|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 18, 2017 17:42:47 GMT
OK, here is the latest hub-bub going on in Washington. When Presidents leave office they notoriously pardon or commute sentences of convicted felons. Two days ago President Obama commuted the 35 year prison sentence of Chelsea Manning to time served (7 years), a private in the US Army who leaked sensitive document to WikiLeaks. She has been in prison for 7 years. I once had a good friend of mine ask me "How long were you married to your first wife"? I told him 32 years. He shook his head and said "You know, you only get 20 years for murdering a wife in Texas". That remark never left me because he was right. Murdering a spouse in Texas is not a capital crime. So, what should the sentence be for a young private, who declared remorse and was very apologetic, for her crime? Here is the press' analogy of the events. thehill.com/policy/technology/314777-earnest-gop-intellectually-dishonest-on-manning-pardonBTW - The USA ( home of the "free" and the Brave) incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world....including North Korea (they just kill them), China (ditto), Russia (no count on the Gulag's), and even Australia (they have that catch & release program going). Is seven years in prison enough for "Espionage"? Or should she be buried in prison for an eternity? Now then......................where did I leave that ex-wife?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jan 18, 2017 22:28:32 GMT
I think presidents need to start a different tradition, myself.
How about when they leave office, they do something more positive for the community?
Why something for criminals?
------------------------
What would people think if for eg, the pres said'I have decided Charles Manson will be executed this week.'
Or if he decided some sentences were wrong eg OJ Simpson, and said hey, he's going to jail for life.
I predict there would be an outcry.
If they don't think the pres should be one man jury and judge to condemn others, why should be be jury and judge to pardon?
Personally, I don't know a lot about this woman, but as a general rule, I would say espionage & terrorism should carry heavy penalties. 35 years may have been a bit heavy for what she did but I don't know much about the documents. If they put the country at risk, then 35 would be fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 19, 2017 20:21:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jan 19, 2017 21:43:41 GMT
I don't believe a death penalty should ever have been applied in any of those cases in the first place.
I'm not a fan of the death penalty at all, but if it has to be applied, should only happen when there is overwhelming evidence, without a shadow of a doubt. eg mass killers or terrorists caught in the act. Multiple witnesses to the acts.
What you are seeing in those cases is gross miscarriages of justice. Your justice system let them down.
If you believe the president knows best and should be able to overturn the decision of a jury, why not let him/her do it all through the presidency, not just at the end of the tenure?
Me-I think some reforms to the justice system would be better so you are not so quick to execute people. Then let retiring presidents do something more worthwhile. Maybe they could start up scholarship funds or support some charity instead. Or initiate some project or building.
|
|
|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 19, 2017 22:13:23 GMT
Me-I think some reforms to the justice system would be better so you are not so quick to execute people. Then let retiring presidents do something more worthwhile. Maybe they could start up scholarship funds or support some charity instead. Or initiate some project or building.True.............me, I'm in favor of expanding the Rose Garden, and If their sentence is not pardoned, commuted or stayed, then at least spread their ashes in the Rose Garden. It won't be good fertilizer, but Roses nee porous medium to grow in, and ashes make an excellent media for that............. Sorry, couldn't help myself....but on the other hand, the first lady could rename the plants as to ......" The Charlie Manson Red Blood Flower Group"....or.......OK, enough. |
|
|
|
Post by mrp on Jan 19, 2017 23:31:06 GMT
The US needs to end its stupid and immoral war on drugs. This will end mass incarceration, end most black on black violence and as for the death penalty - only extreme cases. Multiple aggravated murders and the like.
Australian states have removed the right to a trial by jury where guilt requires a unanimous guilty verdict.
I don't even support sending people to gaol here on that basis.
I've seen prosecutors try people when they can prove they were out of the country or three times in a row until something sticks.
We're already living beyond thunderdome - the only difference is they have a badge.
|
|
|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 20, 2017 13:43:35 GMT
The US needs to end its stupid and immoral war on drugs. This will end mass incarceration, end most black on black violence and as for the death penalty - only extreme cases. Multiple aggravated murders and the like. We're already living beyond thunderdome - the only difference is they have a badge. Agreed. Good post MrP |
|
|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 20, 2017 17:10:00 GMT
Now then.....here is some latest news. Drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman was extradited last night to the USA. He is/was one of the largest drug importers to the USA. He faces charges "related to the operation of a continuing criminal enterprise from 1989 to 2014, corruption, murder conspiracy, drug importation, firearms distribution and money laundering. If convicted he WILL NOT face the death penalty because Mexico would not extradite him due to the fact that they do not have the death penalty. This is one bad Hombre. He has been directly responsible for the murder of at least 7 DEA agents in the USA and hundreds of Mexican Officials as well. He was extradited last night because Obama agreed to the maximum penalty that Mexico wanted (life in prison with no parole), and Mexico chose NOT to wait for Trump because of the way Trump has treated Mexico (remember the "Wall", and did I mention that Mexico is our largest trading partner?). When you build a wall, it is not only a physical barrier, but a political one as well. Personally, I think "El Chapo" (means 'Shorty') should be shot on sight, but Obama did the right thing to get him behind bars. After all, the Mexicans could not keep him in prison. He escaped on several occasions. Maybe we should put him in a cell next door to the actor "Woody Harrelson's" father....."Tex Harrelson" who was convicted of killing a federal judge and is now serving a live without parole sentence in the famed "Super Max" prison in Colorado.
I'm pretty satisfied with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jan 20, 2017 22:41:32 GMT
I agree it is better to have the man in prison for life, no parole, ever.
I'm fine with him in solitary.
I know of one man who was nowhere near this level of drug dealing. He took drugs himself and sold some in the local area. Totally non violent person, has never assaulted anyone and quite polite with police etc. He is currently doing 4 years in prison in solitary, one hour out a day in a small enclosed area.
good enough for him, good enough for others.
|
|
|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 21, 2017 0:10:06 GMT
Was he a dealer or a user? If he was a dealer, how many lives did he screw up making his money...............and how many kids?
If he was a user..........let him loose. Locking him up does no one any good.............especially him.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jan 21, 2017 0:20:14 GMT
He was both. That was how he funded his own drug habits. He is about 30 years old.
Son of someone I know.
Yes, I would say he did wreck a few other lives. I heard tell that he had a big, flashy car at one stage and would speed up the main road here at about 100 (double the speed limit. Probably thought he was king pin.
He deserves to be put away, it was not his first offence.
But I was speaking to his mother a couple of weeks back and she said what she would like to see is a special prison for people like this, (drug offenders but non violent) where they are weaned off the drugs and where they can do some sort of study.
She is aware he will probably never be able to get a much of a job though when he gets out.
|
|
|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 21, 2017 2:01:35 GMT
Non Violent driving at twice the speed limit stoned on drugs?
You're kidding aren't you?
If we let all the Mommies in the world dictate prison sentences, then why would we need prisons?
|
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jan 22, 2017 20:16:25 GMT
By non violent I mean he wouldn't bash or hit others.
I'm not excusing his driving, that is plain stupidity and dangerous.
Not excusing his drug taking and selling either.
certainly don't believe he should be let off or anything like it, he deserved his sentence.
But I believe (from early DNA reports) that some of the most violent people in our society are seeming to be men who have an extra Y chromosome attached to certain cells.
I doubt this man has that.
The most violent ones probably need a different level of prison to other offenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by DADDY O on Jan 22, 2017 21:53:41 GMT
By non violent I mean he wouldn't bash or hit others. No, just get children hooked on drugs? Pushers/Dealers are the worst king of animals IMHO. So, DNA tests should be a factor in determining sentence lengths? You didn't just infer that did you? An extra Y Chromosone will get you life in prison and a lack of them will get you what? .......cross dressing in downtown Sydney? Well, WTH let's test everyone now and lock up the excess Y Chome' people and save us all a lot of money. |
|
|
|
Post by sherri on Jan 23, 2017 0:12:54 GMT
No, I wouldn't suggest locking people up just on the basis of DNA.
However, if you have a really violent offender, you should be able to test DNA (IMO)
And if they have the extra Y bit, personally, I would say that they are probably beyond help, they are unlikely to be rehabilitated. That should be taken into account with sentencing- a longer sentence, no bail etc
|
|
?
