yes that is good. Do they have parole in china?

I'm guessing that you're either a lawyer or one in training? If so, you should know that a homicide investigation is not a murder investigation. Calling people murderers while the homicide is investigated is entirely inaccurate and would get a prosecutor in deep shit before long. Homicide investigations come with natural, accidental, and suicide along with self defense killings, none of them are murder. If you don't know the difference, then I guess you're not insane with a belief like that. Aside from that inexplicable scenario, either you are, or it was a severely poor choice of words. In any case, my implying that you're insane for having insane views is not throwing insults.

First, the weed.

"I never mentioned marijuana in my reply."

Indeed, that is true, you just posted that insanity to answer my question that you quoted, which explains why you didn't mention what drug you were referring to. If you were talking about crack addicts and speed freaks sure, but you were specifically replying on weed, marijuana.

Second, the crime rate.

I mentioned violent crime rates for a reason. The drug statistics aren't included, and the population level is accounted for. Crimes committed against minorities not being reported doesn't cut it either, and the statistics show perfect correlation between rates of crimes committed by minorities and those against minorities.

What has changed are sentences.

Your point that it's dropping in your city is irrelevant, the national rates are dropping. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Passed by congress to combat increasingly lax sentencing by federal judges following the rehabilitation philosophy that corrupted our system. Allowing for a few years lag time on the crime rates, the lax sentencing before the act explains how we managed to more than quadruple the violent crime rate in less than three decades, all while following a massive drop in drug use from the peaceful sixties. After the act, violent crime rates dropped from over four times to three times as high as the relatively peaceful sixties. For your evils of drugs argument, consider your logic carefully. The sixties had low crime across the board.

Your argument that plea deals are necessary. A more logical one than the usual reason they are used. However, I fail to see the point in bringing someone to trial if you can't win. The reason you can't win is that you can't prove it. The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt for a reason. If there is reasonable doubt, as should be apparent by a lack of evidence, we're not supposed to be locking them up. If it's one of those absurd rules of evidence getting the case thrown out, I think you can guess what needs to happen there. In either case, plea deals are not an acceptable alternative, they are a cancer. A plea deal should consist of the defendant confessing, taking the normal sentence for the crime committed, and skipping the lengthy trial and associated costs.

Unfortunately, in most cases, plea deals aren't to send a guy to jail that would otherwise get away with something. They are to cut costs because we're stupid and think we can save money by letting more people get away with things. We haven't increased the judiciary with the population, we're too busy pissing away money on social programs to rehabilitate losers. By the flawed logic, it would take ten times as long to prosecute them all, so they don't, and we get an appropriate increase in crime to go with it.

Crime rates do not increase four fold in a vacuum, they do so for reasons. Think outside the morbid box of the legal system in its current, diseased form.

Ouch  . Why where you registred as a sex offender? I thought that was supposed to happen when you try to have illegal sex or something of a sexual nature. This is what sex offender means

Crimes requiring mandatory sex offender registration may include downloading pornographic material of persons under the age of 18, (child pornography), rape, statutory rape and even non-sexual offenses such as kidnapping. The term sexual offender is a broad term, with sexual predator being used to describe a more severe physical or repeat sexual offense. Sexual offenders are also sometimes classified into levels [1], where the highest level offenders have the most aggravating crimes and thus, the most risk to the public and usually must register as a sex offender for their entire lives. Low level sexual offenders may serve only a probationary sentence and only register for 10 years as well as having less restrictions placed on them compared to higher level offenders.

SpacePoney I think you got screwed becasuse of the greay area in this law. Why do we have gray areas? Wouldent it be easyer to just have everything clear cut so you dont have to argue? Sometimes the law seems so stupid. Anyway hope you get your girlfriend back SpacePoney.

Prisons aren't being built to keep violent criminals off of the streets, they're being built to create drug-war dungeons. Rapists, murderers and thieves don't crowd US prisons. Rather, thanks in particular to President Ronald Reagan, it is harmless marijuana smokers who swell the cells to overflowing.

The registration came with the M1 in my ignorance of the law I did not know that it should have been a red flag... indecent assult m1 is a sex crime with megans law mandatory. M2 is not a sex crime even with the same ellemets. in other words because I did not drag him by the balls for sexual gratification then it was not a sex crime... it was indecent and it was an assult but not a sex crime... I have been learning alot over this past week!!

While true, not true. Crime statistics are kept on individual crimes. While a very larger percentage of the prison population is in there on drug offenses, violent crime is three times higher than it was fifty years ago. There are theories that the war on drugs is responsible for an increase in general violence as well, but it's entirely unproven. Dirt bags dealing drugs would probably still be dirt bags without that particular job opportunity, and the crime rate was higher before he started.

Edit: Cobra, drinking water can kill you, everything you eat contains cancer causing elements when consumed in high enough levels, you can get diabetes from eating candy bars. Risk is a part of life, deciding that something should be illegal because it might be bad for the user is absurd. Everything is relative, marijuana is harmless because more people are killed by candy, caffeine, cold medicine, peanuts, any number of common, every day substances.

SpacePony's M1

You have a bomb proof case against the State, the Judge denied an M1, yet you still got it. There are so many checks and balances ensuring correct sentencing is recorded, I am amazed at the gross negligence. The latter are the only words for it. It is quite simply, indefensible.

Take them to the cleaners - that was a disgrace.

Regards
Zy

I feel it's all because of social competition...

that we live in an age where anything is possible AND all people want to do is subvert the system, scapegoat others for their own failings, etc...

and there's too much intolerance because of that competition, and people use that intolerance as an excuse to manipulate and get what they want because it's easier, etc...

And it's the leaders driving the masses into fearing everyone and everything that fuels it all,

(OKAY), it's a combination of things, that feed upon one another and spiral out of control...

Wow thanks for completely misquoting me did you not see that i said "i dont think it should be that severe for petty crimes but they should understand that crime will cost alot." You should read the entire quote before posting nxt time.

Spacepony;

I'm not sure what its called in PA, but when you speak to the ACLU, you might want to talk to them about a Moral Obligation type Claim (Ie, suing the City/state for damages). By giving you an incorrect sentence, the city is technically responsible for your losses as a proximate result of the sentence (ie loss of job, home, etc).

Your burden is generally lower in civil court and all you would need to prove is the sentence was the probable cause of your loss.



It really depends on your state; you'd need over 100g of pot to even be arrested here. Anything less is a ticket. 100g doesn't souns like a lot, but its a good chunk (2 quart ziploc bagish). In a practical sense, if you're not dealing, you're not going to see serious time unless you have mountians of the stuff or a massive grow operation. Many get thier sentences suspended in leiu of a fine and drug counseling.



Which are all investigated like a crime, until determined otherwise. Sometimes that happens 30 seconds after I enter the door. Sometimes it may take six weeks.Perhaps using "murder" was a little over the top, but the death is still investigated like a crime.





Actually, you said "Crime rate" and did not mention violent crime. Then you mentioned violent crime, and went on to Mention general crime again.

So what exactly are you arguing about, Crime or Violent Crime?

Yes, the 60's were a different time. There were more race riots in the 60's than any other decade in history. like it or not, A crime report isn't generated for every broken item or hurt person. Also racism was institutionalized back then. There's a huge Dark Figure concerning crime in minority populations/neighborhoods. It can come from everything from cops not doing a report to victims feeling that nothing will get done and not reporting it.

The violent gangs of the 20's and 30's had but been wiped out, and the new, meodern gangs didn't really come into prominence until the 70's.

Also like I said, there were less crimes (legally speaking). DV was practically non-existant back then. Look it up. Today there is mandatory/preferred arrests concerning those crimes. There was a prefference to "keep things in the family" back then. That no longer exists.

edit - This doesn't even address the fact that you can't compare crime rates in the 60's to modern crime stats in the first place. NIBRS didn't exist untill 1988 and not every department uses it - Same w/ the UCR. The UCR only had 8 Class I crimes, couldn't differentiate between attempted/completed, and had very narrow definitions, excluding many many crimes. For example Rape was "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will". Obviously, you thank think of several Rape scenarios that woulsn't fit into this category - hence not properly reported, if reported at all.



Exactly! Let me explain the first part to you. Yes, you need BRD and it is objetively defined (a very long definition too). But in the real world, its subjective - unfortunately. It's 12 people your trying to convince your are right. They are normal people all bringing thier beliefs, opinions, and feeling with them. Some will think the offender is guilty by virtue of being arrested, others will think that the gov't is out to get them and everyone is innocent. Yes, they screen juries, but its not perfect - never will be. Prosecutors will generaly offer a plea if its not a slam dunk - they think its better than to lose.

However, that's not the majority of plea deals. You are correct, Most plea deals are there to save $$ and time (I still think its overused). In some cases (DV usually) it can even be victim preference. For example they just want the offender to get mental/AA/drug help instead of Jail time (I think they should go to jail anyway - but that's just my opinion). In that case the Plea might be acceptable and the pros will stipulate that the treatment be necessary as part of the sentence.

--

Personally, I think what really needs an overhaul is the Jail Bond system. Bonds are to low. Offenders get out the next day after serious crimes and big shocker - they do it again. While its great for job security - it sucks when you get the same guy 3 times in a row for braking into the same business and he gets out the next day every time.

Wow - you have one hell of a Dr.! Most I've run into don't realy seem to care at all...

I wish you luck with your suit, I really doubt the city trying to fight it all the way, especially considering your evidence and documentation.

I think public flogging should be resurrected. Not enough to kill a man, but enough so that it hurts like heck and, like the OP said, for the pure humiliation.]

I am reminded specifically of a book by Robert Hienlen, called Starship Troopers (great book, by the way). What was basically said was this: If cruel and unusual punishment is against the law, then criminals have very little reason to worry about punishment. The truth is that punishment needs to be at least somewhat cruel to actually give the criminals a reason not to commit the crime.