That is why I would rather side against them than side with them.
The US government has severely limited the number of appeals there are, especially in the death penalty cases.
++++
The UK got rid of the death penalty, in a major part, by the execution of Derrick Bennett. A 16yo friend of his and he were out and about, when the 16you decided to break'n'enter a shop. The police were called and Derrick gave up peacefully. His friend didn't and killed a cop. Derrick was 21'ish but due to an accident when he was young, was mentally 7yo. Since the friend was too young to execute, they pined the murder on Derrick in a "joint enterprise" thing. If Derrick was convicted, the judge had to sentence him to death because he was part of killing "a person with/of standing" (aristocrats, politicians, police, doctors, council workers, etc). Anyhoo. Because he was mentally disabled, the Home Secretary was legally required to commute the sentence from death to life in prison. Even still, Derrick was mentally too young to be sent to prison as his mental age was too young for the UK's then "legal age of responsibility" of 8yo. HOWEVER, the Home Secretary refused to do this and Derrick was executed.
There were a couple of other cases that caused upset and the final nail in the UK's coffin was the case of the Army soldier convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The reason this became a problem was that legally the crime didn't fit the definition of murder, but manslaughter, so no death penalty. The real kick in the cunt was that Army records proved he was not even in the UK at the time of the "murder".
Oddly, the UK banned all executions, but allowed those already sentenced to death to be executed. As the UK banned executions, those already sentenced were stuck in a CATCH 22. They were going to be executed, but legally NO they weren't because it was banned. This meant they had no right to appeal something that legally was not happening.
++++
Unlike you, I hope you (nor anyone) never, ever wrongfully get sent to prison.
People who have never faced the possibility have no fucking idea what it's like to sit in a jail cell for something you never did, but knowing how easy it is to falsely convict someone, especially on crimes against women.
Her "honesty" is intact, despite the police proving she lied. If I say her name in a public manner, I go to prison. My name and the fact that I was accused of rape (not that it was proven to be a lie) is out there in the public domain.
Even before all this, I was against wrongful convictions against people.
It disgust me when I hear people like you and feminists saying there's nothing wrong with sending innocent people to prison.
-
For clarity; 4th of July 1976, not 76 rapes on the 4th of July.
It disgust me when I hear people like you and feminists saying there's nothing wrong with sending innocent people to prison.
Though I said it before, I'll say it again here: You've mischaracterised my argument.
You're not consistent. You're angry that in the UK you can't take a stand against the brown people who are involved in sex trafficking. How did this happen? Because in 80's and 90's some officers made some big fuck ups ending up in the police being called racist. A few mistakes and misjudgments and the police are now no longer able to do their work to protect women from sex trafficking for fear of offending in the UK. Sound familiar?
The death penalty worked fine in the UK until there were a few notable fuck ups that gained media attention. People took the cause and deemed all executions an abomination. Boom. No more capital punishment.
Those two cases are rooted in the same thinking: People focused on the extremes and on the mean. If people did focus on the average, then there'd be no need for stupid bathroom laws to protect the tranny that can't pass or the mentally ill man who thinks he's a she. Want me to go on because a lot of what SJWs fight for sit on the extremes.
-
"A few notable case" is just bullshit.
There were more cases, but those 2 really hit home why the death penalty sucks ass and needed to go.
Illinois stopped the death penalty due to the shear number of innocent men on death row.
Your "logic" is WHO GIVES A FUCK HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WE EXECUTE, KILL 'EM ALL, GOD DAMNED IT. KILL 'EM ALL.
The more you say, the more I'm leaning toward the thought (cringe) of hoping you and your ilk get what you are willing to do to others, wrongful imprisonment and/or execution. You'd sing a different tune if it happened to you.
-
"A few notable case" is just bullshit.
There were more cases, but those 2 really hit home why the death penalty sucks ass and needed to go.
Illinois stopped the death penalty due to the shear number of innocent men on death row.
Your "logic" is WHO GIVES A FUCK HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WE EXECUTE, KILL 'EM ALL, GOD DAMNED IT. KILL 'EM ALL.
The more you say, the more I'm leaning toward the thought (cringe) of hoping you and your ilk get what you are willing to do to others, wrongful imprisonment and/or execution. You'd sing a different tune if it happened to you.
If all the murderers in Illinois (Chicago) were executed, the moonbats would be complaining that it was racist.
-
If all the murderers in Illinois (Chicago) were executed, the moonbats would be complaining that it was racist.
