Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Fast food supervisor charged in robbery

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    http://www.charlotte.com/115/story/110364.html

    Fast food supervisor charged in robbery
    CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR.
    cwootson@charlotteobserver.com
    A former McDonald's shift leader is charged with orchestrating a robbery that left the gunman -- her 20-year-old cousin -- dead.

    Crystal Danielle Steel, 23, has been charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. She was the shift manager at the time of the Jan. 25 attempted robbery at the west Charlotte McDonald's.

    The robbery attempt was foiled when Tiemeyer Neshawn Sanders, 25, another McDonald's employee, shot Donte McFadden.

    Sanders was charged on Friday with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. According to police, the district attorney's office did not charge Sanders with murder because we was acting in self defense and in defense of another. But Sanders is a convicted felon and was prohibited from possessing a handgun.







    So, here's my suggestion for discussion: I personally have problems with banning felons from possessing guns for life, for a number of reasons, and this story (as reported) seems to reinforce my suspicions.

    What do you think?



  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    I think all felons being banned from carrying firearms is a little draconian. I have a friend who is a felon, not because he was violent or commited a violent crime, but because he used to sell pot. He doesn't do so anymore, but because of his bad judgement earlier in life, he is now banned for life from owning any type of firearm.

    I think the law should be more like violent criminals not being allowed to own a handgun, not broadly label all felons as not being fit to own a firearm.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    In his video, Judicious Use of Lethal Force, Mas Ayoob discusses a legal principle called Doctrine of Necessity aka Doctrine of Competing Harms. He uses the Bernard Goetz case to illustrate;he uses a police officer racing with lights and sirens to an accident to illustrate; and he uses an example of driving a car on a winding road.

    The doctrine goes, "You are allowed to break the law where following the law would cause more human harm than breaking it."

    This video is the only place I've seen it mentioned. I've not Googled it, etc.

    In the Goetz example, he tells how Goetz, having been robbed and badly injured before, with chronic pain resulting, tried to get a CC permit on proper channels from NYC. It was of course denied and the city kept his application fee. Goetz decided to carry anyway. Then one day, a little incident on the subway. His lawyers elected not to defend with the doctrine, even though Ayoob recommended it to them.

    In thecarexample, the car is on a two-lane winding mountain road. There are the yellow lines, there is the sign that says no passing, stay in lane. Here comes a drunk in a truck around the curve swerving into the car lane.The car driver isallowed to dodge out of his lane, breaking the law about the signs and lane stripes, if following the law would get the occupants of both vehicles hurt or killed.

    The police example went something like the only reason the police are allowed to go fast with lights and sirens on their way to an emergency is because somebody on the other end is in more danger from the officer'sabsence than the officer presents to the rest of us. Competing harms.

    I'm notopposed to felons being disarmed. I think the process to restore their rightsistooiffy. I understand from Supreme Court Gun Casesthatrestoring a felon's federal rightsis at the discretion of the BATFE Secretary; but Congress has denied use of funds for hisoffice to investigate the facts behind an individual petition forrestoration of rights.The book is a few years old. I don't know if the situation has changed.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I don't think a blanket law disarming all felons for life makes sense.

    Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm felons only if it's part of the sentence they received when convicted. Then, someone convicted ofnon-violent crimeis not necessarily disarmed, and the length of disarmament could be spelled out by the sentence to something less than life, perhaps.

    I've always had problems with taking people who can legally walk down the street and imposing extra restrictions on them, like disarming them or forcing them to be registries and so forth. If someone can't be trusted to possess a firearm or to stay away from little kids, then why are they allowed to walk around the street unsupervised?

    In addition, when certain people on the street are subject to extra restrictions, the only real way to enforce this is to subject everyone to intrusive measures to make sure you're not selling guns to felons, etc. This means we "need" things like the unconstitutional NICS, for instance.

    There's also the serious issue of how, if ever, you can pay your dept to society off when your rights are stripped for life for even minor offenses. Whatever happened to the idea that if you commit a crime, you go to jail, and when you get out you are free unless you screw up again? How can there be justice if you never give a former criminal a chance to earn back his freedom?

    To Citizen: In the case of the Micky D's employee in the story above, that ex-con was justified in carrying a gunonlyduring the few minutes in which he was in danger. Prior to that, he was not allowed to possess a firearm. But of course, if you wait until you're being robbed at gunpoint to ignore the law that says you can't carry, well, it's a little too late, isn't it?


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus Area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    The solution is to legalize all victimless crimes (e.g. drug use and sales, prostitution, gambling, speeding, etc.). Basically, anyactivity which doesn't have a clear and direct victim.

