Three Strike Law

[Dieval]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Obviously you are incorrect. Laws need to be based on more than just being against the law. Why would anti-drug laws be passed in the first place if the only reason drugs are wrong is that it is against the law?

You're correct, laws do need to be based on more than just being against the law. What I said is that taking illegal drugs is wrong. Why don't you explain to the class how taking illegal drugs is not wrong? You obviously disagree with my statement, so please explain.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Marijuana is a naturally occurring plant. You don't have to be "growing" it. It is a weed - hence the nickname. Nope. In every state in the union, having it growing on your property is possession.

Ok...so what is your point? I said you should get rid of it if it's growing on your property(because you'll get charged with possesion)....and you seem to confirm this, soooo.....?

Quote by: tivodan1116 Yeah - to the PERSON IN THE CAR NOT WEARING THEIR SEATBELT. So how does not wearing a seatbelt harm OTHERS? Can you show me even one example of this based in reality, not some preposterous "human cannonball" scheme?

I haven't studied every accident that's ever occurred, so I couldn't tell you what has actually happend. BUT, as being ejected from a car when you're not wearing your seat belt happens, and who's to say you couldn't land in a group of pedestrians?

Are you arguing this point for a reason? Do you really believe it's a good idea to not wear a seat belt in a car?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval These people were given 3 (serious) chances to be law- abiding members of the community. They chose poorly.

And putting them in prison for 25 years or more will accomplish what exactly?
Keep in mind, a substantial portion of prison inmates were not serial killers or serial rapists.

I think that, at least in most cases, prison is the poor choice.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval You're correct, laws do need to be based on more than just being against the law. What I said is that taking illegal drugs is wrong.

I cannot agree that a law is inherently justified, nor do I think laws are justified simply by saying something is "wrong." All kinds of things can be deemed "wrong," but I expect a pretty strong defense if a law or a punishment is to be justified.
You haven't done that. You just assume that people deserve to be imprisoned for 25 years, even for minor offenses. That won't due in a discussion forum (or at least it shouldn't).

Laws, like wars, should be dreaded decisions.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Dieval Merely possessing marijuana is a crime. The act of possessing marijuana, alone-doing nothing else with it, does not harm anyone, i'll give you that, but, when you have possession of mj, what are you going to do with it? The likely actions taken would be to consume it(in some form or another) or sell it, both of which can have harmful effects on people, either directly or indirectly.

But you are going beyond what was said in earlier posts to which I responded. Instead of doing all this reading into things, try reading what people write and taking them to mean exactly and only what they write.

But since you insist on reading into what people post (something that really pisses me off), I'll answer your ridiculous question. It doesn't matter what you do with it unless you're going to force someone else to ingest it. It is not the act of you ingesting the product that causes harm to someone else. You choosing to sell the produce does not harm anyone else. Now, before you make some silly remark about driving while under the influence (as you try to read further into what is written, looking for implications, inferences, etc.), it wasn't the act of ingesting the product that caused you to choose to operate a motor vehicle and, therefore, the act of you ingesting the product does not harm anyone else.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Ok, since you're clearly learning disabled, I'll spell out the posts you're referencing Post #3 by God's Merc "we should have seperate prison facilities for teenagers caught with a joint and rapists and gangbangers" Distinguishing between lesser offenses in this case possession and serious offenses in this case rape. Post #9 by Me I quote this post and inform God's Merc that we already do have separate institutions for children and adults and I've never seen a child charged as an adult for possession. Post #20 by You You ignorantly post asking if I've ever heard of children being charged as adults for other crimes. This is completely irrelevant and negates the basis of the argument regarding Three Strikes laws being abused and used against people for lesser offenses. If someone rapes and is convicted of such 3 times I have no problem with him being put in jail for the rest of his life. However, no child is going to jail for the rest of their life charged as an adult for possession. It's really quite that simple. Never mind the fact that there is no such thing as three strikes laws for Juvenile court. Why let common sense and reason get in the way of your little temper tantrums, eh? Post #23 by Me I attempt to bring you back on topic to what we were actually discussing, which was that Juveniles would not be charged as adults for lesser offenses such as drug offenses and thus inapplicable to this discussion. Post #34 by You You jump into an inflammatory and completely out of line rant that proves that you didn't even bother to read the post by God's Merc to which I was responding. If you're going to insult others' intelligence as you seem to do with every other post, you should probably have some idea of what it is you're trying to sound arrogant and superior about in the first place. Once again, you prove you're not as intelligent as you clearly think you are.

Let's try this again.

You said, "We do have separate prison facilities for teenagers vs adults. Ever heard of juvenile detention centers? I've never heard of anyone charged as an adult for basic possession ie, caught with a joint."

