My Stance on the legal system

Thought out the years the legal system has become a complete and utter joke which has been abused by criminals to much for their benefits.

I will reform these so those who are of law abiding citizens can have peace of mind knowing that these cancers of society cant do damage.


1. Plea bargaining

I will make sure no criminal who has been convicted of any hideous crime can cut deals and get sentences reduced in any way shape or form.

I will make it so prison time can’t be reduced at any cost and the defendant must carry out his full sentence no
Being let out early, they do the crime they do the time

2. Suing people

Criminals should not have the right to sue anyone
If they break into a property and hurt them selves the household should not be accountable as they didn’t ask the criminal to break in.
The criminal should lose that right as it encourages more criminals to steal off people the legal way.

This goes for any criminal who commits a crime in any location even if it’s not a home
I will make sure these criminals can’t destroy lives the legal way.

3. Paedophiles

These are the lowest of all scum

I will make sure those that are convicted (with hard proof) are locked away for life with no chance of parole. It’s a high percentage these criminals will repeat their crimes and for the safety of all children should not be allowed to walk the street.

If they have raped and murdered child/kids they should meet the harshest punishment of all and that’s being executed (this is only if there is hard evidence) no chance to plea to the governor and so forth straight death by electric chair.

4. Murderers

We lock them up for good in the smallest cell and let them rot with enough food to sustain their miserable existence. They don’t get time out and they don’t get the luxury they do now which is play basketball, pool, watch TV and so on this is prison not a holiday camp.

By going hard and tuff on these scums of the country we have a better chance of fighting crime


[edit on 20-4-2007 by bodrul]

Plea bargining part 2

Plea barging will only be allowed to those who have been convicted using evidence which isnt strong but weak which may mean a miscarige of justice in which case the defendent can plea for his life and ask for evidence to be looked at again so all evidence has been thoroughly examined. this will means the verdict is just and fair and his punishment is just and fair.


hard labour

all criminals that are sentenced to life and the crime they commited isnt as bad as those stated above and is mild compared in nature will be used to the states advantage, something the law abiding citizens dont want to do
aka sewers and so forth jobs that down grade them and shows others what fate lies in store for them if they follow that path

Originally posted by bodrul
Plea barging will only be allowed to those who have been convicted using evidence which isnt strong but weak which may mean a miscarige of justice

Point of fact: plea bargains happen BEFORE the trial. You can't plea bargain after being convicted. The whole point of a plea bargain is that you admit that you are guilty of a lesser crime and there is no trial.

For instance, if a pedestrian steps out from behind a van where you couldn't see him at a light that has just turned green, and gets run over by you because of it, then it is determined that he would have had a better chance of surviving if you hadn't backed up to get off of him, and then it turns out that you were going 30mph over the speed limit and that's why you couldn't stop in time, you might be charged with vehicular manslaughter.
In a plea bargain, you would basically be saying, "I admit that I was doing something wrong, but he didn't die because I was speeding, he died because I backed up. I will accept the punishment for what I really did- Criminally Negligent Homicide, a class E felony in the state of California, but I will not accept the punishment for what I didn't technically do, vehicular manslaughter, a class D felony in the state of California."

In such situations it can be a perfectly valid practice. We should not be trying people with ambiguous evidence PERIOD. Plea bargaining is for criminals who may have committed a lesser crime than the charge, not for people who might be innocent but are outmatched by the prosecutor.

My stance, which I hope other candidates would at least give some consideration to, is that we need strict accountability for the performance of our attorneys, to deter inappropriate use of their discretion, but we should not strip them of flexibility that may be appropriate to some cases.

all criminals that are sentenced to life and the crime they commited isnt as bad as those stated above and is mild compared in nature will be used to the states advantage, something the law abiding citizens dont want to do
aka sewers and so forth jobs that down grade them and shows others what fate lies in store for them if they follow that path

I support the idea of prison labor but I oppose any and all competition with free workers, and any profiteering from the use of prison labor. Sanitation work and other trades may be unpleasant, but they provide a living wage for honest, hard working Americans, and we have no business taking the jobs away from good people and giving them to bad ones.

