I believe Mr. Cosby now qualifies for free eggrolls.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-bill-cosby-accusers-bring-total-to-over-...

I find this all especially scary in that he had such a clear MO, which usually prevents so much repetition of a crime. Therefore it appears that its a combination of the way 'accusations' are handled in such a way that women fear making them, and the extreme power of celebrity and wealth.

It's a sick, sick sick world. If it weren't for my mood ring I wouldn't trust anyone or believe in anything now.

>2 RickHarsch:
It is disturbing however, one should take into account the time frame during which this happened. Such behavior, though reprehensible was engaged in by the President of the U.S. at the time. Not sure if the drugs were involved but during the 60's and 70's drug use by the wealthy and famous was pretty standard.
The sexual revolution was in full swing.....girls used to sleep with as many band members as possible and powerful men took advantage of the fact that young women were eager to exercise their new found freedoms......
I am in no way defending Mr. Cosby.....not sure how the heck he was able to get to so MANY women amazing really, but I am guessing he was not alone. In sheer numbers maybe but his actions were a reflection of what was going on. Remember all of the horror stories of what went on in the playboy mansion ? I am guessing there are more than a few women who have stories to tell about that.

One also has to wonder how the women did not hear about this somehow.......there must have been rumors out there. Things picked up by those who hung around with the man ?

I don't like the whole thing for more reasons than one. Mr. Cosby got away with reprehensible actions, and the number of women who would not speak out. at the time. seems incredible to me. Nasty bit of business sorting it all out.

#4--What president are you talking about? Kennedy?

I think Cosby has pretty much set the bar for drugging whatever female that comes into his range and raping her afterwards. Not sure there's any real evidence that any POTUS has done anything like that--which isn't to say one or more of them haven't done anything as heinous as rape but if so I doubt it's in great number--Cosby has over 50 women now pointing an accusing finger at him. No doubt--there's plenty more who haven't---or haven't yet. Basically Cosby looks pretty certain bet to be a pathological serial rapist. One might wonder if he's disappeared somebody too inconvenient. I don't have great faith in our current or even past POTUS's--including some of their behavioral quirks but it's a reach to think that any of them have reached the kind of level Cosby has.

Anyway I'm not surprised a lot of women didn't speak out. It's a typical case of a much less connected and less wealthy figure vs. a more powerful and very wealthy iconic figure. And how would they know about any others? Would anyone believe them just on their own?--would they be crushed if they went to the cops or tried to take him to court? Those are the kinds of questions you ask yourself when you're not really sure what to do---and maybe is not really a good answer.

>3 JGL53: lqarl

>4 faceinbook: I'm quite surprised at your response. Particularly as Iriley intimates what sets this apart is the drugging of women. Recall that rohypnol was not a household world before Nixon finally met the worms of his brief endtimes.
As for Kennedy, yes, he was a typical powerful man who wanted to fuck a lot and used his power and influence to get dates pre-arranged for decades. That's perhaps your sign of the times. Cosby is in a different league, if not category. Kennedy represents some ugly truths about patriarchy. Cosby was a monster trans-context. The sexual revolution? I think you should review this. What I know of a 'sexual revolution' is that it was easier for everybody to get laid, that a woman could do so without shame and without planning a future, could do so and tell the clinging male to fuck off--you know, a woman could behave like a man, kind or unkind, caring or uncaring, but free, at least far moreso than ever before. This is all far, far from the planet Cosby.

>7 RickHarsch:
I guess my point is that Cosby was not alone in how he acted. Indeed in sheer numbers he was a monster but for a young women, it really doesn't matter whether the guy does it to one (her) or fifty. It was a time when this kind of thing was done and somewhat accepted.....even by the victims. I wonder how many band members drugged up young girls ?
As to the sexual revolution comment....in my opinion young women felt freer to approach men. I grew up in an old fashioned home with so many restrictions it took me two husbands to figure out that my choices were not necessarily mine but a reflection of what my parents idea of what was good OR not so good for me. The third husband is all on me.
Getting tied in knots now.......what I am trying to say is that men like Cosby USED this new freedom to abuse women. I would NEVER have approached anyone like Cosby or a member of rock band or any guy of fame....my parents would have had a fit. Had I been born 10 years later.....it may have been different.

When I refer to sexual freedom I mean much more than just "having sex". Outside of the act of sex, the revolution allowed for a greater freedom to actually know a person of the opposite sex without making it all about sex. I watch my grandson's with their girlfriends and I am always amazed at how "at ease" they are with each other. Even in groups of boys and girls behaviors are much more relaxed. That fact that girls can have male friends and visa versa. Young girls have boy "friends"..... In my opinion this all is an ongoing result of the sexual revolution. Or no ? Maybe I am wrong. Am I referring to something else altogether ? I really don't know. It is still hard for someone my age to have a male friend without raised eye brows by many of my peers or those who are older.
I think that the sexual revolution gave women more power in all kinds of ways that go beyond the act of sex. Heck, just knowing one's partner sexually before making a commitment is powerful...in and of itself. It changes our perspective on who we befriend and the structure of that friendship. A friendship that may be very close yet not sexual at all.

Ok rambling on......

>7 RickHarsch:
"What I know of a 'sexual revolution' is that it was easier for everybody to get laid,"

Pretty basic.....very "male like" and far less confusing than my ramblings above. ;>)

Cosby is a predator. He hunts---constantly hunts. It wouldn't really matter IMO what era he came from. Just my opinion--he is well over the demarcation line for acceptable behavior and well into unchartered territory--and uncontrollably obsessed which makes him pathological in my eyes. Taken a step further he could easily be a serial killer. That's what makes him disturbing---to me.

I really wouldn't compare him to a few philandering Presidents or the thousands of 60's-70's-80's-90's groupie inundated rock and roll bands riding high and soaked on alcohol and living out the youth and rebellion vibe. Cosby easily out creeps practically that whole entire scene. His was a carefully maintained and much beloved persona in the American entertainment world and for a long long time. He didn't come across as weird. He came across as funny---a bit goofy but very nice and American audiences loved him. His shows were always highly ranked and rated. (I have to say though that I was never really a fan--but then again I was never that crazy about television comedy shows). But underneath all of that was this darker and much more sinister persona that people didn't really know. It's comparable in some respects to the serial child molesting Penn St. football assistant coach that Mr. Paterno went to lengths to protect.

>10 lriley:
Listen to you guys.....I worked in a bar for ten years....my second husband owned a bar. There are plenty of men who hunt...pretty much constantly. They just don't have the money, fame and protection that Cosby did.
Why would so many men sign on to that Ashley Madison sight if the "next" lay wasn't going to be better than the last one ? People with money and fame tend to be abusive because they can afford to be....either monetarily or they are above the legal system. Cosby hunted women.....the stupid dentist hunted tagged lions. (and he wasn't done, thought he'd have himself an elephant as well.)

One of the first things I taught my daughter was that nobody should touch her without her permission. BUT, I advised her that did not mean she was immune to someone trying. I also taught her to be aware of her own actions and what they were saying to those around her. She did not have to put herself in situations that could turn bad. I explained to her that often bad things happen to women that are beyond their control but that she also had control over herself and she should never appear to lose that control. It was a measure of her self respect and it sent a clear message to others.
This does not in any way excuse the actions of a sexual predator. IMO all it does is give a young girl some tools when she starts going out and about on her own. Obviously, young girls don't always follow advice, it is inexcusable for any body to take advantage of that but if you truly don't want to see your daughter come to harm she will need a few tips as to how to keep herself safe. One can not control the Cosby's of the world., only one's self.

I think Cosby is guilty as sin but when I jumped on the band wagon about the guy who had three women tied up in his home for 10 years I was given the "innocent until proven guilty" speech. Now there is a sick dude ! I never said that Cosby's behavior was acceptable......horrible, but I've know men who have acted horribly and to me the numbers in Cosby's case are only that big because he could, given the chance I think more men would do the same thing, not so sure some didn't.
You've got Cosby set up to be the next big serial killer. He abused sex and drugs. On a grand scale because he could. He committed "date rape" before it was called "date rape".

I think Cosby is guilty as sin but when I jumped on the band wagon about the guy who had three women tied up in his home for 10 years I was given the "innocent until proven guilty" speech.

No. You were given the "actual trial before sentencing" speech after you went into histrionics about how even allowing the defendant to have a trial was a miscarriage of justice and we should just lock him up and throw away the key forthwith. Have you seen anyone trying to say Cosby should be put in jail without a trial? No? Well then, your attempt at drawing a parallel is pretty silly, isn't it?

>11 faceinbook: I think Cosby is guilty as sin but when I jumped on the band wagon about the guy who had three women tied up in his home for 10 years I was given the "innocent until proven guilty" speech.

You were given that speech because you were advocating conviction (and punishment, I believe) without due process. It had nothing to do with how heinous or even how obvious the crime and the criminal was. I think Cosby is a serial rapist, but I still would be in favor of due process as the method to convict him. I don't lose any sleep over the fact that he's lost his standing in the court of public opinion, however.

Comparing Cosby to presidents who can't keep it in their pants, however, invites some thought on the nature of consent. If Cosby drugged women in order to have sex with them, he's unambiguously removed any chance they had to consent. I don't know that any president ever resorted to something similar (how many were in the habit of getting women drunk to have sex with them, I wonder?)

But there is also a real question about how free a woman feels to say "no" to a man who holds a position of power over her. A big part of the sexual revolution, in my experience, anyway, is founded in that aspect -- that not only is a woman free to have sex when and with whoever she wants to without censure, she is also free to make her way in the world without trading on her sexuality for protection, advancement, or success. At least theoretically. The fact that a woman can't run for public office without having her hairstyle critiqued says we're nowhere near done with that revolution. But still, if Bill Cosby, or Bill Clinton for that matter, ever even implied that they would make life difficult for a woman if she didn't get down on her knees for him, then he's a sexual predator.

#11--I've not signed on to the Ashley Madison site and have no intention--never have had of doing so. I'm not sure that site is exclusive to males by the way--as in I think they have loads of female members as well. I don't have an account with Facebook, twitter, myspace or any other of the social media connection sites or have ever signed on with an online dating services. I'm a member of library thing and hockey's future, hockeyfights.com and youtube which I mainly use for music related stuff--like videos, concert footage and guitar tutorials or instrumental reviews. Keeps me busy enough. Have to spare some time to read some of the actual library I have listed on this site. So I can suppose I live a very boring life? Fuck it--I don't care.