I replied with the question, "Ever heard of some teenagers being charged as an adult for other crimes?"

You made a specific statement that we have separate prision facilities for teenagers vs. adults and then asked if the person you responded to had heard of juvenile detention centers. You then stated that you've never heard of anyone being charged as an adult for basic possession. Now, consider the entirety of your statement (and only your statement) and answer the question, "Ever heard of some teenagers being charged as an adult for other crimes?" Of course, I'm referring to crimes other than basis possession. I asked the question because you seem to think that teenagers are never tried and incarcerated as adults. You also seem to think that no human being has ever been charged as an adult for basic possession (you stated "I've never heard of anyone charged as an adult for basic possession ie, caught with a joint." - you said "anyone" and not "teenagers"). Of course, I can only go by what you actually post since I expect others to take what I post to mean exactly and only what is written.

Now, here's the reality:

Yes, there are juvenile detention centers.

Yes, sometimes juveniles are charged as adults (though not necessarily for possession of marijuana).

Yes, some people are charged as adults for basic possession, i.e. adults.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Obviously you are incorrect. Laws need to be based on more than just being against the law. Why would anti-drug laws be passed in the first place if the only reason drugs are wrong is that it is against the law?

However, you must admit that there is very little actual basis for some laws being passed - little more than some irate citizens or some special interest group said "there ought to be a law."

Marijuana is a naturally occurring plant. You don't have to be "growing" it. It is a weed - hence the nickname.

What is a weed but a plant that someone doesn't want?

Nope. In every state in the union, having it growing on your property is possession.

Likely because the states have succumbed to pressure from the federal government.

Yeah - to the PERSON IN THE CAR NOT WEARING THEIR SEATBELT. So how does not wearing a seatbelt harm OTHERS? Can you show me even one example of this based in reality, not some preposterous "human cannonball" scheme?

I tried asking that question and all I got was some ridiculous scenario.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa And putting them in prison for 25 years or more will accomplish what exactly? Keep in mind, a substantial portion of prison inmates were not serial killers or serial rapists. I think that, at least in most cases, prison is the poor choice. Grandpa h.

I think we should adopt the Singaporean practice of caning, though I think it should be a public event.

WORLD CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RESEARCH: JUDICIAL CANING IN SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA AND BRUNEI
Caning in Singapore: Information and Much More from Answers.com

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa And putting them in prison for 25 years or more will accomplish what exactly? Keep in mind, a substantial portion of prison inmates were not serial killers or serial rapists. I think that, at least in most cases, prison is the poor choice. Grandpa h.

In the case that I copied, it will prevent this person from committing residential burglaries and possible vehicle thefts. He obviously has repeated offenses in the past and there's gaurentee he'll stop his actions going forward...except if he's in jail.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa I cannot agree that a law is inherently justified, nor do I think laws are justified simply by saying something is "wrong."

That's all fine and dandy, but if you break a law you don't agree with, you will pay the price for it.

Quote by: grandpa All kinds of things can be deemed "wrong," but I expect a pretty strong defense if a law or a punishment is to be justified. You haven't done that.

It's not my job to justify laws. I just stated that it is wrong to take illegal drugs. They are by definition illegal, meaning that they are in violation of our laws, meaning that our society has decided that they are wrong to use.

Don't try to pull the "illegal because they're illegal" crap. That's not what I said.

Quote by: grandpa You just assume that people deserve to be imprisoned for 25 years, even for minor offenses. That won't due in a discussion forum (or at least it shouldn't).

I posted what constitutes a "strike" in CA law, and they don't seem very minor to me.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Chancellor But you are going beyond what was said in earlier posts to which I responded. Instead of doing all this reading into things, try reading what people write and taking them to mean exactly and only what they write. But since you insist on reading into what people post (something that really pisses me off), I'll answer your ridiculous question. It doesn't matter what you do with it unless you're going to force someone else to ingest it. It is not the act of you ingesting the product that causes harm to someone else. You choosing to sell the produce does not harm anyone else. Now, before you make some silly remark about driving while under the influence (as you try to read further into what is written, looking for implications, inferences, etc.), it wasn't the act of ingesting the product that caused you to choose to operate a motor vehicle and, therefore, the act of you ingesting the product does not harm anyone else.

You seem to believe that your actions have no consequences. Possessing pot doesn't hurt anyone. Selling pot doesn't hurt anyone. Well, further down the line, where I'm going, I can see very real consequences of these actions and I believe they can have a very negative impact in our society.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Dieval You seem to believe that your actions have no consequences. Possessing pot doesn't hurt anyone. Selling pot doesn't hurt anyone. Well, further down the line, where I'm going, I can see very real consequences of these actions and I believe they can have a very negative impact in our society.

The so-called "consequences" are not the actions themselves. What part of that are you unable to understand? That place "further down the line" is another set of actions entirely.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor I think we should adopt the Singaporean practice of caning, though I think it should be a public event.

I thought caning (and detention without trial) were British inheritances.

That said, it would admittedly be more benign than 25 years in prison.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval In the case that I copied, it will prevent this person from committing residential burglaries and possible vehicle thefts. He obviously has repeated offenses in the past and there's gaurentee he'll stop his actions going forward...

I don't see how committing crimes like this necessitates getting imprisoned for 25 years.

I think prison is the bigger crime here.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa I thought caning (and detention without trial) were British inheritances.

They were but notice that Britain has abandoned the practice.

That said, it would admittedly be more benign than 25 years in prison. Grandpa h.

Agreed. And making it a public event would add a certain humiliation factor that serves as more of a deterrent, especially for young people or snooty rich people.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval That's all fine and dandy, but if you break a law you don't agree with, you will pay the price for it. It's not my job to justify laws.

Actually, I think it's in everyone's interests to look at a law (and the punishments meted out) and ask "is it morally right?" I don't think prisons are inherently morally sound (or the "Will of God," or what have you), but the reuslt of our anti-social culture.

I sincerely believe our system benefits from and encourages crime. When you have elites making decisions over resources and whatnot, and pair this with an anti-social, LCD culture, obviously you are going to have crime (both "above" and "below").

Prison for petty crime is the solution of the despot.
DeTocqueville noted how a despot functions:
"He calls those who
try to unite their efforts to create a general
prosperity 'turbulent and restless spirits', and,
twisting the natural meaning of words, he
calls those 'good citizens' who care for nothing
but themselves."

And that's what we have, for the most part--a system that breeds inequality and crime. Anyone who tries to speak for social and economic justice and relate it to crime is seen as an extremist, but the elites are supposed to be sacrosanct, even when they steal and murder on a near-constant basis. And the prison-industrial complex keeps growing as criminal behavior gets instilled in the public consciousness.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, I think it's in everyone's interests to look at a law (and the punishments meted out) and ask "is it morally right?" I don't think prisons are inherently morally sound (or the "Will of God," or what have you), but the reuslt of our anti-social culture.

Sure, it's a good idea to watch the laws and make sure they are just...but even if someone feels they are not, that does not give them the right to break that law. They should work, within our system, to have them changed, not disregard them.

Quote by: grandpa And that's what we have, for the most part--a system that breeds inequality and crime.

So, your view is that everyone should be equal? Not as in we're all humans so we're all equal, but rather Socialist type version of "equals"?

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa I don't see how committing crimes like this necessitates getting imprisoned for 25 years. I think prison is the bigger crime here. Grandpa h.

When you look at this guy, you see a poor guy stuck in prison, abused by the system.
When I look at him, I see a career criminal who doesn't contribute to society.

It's all in how you see it...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, I think it's in everyone's interests to look at a law (and the punishments meted out) and ask "is it morally right?" I don't think prisons are inherently morally sound (or the "Will of God," or what have you), but the reuslt of our anti-social culture. I sincerely believe our system benefits from and encourages crime. When you have elites making decisions over resources and whatnot, and pair this with an anti-social, LCD culture, obviously you are going to have crime (both "above" and "below"). Prison for petty crime is the solution of the despot. DeTocqueville noted how a despot functions: "He calls those who try to unite their efforts to create a general prosperity 'turbulent and restless spirits', and, twisting the natural meaning of words, he calls those 'good citizens' who care for nothing but themselves." And that's what we have, for the most part--a system that breeds inequality and crime. Anyone who tries to speak for social and economic justice and relate it to crime is seen as an extremist, but the elites are supposed to be sacrosanct, even when they steal and murder on a near-constant basis. And the prison-industrial complex keeps growing as criminal behavior gets instilled in the public consciousness. Grandpa h.

Well damn Gramps, I believe you've finally nailed it.


So will you persist in condemning capitalism inspite of this admission of the true cause of all the strife in this nation?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Sure, it's a good idea to watch the laws and make sure they are just... but even if someone feels they are not, that does not give them the right to break that law.

It's not only a good idea, it's the only practical one for a free society.
And you're predictably ignoring the other side of the coin, whether "the law" has a right to break a person, physically or psychologically.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval When you look at this guy, you see a poor guy stuck in prison, abused by the system. When I look at him, I see a career criminal who doesn't contribute to society.

If you're imprisoned for 25 years or more for petty crime, you are indeed being victimized.

Grandpa h.