There are also serious civil rights concerns raised by the prospect of the government or any other entity profiting when people are deprived of their liberty for the protection of society. It creates an unacceptable conflict of interests. Let's not forget the history of chain gangs in America and their relationship to the Jim Crow laws. I'm not saying that the penal system is inherently racist, but I am saying that we've already seen what happens when you create a financial interest in the sad necessity of prisons.

I believe that prison labor should be designed to support the function of the prison and to create public goods which are not of interest to the free market, so that we are not depriving anyone of jobs or their business.

Put prisoners to work growing staple crops that we can donate to famine-stricken nations. Let them fill sandbags to help out during hurricane season. Let them grow their own food, etc. Let them dig the biggest hole ever created without heavy equipment just so that a geologist can go down and go "ooh, ahh" about it for all I care, but don't let the government or any private interest profit off of them and don't displace one worker with them.


As for tort reform, I believe that being engaged in a criminal act at the time of the damage that results in the lawsuit should be presumed the cause of the damage (as prima facie evidence if you wanna get all latin about it), but that should only affect the burden of proof, not the ability to sue. If it can be proved by the criminal plaintiff that his criminal act did not contribute to the danger of the event which befell him, then he should still be able to sue and win.

For example, if I get bit by a guard dog while breaking and entering, I would lose my case under this rule (which, incidentally, is pretty much practiced already link) however if I committed breaking and entering, was caught by the property owner, surrendered to him and was placed under citizens arrest, and then instead of calling the police he made me play Russian Roulette with him, I would obviously have a right to sue.

It is very important as a policymaker to think through the implications of our policies and craft them very carefully, because I am confident that you agree with me that a criminal has a right not to be tortured as I described above even though he committed a crime, but intended or not, that could be a consequence of the bills you sign into law if you aren't careful.

Originally posted by bodrul
1. Plea bargaining

I will make sure no criminal who has been convicted of any hideous crime can cut deals and get sentences reduced in any way shape or form.

What if someone arrested for robbery has info about someone that has kill ten people, and wants a deal for the info?
Do you not think by let the thief have time off their sentence is better then letting a killer go loose?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
What if someone arrested for robbery has info about someone that has kill ten people, and wants a deal for the info?
Do you not think by let the thief have time off their sentence is better then letting a killer go loose?

those who have commited a minor crime can, IE robbery but not cause serious injury and so forth

those who have murderd dont have that right

Vagabond yes those who have commited a lesser crime will get plea bargining, i am talking about crimes which are murder and so forth where the crime in question is sickening and horendous

yes they should work for the country and not for a profit org
hence why i said sewers and things like that which bennifit the populace

no matter what the criminal should not have the right to sue
no one asked him to break into someones home.
once they broke the law they have lost the right to sue.

if they get injured by an item or anything in the home or where ever they break into they still cant sue

if they get beaten the fudge out of by the owner while trying to break in (self deffence) they still cant sue.

if they are torured or anything they still cant sue since they will be profiting from their failed attempt at a crime. except the other person who tortured the criminal will be charged.

CRIMINALS LOSE ALL RIGHTS TO SUE IN MY STANCE

Originally posted by bodrul
4. Murderers

We lock them up for good in the smallest cell and let them rot with enough food to sustain their miserable existence. They don’t get time out and they don’t get the luxury they do now which is play basketball, pool, watch TV and so on this is prison not a holiday camp.

Why not just give them the Death Penalty instead of wasting space, food, and money?

Wouldn't the same shelter and food that murderers get be better used if they were given to the homeless who are innocent yet have nothing? Why should murderers be better off?

[edit on 22/4/2007 by enjoies05]

Originally posted by enjoies05

Why not just give them the Death Penalty instead of wasting space, food, and money?

Wouldn't the same shelter and food that murderers get be better used if they were given to the homeless who are innocent yet have nothing? Why should murderers be better off?

