Another example of our fine "Justice System"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hapaboy, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. Years ago this guy viciously attacks two women, raping one of them. He goes to prison and undergoes "treatment." After being released, he rapes yet another woman and attempts to rape a third. So he gets thrown back in prison. Then he gets released again.

    Now he is the prime suspect in the case of a missing student in North Dakota that is making national headlines.

    The suspect's first rape victim said about hearing that he had been released from prison: "What that phone call did for myself and other victims in the community was it really kind of ripped open a lot of angst about the safety of people," she said.

    Regarding the fate of the missing student, she said "I hope very much that she's alive. I hope that he hasn't become more violent."

    Why should ex-victims and the community at large fear for their safety and that of their innocent fellow citizens? As usual, the criminals are released to prey on new victims.

    The scales of our justice system remain tilted against the victims and our society.
  2. Maverick74


    Do you want the simple answer? It's called radical liberal judges who feel the need to put this scum back on the street. And it's going to get worse. Between the Trial Lawyer Association on the left and the left wing nut judges, look for crime to just keep going up. I really feel for those that live in high crime areas. And the democrats love this. As crime goes up they start screaming about how unfair capitalism is and how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Thank your fellow liberals for making your life a little more dangerous. Oh, and just when you think you might go out and buy a gun to protect yourself from this filth in society, your fellow liberal is going to show up at your door asking to take your gun away. Hey, guns are dangerous you know.
  3. In general our system admits and accepts that the price of freedom may be unnecessary death to members of society.

    Striking the balance between the rights of all citizens is a difficult task.

    If there were proof that a particular person, or persons found guilty of certain crimes could not be rehabilitated, then we could easily condemn a convicted ____________ to a life behind bars without possibility for parole.

    Unfortunately, science has not arrived at the point where we can say with certainty that some people are incapable of rehabilitation.

    I have heard statistics quoted that sex offenders will repeat their crimes again to the tune of 90% of the time. Yet, 10% do experience a recovery from the demons that drove them to commit crime.

    That 90% figure is a strong argument, if true, for extra caution when considering parole or sentencing.

    However, we can never absolutely ensure the security of all members of society at the cost of freedom for those who do actually reform or have paid their debt to society.

    Our system is not designed to punish people because they "may" commit crime again without a good reason for believing they are going to do so.

    Our system tends to err on the side of personal freedom, fortunately.
  4. Well said.:)

    Too bad the system is under assault inside our borders, and explicitly disregarded outside.:(
  5. Maverick74, I'm assuming you're kidding. As all ETers know, especially Optional777/ARogueTrader, I am a moderate conservative.

    And yeah, the system is bulls**t.
  6. But comrades, you all fail to see the true purpose of our 'criminal justice ' system. Preventing crime isn't the goal here...not at all.

    The government doesn't just want actual criminals to cower in fear before it...Big Brother wants ALL OF US crushed under the weight of it's boot. Now that's REAL POWER. The government wants real criminals like the above mentioned maniac to be he can repeatedly commit this type of atrocity, and who shall we ask for protection then? Why Big Brother of course! And if we must sacrifice some of our freedoms for this protection, so be it. If only we gave the government more POWER, criminals like this would be off the streets. Perhaps if we mandate the government to collect a sample of all citizens' DNA, we'd all be safer? Small sacrifices like this must be made for our children's sake.

    Besides, it is important that the big bad drug traffickers and thought criminals receive their federal minimum decades-long 'correction' behind bars, isn't it? If this means there are not enough prison beds left for real criminals, we must free them, so they may rape and murder...and the wretched citizens can come begging to Big Brother for more protection...
  7. They are drilling now (ice) in the Red Lake River near where she was abducted. That can't be a good sign at all.

    She's most likely dead.

    Sickening ...
  8. Well, our "system" is horribly, horribly flawed.

    The bottom line is that the system gives the benefit of the doubt to those who have committed horrible crimes and puts their welfare above that of innocent, law-abiding citizens.

    I will never understand your justification of allowing such atrocities to continue because a small percentage of offenders do not go on to commit more crime after their "rehabilitation."

    This is abominable.

    I see no justification whatsoever for using the term "fortunately" in this context at all.

    Unless we are harsher with criminals and do what's best for decent citizens that make up the majority of our populace, we shall all pay the financial and social costs.
  9. Our system sets free criminals that were clearly guilty, but because the police did not follow the law in their arrest the criminal is allowed free on a technicality of law. We put the principle of law above everything else, as in the long run it is the principle of law that will preserve our society, not vigilante thinking.

    There are many who think the Miranda laws should be rescinded, but a little thing called the Constitution stands in their way.

    You may think this is horrible, but our system of law is what keeps us from the kind of emotion that results in "the end justifies the means behavior" that puts the fear for security of a few over the rights of those who deserve those right granted by law.

    Of course, you could move to an Arab country where they practice Islamic law, which sounds a bit like the type of enforcement you may be looking for.
  10. Laws are supposed to exist to help the majority of the people and maintain order. When they are twisted and litigated to the point where the welfare of criminals is put above the common, law-abiding citizen, something is wrong and needs to be changed.

    "Fear of security of a few"? Most of our country is law-abiding; these are the "few"? Criminals are accorded certain rights under the law. I understand that. And don't start accusing me of wanting to have a revolution and do away with the Constitution.

    As for the type of enforcement I'm looking for, I seek a way of preventing criminals like the subject of this thread from preying on even more victims once they're released. You, apparently, are happy with the status quo. But then again, you are the same person who in another thread made it quite clear that the loss of more innocent lives to paroled criminals is hardly an indication that the system is broken and in bad need of repair; in fact, you stated that even if 200 innocent people were murdered by released felons the system could be deemed a "success."

    I always find it interesting that capital punishment opponents argue against it with the "better 1 million guilty live than 1 innocent person die" mantra. Not only has that never happened in the US, but it fails to address the hundreds of people who are murdered by released criminals. I guess the "1 innocent life" the cap. punishment opponents are concerned about doesn't exist outside prison walls.

    (As for the sarcastic comment about moving to an Arab country comment, no thanks. Been there, done that already. And isn't it a little hypocritical of you to be using sarcasm when in the Bush's Lie thread you started you whined about it being verbally abusive and wrote a lengthy essay on it?)
    #10     Dec 5, 2003