|
Post by gitbliss on Feb 1, 2008 4:32:39 GMT -5
Getting back to the crime statistics: I talked to a friend of mine who is an Assistant District Attorney here. He told me that, by far, most posession convictions are in connection with other crimes. Example is a rapist is caught and happens to also have cocaine on him when arrested would have the felony posession charge tacked on. He also referred me to the following: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possession of a Controlled Substance in Wisconsin - PenaltiesSubstance Offense Maximum Penalty Marijuana 1st (Misdemeanor) 6 months in Jail / $1000 fine Marijuana 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000 Cocaine 1st (Misdemeanor) 1 year in Jail, $5000 fine Cocaine 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000 Methamphetamine 1st (Misdemeanor) 1 year in Jail, $5000 fine Methamphetamine 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000 LSD (Acid) 1st (Misdemeanor) 1 year in Jail, $5000 fine LSD (Acid) 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000 Heroin Felony 3 1/2 years, $10,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that with the exception of heroin it takes a second offense to be convicted for a felony. So you agree that people that are caught using light drugs for the second time are denied the right to vote....
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 6:45:45 GMT -5
I think you missed my point about multiple charges. The police don't go hunting for substance users. People who are charged with a second posession charge are usually those who had drugs on them when being arrested for a more serious crime. So if you are convicted of a second possesion charge it's probably comeing along with a conviction for armed robbery or some other felony. So, yes I do think that people convicted of the second charge should not be able to vote.
|
|
|
Post by gitbliss on Feb 1, 2008 8:49:11 GMT -5
I think you missed my point about multiple charges. The police don't go hunting for substance users. People who are charged with a second posession charge are usually those who had drugs on them when being arrested for a more serious crime. So if you are convicted of a second possesion charge it's probably comeing along with a conviction for armed robbery or some other felony. So, yes I do think that people convicted of the second charge should not be able to vote. Sorry I don't get this. You say that you are caught for a serious crime and by the way have some marihouana on you. And the police charge you for the marihouana instead of the serious crime?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 9:42:09 GMT -5
The District Attorney, not the police, brings charges. He would charge both. It' s why your statistics show so many felony posession convictions.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Feb 1, 2008 12:01:34 GMT -5
Whip's right, when you get caught with one crime, you get charged with everything else that you might be doing wrong as well. I've personally been pulled over for speeding and had it turn into a whole slew of charges. I've called the cops on someone at my restaurant because he was a nuiscance, and the guy ended up getting 5 years for all the charges they laid on him. Some of which were drug related, but his first mistake was taking a swing at the cop.
The American judicial system is fair, believe me, we're the first to hear about it when its not. Drug laws are generally left to the states, as are laws about whether or not you can vote after you've had a felony. The general swing in the US is to de-felonize and even completely decriminalize marijuana. This will move faster in some states than in others, as is the nature of our republic. Loss of suffrage after a felony is also up to each individual state. In most cases, you can apply to the state and request to have your voting rights reinstated, but again, that varies from state to state. One of the best things about our living democracy here in the US is that it's fairly responsive to changes in times and attitude. Laws are constantly reviewed to see if they're outdated, and need to be changed.
What's really sad is that in America, only about 40% of eligible voters actually vote. That tells me right there that at least 60% of felons who've lost their right to vote could care less, much less go through the trouble of being reinstated.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Feb 1, 2008 12:05:35 GMT -5
Wow, lotsa action up in here. I missed a couple days and a storm of post hits I renamed my fishy "Satan" in your honor, hope you don't mind?
|
|
|
Post by gitbliss on Feb 1, 2008 12:23:33 GMT -5
The District Attorney, not the police, brings charges. He would charge both. It' s why your statistics show so many felony posession convictions. In the report from the US department of Justice (not mine) it says that only 38% of convicted felons for drug possesion went to prison and about 25% got parol. Would they get parol for a serious crime? In the last page of the pdf it also analyticaly explains what the "other" felony convictions are and it includes "driving under the influence" among with some other "small crimes". So as you see "Felony" is very broad and does not include only serious crimes as you said. The original statement that in the US you could be deprived of the right to vote for drinking and driving or use of marihuana even if you don't spend 1 day in jail or prison, very much stands. One explanation could be that this system is so broad so that authorities can choose who to deprive the vote from...ie black people.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 13:12:16 GMT -5
The original statement that in the US you could be deprived of the right to vote for drinking and driving or use of marihuana even if you don't spend 1 day in jail or prison, very much stands.
Technically, this statement is correct; but it hardly ever happens in reality. This is a really good example of how your sources distort the truth.
Driving while drunk will only bring a felony charge if you have prior convictions or if there is serious injury or death resulting from your actions. Drunken driving is considered a serious crime in the US. Usually, a first offense with no harm to others would not be charged as a felony.