[edit on 22/4/2007 by enjoies05]

it would be an easy way out for them
they kill and so forth and they are set free (as in they wont have to suffer like their victims)

i want them to feel the pain i want them to suffer like they made others suffer

Homeless people is another subject i will be going into tommrow

Originally posted by bodrul
Vagabond yes those who have commited a lesser crime will get plea bargining, i am talking about crimes which are murder and so forth where the crime in question is sickening and horendous

Are you saying that once a district attorney has accused a man of murder, there should be no way to downgrade the charge to manslaughter, even if that's all that can be proven?
I reitterate the plea bargaining must be an option for any charge, but must be undertaken as dictated by the evidence.

yes they should work for the country and not for a profit org
hence why i said sewers and things like that which bennifit the populace

Sewers are maintained by honest people who make their living doing that. Your proposal will depress wages and I strongly oppose it. Inmates must not do any work that a free man could earn a wage doing, with the sole exception of labor which directly facilitates the run of the prison.

no matter what the criminal should not have the right to sue
no one asked him to break into someones home.
once they broke the law they have lost the right to sue.

And if your teenage daughter should make that mistake, the home owner as a right to rape her, then drag her outside and set her on fire instead of calling the police, right? And you, rather than the person who did it to her, should be the one who paying for the medical and psychological care that she would need as a result, correct? Just making sure I understand you correctly.

What you are proposing is explicitly forbidden by the United States Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment and promises equal protection under the law.

if they are torured or anything they still cant sue since they will be profiting from their failed attempt at a crime. except the other person who tortured the criminal will be charged.

I am happy that you aren't completely insane and recognize that the person who did this would have to be charged, however I question your reasoning. Incarcerating the person who overreacts and does unreasonable harm which goes beyond self defense does nothing to repair the damage they have unjustly done. The offender should be entitled to recompense of actual damages.

Keep in mind that the criminal will not be going free to enjoy the spoils of the lawsuit- he'll be going to jail. And when he is in jail, do you know who is going to pay his medical bills if they are not paid by the person who unjustly injured him??? You and me brother, the tax payers. That doesn't sound right to me. What sounds right to me is that if some guy gets a macho trip out of dispensing his own brand of justice, he needs to be the one who pays the expenses that result, because I pay enough in taxes as it is, thank you very much.

Originally posted by bodrul
Homeless people is another subject i will be going into tommrow

Do you support torturing them too, or will they recieve the mercy of a swift death under your regime?

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by bodrul
Homeless people is another subject i will be going into tommrow

Do you support torturing them too, or will they recieve the mercy of a swift death under your regime?

ah? what does that have to do with things
i said the homeless is a diffrent subject which i will be going into

www.abovepolitics.com...

i will be adding more to it


back to your org reply

1. i am talking about those people that have hard evidence against them and proving they have commited the crime, not suspision or acusations hard facts. i dont want to see murderers getting away with their crimes.

2. your right they shouldnt do jobs a decent man/woman can do
sewers just came to mind as its working with waste goods.
but i agree with you

3.i will respond to that on the 4th quote that you made since both are the same. and i did say only the actions in self deffence so i dont see where you got rape and so forth from when i said the following

if they get beaten the fudge out of by the owner while trying to break in (self deffence) they still cant sue.

i said if the owner only acts in self deffence and unless you count raping someone as self deffence?

4. this goes with 3 the person who commits the crime against the defendent and its not self deffence then he will have to pay for that crime.

and i change my previous stance the criminal still wont get the chance to sue But the other party will have to pay for the medical treatment for the deffendent. that way the criminal wont get any money and the citizens wont have to foot the bill, (you have to agree with that?)

[edit on 23-4-2007 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
1. i am talking about those people that have hard evidence against them and proving they have commited the crime, not suspision or acusations hard facts. i dont want to see murderers getting away with their crimes.

Last time I checked, we use a jury to decide who does and does not have "hard evidence" proving they have committed a crime. Before that, all we have is suspicion and accusation, which is why we call them a "suspect" and then a "defendant" before we call them a "convict".

You are proposing a change that requires us to determine their guilt or innocense before the trial. It isn't entirely unworkable because there obviously is such a thing as a slam dunk case, but it does without a doubt undermine the presumption of innocense and it threatens to be even more exceedingly dangerous if not carefully worded, as discussed earlier.

i said if the owner only acts in self deffence and unless you count raping someone as self deffence?

That is most certainly not what you said. You discussed self defense only with respect to criminal prosecution. You then said, in all capitals,

CRIMINALS LOSE ALL RIGHTS TO SUE

. All rights. As in every one of them, not leaving any behind.
Which means that if some guy rapes a criminal... maybe a 12 year old shoplifter for the sake of argument... the criminal would not be entitled to any compensation for any damages, not even to pay for much needed counseling or medical care.