I think Cosby in any case is a special case. He's taken his wealth, connections and fame and used it in a particularly appalling way and for a long, long period of time--that probably eclipses pretty much every one of the thousands(?)millions(?) of members signed up with Ashley Madison--almost whatever any of them have done in their lifetimes. As southernbooklady aptly points out there's no consent when he drugs an unsuspecting woman and then rapes her afterwards. This is not common behavior. I'm aware there are millions upon millions of assholes out in the world but even to practically all of them it's not common behavior.

>13 southernbooklady: The fact that a woman can't run for public office without having her hairstyle critiqued says we're nowhere near done with that revolution.

Trump has had his hair critiqued plenty of times.

>15 jjwilson61: Trump has had his hair critiqued plenty of times.

A measure of how seriously he is being taken.

>13 southernbooklady:
"But there is also a real question about how free a woman feels to say "no" to a man who holds a position of power over her. A big part of the sexual revolution, in my experience, anyway, is founded in that aspect -- that not only is a woman free to have sex when and with whoever she wants to without censure, she is also free to make her way in the world without trading on her sexuality for protection, advancement, or success. At least theoretically. The fact that a woman can't run for public office without having her hairstyle critiqued says we're nowhere near done with that revolution. But still, if Bill Cosby, or Bill Clinton for that matter, ever even implied that they would make life difficult for a woman if she didn't get down on her knees for him, then he's a sexual predator."

Yes....and that is a bit more than about getting laid.

>13 southernbooklady: "Comparing Cosby to presidents who can't keep it in their pants, however, invites some thought on the nature of consent."
It does, however, my comparison was more along the lines of the way the powerful, wealthy and famous individuals act with impunity. Without regard for anyone other than themselves really.

>14 lriley: "I'm not sure that site is exclusive to males"

there is a 70% male to 30% female ratio.

>17 faceinbook: my comparison was more along the lines of the way the powerful, wealthy and famous individuals act with impunity. Without regard for anyone other than themselves really.

But statements like this are meaningless. You don't have to be powerful, wealthy or famous to act without regard for others. And conversely, quite a few powerful, wealthy, and famous people do quite a lot for others. Coming down on them for being rich or famous is just stereotyping. Selfishness is a human trait.

>14 lriley:
"I think Cosby in any case is a special case."

And I don't. I think back in that time frame it was a lot more common than today. I think most women did not speak out. I also think that a man who does this a few times is no better than the man who does it fifty times. It makes no difference to the woman who has been abused.

What I don't understand is that there was no talk about it. No body was spreading a rumor that if you were a young woman you should not go to Cosby's room ?

>19 southernbooklady:
" Coming down on them for being rich or famous is just stereotyping. Selfishness is a human trait."

Did I anywhere, come down on all those who are rich and famous ? I did not ! Nor did I make the assertion that those who are rich and famous never do nice things. What I said was that they can afford to do far more than the average person and hence when they are misbehaving, they can do far more of it. I used the stupid dentist as an example...he is not famous (or he wasn't) but he had $50,000 to spend on baiting ONE lion. Most people can not afford such a thing. He has an obsession and can afford to do far more damage than the average person. Not all hunters would do what the dentist did either...no matter how much money they had. That is not the point. You are making new issues ..... I do not believe in this context I was stereo typing at all.

>12 StormRaven:
"you went into histrionics"

I still go into "histrionics" when a person who is clearly guilty stands in front of a judge and pleads "not guilty" The words become meaningless. Screw that !!!!!

Give iriley some crap for a while, he seems to have an inside track on Cosby's brain. With an ever so gentle push Cosby would be a serial killer.

There is nothing clear about the Cosby case either. Possible and probable but problematic none the less. 50 women said nothing ? Not a one of them pushed for justice ? Bothersome. Granted it was decades ago but still. Again....the number really is irrelevant.....he did something horribly wrong and karma is a bitch.

>21 faceinbook: Did I anywhere, come down on all those who are rich and famous ? I did not !

Well, I'm just going on your statement: "my comparison was more along the lines of the way the powerful, wealthy and famous individuals act with impunity. Without regard for anyone other than themselves really."

That didn't sound like a qualified statement to me, but a generalization. I get where it is coming from, but I prefer to be careful about sweeping generalizations.

>22 faceinbook: I still go into "histrionics" when a person who is clearly guilty stands in front of a judge and pleads "not guilty" The words become meaningless.

Until you are the one on the dock wanting to plead not guilty.

he did something horribly wrong and karma is a bitch

But not my bitch or your bitch. That's why we have laws, thankfully.

'What I don't understand is that there was no talk about it. No body was spreading a rumor that if you were a young woman you should not go to Cosby's room ?'
Apparently there were.

>9 faceinbook: 'Pretty basic.....very "male like" and far less confusing than my ramblings above. ;>)'

I am male, so it would not be surprising to me if my posts are very male-like. I can only provide my view of the 'sexual revolution,' but I guess when I was in high school and college and beyond, until the AIDS crisis, sex was better for women than at any time before. The word 'slut' had lost its currency. I learned it, but it never applied, never made sense. What would have been a slut was now someone we would be lucky to have attracted to us, for one thing. Otherwise, from mid-high school on my experience was lots of sex on an equal footing. I got picked up, so to speak, and I picked up. I got turned down and I turned down. Lots of friends and one night stands--no hassles, no obsessions, no third phone calls. Lots of drunken sex--some 'I don't care how much cocaine you had I still don't want to fuck you.' Obviously on a wider front women remained unequal, but from my experience sexually the playing field was quite equal. In fact, my main post college girl-friend was quite the hunter herself when she was in college and found no need to apologize (she was in university on a swimming scholarship, but dropped it after two years because she loved to party.)

>24 RickHarsch:
I guess my point Rick was that the sexual revolution meant so much more than just the act of sex. It affected marriages, women's jobs, the way women approached men and visa versa. It was probably far more visible when viewed through a women's stand point as it was women who were affected far more than men. Having said this I think men were affected in ways they never considered. Wives felt freer to have affairs, men had a bigger field to play in married or not and partying took on a whole new meaning. But, I don't think that sexual activity has ever been on an "equal footing" Women are still, for the most part, responsible for their own well being when it comes to pregnancy. That has never changed.
The sexual revolution also changed the assumptions on the part of many men who dated women. No means no......and it should, but the sexual revolution went hand in hand with a rise in drug use. If women become irresponsible when using drugs, well then, so do men and though I very often point a finger at the male sex, I have lived with male drug addicts my entire life, I know the consequences. It is my belief that many girls and boys were often ill equipped to handle the new freedom allowed them. Many young girls still had the assumption that they were somewhat protected by a social code that no longer applied while many young men thought that "anything goes". It is my belief that many things happened during those "wild and crazy" years that were quite shady.

We are just looking at this from different experiences......I was never in college....had my first child at 18 yrs old. 10 months after my marriage......(I didn't even have to do it......just thought I did) The sexual revolution affected my life in different ways than yours.

>23 southernbooklady:
"That didn't sound like a qualified statement to me, but a generalization"

"my comparison was more along the lines of the way Some powerful, wealthy and famous individuals act with impunity. Without regard for anyone other than themselves really."

My mistake. Thank you...words are important.

>23 southernbooklady:
"Until you are the one on the dock wanting to plead not guilty."

You are wrong on this.....I've said this before and I will say it again. I do not plead not guilty if I am guilty. If caught speeding and given a ticket...I pay the fine and take the points. I have had only one speeding ticket. It is expensive and I worried for a long time about my points. My insurance went up and I do not want that to happen again.
I was brought up to take responsibility for my actions. It is really very very simple...if you do not want to be punished for doing something wrong....don't do it. Obviously, I've made mistakes and done things wrong plenty of times, but I have never claimed not to be responsible for it.

Our legal system allows people to "get off" lightly or entirely and hence we have the same bozo's in court repeatedly. I tend to go into all kinds of "histrionics" about this because unless people are held responsible they will not cease and desist.

>23 southernbooklady:
"But not my bitch or your bitch. That's why we have laws, thankfully."

Karma has nothing to do with a legal system.

>26 faceinbook: I do not plead not guilty if I am guilty

Well good for you. So you think we shouldn't have a legal system, everyone should just 'fess up and be honest. It would be nice, but the reason we have trials and investigations and judicial procedure is because a) not everyone is honest, and b) even if we think we know what happened, we could very well be mistaken and convict someone of a crime they did not commit. The reason you get to plead "not guilty" is because you may in fact be not guilty, even when everyone around you thinks you are.

And for a sobering look at what happens when people assume you are guilty, consider the case of Kalif Browder, who was detained for three years in Rikers because no one could be bothered to listen to him when he insisted, repeatedly, that he was not guilty. Frankly, I'd rather have a justice system that assumes innocence, even if it means more people "get off lightly" than assumes guilt, and more people suffer Browder's fate. But hey, that's just me.

Karma has nothing to do with a legal system.

Well, personally I don't believe in "karma" but the point was that neither you nor I have the right to claim ourselves the instrument of it.

Apparently Cosby's actions were an open secret for years. He talked about it with Larry King. He had a segment on an early comedy album about drugging women with Spanish Fly. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler did a bit about him on Weekend Update on SNL. Hannibal Buress had to repeatedly hammer down on the subject until it eventually gained traction. It wasn't that people weren't talking about it at all.

>28 RidgewayGirl:, Which makes it a great deal worse, or provides another facet of ugly to it.

>25 faceinbook: FIB, I'm not really arguing with you about this, and certainly don't feel much of an expert on the 'sexual revolution' and its effect on women. What you write is certainly true. And especially yes, women definitely are on their own regarding pregnancy, and all too often even with their mates responsible for preventive strategies.

>27 southernbooklady:
"So you think we shouldn't have a legal system, everyone should just 'fess up and be honest."

No that is not what I think but I do believe that a legal system that does not see fit to hold someone responsible when they are wrong is not working well. Our system let off free from any responsibility a kid who was picked up at the scene where he ran into a crowd and killed four people. A kid who was also drunk and had no drivers license, committed several crimes was excused because he is ill with a made up illness. This system has some issues. I also think there are plenty who would agree with me on this. If the legal system is to be respected it has to deal with everyone in the same fashion. The rich should not be above the law because they are privileged. The poor man should not get away with assault on another human being because his daddy hit him.