One explanation could be that this system is so broad so that authorities can choose who to deprive the vote from...ie black people.
The "authorities" have broad discretion so as to bring about justice, not to discriminate between classes of people.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Feb 1, 2008 13:23:26 GMT -5
In the report from the US department of Justice (not mine) it says that only 38% of convicted felons for drug possesion went to prison and about 25% got parol. Would they get parol for a serious crime? In the last page of the pdf it also analyticaly explains what the "other" felony convictions are and it includes "driving under the influence" among with some other "small crimes". So as you see "Felony" is very broad and does not include only serious crimes as you said. The original statement that in the US you could be deprived of the right to vote for drinking and driving or use of marihuana even if you don't spend 1 day in jail or prison, very much stands. One explanation could be that this system is so broad so that authorities can choose who to deprive the vote from...ie black people. Well, Gitbliss, the thing is, your viewing a half-true document. Ill give you the run-down on driving under the influence, for example. DUI can be a felony, yes. 99.9% of the time it is not. In Nevada, the state I live in, for example, the only time you can get a felony DUI is if you are convicted of a third time DUI within a 7 year period. Your first lands you fines and community service, and long, boring classes, as well as temporary suspension of your driving privileges. The second conviction is more of the same, to an increased degree. The third may be prosecuted as a felony. It usually is not, as the DA and the defense attorney usually work out a deal where the defendant goes to rehab, etc. The reality of the situation is that they very seldom lock someone up for any significant amount of time for DUI, even though it is possible that it can be prosecuted as a felony. That changes dramatically if your DUI results in injury or death to another person. They are much more likely to prosecute to the full extent of the law if there is a victim involved. Soft drugs, like marijuana, are pretty much the same way. Most states are relaxing the harsh enforcement of penalties for casual use, opting for fines and/or community service instead, with each progressive case, the penalties get steeper. If another crime is involved at the same time, the chances of being prosecuted to the full extent of the law is much greater. As for the inference that the authorities want to prevent black people from voting, so they prosecute them more.. c'mon man, even I'm not that cynical!
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 13:39:48 GMT -5
In the report from the US department of Justice (not mine) it says that only 38% of convicted felons for drug possesion went to prison and about 25% got parol. Would they get parol for a serious crime?
"38% ... went to prison". Does this include or exclude those sentenced to jail? There is a difference.
I'm not going to dig into the document to try to understand exactly what they are saying. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions though. Parol does not mean there is no incarceration, exactly the opposite. Parol is shortening the term from what the court imposed. So, yes people who commit serious crime often get parol.
The bottom line is: If you do not commit a serious crime or repeatedly commit "minor" crimes, you will not be charged with a felony, you will not be imprisoned, your voting rights will be unaffected.
|
|
capitalistpig
Settler
Those trying to save you from 1984 are leading you into a brave new world.
Posts: 51
|
Post by capitalistpig on Feb 1, 2008 15:11:37 GMT -5
What I dont understand is why you are defending the right of criminals to vote? We are talking about multiple offense individuals correct? We arent talking about a 40 year old business owner who employs 20 other people not being able to vote because of a possession charge when he was 16. You are attempting to distort the truth, because as we all know, if felons could vote, Democrats would win every election with an easy margin of victory. Personally I think voting is not an absolute right, but rather a privilege that must be earned. If it were up to me, anybody on any kind of government assistance should not be able to vote. There is a conflict of interest, it is like having the right to give yourself a pay raise. If you are not paying into the system, what gives you the right to help decide how the resources in the system are spent? If we keep down this path, eventually the American economy will collapse completely. when 51% of the population can endlessly vote themselves largess at the expense of the other 49%, than our doom will be assured. It will simply be a matter of time at that point. At the very least I think potential voters should have to pass some kind of test on history and current events, in order to establish that they are actually educated about the issues in question, and not simply voting for the candidate with the best hair.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 17:18:00 GMT -5
CP, it's already too late.
|
|
capitalistpig
Settler
Those trying to save you from 1984 are leading you into a brave new world.
Posts: 51
|
Post by capitalistpig on Feb 2, 2008 0:37:01 GMT -5
I dont think its to late whip, but I will admit that we are sprinting towards the edge of the cliff with our eyes closed. This coming election may be the first of many nails in the coffin though. Socialism is very difficult to uproot once you have allowed it to take hold. And depending on who the next president is, we may just make a giant leap in the wrong direction, and it will be very difficult to take it back, if it is possible at all.
