testtest

Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits

benstt said:
I'm not sure what state you're in or if or where you've worked in criminal law, but bail in the states in which I've practiced isn't set by law. There are a number of factors that go into deciding the amount, including wealth. I'll admit it's been a few years since I worked in criminal law so maybe it changed. That wasn't what I was referring to in my inequality statement, though. I was referring to the violence of the arrest, the weight of the charges brought, and the outcome of the case.

The legal consequences I refer to regarding rioters and looters are arrest and prosecution. I do hate cash bail, as it doesn't protect the public at all. If someone is going to run from prosecution they aren't going to be stopped by the court holding onto their cash.
Click to expand...
"Bail" was a bad choice in trying to make a point since as you said ... "It isn't always set by law. However the same point can be made even more clearly using 'Minimum Mandatory' sentencing.

"violence of the arrest, the weight of the charges brought, and the outcome of the case" inequality is as often as not a direct result of actions of the accused regardless of color, creed, religion or ethnicity. I agree there are many more examples of this when the accused is a minority than when a white, however as we've all seen in just the past few days on TV news how some have reacted to/while being detained. Compliance with LEO direction usually goes a long way in how one is treated in these situations, and unfortunately these bad interactions often lead to a more strenuous detainment in the next similar instance.

That in no way in my mind excuses any instances like the Geo Floyd incident, the Freddy Gray incident or any other similar. And inequality in sentencing is never right, but as you've stated does happen in far too many cases. 'Minimum Mandatory' sentencing takes the subjectivity out of sentencing, but at the same time often removes any possibility of justice in the real, truest sense. In short, today's 'legal' system is far too often played 'To the law', rather than 'by the law'!

I'll stand by my assertion that the rioters and looters should be met immediately and with 'like' or at least proportional force and that any 'ignoring' of these offenses must be due to 'technicalities' and/or 'legalities' since we both know vandalism, looting, arson, etc are in violation of the "law". Waiting even for a minute to respond gives the impression to many there will likely be no serious consequence and their actions will often increase in both severity and frequency much like the juvenile delinquent who is coddled and never punished or faces serious consequences. When this happens, those property owners, business owners and car owners (law abiding citizens) who are totally innocent, and are the true victims of that 'ignoring' will never see real justice, even if/when awarded restitution which is supposed to be one purpose of punishment. And BTW, I do agree with your last statement regarding 'Bail' not protecting the public.

We can continue this in private messaging 'Conversations' if you'd like, but we've already been asked to get back on topic. I think we should do that. With all due respect, on the original subject we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Annihilator said:
Ok, what did I do now?.......😬
Click to expand...
You didn't do anything wrong or bad ..... in that msg #26 you suggested we should stay on or get back on topic. We all read it but somehow just couldn't quite get there.

It was in the back of my mind when I posted my #44, hence my last paragraph.

You dun good son, you dun good! You deserve at least a 'chocolate covered Dewey button, if not a 'Gold Star'.:D(y)(y)(y)
 
jumpinjoe said:
"Bail" was a bad choice in trying to make a point since as you said ... "It isn't always set by law. However the same point can be made even more clearly using 'Minimum Mandatory' sentencing.

"violence of the arrest, the weight of the charges brought, and the outcome of the case" inequality is as often as not a direct result of actions of the accused regardless of color, creed, religion or ethnicity. I agree there are many more examples of this when the accused is a minority than when a white, however as we've all seen in just the past few days on TV news how some have reacted to/while being detained. Compliance with LEO direction usually goes a long way in how one is treated in these situations, and unfortunately these bad interactions often lead to a more strenuous detainment in the next similar instance.

That in no way in my mind excuses any instances like the Geo Floyd incident, the Freddy Gray incident or any other similar. And inequality in sentencing is never right, but as you've stated does happen in far too many cases. 'Minimum Mandatory' sentencing takes the subjectivity out of sentencing, but at the same time often removes any possibility of justice in the real, truest sense. In short, today's 'legal' system is far too often played 'To the law', rather than 'by the law'!

I'll stand by my assertion that the rioters and looters should be met immediately and with 'like' or at least proportional force and that any 'ignoring' of these offenses must be due to 'technicalities' and/or 'legalities' since we both know vandalism, looting, arson, etc are in violation of the "law". Waiting even for a minute to respond gives the impression to many there will likely be no serious consequence and their actions will often increase in both severity and frequency much like the juvenile delinquent who is coddled and never punished or faces serious consequences. When this happens, those property owners, business owners and car owners (law abiding citizens) who are totally innocent, and are the true victims of that 'ignoring' will never see real justice, even if/when awarded restitution which is supposed to be one purpose of punishment. And BTW, I do agree with your last statement regarding 'Bail' not protecting the public.

We can continue this in private messaging 'Conversations' if you'd like, but we've already been asked to get back on topic. I think we should do that. With all due respect, on the original subject we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Nah, I've said my piece(s).
 
jumpinjoe said:
You didn't do anything wrong or bad ..... in that msg #26 you suggested we should stay on or get back on topic. We all read it but somehow just couldn't quite get there.

It was in the back of my mind when I posted my #44, hence my last paragraph.

You dun good son, you dun good! You deserve at least a 'chocolate covered Dewey button, if not a 'Gold Star'.:D(y)(y)(y)
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks Joe, I only made that post so we can keep this thread going without much issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top