NOPE!!!
Blacks are innocent of everything and when they are guilty, it's whitey's fault.
I wouldn't doubt if Don Lemon and Simone Sanders haven't claimed that all the crimes committed by black people are false flags. You know, honkeys in black face committing violent crimes in crazy amounts to make poor innocent, victimized blacks look bad.
-
If all the murderers in Illinois (Chicago) were executed, the moonbats would be complaining that it was racist.
NOPE!!!
Blacks are innocent of everything and when they are guilty, it's whitey's fault.
I wouldn't doubt if Don Lemon and Simone Sanders haven't claimed that all the crimes committed by black people are false flags. You know, honkeys in black face committing violent crimes in crazy amounts to make poor innocent, victimized blacks look bad.
Don probably says that most crimes said to be committed by blacks are actually honkeys in black-face.
Youtube Video -
Al Jolson was the fist "trans-racial" hero.
Talcum X and Rachel Dolezal are just worthless copycats.
-
"A few notable case" is just bullshit.
There were more cases, but those 2 really hit home why the death penalty sucks ass and needed to go.
Illinois stopped the death penalty due to the shear number of innocent men on death row.
Your "logic" is WHO GIVES A FUCK HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WE EXECUTE, KILL 'EM ALL, GOD DAMNED IT. KILL 'EM ALL.
The more you say, the more I'm leaning toward the thought (cringe) of hoping you and your ilk get what you are willing to do to others, wrongful imprisonment and/or execution. You'd sing a different tune if it happened to you.
Here's a case where you can use statistics. Are you saying 100% of those executed in the UK were innocent? 50%? 25%? Answer me this, if any one of those people were released and murdered another someone else, how is it different than sending an innocent man to the chair?
I don't know what the numbers are. What I know is that you are willing to condemn innocent people in the real world to die by repeat offenders. I hope you and your ilk get what you are willing to do to others. I think you'll sing a different tune when your loved one is raped, maimed, murdered by these people you release.
-
If you are butt hurt about repeat offenders, then execute everyone who commits any sort of crime.
Maybe you should look at crime stats and advocate executing the worst of the worst, like they do with dogs. A few dogs do a few bad things, so we kill the entire breeds.
Now I really do hope you get your wish and you wrongly get executed. Then again, NO. I hope it happens to someone you care about, so you can be around to tell us how wonderful it was that your loved one was wrongly executed.
If we don't execute everyone, except the last human on earth, then how are we to be sure that a crime won't be committed.
-
If you are butt hurt about repeat offenders, then execute everyone who commits any sort of crime.
Maybe you should look at crime stats and advocate executing the worst of the worst, like they do with dogs. A few dogs do a few bad things, so we kill the entire breeds.
Now I really do hope you get your wish and you wrongly get executed. Then again, NO. I hope it happens to someone you care about, so you can be around to tell us how wonderful it was that your loved one was wrongly executed.
If we don't execute everyone, except the last human on earth, then how are we to be sure that a crime won't be committed.
You've stopped making sense.
You either don't know how to respond to what I'm asking so you created a slippery slope where we all go extinct or you're tired and should go to bed. Either way, I'm disappointed in you. You can come across as reasonable and well-spoken but other times your thoughts are scattered and you throw out personal attacks (I hope it happens to you, cucks, etc). You can – and have -- done better than this. We're not engaging in a video game with winners, losers, attack strategies. I'm here to exchange ideas and discuss them. When you're once again able to do that post back.
-
It is a slippery slope where we start executing innocent people to POSSIBLY prevent repeat offenses.
Tree of Logic, on YouTube, is a former Texas cop and a black woman, oh and a conservative too and she's not afraid to show crime stats. If you are so worried about repeat offenders and being a victim of violent crimes, then maybe you should advocate killing people based on those stats. When you look closely at it, 3% to 5% of the US population commit 50% of the murders and violent crimes. It's odd how fond you are of Planned Parenthood, but butthurt when I mention this idea. Unlike the founder of PP, this concept doesn't kill an entire race in the US, just the main problem ones.
I was just watching a documentary about a serial killer. According to your argument, you'd be happy with executing up to 10 innocent men for his crimes, to make sure he's executed too. Sadly, you are delusional to think that killing all those innocent men for his crimes would stop him from killing the others. NO, he'd still be out there killing while the state kills innocent men.
Your idiotic way of solving the problem of "repeat offenders" is to kill innocent men, because let's get real, we rarely kill women for their crimes due to the pussy pass. You haven't mentioned criminalizing bad behavior by DAs, police, and whatnot like I have. NO, you want to kill innocent men because somehow that might prevent serial killers from repeating their crimes.
It's like how feminists claim that every single rape is a different rapist and that they all must be thrown in prison. They don't care about the fact that most rapes are part of a group of rapes by a single person. I don't think you are as evil as they are because you aren't as demanding that we wrongfully lock up innocent men.
I didn't call you a cuck unless you feel yourself to be a feminist cuck. I was talking about you and feminists, including their cucks. If you feel you are a feminist cuck, then oh well.
HOWEVER, I do feel that you should get some of the wonderful justice you are willing to dole out onto other people and their families. If this shit you are willing to throw on other families is so good, then you should wish that it happened to you and your loved ones too.
Your idea is shit and it takes a morally fucked up person to even suggest that.
-
If we don't execute everyone, except the last human on earth, then how are we to be sure that a crime won't be committed.
Stop trying to blow smoke up our asses.
You justified killing innocent men to prevent crimes. While my statement quoted above might be extreme, it's firmly grounded in the crap you are advocating here.
-
It is a slippery slope where we start executing innocent people to POSSIBLY prevent repeat offenses.
Your idiotic way of solving the problem of "repeat offenders" is to kill innocent men, because let's get real, we rarely kill women for their crimes due to the pussy pass.
I didn't call you a cuck unless you feel yourself to be a feminist cuck. I was talking about you and feminists, including their cucks. If you feel you are a feminist cuck, then oh well.
HOWEVER, I do feel that you should get some of the wonderful justice you are willing to dole out onto other people and their families. If this shit you are willing to throw on other families is so good, then you should wish that it happened to you and your loved ones too.
Your idea is shit and it takes a morally fucked up person to even suggest that.
As I said before, you continue to evade the actual argument I put out there. I assume the idea is either too abstract for you to contemplate or you can't defend the position you'd have to take and so you're throwing around insulting language (as in the bold above) to avoid taking a position.
I mentioned cuck because when you get frustrated in arguments this way of speaking is your MO. I dislike it. I work with high school children who are better spoken and so I've come to expect it in civil conversations. I know you can do it. I've seen it. I've been on the receiving end of it but as you've been growing irate you're tending towards insults, ignoring the actual topics, and throwing out the extremes. If you have a real argument to make, then the mean will prove you right. If not, then you're unintentionally following the same methods of the SJWs and feminists you claim to despise.
You can do better.
To the second post where I quote you claiming the world will end, you really have trouble admitting that you said something too extreme. Instead of acknowledging it and moving on you decide to blame me for your words. Take responsibility.
-
I have repeatedly commented on your idiotic rubbish. You are advocating executing innocent men to prevent crimes.
As for the rest of it, stop playing up to the leftists here.
-
I have repeatedly commented on your idiotic rubbish. You are advocating executing innocent men to prevent crimes.
As for the rest of it, stop playing up to the leftists here.
No, you have not. Not even once.
Fred, by contrast, knew quickly what I was talking about and made his statement. Let me say it yet again. Justice sits on a continuum. At one end you free the maximum number of people to prevent the incarceration of the maximum number of the innocent. At the other end you punish all the guilty but in so doing incarcerate some innocent people. There is no other way. This has been a topic for millennia.
I've explained (repeatedly) my position. You have not addressed yours. To say zero innocent people is not an option – it is impossible unless you have a justice system and no one is ever prosecuted.
What you have been doing is taking my position and throwing out extremes then trying to shame me by saying normal people don't do that, or some variation. In so doing, you continue to mimic the argument style of the SJW who holds up the extreme case and says our justice system must be one that protects even this person, aka the arguement for Political Correctness.
-
I have repeatedly commented on your idiotic rubbish. You are advocating executing innocent men to prevent crimes.
As for the rest of it, stop playing up to the leftists here.
No, you have not. Not even once.
Fred, by contrast, knew quickly what I was talking about and made his statement. Let me say it yet again. Justice sits on a continuum. At one end you free the maximum number of people to prevent the incarceration of the maximum number of the innocent. At the other end you punish all the guilty but in so doing incarcerate some innocent people. There is no other way. This has been a topic for millennia.
I've explained (repeatedly) my position. You have not addressed yours. To say zero innocent people is not an option – it is impossible unless you have a justice system and no one is ever prosecuted.