|
|
|
Post by gitbliss on Feb 2, 2008 6:44:45 GMT -5
In the report from the US department of Justice (not mine) it says that only 38% of convicted felons for drug possesion went to prison and about 25% got parol. Would they get parol for a serious crime? In the last page of the pdf it also analyticaly explains what the "other" felony convictions are and it includes "driving under the influence" among with some other "small crimes". So as you see "Felony" is very broad and does not include only serious crimes as you said. The original statement that in the US you could be deprived of the right to vote for drinking and driving or use of marihuana even if you don't spend 1 day in jail or prison, very much stands. One explanation could be that this system is so broad so that authorities can choose who to deprive the vote from...ie black people. Well, Gitbliss, the thing is, your viewing a half-true document. Ill give you the run-down on driving under the influence, for example. DUI can be a felony, yes. 99.9% of the time it is not. In Nevada, the state I live in, for example, the only time you can get a felony DUI is if you are convicted of a third time DUI within a 7 year period. Your first lands you fines and community service, and long, boring classes, as well as temporary suspension of your driving privileges. The second conviction is more of the same, to an increased degree. The third may be prosecuted as a felony. It usually is not, as the DA and the defense attorney usually work out a deal where the defendant goes to rehab, etc. The reality of the situation is that they very seldom lock someone up for any significant amount of time for DUI, even though it is possible that it can be prosecuted as a felony. That changes dramatically if your DUI results in injury or death to another person. They are much more likely to prosecute to the full extent of the law if there is a victim involved. Soft drugs, like marijuana, are pretty much the same way. Most states are relaxing the harsh enforcement of penalties for casual use, opting for fines and/or community service instead, with each progressive case, the penalties get steeper. If another crime is involved at the same time, the chances of being prosecuted to the full extent of the law is much greater. As for the inference that the authorities want to prevent black people from voting, so they prosecute them more.. c'mon man, even I'm not that cynical! Glad to hear all that....I don't live in the states and it seems that reality is different than how it seems from reports and articles on the net! I also agree with you that the biggest problem is people not showing up to vote. 40% is very low, we have about 65% here and I still think it is low. When people show up massively to vote then you know that something is going better. Apathy in what is happening with your country is never good I think, gives more room for malicious politicians to take advantage...
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 2, 2008 8:06:40 GMT -5
Glad to hear all that....I don't live in the states and it seems that reality is different than how it seems from reports and articles on the net! HOORAH! I'm glad to hear that your eyes have been opened.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 2, 2008 8:08:40 GMT -5
I dont think its to late whip, but I will admit that we are sprinting towards the edge of the cliff with our eyes closed. This coming election may be the first of many nails in the coffin though. Socialism is very difficult to uproot once you have allowed it to take hold. And depending on who the next president is, we may just make a giant leap in the wrong direction, and it will be very difficult to take it back, if it is possible at all. Already more than half of the people in the country either pay no income taxes or pay peanuts because of the way the tax is graduated. How are these people to be convinced to vote for lower taxes and reductions in benefits/services?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Feb 2, 2008 12:44:12 GMT -5
glad to see you're enjoying yourself.
--your typical, long winded, jumpy, paragraph responce all broke down
what does the "corporate world" say? Who's saying "it". Who is there leader? Take me too him..... man...
We should throw off the shackles of radical enviromentalism and begin a new nuke power age. We should apply our "American-ness" to providing ways to get more energy for people to use, rather then getting more people to conserve
Bush said that wars for oil companies is a good thing? Where is the oil he went for war for anyway?
Wow, "They" support the same terrorist "they" fight. We should get TBS and "they" to go on 20/20 and debate this out.
When your hate for those "clowns" cause you to oppose your own country's security for political gain, is where the line gets crossed and people start callin you a trader.
You wrote a typical, long winded, jumpy, paragraph. You blame corperations, global warming, and Bush n Chaney for the world hating America. Even though the world has been hating America before global warming and Bush n Chaney. And libs like to blame capitolism whenever they can. The topic was about how liberals help america with one hand while stabbing it in the back with the other. The part where you claim to love america is at the bottom.
I'de define W. and Chaney as "patriotic moderates"
I'm all for tellin the middle east that they have 1 week to surrender peacefully. In reality, the USA been doin deals with these people goin way back. It was wrong then and its wrong now.
I'de say the defeating the patriot act is more likely to help terrorist. I think open boarders helps terrorist more then G.W. ever could.
I did, and it was funny shlt too.
If by casting a line, you mean writing long
Burning the US flag while chanting "death to america" makes you an america hater. I disagree with things that the administation says, but I'm not gunna go around saying America is the great satan.
No, I don't remeber any conservitives being accused of being un-partiotic in the 90s. The patriototic thing came from liberals showing a lack of loyalty to the US.
Its the same groups hating america. Socialist/commie liberals and islamic terrorist.
I'll love my country. I think it will be cute watching as liberals try to pass some kinda universal healthcare system while the goverment is going totally broke. Thats after all, how liberals get into power. They offer more stuff for free then the other guy. I'm not so sure that liberals will win. They say the same stuff every election. Bush was supost to loose hard in 04.