>27 southernbooklady:
"Well, personally I don't believe in "karma" but the point was that neither you nor I have the right to claim ourselves the instrument of it."

I am a believer in karma in so far as I feel that what you put out into life/world/society....whatever, is what will come back to you. I certainly never thought I was an instrument in dealing out karma.....it is a natural result of who and what one is. Most often it is only felt by the individual but every once in a while someone screws up on a grand scale and life has a way of taking care of it without the aid of legal intervention and it is pretty noticeable. One can not look at the life of Cosby and see evidence of that.

>28 RidgewayGirl:
"Apparently Cosby's actions were an open secret for years."

So my next question would be that there were 50 women who moved in circles where being around Cosby was a possibility and none of them had heard the rumors ? It just seems odd to me.

>29 RickHarsch:
No argument intended.....just a discussion.

I know I will take heck for this but then....I am used to it.

My second husband loved kids. To this day he treats my oldest two as if they were his own. My youngest is his son. When we were married he brought three of his four kids into our home. We had five, then six kids at home. He dealt with things in a way that today, makes most people's hair stand on end but it worked.......

He told the kids this : Jeannie is the law in the house and what she says goes. If something happens and she has to come to me with an issue, there will be no tattling, no story telling and no pleading your case. You are all in trouble....end of story.

Not long ago my youngest showed me that one of my antique bowls was glued together. He said that years back they were horsing around in the living room and it broke. All of the kids got together, including the girls who were not involved in the "horsing around" and glued the thing together. Never knew about it till more than 20 years later. If my husband had found a valuable bowl in pieces all of them would have been in for an ass chewing or worse. The kids had to actually COOPERATE with each other to try and make things right. They also all learned that actions come with responsibility and they felt responsible for each other. A few things I think are sadly lacking today.....the ability to cooperate and the acceptance that we are responsible, for the most part, in what happens to us.


My sister worked in a human resource dept. and she would say that NOBODY takes responsibility . I think she exaggerates a bit. But, she got pretty sick of people saying "It's not my fault" when clearly the person in question is the only one who had any control over the situation.

Not all cases that present in court are the same. There are cases where their is doubt or lack of evidence or what ever but there are also cases that let nasty people commit ugly things simply because they have the time or money or connections to work the system. One could argue that Cosby did 50 women for just this reason. He was above the legal system. It didn't work very well.

My brothers three were responsible for two incidents involving one of my father's handguns (I think I knew he had a gun or two, but was never curious enough to explore). In one case, one took a potshot at one of our cats and the bullet tore through a chair. That was easy to cover up, for the hole closed (they didn't use dum dums?). In the other case, somehow a bullet shot in my parents' closet went through a number of my fathers' shirts. The youngest of the three (by a year, the elders being twins) was innocent but took the fall using some concocted story (I only became privy to these stories decades later when everyone was proud of the shenanigans).

What would one take from that (This happened in Burlington, Wisconsin, and I believe, FIB, you are a Wisconsinite, if that has any meaning here)? Whatever the fall guy's punishment was it went by me (I am just a year younger than he is), so we have to assume a father who instilled a limited degree of fear in his children.

>32 RickHarsch:
A fine line between fear and respect. My husband claims that the ONLY reason people follow the laws is because of fear. Fear of the consequences, fines and jail or what ever.
In some respects I think he is right but not so sure that is always the case either.

Kids should know WHY there are rules as well as being somewhat apprehensive about the consequences. I don't think kids should be raised in terror but a lack of apprehension regarding consequences leads some to have a lack of diligence towards following the rules. One other important factor in having laws or rules is following through on the consequences......if a parent doesn't follow through, it takes a kid a nano second to figure out that no matter how bad the punishment sounds....it isn't going to be that bad in reality.

We have a legal system that "bargains" people out of consequences.....part of our problem with repeat offenders, IMO.

I think some people do follow laws because they understand why those laws are in place. Not sure this holds true for the majority, based on my personal observation while driving on the expressway but a few understand that texting while doing 85 miles per hour in a vehicle can be damaging to the self. Not to mention those who are unfortunate enough to be driving anywhere around them.

I don't understand how one can get stopped for speeding AND texting yet go to court and plead not guilty. Get fines and points reduced ? If we don't want people speeding and texting, they need to fear the consequences and respect the reasons for WHY the laws exist. Since critical thinking is not a valued trait in American culture.....I would say that people need most to FEAR the consequences.

>33 faceinbook: I don't understand how one can get stopped for speeding AND texting yet go to court and plead not guilty.

We instinctively resist when we think the crime doesn't merit the punishment.

>34 southernbooklady:

"We instinctively resist when we think the crime doesn't merit the punishment."

I think you could have stopped at "We instinctively resist"

If the cop has the speed gun and the mobile phone....you are NOT "not guilty". You may feel that your entitled little ass doesn't deserve to pay a huge fine or that you should be able to retain your license but you are not "not guilty".
The law is in place for a reason and when excessive speeding and texting are reduced to a regular speeding ticket and dropping the texting fine....the rights of everyone else on the road are thrown out the window.

Kids try to begin all of the time, if they can get away with it...they continue to push the boundaries. There are boundaries in place so that kids like little Lord Afluenza doesn't up and drive over and kill four people. Or the George Zimmerman's don't disrespect the laws and the lives of others until it is too late and someone dies. I believe he "got off" four or five times before "he" actually was scared to the point where Martin had to die.

True story :
My husband sponsors a guy in AA who speeds a lot.....high speed. Been in trouble since he got his license and he is 50 yrs old. He got a 30 over not long ago. However, he is pretty well healed and his lawyer managed to get him off with a parking ticket.....Yes, a parking ticket. He just got another speeding ticket in a school zone. He is in driving school now. Not sure about his license. School zone !!! What are they waiting for with this guy ???
This isn't a legal system at work...this is a joke.

P.S.
The guy was given a "parking ticket" because ANY moving violation would mean a loss of his drivers license due to prior tickets.

Practically all rational anarchists see the best kind of world as a cooperative society. FWIW there are tons and tons of laws that aren't even necessary. You can even look at the ten commandments and throw out half of that very easily and be causing no harm to anyone. And it's interesting how so many self described conservatives prattle on about personal freedoms yet they are the party of law and order--they are the party of legal executions--they are the party of throwing people in the clink forever for a baggie of dope--they are the party that wants to build a wall the length of our border with Mexico--to keep people they don't like out. Sometimes I think when they talk about personal freedoms what they really mean is personal property and wealth. They want as much of that as they can get--(there's no fair share of the earth for them) and they want security for this kind of life and ownership whether it's the police that provides it or the end of the barrel of their own gun.

>35 faceinbook: I don't disagree that it would be a nicer world if guilty people just admitted to being guilty, but the founding principle of innocent until proven guilty isn't in place for the guilty, it is in place for the innocent. Can you really imagine a justice system where people weren't allowed to plead "Not guilty"?

Then too, our tough-on-crime approach, with its trend toward mandatory sentences remove a lot of the discretion the legal system has for determining what punishment should fit the crime. In such cases people might well have to plead "not guilty" because the forgone result of a guilty plea would its own miscarriage of justice. There's a reason we're so quite to incarcerate people for nonviolent offenses, after all.

>37 lriley:
"FWIW there are tons and tons of laws that aren't even necessary. "

Yes I agree....one of the reasons why it is important to understand the "why" of a law. If there isn't a "why" then we do not need the law.

A cooperative society would need very few rules and laws. But, we are not that.....and becoming less cooperative all of the time.

Rules are made to insure the rights and safety of any given group of people. They need to be clear and concise. They need to "make sense" and be applicable to the majority of those who come into contact with them.
Consequences are drafted to ensure that the rules and/or laws are followed both by those who understand why these regulations exist but also those who do not or don't care to. Generally consequences are made to fit the crime....these consequences need to apply to all equally. If they don't, problems will arise.

This isn't all that hard to figure out really. I was alone for a long while and worked full time and had a house full of kids, in order to keep them safe and healthy we had some rules in place. These rules applied to everyone. They were all aware of each and every rule, why the rule was in place and what would happen if they did not follow the rule. They were not given time off for good behavior, or a lighter sentence if it was the "first" infraction (and consequently it was usually their only such infraction) nor could they point fingers at anyone else. If details were shady they all were in trouble.

I am not stupid, I know they got away with stuff and plenty of the rules were tossed at times. But, they learned how to cooperate with each other and they often discouraged each other from risky behavior. It worked. But there was NO bargaining.......you did the crime you did the time. They were, for the most part, good kids and are now good adults. My middle son got into the most trouble...he is fine. Dealing with his own sons. None of them have any legal issues and my grandson's are good kids. All of the foster, step and birth children still get along.


I could go on and on about my husbands kids who are a mess. Welfare babies, mental issues, bankruptcies. It was always "story time" time with his kids.... Something happened and he had to hear each one's story and decide which one to believe. Was like a mini court session.....each would plead their case and explain why they did it or who did it besides them or what ever BS they could come up with. They were grade schoolers for lord's sake. Drove me right up a wall. He would then tell them they were grounded and go out of town. They never had a punishment....no consequences for any actions. None of them were ever guilty...really. And they don't speak to each other. Mess.....

End of mini rant.

#39--well here's the thing. When your husband says that people obey because they fear---that's not really cooperation---that's more like coercion. This idea that without rules and laws then everyone will turn into an asshole is not necessarily the case. You don't necessarily need religion and you don't need laws to make you a good person. A lot of people just use those things as their moral template and that's fine but it's not a necessary requirement for anyone or everyone.

The old Irish brehon laws for instance were community based way of living with each other. If the community felt someone was over the line they would make his/her life miserable in a way that suited it--by completely shunning that person for instance. Push comes to shove--that person either got back in line, left or topped him/herself. There are a lot of different societies even today--some of which have used the same methodology for centuries and centuries. The need for written law and a ritualistic court system is not an essential absolute need for a civilized society--at least not IMO.

>40 lriley:
I agree with you.

" completely shunning that person for instance."