    Then put our resources into absolutely HAMMERINGcriminals whocommit crimes against people and property. Our jails would immediately begin emptying out andbillions of dollars in resources would become available to us.

    And the problem of the "felons who might be o.k. to own guns" goes away. Because they won't have been felons in the first place.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    I don't think a blanket law disarming all felons for life makes sense.

    Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm felons only if it's part of the sentence they received when convicted. Then, someone convicted ofnon-violent crimeis not necessarily disarmed, and the length of disarmament could be spelled out by the sentence to something less than life, perhaps.

    I've always had problems with taking people who can legally walk down the street and imposing extra restrictions on them, like disarming them or forcing them to be registries and so forth. If someone can't be trusted to possess a firearm or to stay away from little kids, then why are they allowed to walk around the street unsupervised?

    In addition, when certain people on the street are subject to extra restrictions, the only real way to enforce this is to subject everyone to intrusive measures to make sure you're not selling guns to felons, etc. This means we "need" things like the unconstitutional NICS, for instance.

    There's also the serious issue of how, if ever, you can pay your dept to society off when your rights are stripped for life for even minor offenses. Whatever happened to the idea that if you commit a crime, you go to jail, and when you get out you are free unless you screw up again? How can there be justice if you never give a former criminal a chance to earn back his freedom?

    To Citizen: In the case of the Micky D's employee in the story above, that ex-con was justified in carrying a gunonlyduring the few minutes in which he was in danger. Prior to that, he was not allowed to possess a firearm. But of course, if you wait until you're being robbed at gunpoint to ignore the law that says you can't carry, well, it's a little too late, isn't it?
    Very well put!
    Jersey

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    To Citizen: In the case of the Micky D's employee in the story above, that ex-con was justified in carrying a gunonlyduring the few minutes in which he was in danger. Prior to that, he was not allowed to possess a firearm. But of course, if you wait until you're being robbed at gunpoint to ignore the law that says you can't carry, well, it's a little too late, isn't it?
    Who knows what a prosecutor, judge, or jury will think about the timing apsect. I personally don't think timingis an appropriate issue in the McDonald's situation.

    I think he'd stand a better chance if he can show he petitioned for restoration of his rights, especially if hehas an actual denial--he can show thegov't was wrong in their denial. I also think he'd stand a better chance if he can get a number of witnesses together, and any documentation, to show that he's turned his life around and is a solid contributing member of the community, e.g.volunteers at his church or a charity,separately and after his release helped convict a criminal without quid pro quo from DA, has become a responsible father working two jobs, etc. etc.

    The info in the story isn't complete, but it looks to me like a good possibility for proving he's a contributing member of society is that he defended his co-workers from the robber. An absence of criminal activity while armed would carry a lot of weight with me, too, although I think it will be a little hard to prove.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Based on the reporting, I think Sanders did a good thing. It was a fair deal. He knew the law. He did his cost/benefit analysis. He won. Goodman. I hope he gets consideration fromthe judge at hissentencing. He should.



    Tomahawk wrote:
    I don't think a blanket law disarming all felons for life makes sense.

    Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm felons only if it's part of the sentence they received when convicted. Then, someone convicted ofnon-violent crimeis not necessarily disarmed, and the length of disarmament could be spelled out by the sentence to something less than life, perhaps.

    The suggestion that we tinker with the current array of exclusions to ownership/possession/carry always surprises mewhen it comes from pro-gun/rights advocates--which come to think about it, is the only placeit ever comes from.

    This change, if ever passed, would result inthemost drastically adverseimpact on the current collective ofgun owners/carriers than anything since the Brady bill. And the change might, in the long term, be several times 'worse' than the Brady bill.

    That said, I would be generally in favor of it if it could be done well. There is very little discrimination in the current exclusions. That is by design, of course.Having more effective discrimination as to who can and who cannot legally obtain, own,and carry guns would be a very good thing. For everyone--no exceptions. But the second order effects are rather obviously anathema to the die-hard pro-gun folks.

    That's why I'm always surprised when pro gun/rights folks actually propose it themselves. I always want to say, "Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it."


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Based on the reporting, I think Sanders did a good thing. It was a fair deal. He knew the law. He did his cost/benefit analysis. He won. Goodman. I hope he gets consideration fromthe judge at hissentencing. He should.



    Tomahawk wrote:
    I don't think a blanket law disarming all felons for life makes sense.

    Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm felons only if it's part of the sentence they received when convicted. Then, someone convicted ofnon-violent crimeis not necessarily disarmed, and the length of disarmament could be spelled out by the sentence to something less than life, perhaps.
    That's why I'm always surprised when pro gun/rights folks actually propose it themselves. I always want to say, "Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it."