Maybe I'll just hate the people that are destroying my country. The last thing any of the liberals care about is protecting the little guys from terrorist. They themselfs are safe and thats all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Feb 3, 2008 2:53:30 GMT -5
TGS Fascist check:
"Exalts nation above the individual" CHECK "stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader" CHECK "severe economic regimentation" NO "severe social regimentation" CHECK "and forcible suppression of opposition" CHECK
Merriam-Webster Online:
It's official! NEO-CON FASCISM vs LIBERAL SOCIALISM! Get your tickets folks!
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Feb 4, 2008 18:50:30 GMT -5
The good of the many out wieghs the good of the view. Don't you watch Star Trek? I think its better then the selfish alternitive of, myself 1st, my country second.
huh? I'm all about limitied, local governement. I think the key to sucsess is privatization.
huh? What does this mean? You sure you're dissin the right fashist?
huh? I don't get how this applys to me? You should quote me, then say I'm evil because.... This hole post is just lame. My Dungen master is giving me a -1 to inteligents just for replying to this. Now I'm down to 2 points. Jee thanks
huh? I love debate and encourage it.
Z, you normally make better post then this. I hope you're feeling ok.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Feb 4, 2008 20:20:00 GMT -5
glad to see you're enjoying yourself. --your typical, long winded, jumpy, paragraph responce all broke down We should throw off the shackles of radical enviromentalism and begin a new nuke power age. We should apply our "American-ness" to providing ways to get more energy for people to use, rather then getting more people to conserve Nuclear power is better, yes. More efficient technologies are better. You can make energy use 50% more efficient without the consumer ever noticing a change. Nobody complains when the government creates regulation to keep lead out of our paint because its unhealthy, and unnecessary, yet people get all up in arms everytime they say a vehicle should have a certain benchmark for miles per gallon of gas. Why is that? The technology is there, but the political will to stand up to the energy companies isnt. If you look at W's business history, he's always gone out looking for oil, and come back empty handed, and empty pocketed. It shouldn't be a surprise that he did it again. I'd be happy to debate Cheney on 20/20, but W would be too unfair, his vocabulary skills are every bit as good as your typing, writing, and reading comprehension skills. By the way, if you had read the paragraph as its intended, its not "jumpy", and the "they" that is referred to is GWB and Cheney, as was perfectly clear to anyone else who read the paragraph as it was written. I know I shouldn't pick on those who never thought it was important to graduate the 4th grade, and I'm sorry, TGS, but you're still a window-licker. I don't oppose my country's security, I just wholeheartedly disagree that giving our enemies weapons, money, and training is the best way to ensure our security. (And the word is "traitor", a trader is a merchant of sorts.) I dont blame corporations, I blame corrupt government that is in the pocket of corporations. I'd define them as idealogues who are so sure of themselves, that they fail to see the truth, even when its shown to them repeatedly. That gets harder and harder the more we arm them. Costs a buttload of money to fight a war on the other side of the planet, especially when they're armed to the teeth. I'm all for a comprehensive domestic energy plan that rids us of the oil standard, I've said it before, I'll say it again, as long as our economy is dependent on oil (foreign or domestic) there will be larger and larger battles fought between countries, and terrorist attacks will become more and more frequent. I don't want to live in a nation of fear, the way to get rid of that is to join the other inustrialized nations that are building non-oil infrastructure, like Japan, and much of northern Europe. I agree, open borders are a problem. We shouldn't have a constant flow of unknown bodies coming across the border. Not sure why the patriot-act is even mentioned here, I'd be happy to debate that one with you in another thread entirely. Ya see, TGS, I agree with you entirely here, burning a US flag and shouting "death to america" does indeed make you an America hater, but that's the first time I've ever seen you define that so narrowly. Usually you just write the blanket "Libs hate America" stuff, without defining who you're talking about. You make me laugh, TGS.. Ok, I'll go on record as being the first to accuse the "conservatives" of being unpatriotic during the 90's. I'll blame the Newt Gingrich era for subverting the constitution by impeaching the president to satisfy their personal agendas. I'll blame the congress of the 90's for creating as divisive a climate I've ever seen in the US. [/quote] Right, $2 trillion spent for failed wars for oil isnt the reason the country is going bankrupt. Its gotta be the fact that people want healthcare.. As long as the illiterate have the right to vote, a guy like W. always has a chance. We actually have the largest deposits of oil on the planet, problem is, it's shale oil, for the most part. There are massive ammounts of it in Colorado. Its expensive to extract, and expensive to refine. If you're talking about the supposed deposits of crude in Alaska's preserved areas, please note that esimates of the supplies there only run from 60M barrels to 200M barrels. It would only be profitable to set up shop with those estimates if oil prices stay high, which doesnt do anything for making energy cheaper. We need to find a replacement for oil, not places to get more of it.
|
|