Native American's did this as well. This came up on LT some time ago. When watching MSNBC's prison shows I made an observation. Most all of the prisoners featured seemed to be attention seeking, from the guards, from each other and they were more than happy to get some from the camera. IMO it is rather nonproductive to put these individuals into a prison society that is all about getting and keeping attention.

I still go into "histrionics" when a person who is clearly guilty stands in front of a judge and pleads "not guilty" The words become meaningless. Screw that !!!!!

So who gets to decide who gets to put on the defense of their choice and who does not? Do I get to decide you're obviously guilty so we can dispense with the need for a trial and lock you up right away?

There is no excuse for "not guilty due to affluenza"
Or for a stalker to stalk someone down, chase them around, shoot them and then claim they are not guilty because they were "scared"
That is bull shit....you know it.......I know it. Everyone knows it. Part of the problem with our legal system is this bull shit.
You do know that it is OK to recognize bull shit and call it for what it is ? I mean we don't have to play games and pretend we don't see it, smell it or know what the hell it is when we are standing knee deep in the stuff.

>43 faceinbook: That is bull shit....you know it.......I know it. Everyone knows it.

The point of due process is to show that indeed "what everyone knows" is what actually happened.

> 43

If the Boston bomber guy did not plead "not guilty" initially then he is a rarity. O.J. pled not guilty. So did Charlie Manson. So did ninety something per cent of the tens of thousands of murderers over the years who were actually guilty and then caught and put on trial in the U.S.

That is the way the system works.

It is not going to change.

No one really likes this fact, particularly, but most accept the reality. The fact that it all is sort of ridiculous is beside the point.

So - letting off steam about it let's you feel better? Well, go ahead. That is self-justified.

But that is all it can ever be or will ever be. If you realize that then ok.

But if you are some sort of fucked-brained idealist who thinks that if enough people complain about how ridiculous it all is then somehow, someday, it will all be fixed to your satisfaction - then that is, to be redundant, fuck-brained.

So, in a nutshell: Letting off steam = OK -- Actually thinking the legal process can or will change due to complaining = fucked-brained.

And have a nice day.

There is no excuse for "not guilty due to affluenza"

Who are you to decide how defendants will plead and defend themselves? Are you truly arrogant enough that you think you can determine the truth of the matter without even bothering with due process first?

>46 StormRaven:
Hey....I am not a "decider". I am just an observer of idiocy in action. Like everything today....our system is beyond question....beyond mistakes and or adjustments. It is the "best". And judging by the recent past, it just keeps getting better. (for some that is, money for a tip top shell game shifter is helpful.....if you are Black or poor you are fucked)
Seems to me that if someone justifies the killing of four people due to the fact that they are too affluent to know the difference.....it isn't me who has the problem with arrogance.
It is the system that is arrogant. Who decides that four lives are worth giving up because someone is too rich to be held responsible for the laws most everyone else has to abide by ?
There is no "truth" in this matter. A lot of legal flim flam but no truth.

Due process (in many cases) = Time to make up an excuse for what I did.

I do not respect a system that allows itself to be manipulated to the point where our jails are full of young Black men who toted joints around, (where the hell is their "due process") while walking down the streets are arrogant young men of means who have killed others yet can not seem to help themselves.

Umm, in an adversarial criminal justice system (which I am deeply grateful for and supportive of), everyone has a right to defend him/herself. Without entering a plea of not guilty, how can that defence be presented? And without that defence how can society assure itself that the process has worked properly?

Likely someone has already pointed out the contemporaneous parallel with Jimmy Savile.

But in terms of open secrets, I doubt any American politician can challenge Lord Palmerston, whose meticulous recording of his fornications reveals multiple successes per day.

I suppose he should appall me, but he doesn't really, while Cosby and, especially, Savile do.

Hey....I am not a "decider". I am just an observer of idiocy in action.

So you want someone else to decide when someone can or cannot raise a particular form of defense when charged with a crime?

>47 faceinbook: Are you so sure in the accuracy of reporting by the US media that you would condemn someone just on that? There have been many cases where someone had been found guilty by the newspapers and were later found to be innocent.

>50 StormRaven: >51 jjwilson61:
Totally beside the point I was making. REREAD my post #47 Like most everything we do....American's have abused a system until it fails to do what it supposed to do. Compared to some other countries we are doing a dismal job.

Mr. Cosby seems to be tried in the court of opinion. Even on LT where a number of posters hold "due process" as sacrosanct. It happens.....and sometimes mistakes are made but, the idea behind a justice system is to find who is responsible for criminal acts and then to hold those individuals responsible for their actions.......not to make up excuses for the horrible actions that some individuals feel compelled to engage in. Seems that much has been lost in the shell game that is todays system.

Totally beside the point I was making.

You're not making any kind of point. You're just ranting incoherently.

>53 faceinbook: Mr. Cosby seems to be tried in the court of opinion. Even on LT where a number of posters hold "due process" as sacrosanct.

The court of public opinion can not put someone in jail. I don't understand why you have due process in quotes though.

And frankly, fib, even though I know we agree on many issues, I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here. You seem to think that people who are guilty but who plead not guilty are somehow abusing the system. That people who submit what you deem to be outrageous justifications for their actions are manipulating or perverting the system. But the whole point of due process is to allow the widest possible latitude for anyone's claims, and to submit them all to a standard of proof that is as objectively fair as we can possibly make it. That's the system working, as it is intended to work. Because the founding principle of our judicial system is and remains "innocent until proven guilty" so it is always at least as concerned with not convicting someone who might be innocent as it is with convicting someone who might be guilty.

Now if the result is something that outrages our sense of justice -- if it results in something we'd call "a miscarriage of justice" then that is when when we need to look at our judicial system to see what went awry. But in such cases the principle of due process is not what is wrong, but the limits or criteria we've saddled on it: mandatory sentencing laws, overly-lax gun laws, definitions of self defense that are too broad, etc, etc. So the answer in such cases is fix those laws. But the principle of due process remains unchallenged and beyond debate.

So I get your feelings of outrage when bad people try to get away with evil things, but I think your target is entirely misplaced when you attack due process as the problem.

Social penalties don't require a court of law. All they require is enough people of a community to decide that person 'X' did 'Y', and then act according to what the community feels is right. The danger is that social penalties (i.e. shunning) can slip into extra-judicial punishment (e.g. lynching) based solely on community opinion.

The legal system requires methods for determining legal guilt (or innocence). These methods are always evolving and changing (albeit slowly at times); the 'third degree', which was common to exact confessions from people the police determined were guilty of a crime was legal until the laws changed and said that it wasn't. So, clearly the system can always be improved (or made worse). And, of course, like any human system, there are mistakes and errors (and deliberate tampering). (Which, as an aside, is the main reason I oppose the death penalty.)

So, raising questions or concerns about the legal process is quite reasonable; legal scholars and lawyers do that all the time. But you shouldn't confuse social opprobrium (which by its nature isn't subject to due process) with the legal system. People are allowed to plead 'not guilty'; in fact, if they refuse to enter a plea the system presumes that they are pleading 'not guilty' rather than torturing them until they plead. (cf Giles Corey.) Until they plead guilty or are found guilty, the system is supposed to assume that they are innocent, and certainly innocent people aren't going to admit to crimes they didn't commit. (Actually they will, but that's a whole 'nother topic.)

I'm proud to say loudly and clearly that I am an LTer who holds due process sacrosanct.

Southern trees bear strange fruit
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees

>55 southernbooklady:
"Now if the result is something that outrages our sense of justice -- if it results in something we'd call "a miscarriage of justice" then that is when when we need to look at our judicial system to see what went awry. But in such cases the principle of due process is not what is wrong, but the limits or criteria we've saddled on it: mandatory sentencing laws, overly-lax gun laws, definitions of self defense that are too broad, etc, etc. So the answer in such cases is fix those laws. But the principle of due process remains unchallenged and beyond debate."

Yes....Yes and Yes. How ever, I don't think that the Einstien who came up with the term affluenza was making proper use of what everyone seems to think is "due process". IMO, it is an abuse to due process. It becomes a game of wits rather than a true measure of protecting society and holding those who harm others responsible for their actions. What or how do you feel about the term "affluenza" ? Under what category does one put something like this ? It wasn't a defense and now it is. If one kid used it to his advantage to prove himself "not guilty".....so too will others. It sucks.

I am arguing about a system that isn't doing what it should. A system that has somehow flipped itself around to the advantage of the guilty party in many cases, rather than a system that is designed to minimize the number of victims and hold guilty people responsible. It becomes impossible to hold someone responsible if they can make up enough excuses and reasons so as to be found not guilty.

We didn't even have the where with all to hold the top CEO's responsible for the stock market crash in 08, responsible....they were above reproach. Really ? They didn't even need due process. Something is not right.

Due process is not my terminology.........."due process" are the only words I get from those on LT who are supposedly in the know. Never addressed my questions about some of the recent miscarriages of justice we've seen lately. That is why it was in quotes.

What is due process ? Making up terms ? Making people question the rights of a young unarmed boy over the rights of an armed bully ? Convincing people that thieves on the bottom will have their day in court but those on top are safe from accountability ?
To me it seems that due process only works well if applied equally to one and all. So, I am not against due process but I guess I do question how it is being applied within the system.

>58 faceinbook: How ever, I don't think that the Einstien who came up with the term affluenza was making proper use of what everyone seems to think is "due process". IMO, it is an abuse to due process.

You are wrong. It is not an abuse. It may or may not be a credible defense, but being allowed to plead how you wish is integral to due process.

I am arguing about a system that isn't doing what it should. A system that has somehow flipped itself around to the advantage of the guilty party in many cases, rather than a system that is designed to minimize the number of victims and hold guilty people responsible.

And you are wrong here as well. The system is not design to "minimize the number of victims" -- it is designed to protect the innocent from an a capricious and tyrannical government. It assumes innocence. Which naturally benefits the guilty because the burden of proof is on the state to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You are complaining that we have too much reasonable doubt, but that is not a problem with the principle our judicial system operates by, its a problem with specific applications. A lack of consensus over what constitutes "reasonable doubt."

What is due process ? Making up terms ?

Due process is the legal procedure by which a person suspected of a crime is charged and then his/her innocence and guilt determined. It has nothing to do with the arguments we use to plead our innocence or guilt and everything to do with the steps the state takes to determine our possible guilt. Pleading "affluenza" is not a violation of due process. You know what would be? Not allowing a defendant to plead as he wished.