    Well, like I said, my real belief is that if you can't be trusted to own a gun or be around children, you shouldn't be walking down the street. Excluding freed ex-cons from possessing firearms puts a burden on the rest of society to make sure firearms aren't available without all kinds of onerous background checks and stuff.

    What I proposed above was just a thought experiment; it is not really "what I wish for".


    As for the guy in the story, I'd also like to see him get a fair shake, but realistically I don'tsee it happening. Despite his reportedly heroic action, he will be viewed by the court as suspicious no matter what ("Why was a felon carrying a gun around at work", etc.). The idea of carrying for self defense, especially a felon, will get pushed to bottom of the pile.

    But best of luck to him all the same.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.

    If I was the DA, I'd refuse to bring any charges against Sanders. Instead, I'd urge him to request an expungement of his record and a full pardon so he can legally arm himself. He's already proved himself worthy to carry a gun.

  11. #11
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.
    How would that be done for, say, a guy who has never been convicted of anything and who sticks up a bank and runs offwith $10K? The guy is caught and gets charged and conviced of armed robbery.

    How would the '"justice" system' be constructed so that bad boy could get his gun rights back?

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.

    If I was the DA, I'd refuse to bring any charges against Sanders. Instead, I'd urge him to request an expungement of his record and a full pardon so he can legally arm himself. He's already proved himself worthy to carry a gun.
    I disagree with this to the extent that some felons are justdangerouswith no consideration for others. Paying a debt to society will not change those characteristics.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.
    I disagree with this to the extent that some felons are justdangerouswith no consideration for others. Paying a debt to society will not change those characteristics.
    Then why would you let such a man ever walk freely down the street?

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.
    I disagree with this to the extent that some felons are justdangerouswith no consideration for others. Paying a debt to society will not change those characteristics.
    Then why would you let such a man ever walk freely down the street?
    So you support allowing convicted felons to legally carry guns at some point, as Leagueof1921 does?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.
    How would that be done for, say, a guy who has never been convicted of anything and who sticks up a bank and runs offwith $10K? The guy is caught and gets charged and conviced of armed robbery.

    How would the '"justice" system' be constructed so that bad boy could get his gun rights back?
    I'm not entirely sure, still working on it.

    First of all, a man convicted of holding up a bank ought to be whipped or beaten with a stick, made to pay the money back times three or four or five. If he can't pay, he has to work it off.

    Then, when he has paid his debt, let him have his guns back. If he's still a criminal at heart, he can get a gun anyway if he chooses to. If he's reformed, we shouldn't deny him the right to defend himself and his family.

    We don't need to make it an additional crime for a convicted felon to have a gun. It's already forbidden for him to commit crimes with a gun -- if he does it again, beat him again. He'll quit.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.
    I disagree with this to the extent that some felons are justdangerouswith no consideration for others. Paying a debt to society will not change those characteristics.
    Then why would you let such a man ever walk freely down the street?
    So you support allowing convicted felons to legally carry guns at some point, as Leagueof1921 does?
    I had a long reply written up to this, and when I hit the send button my internet connection died and my post was lost. I don't feel like rewriting it, so the short answer to your question is, "yes".

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Then why would you let such a man ever walk freely down the street?
    The system is set up to recognize the crime and punish it, rather thandetermine the character.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Then why would you let such a man ever walk freely down the street?
    The system is set up to recognize the crime and punish it, rather thandetermine the character.
    Okay, so you punish him. Then you...keep punishing him? Or does he ever get his rights restored? Does he ever get a chance to earn his way back to full citizenship, or do we have to live in a world where no one can ever be redeemed?

    Please understand, I'm not beingcombative here, I enjoy hearing others' thoughts on this.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Okay, so you punish him. Then you...keep punishing him? Or does he ever get his rights restored? Does he ever get a chance to earn his way back to full citizenship, or do we have to live in a world where no one can ever be redeemed?
    I think the answer lies behindwhich premises are being used for comparison.

    Its a character issue. Can the evil, destructive, etc. genuinely change their attitudes and impulses? For sure no one else can change it for them.

    Does the prison system actually accomplish that change?

    Is lifetime denialan effort tocontinuepunishment? Or is it societyrecognizing that it is folly to agree to some of these people re-arming themselves. (I use this phrasing because regardless of society's disagreement, the ex-concan always aquire a firearm off-channels.)Is there embodied in law an opportunity to petition for restoration of rights? Even if the administration of the petition channels was slow, subject to arbitrary decisions, etc, would the existence of petition channels have bearing on whether lifetime denial was intended as punishment?


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    A convicted felon should not be banned for life from owning a gun. Our "justice" system ought to be designed so as to have him pay for his crime and be restored to full citizenship with all its rights and privileges.
    How would that be done for, say, a guy who has never been convicted of anything and who sticks up a bank and runs offwith $10K? The guy is caught and gets charged and conviced of armed robbery.