You even explicitly said

if they are torured or anything they still cant sue

.
You ridiculously asked me if I consider rape a form of self defense. Based on the above quote, and your subsequent denial that you would allow the rape of a teenage girl if she committed a crime, I am compelled to ask you: don't you consider rape a form of torture?

4. this goes with 3 the person who commits the crime against the defendent and its not self deffence then he will have to pay for that crime.

and i change my previous stance the criminal still wont get the chance to sue But the other party will have to pay for the medical treatment for the deffendent. that way the criminal wont get any money and the citizens wont have to foot the bill, (you have to agree with that?)

I agree with your solution mostly; now let me tell you why. The thing you just described (the offender having to pay for the damages they inflicted) is exactly the same as a successful lawsuit over actual damages. All you did was omit the word "sue". I think what you have been trying to say since the beginning of this thread might have been that you don't support the payment of punitive damages to criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime.

If that is the case, i'm glad it has come up (and here is where mostly comes in). I do believe that it should be possible for even a criminal to seek punitive damages, however I don't believe that plaintiffs should recieve the money awarded as punitive damages.
The whole point of punitive damages is to provide a civil punishment to someone who did something wrong, especially in cases where somebody could easily afford to pay the actual damages, and as such had an incentive to "play the odds" by breaking the law.
The point of punitive damages is to teach a lesson, not to try and replace what has been lost with money.

I happen to believe that in any case where punitive damages are assessed, the portion of the punitive judgement which the plaintiff is personally entitled to should be equal to 10% of the award that was given for actual damages (which is a small and unworthwhile token payment for the ordeal- not a windfall). The remainder of any punitive damage award should be collected by the government as a fine and be distributed between non-profit victims rights groups and other charities.

Those who do wrong pay in proportion to their crime, but people don't get rich off of bad things happening to them, which reduces the incentive for frivolous suits.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Last time I checked, we use a jury to decide who does and does not have "hard evidence" proving they have committed a crime. Before that, all we have is suspicion and accusation, which is why we call them a "suspect" and then a "defendant" before we call them a "convict".

You are proposing a change that requires us to determine their guilt or innocense before the trial. It isn't entirely unworkable because there obviously is such a thing as a slam dunk case, but it does without a doubt undermine the presumption of innocense and it threatens to be even more exceedingly dangerous if not carefully worded, as discussed earlier.

sorry if i wasnt clear wrote the thing up late

if the defendent is found guilty on hard evidence and convicted by a panel
then have any right to plea, i am talking about those who have been convicted (if i said for instance that the person was just found guilty then you point is valid)

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That is most certainly not what you said. You discussed self defense only with respect to criminal prosecution. You then said, in all capitals,

CRIMINALS LOSE ALL RIGHTS TO SUE

. All rights. As in every one of them, not leaving any behind.
Which means that if some guy rapes a criminal... maybe a 12 year old shoplifter for the sake of argument... the criminal would not be entitled to any compensation for any damages, not even to pay for much needed counseling or medical care.

You even explicitly said

if they are torured or anything they still cant sue

my reply kind of answerd that the part you just skiped
i found it stupid you brought rape into this from no where
since i would never class raping someone self deffence?

so how does a person raping a 12 year old shop lifter come into it?
i said self defence and last time i checked that menr defending someones self from another, so how does all criminals lose all rights to sue have to do with raping? that would mean the person raping would be the criminal and it wouldnt be self deffence. unless you think otherwise

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That is most certainly not what you said. You discussed self defense only with respect to criminal prosecution. You then said, in all capitals,

CRIMINALS LOSE ALL RIGHTS TO SUE

. All rights. As in every one of them, not leaving any behind.
Which means that if some guy rapes a criminal... maybe a 12 year old shoplifter for the sake of argument... the criminal would not be entitled to any compensation for any damages, not even to pay for much needed counseling or medical care.

You even explicitly said

if they are torured or anything they still cant sue

.

You ridiculously asked me if I consider rape a form of self defense. Based on the above quote, and your subsequent denial that you would allow the rape of a teenage girl if she committed a crime, I am compelled to ask you: don't you consider rape a form of torture?

hold on a sec
you brought in rape from no where
i said self defence and all the suden you burst in with if the person rapes the criminal in self defence sorry but i find that very stpuid and i have explained it above.