And speaking of said case, I note that according to the judge in the case of Ethan Crouch, mister "I wasn't raised right and that's why I ended up killing four people when I drove drunk," the affluenza plea had no bearing on her decision to remit the boy to lock-down rehab and 10 years probation, rather than sending him to jail. So you can disagree with the severity of the sentence, but in that case the resolution is to not re-elect that judge, since her notion of justice doesn't align with your own

When you decide to disallow or set limits on how people can plead, you are questioning not "how due process is applied" but whether or not we can dispense with it if we deem the circumstances warrant it. Frankly, I don't think circumstances EVER warrant it, but I'll tell you one scenario when due process is considered to be justifiable abandoned -- in the middle of a national emergency, when controlling to populace is more important to public safety than accidentally convicting an innocent person. Of course, at that point we're basically under military rule.

It's not like the incarceration rate in the United States isn't higher than any other country in the world outside the Seychelles Islands. I have to wonder--what the heck is going on in the Seychelles? This country (the US of A that is) likes to toss people into prison--and let them try and find a living wage job or any job at all when (if) they get out. We have crimes and more crimes and a good % of those crimes if I committed them (for real) I wouldn't feel all that guilty about (for real). What happens when you commit a so-called crime and you don't feel very guilty about it afterwards? Should you plead guilty?

The correlation between our criminal justice system and our GPD--I'd like to know. Seems to me this justice system of ours has become a big business.

Anyway are the people in this country so much worse than the people in Britain or Japan or Brazil or China? Russia? North Korea? Iran? Cuba? I really don't think so. You wouldn't know that by our incarceration rate. None of the above countries can keep up with us. If incarcerating people were an athletic event at the Olympics we'd get a gold medal.

FIB is merely outraged beyond rational discussion by some public cases that, to my mind, are best responded to by irrational outrage.

I, too, wonder what is going on in the Seychelles.

>61 RickHarsch:
"FIB is merely outraged beyond rational discussion by some public cases that, to my mind, are best responded to by irrational outrage."

Yes and thank you.

I spent a fair amount of time thinking about this last evening. Trying to figure out how it is I come across regarding this legal system of ours and why I come across that way. Obviously, I am irritating to those who respect a justice system that for all intents and purposes was set up to govern a democratic society.
I think perhaps I have come up with an answer, at least in part.
It is my profound belief that there are actions that individuals may choose to engage in for which there simply is no defense.

I remember an incident when my two oldest were pre teens. My daughter was the oldest and she was constantly teasing her brother who was 18 months younger. One day he punched her.....full fisted punch. His step-father grabbed him and instilled in his brain the fact that hitting a girl or a women was indefensible. But...says my son....NO BUTS, was the response from his dad.....NONE. It is never OK to use your physical strength against someone who is unable to respond in kind.
I have also lived with and worked with drug addicts/ mentally ill my entire life and the only way to recovery is to take away the defenses they have for their behaviors. Unless they are not allowed to make up excuses, they will not change a dang thing.

I have no problem with a system that involves proving whether someone committed a crime or whether they are innocent but I do have a big issue with excuses for behaviors that, IMO, have no defense. It would seem that most often this has to do with the ability to pay for an excuse. Money affords all kinds of excuses. Our system allows for excuses, spends tons of time formulating excuses. I wonder, statistically, how much time is spent proving guilt/ innocence over, the WHY of a crime......the reasons an individual can come up with for infringing on the rights of those around them.

I realize that I am very black and white on this issue but at one point in my life, I had to be. It was the only way to keep my family and home life in some sort of order......perhaps this is a small view of a bigger issue but to my mind the only way to ensure that people act responsibly is to hold people accountable.

>61 RickHarsch: FIB is merely outraged beyond rational discussion by some public cases that, to my mind, are best responded to by irrational outrage.

I prefer rational outrage, myself.

It is my profound belief that there are actions that individuals may choose to engage in for which there simply is no defense.

Fine. Everyone has their list of unforgivable actions. The problem is that not everyone's list is the same. That's why we have laws and a justice system -- to sort out what is and isn't acceptable to us as culture. And frankly, I don't think remodeling a justice system based on the requirements needed for working with mentally ill drug addicts in a rehab clinic is a great idea.

#61--apparently the reason for the Seychelles high incarceration rate is in part due to a very small population on the one hand and their imprisoning some 100 or so Somalian pirates on the other.

United States has about 5% of the world's population and about 25% of the world's imprisoned. We're somewhere around 2,400,000. It takes a lot of taxpayer money to do that and we have had a boon in the last couple or so decades of for profit prisons/prison systems--particularly prevalent in the southern United States. It is big money--big profit for big corporate parasitical contractors.

To go a bit further--my theory is the country has continually drifted towards the right since at least the end of the Vietnam War and the law and order crowd which permeates both major political parties but in particular the republican one have enabled all this to happen with a bunch of idiotic and ridiculously draconian laws--many of which are for non violent and victimless 'crime'. This has little to do with Mr. Cosby I'm afraid but nonetheless I find it hard to be outraged about a lot of what people consider to be crime and deserving of harsh treatment. IMO we've gone way over the line and our incarceration rate ranking should be more than enough proof for any rational person with any degree of tolerance to think otherwise. Certainly not something we should be proud of.

Hiring more police is not a solution at all either. The way things are everything depends on numbers. In the police world your justification for your job is your arrest/conviction rate. It's not something just unique to policing---almost everything in our society is quantity over quality.

>63 southernbooklady:
"And frankly, I don't think remodeling a justice system based on the requirements needed for working with mentally ill drug addicts in a rehab clinic is a great idea."

Really? and why not ? The first and foremost principle in AA is holding one's self responsible for picking up the bottle. Not your parents fault cause they didn't love you enough, or your wife's fault cause she spends too much, not your kids cause they misbehave, or your job cause you happen to hate what you do. When you pick up a drink you are the ONLY person who is determining what happens next.

The same can be said for anything from driving a car to shooting a gun. When you are holding the gun or driving the car.....you and only you have control over your actions in relation to those items. Not your friends or your mama or your job .....no one but YOU.

What is wrong with that ? It is the only way bad behaviors have a chance of changing. Even the mentally ill....they are often manipulative and abusive....because they always have an excuse. They have "issues".

>63 southernbooklady:
"to sort out what is and isn't acceptable to us as culture. "

Yes, well, we also have a justice system that allows someone to determine how "afraid" they are of someone else. I would say that is pretty subjective. Some people are afraid of their own shadows.......if one is afraid enough, it is permissible to kill someone. This has been deemed acceptable. I guess that shooting someone based on personal perception or driving over a few people because we haven't learned how to behave is acceptable as a culture ? Personally, I don't feel that way. I will go counter culture on this type of thing and claim that the system tends to suck at times.....it could use some tweeking.

Often irrational frustrations are experienced in the face of that which is bizarre claiming to be perfectly rational.

It isn't even rational to argue rationality when the law itself isn't rational. What kind of excuses are there ? I have yet to hear one, except "that is the way the system works" Which often sounds like a cop out to me.

>64 lriley:
"To go a bit further--my theory is the country has continually drifted towards the right since at least the end of the Vietnam War and the law and order crowd which permeates both major political parties but in particular the republican one have enabled all this to happen with a bunch of idiotic and ridiculously draconian laws--many of which are for non violent and victimless 'crime'"

Gives the illusion of a working system. While the big crimes and those who are "above the law" can skate. Easy targets, the poor, the Blacks.....drug addicts.....all easy marks. (not to mention the money that is being generated as you pointed out)

A good system is one that is respected. It is VERY difficult to respect what we call our judicial system today. It doesn't measure up to other countries and it isn't working all that well.

>66 faceinbook: Really? and why not ?

Because just because you find yourself in a court room doesn't mean you are a mentally ill drug addict.

One reason why so many police are against legalization of certain drugs is that it's a job killer for him. Without so many of these victimless crimes their jobs get a lot harder and the number crunchers at the top of their management are going to be all over them. Really we shouldn't be making up crimes to give them meaning to their lives. Quality of police work over quantity of crimes should be the goal.

I have no problem with a system that involves proving whether someone committed a crime or whether they are innocent but I do have a big issue with excuses for behaviors that, IMO, have no defense.

Fair enough, but first you have to prove that they did it. If your issue is with the punishment side of justice, don't complain about the truth-divining part of it (which the guilty of innocent plea is part of).

It is my profound belief that there are actions that individuals may choose to engage in for which there simply is no defense.

How do you propose to figure out who has actually engaged in those actions without some sort of evidentiary procedure to establish their guilt and culpability?

>63 southernbooklady: Perhaps outrage--real outrage--is anger allowed to go irrational.

Naturally on a forum like this we have the time, the luxury, to calm ourselves for the most part, to present relatively rational arguments.

>65 lriley: hiring the police would be an answer if they were hired out of the jails, which might also make them better cops.

>66 faceinbook: 'The first and foremost principle in AA is holding one's self responsible for picking up the bottle. Not your parents fault cause they didn't love you enough, or your wife's fault cause she spends too much, not your kids cause they misbehave, or your job cause you happen to hate what you do. When you pick up a drink you are the ONLY person who is determining what happens next.'

I think we have found the disconnect. SBL didn't spell it out, but suggested it. The study of psychology exists for a reason, and the interconnected nature of society makes for complex individuals negotiating complex circumstances. I'll gladly take responsibility for clearing the table at Manzioli wine bar in a burst of anger busting all the glasses and bottles, but it's of extreme importance to me that I figure out what went into the anger. A good legal system takes as many circumstances into account as possible. Mitigating circumstances--that's a fair and important concept. The difference between pre-meditated murder and non-pre-meditated is important. I am damn glad our legal system is not run on AA principles, because the fact is that often the parents ARE at fault, and psychological treatment is more humane than bare incarceration.

Also, FIB, I don't see anyone here saying that the US system of justice is flawless. Yes, obviously, being rich is of great benefit in US society. And certainly too many are in jail for too long. And, of course, guilty people plead innocent and some get off. I've been part of two cases, in fact, in which guilty parties were found innocent--in La Crosse, Wisconsin, in the early 80s, one man for exposure, one woman for stealing change from purses at a busy bar--in both cases elements were involved that made me very happy the accused got off.

Anyway, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is at least a very good foundation of a justice system.

p.s. Now my son and I are going to watch Serpico.

>71 RickHarsch: Perhaps outrage--real outrage--is anger allowed to go irrational.

Outrage is an emotion, it is an entirely rational response to injustice. What is not rational is using it as an excuse or justification to commit another, retaliatory, injustice. Which is what denying someone due process because they are obviously guilty would be.

>72 southernbooklady: Of course it is wrong to use it as an excuse and I would not advocate denying due process, which is one reason I am outraged at the Guantanamo bullshit. But I am only talking about FIB's reactions, which are not necessarily irrational. I doubt that she would truly advocate denying due process. If I am wrong, FIB, tell me now.

'Outrage is an emotion.' I'll have to give that some thought because my first thought is that it is not so simple, as if separated from thought.

>67 southernbooklady:
"Because just because you find yourself in a court room doesn't mean you are a mentally ill drug addict."

What ? Why should the principle behind taking responsibility for one's actions apply only to mentally ill drug addicts ? I think I've just discovered the problem ! What on earth is wrong with accepting responsibility ? And paying for one's mistakes ? We all make them. Sometimes hurting and harming others in the process.

From an article online about police shoot out.....

"The wounded suspect had four robbery arrests from 2003 to 2006, along with busts for gun possession in 2011 and drug possession a year later, cops said.

His Louisiana rap sheet included a drug conviction and the robbery arrest that landed him on parole.

For his latest run in with the law, Harris was charged with four counts of attempted murder of a police officer and the attempted murder and assault of the man on Madison St. He was also charged with menacing the officers, reckless endangerment, criminal use of a firearm and possession of a weapon."

The current justice system is NOT working for this man nor for anyone who happens to get in his way. He is one of MANY.

>70 StormRaven:
You are repeating yourself and what you are saying is completely aside from the point I am making. There was no doubt about the kid who drove into a crowd of people with his dad's SUV, or the fact that he was full of his dad's booze. The point behind his trial was to come up with excuses or reasons that would prevent him from paying for his actions to the full extent of the law.

Based on how many repeat offenders within the system and the fact that our system allows for ever more leeway when it comes to making up excuses for bad behaviors, I feel it has become a problem ..... you can keep bringing up something entirely different if you want to but it then appears that you are part of the problem. There is a deafness amongst those who are engaged in the process, which leads to a refusal to facilitate any changes that may be beneficial.

Despite the fact that SBL seems to feel that mentally ill drug addicts are somehow "different" than the rest of us, they are not. We all make mistakes....we all have reasons for making those mistakes, sometimes very valid reasons, however, if we keep walking into walls, hurting ourselves and those around us, there is a good chance that our reasons have become excuses. At some point in time if we don't stop with the excuses and own our actions we will continue the destructive behaviors.

Our system is actually structured so as to foster excuses.......I respect reason's they are often harsh and painful but, I refuse to continue to listen to excuses. This is true of everyone I deal with, not only mentally ill drug addicts.

I learned this one the hard way.......I had my reasons and some of them became excuses......nothing changed till I did.....our legal system isn't about change...it is about getting the least amount of punishment for the crimes at hand. Unless of course you are an easy target......at which point you are going to pay and pay and pay.

And I am completely put out by our banking and monetary system. It is nonsensical, unfair and allows too many people to get away with evil behavior, i.e., not receiving proper penalties for their transgressions.

I will NOT be happy until the world goes back to the barter system instead. It was good enough for our ancestors. And when someone tried to cheat there were no sleazebag lawyers to be consulted - one merely implanted a spear into the miscreant's forehead. Case closed, justice done.

(Excuse me while I sit here and stew about how ridiculous and unfair modern civilization is, ditto reality in general.)

>74 faceinbook: What ? Why should the principle behind taking responsibility for one's actions apply only to mentally ill drug addicts ?

Hey, you're the one who suggested that the justice system should be run the way a rehab clinic is run. If you don't like the implications of that, it's hardly my fault.

>75 faceinbook: Despite the fact that SBL seems to feel that mentally ill drug addicts are somehow "different" than the rest of us, they are not.

Nonsense. SR's point is completely germane. You are avoiding the fact that your notion of justice requires a guilty-until-proven-innocent philosophy instead of an innocent-until-proven-guilty one. There is nothing wrong with "taking responsibility for one's actions," obviously. But there are serious repercussions to requiring the state to force people to take responsibility for themselves. That's a big brother state. A totalitarian state.

>76 JGL53:
Yeah....I forgot...this is America....we are the best and nothing ever needs "fixing" How does one improve on "the best" after all ?

>77 southernbooklady:
"Hey, you're the one who suggested that the justice system should be run the way a rehab clinic is run"
I did not. I used the principle behind getting sober as an example. You said you didn't want the courts run like a rehab center. I was talking principle only. And it is a good principle. Arguing against it looks rather foolish.

>77 southernbooklady:
"But there are serious repercussions to requiring the state to force people to take responsibility for themselves. That's a big brother state. A totalitarian state."

Really ? Then why do we have a judicial system at all ? What in the heck are there laws for if not forcing people to be responsible ? Why be a parent ? Parenting is all about raising young people to be responsible. That statement was beyond confusing.......and a bit irrational.

>78 faceinbook: I was talking principle only.

Obviously, so am I. I object to a justice system founded on the principle of guilty-until-proven-innocent.

Really ? Then why do we have a judicial system at all ? What in the heck are there laws for if not forcing people to be responsible ? Why be a parent ? Parenting is all about raising young people to be responsible.

We have a justice system in place to hold people accountable when they do break the law. But the way you equate the justice system with parenting speaks volumes.

You are repeating yourself and what you are saying is completely aside from the point I am making. There was no doubt about the kid who drove into a crowd of people with his dad's SUV, or the fact that he was full of his dad's booze. The point behind his trial was to come up with excuses or reasons that would prevent him from paying for his actions to the full extent of the law.

You are still not making any point at all. You are entirely incoherent. The point is to determine guilt and culpability. You seem to be ignoring the second part. He may have been driving, and he may have been drinking, but you have to establish both. You can't do that without a trial. You also can't decide how much responsibility he bears without a trial. How do you determine he was inebriated and not impaired by something else without a trial? How culpable is a teenager anyway? What sort of punishment do we impose upon someone who is young, or has been coerced, or any number of other things. We have trials to figure these things out, not to "come up with excuses". Do you believe that every person accused of a crime should "pay for their actions to the full extent of the law"? Is there no room in the justice system for considered judgment, for mercy, for mitigating circumstances?

I was talking principle only. And it is a good principle. Arguing against it looks rather foolish.

There is someone in your conversation with southernbooklady who is looking rather foolish, but it isn't southernbooklady.

>79 southernbooklady:
I did not say I assumed guilt with out proof....my point is that often guilty individuals are not held responsible. I do not understand what is so confusing about that principle ? And what does an alcoholic mentally ill individual have to do with guilty until proven innocent. If our system is designed to deal with the criminal element and we hope to stop their negative actions and rehab them into positive behaviors.....what is wrong with my principle ???

"But the way you equate the justice system with parenting speaks volumes."

Touché Thought of that after I posted. However, after watching enough of the reality prison shows and seeing the amount of repeat offenders involved in our system, it appears we have a problem with maturity and responsibility. I see no way to change anything for the better until we acknowledge this fact and deal with it. We are not the best. Unless of course you think we are doing fine.....then I have a better understanding. We would have to disagree then because I think we could do better.

>80 StormRaven:
Explain to me how an excessive speeding ticket morphs into a parking ticket ? What kind of magic trick is performed to make that happen for a perpetual offender ? Someone who has since received another speeding ticket....in a school zone. Explain please how this can have mitigating circumstances ? Who needs mercy ? The guy driving or the kid who is going to get clocked ? The law should have a reason for being in place if it can be mercied and mitigated away it is useless.

>81 StormRaven:
"
There is someone in your conversation with southernbooklady who is looking rather foolish, but it isn't southernbooklady."

Won't be the first time I have been accused of this and it won't be the last.

America is the best. The best in the world.

We have the best education
The best healthcare system
The best judicial system

Look them up......see how we compare. Decide whether you want to be complacent and defend things that don't seem to be working all that well, or do you want to appear to be foolish and suggest that changes could be made to make things better ?

>81 StormRaven:
In fact I think the first time I was accused of foolishness was in the fifth grade when I suggested that America ought to look at how other countries and how they accomplish things rather than reading text books in classrooms that only promote our own greatness. I forfeited my lunch hour for arguing with a teacher. Didn't care.

Another biggy was a judge who determined it was foolish for me to show up every month for my child support when clearly the guy wasn't going to comply. Even if he was living in the home he was born in...even if he had a bank account full of money. Even though he was fathering more children.
He actually used the word foolish. Didn't care what he thought......only resented his foolish sense of power.

All kinds of foolish goings on in my life. It just never ends.

Seriously off topic and probably foolish....but what the hell ?

>82 faceinbook: I did not say I assumed guilt with out proof....my point is that often guilty individuals are not held responsible.

Then you are complaining about lax sentencing, not about due process. Which, by the way, is a different step in the system than entering a plea. Changing how people are sentences is a matter of electing different judges or changing sentencing laws. Neither of which, by the way, has anything to do with being allowed to plead however we want. Pleading not guilty, even if you are guilty, is not a crime. It is a right of being a citizen of the United States.

it appears we have a problem with maturity and responsibility.

So says every generation about the generation that follows.

Explain to me how an excessive speeding ticket morphs into a parking ticket ?

What part of "considered judgment", "mercy", and "mitigating circumstances" do you not understand?

Won't be the first time I have been accused of this and it won't be the last.

America is the best. The best in the world.

No one said that. You're not arguing against that. You're ranting about how some people shouldn't be allowed to even advance certain defenses because you "know" that they are wrong before you actually go through the bother of a trial. You're arguing for "truthiness" as a form of judicial philosophy.

You're the Queen of Hearts: "Sentence first! Trial later!" There's a reason Carroll was lampooning that attitude.

>87 StormRaven:
"Explain to me how an excessive speeding ticket morphs into a parking ticket ?
What part of "considered judgment", "mercy", and "mitigating circumstances" do you not understand?"

Bull shit ! That is a bull shit answer.