    How would the '"justice" system' be constructed so that bad boy could get his gun rights back?
    I'm not entirely sure, still working on it.

    First of all, a man convicted of holding up a bank ought to be whipped or beaten with a stick, made to pay the money back times three or four or five. If he can't pay, he has to work it off.

    Then, when he has paid his debt, let him have his guns back. If he's still a criminal at heart, he can get a gun anyway if he chooses to. If he's reformed, we shouldn't deny him the right to defend himself and his family.
    In this example, the bank robber got caught escaping, so he is relieved of the $10K right away and that goes back to the bank. But we'll use your idea and he must pay an extra, say, $30K because, well, that's just your concept. He must be beaten, too. How long is the beating and how severe is it?

    Just as importantly, does he have to go to jail, too, under your conceptualization? How long?

    Or can he scrounge up the $30K, pay it to the bank, take his beating and hit the street and get his guns back or go buy some new ones (to defend himself and his family)?


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus Area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    There are certain crimes which should prevent anyone from owning/carrying a firearm for life. Period. Violent crimes against people, robbery, etc. I would even extend it to lesser crimes, especially if they were committed as an adult. I don't believe in rehabilitation for the majority of felons- that's bullcrap. There is no such thing as "doing your time." You can't undo your crime with time.

    I'm all for gun rights. But felons convicted of crimes against people or property do not deserve these rights.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    usmc_recon wrote:
    There are certain crimes which should prevent anyone from owning/carrying a firearm for life. Period. Violent crimes against people, robbery, etc. I would even extend it to lesser crimes, especially if they were committed as an adult. I don't believe in rehabilitation for the majority of felons- that's bullcrap. There is no such thing as "doing your time." You can't undo your crime with time.

    I'm all for gun rights. But felons convicted of crimes against people or property do not deserve these rights.
    So, then, do you support:

    a) locking these people up for life, and paying for it?

    b) executing them all, which is also quite costly not only monetarily but politically and morally?

    c) releasing them after serving their terms and letting them walk down the street, knowing that your gun ban on them won't work, any more than any gun ban has ever worked?

    Also, you seem to think that once a person is convicted, they can never ever redeem themselves.

    Is this consistent with a country built upona philosophy of free will, the belief that people can choose to do good or evil? Or do you believe that people are born to be criminals, and the purpose of the justice system is to out the bad apples and hold them down for life?

    Again, I am not being combative. I like this discussion.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Again, I am not being combative. I like this discussion.
    Suuuure, you're not. That's why you chose the name Tomahawk instead of PeacePipe, too.

    Make it tough on them! Make 'em explain a system that minimizes injustice andaddresses basic security issues, all in the context of socialand politcal realities. Don't let 'em wiggle around in a philosophical Ivory Tower. Its too easy on 'em. Make them put some rubber on that road.

    (As I quietly sneak away for the rest of the evening.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Again, I am not being combative. I like this discussion.
    Suuuure, you're not. That's why you chose the name Tomahawk instead of PeacePipe, too.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus Area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    First off, as I have said, I support the elimination of all victimless "crimes." (Crimes is in quotations because I don't believe a crime without a victim is actually a crime at all.) Those would be primarily drug related, prostitution, gambling, some driving-related ones, etc. All of these have no clear and direct victim. Someone selling drugs to someone who wants drugs has no victim (except perhaps minors). Someone selling sex for money has no victim. You get the point. Once these laws are eliminated, you immediately have HUGE amounts of jailspace and tax money become available.

    Then you toughen up all the punishments for crimes against people and property. I'm not proposing something ridiculous, like a lifetime sentence for shoplifting or cutting off their hand. But things like a 60-day sentence would be no longer. Maybe a first offense adult shoplifter would get 5 years. Maybe an armed robber would be 15-20 years first offense. Whatever, just basically all laws against people and property would become much more severe. This IN ITSELF becomes a deterrent.

    Also, we make jails absolutely abysmal (sp?) places to stay. No more unlimited free medical care, no more lifting weights and working out, no t.v. Instead, more hard labor. Busting rocks type stuff. Reading and learning are about the only pasttimes that a criminal should have.

    Can people redeem themselves? Perhaps. But only with a lot longer and tougher sentences than we are handing out now.

    I don't believe that people are born good or bad. They are made that way 99% of the time. Regardless, it isn't society's job to "make things go right." It is the parents job.

    Yes, criminals can get guns whether they're legal or not. That doesn't mean that criminals owning guns should be legal. That isn't sound logic. I can break into your home whether it's legal or not, but that shouldn't make burglary legal.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •