Living Near Sex Offenders

What the fuck kind of wretched little sweat shop alternative delinquent school taught you to read? Because I believe I was pretty damned explicit about never releasing people who are dangerous.

YOU need to cut the bullshit and admit the various crimes you'd see chalked up to "youthful indiscretions" and forgiven, while the offender is given some free therapy and vocational training in the hope that he might see fit not to repeat his offenses, while forbidding employers from excluding him based on his record.

sorry sunshine, you qulaified it yourself as they have to be a permanent menace.
I'm not going to categorize people as permanent menaces based on a single conviction nor support one size fits all justice.
Spin that however you like... I don't really give a fuck what some two bit fascist bootlick thinks.

And here we have an example of an actual statist point of view. So many disregard the meaning, they don't notice the budding fascism in Uncle Albert's point of view.

Because you are a fucking apologist, and the idea of being unequivocally accountable for your actions with no "do-overs" makes you uneasy. Tough shit. Choices have consequences. Some crimes should permanently remove you from society on the first goddamned offense. For the rest, the thieves and whatnot, if there was no violence involved in their crimes, I may one day release them, but I'm sure as fuck not going to be complicit in hiding those crimes from prospective employers, or barring them from taking that record into account in the hiring process. Nobody owes you a second chance.

Oh, piss off with that. You know damned well I would allow for a good deal more personal freedom than U.S. citizens currently enjoy. But the tradeoff for more freedom is more consequence, which I would expect everyone wailing about how we need to "do something" every time there is a shooting spree would favor.

But the idea that you can have this friendly, bubbly utopia where nobody can hurt you, but none of the hurty people are themselves subjected to anything they don't like, is pure fantasy land bullshit.

...that outlook would be jim-dandy in an alternate dimension where hundreds of convictions weren't being overturned by DNA evidence....

/thread

If you think that contradicts anything I've said since, you're a fucking idiot and I'm wasting my time explaining it to you. "Some crimes" does not fucking mean you can cherry pick some bullshit like jaywalking and pretend you caught me at something. Are you so eager to forgive rape and murder?

Fuck's sake.

your surrender is accepted.

Eat a bag of dicks, you fucking apologistic mongoloid.

yup, horrible when someone ignores the surrounding sentences, ain't it?

Oh, is that what you're claiming now, Hooked on Monkey Phonics?

Point is, for them to be in jail despite innocence in the first place, means the prosecution, defense, judges, police, etc, were incompetent, and/or corrupt, and the jury were morons, and/or hand their hands tied by the corrupt/incompetent judge.

And that it's happening hundreds of times, means thousands of times that it just hasn't been corrected.

And this is the rotten system you'd deliver more draconian powers to?

No thanks.

finally figuring out that your true nature as a stornfront wannabe is showing?

Your slanted definitions of the words "freedom" and "consequence" don't get any traction with the rest of us in the first place, you know. You aren't entitled to use them as if everyone agrees with your underlying bullshit.

And the "consequence" of your disregard for pragmatism is more crime.

where am I backpedaling, you lying, hypocritical, fascist fuckwit?

In what way am I delivering more power? I would lock fewer people up, and the cream of the crop would be there permanently.

And if I'm not allowed to use human failings as a reason to flatly reject an expansive gun control bureacracy, then it does not fucking fly here.

The cheerleader for diseased, failed ideology is lecturing me about pragmatism. That's cute.

You're not decrying all slant. You're just bitching because it doesn't follow your slant. Which I'm not sure really applies to crime and punishment anyway. What are you gonna do, raise taxes to redistribute wealth and deter crimes blamed on poverty?

Some of them are hot.

Best to just ignore crazy people, spaceturkey. It's much more entertaining to watch them rant impotently, and to analyse it from a psychological POV.

Where you failed utterly to comprehend the words on your screen, lept gleefully to the wrong conclusion, and now pretend you were just making a point by deliberately misrepresenting what was said.