Now THAT was foolish. What part of irrational do you not understand ?

If there are no laws for speeding for some individuals, then it is not a system that will be respected. Why have the damn laws in the first place. Why is there an "Excessive" speeding ticket ? And how on earth could any one equate where a person is parked with doing 30 miles per hour over the speeding law ? It is a joke.....really, a joke.

>88 StormRaven: " "Sentence first! Trial later!"

Not what I said at all. not at all. Smoke and mirrors Storm.....

" You're ranting about how some people shouldn't be allowed to even advance certain defenses "

Now there you may have a point...
if my daughter were to be raped by someone with a rap sheet as long as my arm. Crimes and misdemeanors of a sexual nature....I would find his defense, in my daughter's case, to be indefensible. No mitigating circumstances....no mercy....no considered judgement. Sorry. Some things people do are indefensible. By allowing this person "mercy", or "mitigating circumstances" you are not even being kind or helpful...you are perpetuating a self feeding system. It is often mentioned that we are not doing enough to "reform" the criminal members of our society. Holding someone responsible is not a cruelity.....in the long run it does more help than harm. Our entire system functions just the opposite.
Since they have repeated the same actions repeatedly.....doing harm to others and/or to themselves, it appears that there is a clinch in the system....a failure to provide that which it is set up to do. If the system is not set up to fail then it would not have the problem it does with repeat offenders.

What the current system does is make jobs for lawyers, judges and prisons. It does not really "deal" with the criminal element.

You do know that mercy isn't necessarily about letting people get away with crap ? Don't you ?

My guess on mitigating circumstances is that they do indeed occur but not all that often.....and "considered judgement"can be stuffed somewhere ...... many judges are considering through biases and prejudices anyway...better off following the letter of the law. Which from personal experience would have worked far better for me.

True story this :

I had a beautiful step-son. Handsome boy. An affectionate, humorous, loving young man. He lived with me from the age of 12 till he was 21. I loved him as my own.
He got into the usual stuff boys get into but generally he was a good boy. However, behind the wheel of a car he was a disaster. Ditches, seemed to jump at him, snagging him to the point where chains and tow trucks were needed. His desire to party up and drive was such that he often risked coming home after a party on his own and not always sober. He was in about 8 or 9 fender benders and found himself in jail three or four times for driving offenses. His uncle bailed him out each and every time he got into a mess. Hired a lawyer for him. The boy never lost his license....there was always mitigating circumstances, the judge showed mercy and the judges made considered judgements until one night I got a call at work that he was dead at the scene of an accident. He was 22 yrs old.

Then came along my bumble brained middle child....my oldest boy. Same dang thing. Speeding, side swiping.....broke the wheel off of my car, never told me...it fell off on my way to work. Until one night he thought it was a good idea to try and beat the cops home. A Friday night. A felony. He called from jail, wanted bail. NOPE. Told him that I did not have the money and if I did I wouldn't want to spend it that way. Was Friday, no judge till Monday. He was going to sit. He called his step uncle (same one who bailed out my now deceased step son) His uncle called me. I told him he could bail him out if he wanted but then my son would be living with him, not me. That was the end of that. I did nothing for my boy except visit him, tell him that I loved him far too much to enable his bad behaviors and mention to his lawyer that I felt that the law was the law....and my son needed to understand that or I would be picking him up in a box one day.
He did 10 days in jail over his Senior Spring Break. He got a job and did Huber......lost his license but found his own ride to and from the jail. I worked full time and wasn't about to enable his rear end. He has never had any problems with the law since. He HATED jail. He didn't enjoy being responsible for those type of actions so he quit fooling around with cars.

It is common sense......at the time I was labeled hard hearted, cold, foolish (yes that one again) and a poor excuse for a mother. But, I lost so much.....through all the mercy and mitigating that the court system saw fit to provide that I did not want any of it....none.

Our system operates on the first scenario, it certainly doesn't on the second. IMO, it often fails.

>89 faceinbook: If there are no laws for speeding for some individuals, then it is not a system that will be respected.

You are saying that a crime is a crime is a crime. Murder is murder and therefore everyone convicted of it (once again ignoring your penchant for skipping over whole steps in due process) should receive the same sentence.

But it is my understanding that the judicial process distinguishes between the act of the crime, and the severity of the consequences or potential consequences. A trial determines if a person is guilty, but it is in the sentencing that we suggest how severe their crime was. A person who is caught speeding and found to be just joyriding, and one who is caught speeding because they are rushing to a hospital are both guilty of speeding. But the law allows for leniency in both charging and sentencing (at least, it does so where zero-tolerance policies do not hold sway) because it recognizes the different circumstances behind each "crime."

For a somewhat hilarious take on zero tolerance policies you should read Joshylin Jackson's account of being arrested because of a clerical error resulting from when she changed her social security license to her married name:

http://www.joshilynjackson.com/mt/archives/000561.html

>91 southernbooklady: Joshilyn Jackson's gods in Alabama is a fun and very funny book.

>92 RidgewayGirl: She's a funny woman. But her books are pretty pithy under the comedy.

>93 southernbooklady: I agree. There's substance there. I think she nails what living in the South is like.

Bull shit ! That is a bull shit answer.

Everything you've said in this thread has been bullshit.

Now THAT was foolish. What part of irrational do you not understand ?

I understand that you are being quite irrational.

If there are no laws for speeding for some individuals, then it is not a system that will be respected. Why have the damn laws in the first place. Why is there an "Excessive" speeding ticket ? And how on earth could any one equate where a person is parked with doing 30 miles per hour over the speeding law ? It is a joke.....really, a joke.

The laws are applied with judgment. That's why we have judges. The judges apply the law in a manner that, given the circumstances of the case in front of them, after considering the evidence as presented, is in their judgment, the most just result they can determine.

You don't want a justice system. You want a revenge system, and the truth be damned. You want to point at someone, decide they are guilty without bothering with inconvenient things like evidence, or a trial, or the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime.

Not what I said at all. not at all. Smoke and mirrors Storm.....

Actually, it is what you are saying. For example, when you say this:

if my daughter were to be raped by someone with a rap sheet as long as my arm. Crimes and misdemeanors of a sexual nature....I would find his defense, in my daughter's case, to be indefensible. No mitigating circumstances....no mercy....no considered judgement.

You are saying that someone accused of raping your daughter can't advance a defense. That means you want to dispense with the trial and simply move on to sentencing, and there is to be no judgment put into the sentence. You want to dispense with any kind evidence that would aid in determining whether they actually committed the crime, and if they were convicted, any evidence concerning what kind of sentence would be appropriate.

You're worse than the Queen of Hearts. You don't just want to pass sentence first. You want to always impose the harshest possible sentence and don't even want to bother with having the trial afterwards.

"That's why we have judges."

Yes we do. We have judges. Why is it so important as to who it is that appoints our Supreme Court Judges ? It is a big brouhaha all kinds of speculation on what the law will be depending on who is sitting on the court. I don't think many judges are any different than that. A judge just stopped performing marriages because he doesn't want to perform any same sex marriages. What does that mean to a gay person who finds themselves in his court room for any reason what so ever ? Not a place I'd want to be if I were gay. I found a few that women definitely should stay away from if at all possible. No way were they not biased....no way on earth.

>95 StormRaven:
"What ever" Please don't tell me what I am saying. That is such a give away. If you want people to respect what it is you do and the system you work for, it has to make a positive difference. Not just for me but for the criminal as well. Not working my friend.......sadly it is lacking. What I've stated are ways I think it may work better, and they may sound like hog wash but the status quo is not doing what it is supposed to do. Those within the system have no incentive to change it or to make it work better for all concerned.

If any one has a rap sheet as long as my arm....something isn't working well.

Please don't tell me what I am saying.

I'm sorry that actually quoting your own words is such a bother to you. Perhaps if you didn't write such stupidly foolish things, people wouldn't criticize you for doing so.

I think I'll propose a law that people who write incredibly stupid things have their voting rights and legal rights to due process taken away. There will be no trial or evidentiary hearing. These rights will simply be revoked on my say-so with no recourse for those subjected to the law. You will be the first person this law is applied to.

Does that seem like a fair result to you? Because that's exactly the sort of thing you've been loudly arguing for here.

>91 southernbooklady:
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with Joshilyn Jackson, I liked her novel. I think she nails getting her point across with a fair amount of humor rather than getting all kinds of irrational. Perhaps she could give me a few pointers !

>98 StormRaven:
No Storm......I am wishing for a better society. I am always trying to find ways to improve, to move ahead rather than to stay mired in systems with problems that continue to occur and/or grow worse. That is what I am looking at.

Sorry if my perspective of the legal/justice system in this country is a bit jaded, I was not born that way. I came to my conclusions through experience and personal observations. You may not like them but they are based on actual happenings. Some of which you seem to have no good answer for other than alluding to the workings of the system. Well, if it isn't working than the workings are gummed up.

You are taking this far too personally. I don't dislike lawyers any more than I would dislike my doctor but both professions seemed mired in a system that is so twisted an knurled up with money/profits and procedural nightmares that it is frustrating for the outsider to watch. The patient or client becomes irrelevant and the process becomes all. Not so good.

No Storm......I am wishing for a better society.

Advocating for a legal system in which you determine ahead of time what defenses are allowed and what sentences are to be handed out is not a "better society".

I am always trying to find ways to improve, to move ahead rather than to stay mired in systems with problems that continue to occur and/or grow worse

You haven't shown that the system is growing worse. The real problem is that the things you are advocating for are changes that will almost certainly make things much worse. There have been systems like the ones you propose used in many places. We intentionally chose not to have a system that functions like them because of the evidence they provided that they create a fundamentally flawed and unjust society.

You are taking this far too personally.

No. I simply find you to be woefully uneducated and incoherent.

>101 StormRaven:

"We intentionally chose not to have a system that functions like them because of the evidence they provided that they create a fundamentally flawed and unjust society."

America did a lot of things intentionally to make things better. Problem is, human beings get in the way of themselves. The best of intentions tend to morph into that which we never intended. If nobody steps back and looks at the bigger picture our systems tend to get mired in themselves and participants become part of something that is counter to being productive for society as a whole.

"fundamentally flawed and unjust society."

So much of what we are seeing now in America is evidence that we are headed in this direction. Our legal system is not immune to being part of what is flawed and unjust.