I agree with your solution mostly;

i wont quote all of your last response

nice to see we agree on something

also if your going to reply please read all of my reply





[edit on 23-4-2007 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
i found it stupid you brought rape into this from no where
since i would never class raping someone self deffence?

so how does a person raping a 12 year old shop lifter come into it?
i said self defence

You probably wish you said self defense but your statement was very clear that under no circumstances would a criminal have the right to sue, even if they were tortured.

Your exact words were

no matter what the criminal should not have the right to sue
no one asked him to break into someones home.
once they broke the law they have lost the right to sue.

if they get injured by an item or anything in the home or where ever they break into they still cant sue

if they get beaten the fudge out of by the owner while trying to break in (self deffence) they still cant sue.

if they are torured or anything they still cant sue since they will be profiting from their failed attempt at a crime. except the other person who tortured the criminal will be charged.

CRIMINALS LOSE ALL RIGHTS TO SUE IN MY STANCE

Emphasis added.

You have suggested that there should be ZERO civil remedy for ANYONE who commits a crime under ANY circumstances. You did not say only if they are injured as a matter of self defense, unless you consider torture a form of self defense.

I consider rape a definate form of torture, and therefore it made an outstanding example of the flaw of your argument. You call it out of nowhere, I call it the obvious conclusion of your own words.

How much longer are you going to be attempting to lie to the voters about what you said, and what any one of them can read for themselves, until you finally just give up, appologize for speaking before thinking, and recant that position? This country can't afford another president who defends bad ideas just to save face. You made a proposal which was fundamentally unjust and you will probably be forgiven for it, but the real question of character is this: how will you handle that mistake?

At first you seemed to understand that you'd made a mistake and you conceeded to the payment of actual damages, and I'm glad you've come to agree with me on that, but now you are backtracking and denying what you said. What you said was that your administration would hold the view that a person has NO civil liability for ANYTHING they do to a person who has committed a crime, and you explicitly included torture in that. Torture is not a form of self defense. Rape could easily be considered a form of torture. You might not have put enough thought into your words to know that you said it, but you said it, and it's on this page in black and white.

There are three words that any person MUST be able to say if they hope to be a good president. I'd lay a fair bet that I will find myself saying them once or twice during this campaign as will most candidates. Those words are "I WAS WRONG". Can you say them?

let me get this clear to you

for you rape is torture for me it is a crime
so hence we have a diffrence in prospective

also

if they get beaten the fudge out of by the owner while trying to break in (self deffence) they still cant sue.

is it me or does that say self defence?

also

1. i am not backtracking (i admited i may of made some flaws) but i will not agree with you (RAPE)
because i find it to be the most stupid reason ever
and doesnt have anything to do with my topic so feel free to shout your mouth of about Rape because in my book its a crime and not a form a self deffence which i said so quote as much as your heart desires.

i will say what i please and whats in my mind
no matter who the person i am speaking to

i will make it more clear for you and just for you i will elaberate what i see as torture and rape

sourceTorture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." In addition to state sponsored torture, individuals or groups may also inflict torture on others for similar reasons, however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

why dont they mention RAPE?

with the i am wrong HELL NO
i will only admit my mistakes if i know i made a mistake
you bring in your definition of torture as rape and expect me say ok
the person will rape the criminal and so forth

for get it about you wont get those 3 words from me

also i didnt i mention if the person who rapes them is a criminal and would charged as such or was that an invisible reply that you thought you might as well ignore?

i will still stick with org PLAN with the changes where the CRIMINAL wont be able to SUE
if they are tortured (cant think of anything to say about rape since i never heard of anyone raping a shop lifter or burgler, i am also typing down my thoughts) then they will get treatment at the expense of who tortured them they wont get a penny.

so i will stick with that


feel free to whine vaga



edit: if your going to reply please dont write an essay for the love of god


also

if the voters want someone that will make it a safe haven for criminals they will vote for you where criminals will have all the rights of the average hardworking Joe

those who want criminals to have whats coming to them they will Vote for me

[edit on 23-4-2007 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
for you rape is torture for me it is a crime

That's funny. Usually when somebody commits a crime against you which results in damages, you have the right to sue.

if they get beaten the fudge out of by the owner while trying to break in (self deffence) they still cant sue.

is it me or does that say self defence?

You also said torture. Is torture self defense? Yes or No. Don't explain, don't fence with me, answer the question, did you or did you not say that you would not hold people to any civil liability for torturing criminals? When you said that, did you or did you not somehow think that torture counts as self defense?

i will say what i please and whats in my mind

Apparently so, regardless of the consequences.

i will make it more clear for you and just for you i will elaberate what i see as torture and rape

sourceTorture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

You just made my case for me. Or does rape not inflict severe pain or suffering of a physical or mental nature? Perhaps rape is committed differently where you come from.
I'll tell you what, bring me a letter from the head of the nearest office of the National Organization for Women saying that as practiced in your area, rape is not painful, and I will drop the whole thing.

also i didnt i mention if the person who rapes them is a criminal and would charged as such or was that an invisible reply that you thought you might as well ignore?

Um, it was the last thing I quoted in this post and my response was

I am happy that you aren't completely insane and recognize that the person who did this would have to be charged, however I question your reasoning. Incarcerating the person who overreacts and does unreasonable harm which goes beyond self defense does nothing to repair the damage they have unjustly done. The offender should be entitled to recompense of actual damages.

.

Next time you try to accuse me of something, you should make sure that I did it first. You can torture the facts all you want Bodrul, they will never confess to your ridiculous ideas.

then they will get treatment at the expense of who tortured them they wont get a penny.

That's what a lawsuit is! It's when you go to court to force somebody else to pay to fix the damage they caused. Ironically, you seem to be a victim of the very problem you are trying to address: you think of a lawsuit as a lottery ticket that makes you rich so that you won't remember how awful the damage was. How many times have I said "actual damages"? As in, they get exactly the amount of money that they have to pay to be treated for the damages caused to them, not a penny more.
Do you think that somebody is going to get a 14,000 dollar hospital bill they have to pay, sue for that 14,000 dollars, and laugh all the way to the bank? They are breaking even- they don't have anything more than they started with.
X-Y+Y=X, right?

feel free to whine vaga

You really do think you're making sense, don't you?

[edit on 23-4-2007 by The Vagabond]

You also said torture. Is torture self defense? Yes or No. Don't explain, don't fence with me, answer the question, did you or did you not say that you would not hold people to any civil liability for torturing criminals? When you said that, did you or did you not somehow think that torture counts as self defense?

no torture isnt self defence

lets define self defence

wiqi

Self-defense refers to actions taken by a person to prevent another person from causing harm to one's self, one's property or one's home.

Self-defense is also a commonly understood legal term in United States law used to categorize an act of violence as being justified against an unjustified aggressor, and therefore deserving of little or no punishment; it is often used interchangeably with the term "Justifiable homicide" (compare to Homicide). The issue of what constitutes acceptable self-defense has typically been hotly debated throughout U.S. history virtually anytime someone is acquitted of a killing in self-defense. For example, shooting an assailant once might be categorized as self-defense while shooting the same assailant five times may not be so held. Self-defense against the illegal actions of police were held justifiable in 1900 in the U.S. Supreme Court Case John Bad Elk v. U.S., and supported by other court cases like Runyan v. State.

thats what i refer to as self defence

You just made my case for me. Or does rape not inflict severe pain or suffering of a physical or mental nature? Perhaps rape is committed differently where you come from.
I'll tell you what, bring me a letter from the head of the nearest office of the National Organization for Women saying that as practiced in your area, rape is not painful, and I will drop the whole thing.

admited that was a stupid reponse

but one question to you

when i was talking about self defence why did you envolve Rape
has anyone in the US comiited Rape in self defence?

please answer that because tec it would be a crime not self defence



on laws uits i just find it pathetic people commit crimes and get hurt and get paid off for it (doesnt matter how large/small the payment is)

i already said what should happen if they get injured and its not self defence

X-Y+Y=X, right?

what the fudge is that suppose to be?

You really do think you're making sense, don't you?

not really im just saying what comes to mind

if i dont respond in the next 24-48 hours its not because i am accepting defeat or anything i got more important things to do (college work) and replying to you is a mission seriously your good)

Originally posted by bodrul
no torture isnt self defence

Good, we agree.

but one question to you

when i was talking about self defence why did you envolve Rape
has anyone in the US comiited Rape in self defence?