...and some of them are broken image tags.

because hey, who needs a system of appeal when the authorities are never wrong and above falsified evidence.

What would you do with thieves?

Pretty sure more people go back to stealing than go back to raping babies, if only in numbers, not percentages.

Shall we incarcerate someone for life over a property crime, or would chopping off a hand work?

so limited to your reality where you aren't a little thug claiming to be "objectivist"?

He's too busy eating a bag of dicks to notice.

I wonder if they taste more like eating crow or simply his own foot in his mouth?

Here is were you would post a quote of me saying "no appeals!" You know, if it existed.

IF they do not employ weapons or violence in their crimes, they will serve a sentence and be released.

Second or third offense should be life. And I'm being fucking lenient.

This is where you need to pretend your brain doesn't more closely resemble rotting swiss cheese and actually discern the meaning of what you're reading right now. Only if they use a weapon, cause injury or loss of life in the course of their crime would it be a one-way ticket.

Where I don't specify something in excruciating, lawyerball-proof detail, you do not get to leap to the most absurd conclusion and pretend you've made some kind of damning argument.

Delicious fruity goodness!

so back to the point... if someone has served sentence, they shouldn't be prejudiced against, yes?

because if they are, you've hit the principle trigger for repeat offending.

you'll let'em out to steal again, but not address the causes of why they stole. on top of that, you'll make it even harder for them to not feel the need to steal. sorry, that's a little 18th century at best.

three strikes and out for good. yeah, we see how well the last few decades of that policy has worked for the private prison system. not for anyone else, but they've made good bank creating criminals to create employment.

what constitutes a weapon? Injury? The rent-a-cop falls down while tackling a 16 year old swiping a cd or can of spaghetti-os?

either way, you've now taken the topic of an act of theft and aggravated it with assault. Whole separate set of circumstances to examine to get a conviction.

*sigh*

If they're still a threat, they should not be released.

What you're dishonestly portraying as some kind of victimhood with the phrase "prejudiced against" amounts to free association and the consequences of your choices. If you believe people deserve second chances, you are free to offer them. But I will not be told I have to overlook some thieving shitbag's grand larceny conviction just because you think it's the nice thing to do.

In other words, make it easier for me to commit a crime, do my stretch and return to society no worse for it, or I will repeat my offense. Nope, sorry. It's not my job to make your choices easier. Even if all you can get is a job cleaning toilets at the bus station, I still expect you to choose that over stealing cars and robbing liquor stores. If you don't understand why, I would not invite you to live in my society.

The cause is "thieving shitbag tried to take the easy way," and no, I will not be a party to any assault on free will. You will make your own choices free of encouragement or coercion, and be held responsible for them, period.

"Feel the need"? I'll not be responsible for your delicate emotional state.

Clearly, minus an exhaustive laundry list, I mean nerf bats and squirt guns.

Different only in scale and severity from a police officer injured in a collision while chasing a stolen car. If you don't steal, nobody has to pursue you. I'm sure you'd prefer the petty thief just be allowed to escape, but you have no business asking that of anyone else.

They aren't so distinct and seperate as you'd have them treated. How many muggings, robberies and burglaries involve the use of a weapon? Some people would have those crimes used as an excuse to erode my freedom, while I insist all of that attention be focused on the people who are actually guilty of something.

so post sentence punishment is okay?
yes or no?

So much rancid bullshit packed into so few syllables.

First, you're deliberately muddying the distinction between the actions of a government entity and that of a private party. Different standards apply to both cases, and I will not pretend otherwise for the sake of discussion.

Second, you don't even ask, you assume and insist that disclosing your criminal background and having your job prospects limited as a result constitutes "punishment." This is a very self-serving definition that I do not accept.

So, no, the government may not punish you twice for the same crime, but free association is not limited by your sense of imaginary entitlement to "second chances," and it's no more a "punishment" to refuse to hire you for a criminal record than it is due to my not liking the look/sound/smell of you in the interview, or because I recognize you as an asshole from childhood, or any of a number of things.