What you have been doing is taking my position and throwing out extremes then trying to shame me by saying normal people don't do that, or some variation. In so doing, you continue to mimic the argument style of the SJW who holds up the extreme case and says our justice system must be one that protects even this person, aka the arguement for Political Correctness.
In my reply, I pointed out that my premise was flawed.. and posted a far superior premise that got ignored.
In the case of executions, if they have them at all, they need to be 100% certain that the person is guilty. Convict someone of a crime - without a fraudulent trial - at 90%-99% certainty based upon your standards.. but to EXECUTE someone.. has to be 100% - in other words, caught in the act. I was researching a case yesterday where this guy was not even a suspect for months after his family was murdered.. but eventually put him in death row just because he lied about letting his brother use his credit card and because he had insect parts in the radiator of the car he rented that were not native to the state he was supposed to be in. The man didn't even have any priors! Police OFTEN plant evidence.. so unless you have absolute proof.. nobody better be executed as a result. Did OJ kill his bitch wife and that sleazebag slime Ron Goldman? Probably.. but was evidence tampered with and planted in OJ's case? ABSOLUTELY! Even then.. you can bet that OJ would have been found guilty if he was a honkey.
-
While ZERO innocent men may be impossible, that is exactly what we should aim for. As long as innocent men are being convicted, we need to end the death penalty. You on the other hand are advocating for executing as many innocent men as "needed" to foster this insane "crime prevention" bullshit.
If anyone you care about is ever wrongly convicted, you had better get on TV telling the world how it's a great thing and not fight to free them. Doing otherwise would show that either you have been trolling this thread or you are a hypocrite when it comes to you and your own. I suspect you are a hypocrite.
Keep saying I'm talking like and SJW when your argument is the same as the feminists' argument. You both want innocent men sent to prison, just in case.
"Extreme cases" as in innocent men executed, which you support as "crime prevention". It's not "extreme cases" if you can just wave them away with your hand in a "who gives a fuck about them" manner that you've been doing.
I already gave you a better way. Look at the crime stats and kill the group(s) with the highest portions of violent crimes. That would do more than executing random innocent men, for crime prevention. It goes along with your stance on abortion. Planned Parenthood was a way to get rid of the "weeds" as the founder called them.
-
While ZERO innocent men may be impossible, that is exactly what we should aim for. As long as innocent men are being convicted, we need to end the death penalty. You on the other hand are advocating for executing as many innocent men as "needed" to foster this insane "crime prevention" bullshit.
If anyone you care about is ever wrongly convicted, you had better get on TV telling the world how it's a great thing and not fight to free them. Doing otherwise would show that either you have been trolling this thread or you are a hypocrite when it comes to you and your own. I suspect you are a hypocrite.
Was bullshit really necessary?
Here's your dilemma. I wholeheartedly accept the flaw at my end of the spectrum but do you accept yours? Let me put it into the same language you just used. If your husband and child were murdered and the perpetrator was caught but one of the following happened
- he got off on a technicality (didn't get his Miranda Rights read or somesuch)
- he pleaded innocent and there wasn't enough evidence to convict him but you know he did.
- he had been previously convicted of the same crime but was released after having done the time
- he is cleared of his crime because he's been rendered criminally insane.
When looking over your dead partner's corpse, when thinking of your dead child you had better be happy that the law works as it works or you'll be a hypocrite here.
Lastly, I also want zero innocent people sent to prison. I never implied I didn't. I've repeatedly said that given the flawed system we have to work with I'll take option B.
Keep saying I'm talking like and SJW when your argument is the same as the feminists' argument. You both want innocent men sent to prison, just in case.
What exactly are you trying to say here? Are you saying that you're not arguing like an SJW because I'm (allegedly) arguing like a feminist? That makes no sense. Or are you attempting to deflect my criticism of how you're arguing by pointing out a flaw in how I argue? If that's what you're doing, you still haven't addressed the flaw in how your present your thoughts. Don't deflect.
I don't want innocent people sent to prison but you're correct in that the thinking is similar. We've been talking about the death penalty. In terms of the death penalty, that is, for crimes worthy of the death penalty then it is true that I chose the stricter option. I would be comfortable to extend prison time to violent crimes, too.
What third and fourth wave feminists have done is redefine rape and sexual harassment. Punishments for the now much broader definitions are often exercised through company HR, university administrations, and public opinion (a la Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey). If you wanna go here, you'll have to open a new thread because this is a different topic altogether and I refuse to move these goalposts.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login