Rape never came up in connection with self defense. Rape was referring to torture, not to your mention of self defense. That should have been fairly obvious. The idea of rape in self defense is ludicrous on its surface.

on laws uits i just find it pathetic people commit crimes and get hurt and get paid off for it (doesnt matter how large/small the payment is)

It is relatively rare, and in most instances I agree that it is absurd when it happens. I object to the use of absolutist language however because of the problems that it can cause, as has been well demonstrated in this exchange so far.

i already said what should happen if they get injured and its not self defence

Yes, and what you described was a judgement for actual damages, and the due process by which that is obtained is a lawsuit.
There's nobody in this conversation saying that people should make a profit off of crime. I'm just saying that not all lawsuits are about that. Some lawsuits are just about getting back the amount that somebody unjustly cost you, for example medical bills. We seem to agree on that now too, although you seem to dislike calling it what it is (I can't entirely blame you... sue and tort are both ugly words, but that is still what it is.).

X-Y+Y=X, right?

what the fudge is that suppose to be?

That's junior high school level algebra. In the future, just nod and say mmhmm a lot and this won't happen to you.

You really do think you're making sense, don't you?

not really im just saying what comes to mind

I really have no idea what I'm supposed to say to that. Is this reverse psychology? Please be careful with my tenuous hold on sanity.

if i dont respond in the next 24-48 hours its not because i am accepting defeat or anything i got more important things to do (college work) and replying to you is a mission seriously your good)

I fully understand. Good luck with your studies, and rest assured that there is no bad blood between us, no matter how many elbows we might throw at eachother (and I do expect to get plenty back by the way). I just like to play full contact.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by bodrul
Thought out the years the legal system has become a complete and utter joke which has been abused by criminals to much for their benefits.

I will reform these so those who are of law abiding citizens can have peace of mind knowing that these cancers of society cant do damage.


1. Plea bargaining

I will make sure no criminal who has been convicted of any hideous crime can cut deals and get sentences reduced in any way shape or form.

I will make it so prison time can’t be reduced at any cost and the defendant must carry out his full sentence no
Being let out early, they do the crime they do the time

2. Suing people

Criminals should not have the right to sue anyone
If they break into a property and hurt them selves the household should not be accountable as they didn’t ask the criminal to break in.
The criminal should lose that right as it encourages more criminals to steal off people the legal way.

This goes for any criminal who commits a crime in any location even if it’s not a home
I will make sure these criminals can’t destroy lives the legal way.

3. Paedophiles

These are the lowest of all scum

I will make sure those that are convicted (with hard proof) are locked away for life with no chance of parole. It’s a high percentage these criminals will repeat their crimes and for the safety of all children should not be allowed to walk the street.

If they have raped and murdered child/kids they should meet the harshest punishment of all and that’s being executed (this is only if there is hard evidence) no chance to plea to the governor and so forth straight death by electric chair.

4. Murderers

We lock them up for good in the smallest cell and let them rot with enough food to sustain their miserable existence. They don’t get time out and they don’t get the luxury they do now which is play basketball, pool, watch TV and so on this is prison not a holiday camp.

By going hard and tuff on these scums of the country we have a better chance of fighting crime


[edit on 20-4-2007 by bodrul]

honestly you did not have to go into this much details to say something everyone allready knows the justice system sucks its not even a system its a bunch of judges who get to decide what youre life is worth i find this to be not freedom. "execption to the rule yeah if you murder death kill someone".
the problem you will run into is the human rights activists who will shut you down and possibly send you in one of the paths you have just laid out. be a little more realistic about how to deal with criminals that doesnt resort to nazi tactics

[edit on 4/23/2007 by razor1000]

ALL Plea Bargaining should be eliminated, and crime should be judged on it maret's alone. I believe that a lot of innocent people have gone to jail over the THREAT of more time if they don't accept a plea bargain. I also strongly believe that law enforcement abuses the law by using the plea bargain to manipulate inmates to testify against other inmates to make a case. Plea Bargaining corrupts the justice system, no doubt about it.

The courts say they would collapse without the plea bargain because the courts would be overloaded. B.S., then hire more judges, because either you have justice or you don't.