"No. I simply find you to be woefully uneducated and incoherent."

I am sorry you feel that way. However, it simply does not change my experiences or the various situations I have witnessed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/geithner-rubin-paulson-income-inequality_55e...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conrad-black/us-justice-system_b_1110623.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2013/02/21/the-five-biggest-problems-in-h...

Systems become slaves to themselves. They morph into performing actions that support themselves rather than the people they are intended to serve.
Some where in my little 5th grade brain I realized that sitting back and claiming that we American's are the best , and that which we've created is above reproach was a method for failure. If constant work isn't done to ensure that "people" matter, systems tend to grow to the point where changes are made only so as to support themselves.
It seem woefully apparent in most every facet of our lives today. While this may simply be a part of an aging country, I don't feel that it has to be.
Most of us would get defensive and angry over the thought that what we are doing isn't all that productive, however if we want to continue to provide the services that benefit society . not only the mega business we find ourselves working in, we have to look beyond our personal perceptions/ ideas of what we are doing and see the realities that exist.

I picked three articles randomly......I am not alone in my way of thinking though I would agree that as American's many of us are undereducated (I did not go beyond a tech school) and some of us tend to get a bit incoherent when trying to articulate things that have a deep emotional connection to our lives. I am not sure how Storm would label the authors of these articles....if they are not acceptable there are plenty more out there to read.
I do not believe that these concerns are all hogwash. I think they make a point. I also think that sometimes problems are more easily seen from the outside, as those involved are not always looking at the big picture.
It is also my belief that "education" comes in all kinds of ways. It is important to realize this when labeling someone as "uneducated" Often times, life experiences are just as important as a degree.

It is also very easy to dismiss that what you do not want to hear by claiming that the speaker is incoherent. I am not a writer......I mess up words and I often respond emotionally, guilty guilty.....this I am aware of but, I do know that, be they right or wrong.....sound thoughts or pure hogwash, sometimes my statements are pretty clear.

America did a lot of things intentionally to make things better.

Yes, and things are better than the alternatives. All of the things you have advocated in this thread (and every other thread about legal issues) would make the system worse. What you consistently fail to realize is that something doesn't have to be perfect to be better than the bullshit you shovel out.

So much of what we are seeing now in America is evidence that we are headed in this direction. Our legal system is not immune to being part of what is flawed and unjust.

There are things that are flawed about the system, but saying "You can't offer the defense you like if we don't want you too, and we should throw the book at everyone every time" is not a solution to any of them. Of the articles you linked, one is about health care and the other about income inequality, which are both mostly irrelevant to the question of how to structure the criminal justice system. The one about the flaws of the legal system is directly contradictory to your point of view. It points out that convictions are too easy to obtain, and sentences are too harsh and inflexible. That's the exact opposite of what you say needs to be done to "fix" the legal system.

I am sorry you feel that way. However, it simply does not change my experiences or the various situations I have witnessed.

Anecdotes are not data. You have a handful of situations that didn't turn out the way you wanted them to. That's personal kvetching, not information. You are woefully ignorant on this subject, and it shows every time you open your mouth. At this point, I'm not sure you have even read the articles you link to, since not only do they not support what you are demanding, they point directly away from it.

Go read Les Miserables, and when you do, realize that you are Javert.

>103 faceinbook: some of us tend to get a bit incoherent when trying to articulate things that have a deep emotional connection to our lives.

But if you can't express your opinions coherently, you can't complain when people misconstrue or object to what they think you mean. That has nothing to do with "education" and everything to do with how carefully you've considered the implications of your opinions. And frankly, I don't think that when someone says the system is broken and needs to change, it is asking too much to have them explain, coherently, what they think needs changing.

From this conversation my guess is that you think the US judicial process is broken because it a) lets off too many guilty people who often go on to become repeat offenders and hurt more people, and b) can be manipulated by people with financial resources who can afford better lawyers, and can exploit all the options the system allows defendants who have the time and resources to take advantage of them.

But your only response to this state of affairs is to say "this is obviously wrong" and "they should not be allowed to do that." The only alternative you have offered is a "tough love" scenario where the state acts as a dictatorial parent/rehab facility administration and makes unilateral decisions about the legitimacy of this or that case without any accountability and without recourse for appeal by the defendant. And then you seem to get upset when people point out how flawed and dangerous such a system would be.

In short, you seem ready to sacrifice the principle on which our judicial process is built upon in order to ensure more people who deserve to go to jail get there. It would be like me complaining about how money and special interest lobbyists have subverted the electoral process, and saying, "we need to get rid of the whole idea of democracy, forget letting everyone have their vote -- some people just don't deserve it."

I'm not okay with that. I can think of a myriad of ways to address problems in the judicial system -- starting with creating a more efficient court system and allowing for more infrastructure to process cases in a more timely manner -- but I do not think the way to deal with the fact that we have an overtaxed or overly complex, or occasionally capricious judicial process is to abandon the two most basic principles we have in place to ensure a citizen is protected from a potentially tyrannical state: the assumption of innocence and the right to due process.

>105 southernbooklady:
Just explain to me then how we can assume that a young man who is, picked up at the scene, is drunk and has just killed four people with his dad's car is innocent ? I REALLY don't get it. If we assume innocence, then we are looking at what excuses he has for doing such a thing. There is a law written to cover each and every thing the young man did, however he is allowed to make up his excused for killing four people. If the law is too harsh maybe change the law but making up excused for killing four people is a horrible thing. Why have the law ? I am confused.....I really am. Maybe I am too black and white for our system. But, I do believe that sometimes the only way to handle things so as to make positive change is black or white.

>105 southernbooklady: "to ensure a citizen is protected from a potentially tyrannical state: the assumption of innocence and the right to due process."

And who is looking out for the rights of those who get into the way of people who have learned to manipulate the system. Is there no wiggle room to deal the person who is obviously abusing the system ? At which point it would make sense that that individuals loose some of his rights.

>105 southernbooklady: " people who deserve to go to jail get there"

It isn't just that....it is also about ensuring that they don't keep coming back. Something about the process is not working. Too many people repeating over and over the same behaviors. It is costly and nonproductive.

I know that the tough love thing sounds trite but there does seem to be a problem within several systems where people are allowed to come up with "reasons" or "excuses" or what ever you want to call it, for trampling over the rights of others. It sort of makes a mockery of the right to "life" or "happiness" for other members of a society.
Criminals manipulate our system and since we have nothing in place for them, it continues. I would say the same for the mentally ill. The media carries on about a failure within the system, when is reality, it is most often the result of the person themselves who have learned how to manipulate the mental health system along with most everyone around them and those manipulated souls around him, to take responsibility in handling the situation so as to facilitate change.

How is it that some other countries have a better success rate at rehabbing criminals ? Guess I don't know enough about that. But I do know that when we compare ourselves only to the worst scenarios, we are not doing ourselves any favors.

>105 southernbooklady:
"But your only response to this state of affairs is to say "this is obviously wrong" and "they should not be allowed to do that." The only alternative you have offered is a "tough love" scenario where the state acts as a dictatorial parent/rehab facility administration and makes unilateral decisions about the legitimacy of this or that case without any accountability and without recourse for appeal by the defendant. And then you seem to get upset when people point out how flawed and dangerous such a system would be."

First of all, I am not upset.....I get frustrated....but seldom angry or upset. Secondly I have to agree with this and reading it makes my ideas sound simplistic.
One truth I will hang onto is the fact that some people do not learn or change until they are forced to take responsibility for that which they have done. The judicial system has no way to take into account the fact that many of the people who find themselves involved in it's process are not processing anything. They are living a life style that is harmful to themselves and to other members of society. I do not have an answer for that I guess. From my perspective we took a good system and swung way to far in one direction and the time is here to correct that. We accept the absurd because the alternative is ? Some seem to think it would be to swing the other way and become tyrannical, I don't think so. I believe there is a middle ground.

"some people just don't deserve it."

Some people, through repeated actions, do not deserve the same rights as others. How does one protect the rights of those who come into contact with these individuals. Some one is going to come up rightless......so to speak.

>106 faceinbook: Just explain to me then how we can assume that a young man who is, picked up at the scene, is drunk and has just killed four people with his dad's car is innocent ?

Explain to me how you can assume a person is guilty? How do you know he is the one to kill four people without doing a proper investigation? Maybe what looks like alcohol poisoning is disorientation due to medication he's on. Maybe someone else was in the car. Maybe he was under duress. It doesn't matter how "obvious" it is to you what happened, you can't determine any of that without a clear, standardized, as objective as possible investigation. So you assume innocence as your starting position. Really, the more you go on about "excuses" the less tolerant I become of your position. People have a right to plead their case without their position being written off as "excuses" without a trial.

I do believe that sometimes the only way to handle things so as to make positive change is black or white.

Your black can be somebody else's white, so I'll keep the ability to take mitigating circumstances into account, thanks.

At which point it would make sense that that individuals loose some of his rights.

When the individual is convicted.

It isn't just that....it is also about ensuring that they don't keep coming back.

So, keep them in jail eternally? Repeat offenders get automatic life sentences?

The justice system is not in place to turn criminals into not-criminals. It is there to determine if a person broke the law and what the punishment should be for that infraction. People who go to jail and serve their sentence have, theoretically, "paid their debt to society. If they are back in the population they get the same rights as any citizen. Of course society itself continues to punish them -- they'll have trouble getting a job, getting anyone to trust them or give them a second chance. But that is the cost of breaking the law, and not within the purview of the judicial system to address.

I know that the tough love thing sounds trite but there does seem to be a problem within several systems where people are allowed to come up with "reasons" or "excuses" or what ever you want to call it, for trampling over the rights of others.

I could rob my neighbors blind and when arrested insist that aliens made me do it, and that would be perfectly legitimate. The only thing that matters is that I'm allowed to plead however I like. It is up to the trial process to determine how credible my claim is. Your personal opinion about the validity of my "excuse" has absolutely no bearing unless you are on the jury. Just as my personal opinion that you are a lazy person (hypothetically) would have no bearing unless I was on the jury.

As for your complaint that people manipulate or flout any system they are given, welcome to the human race. Lots of people don't, however, which is why we don't have anarchy.

FIB, are you really suggesting that everyone arrested by the police should be considered guilty and punished unless they can prove their innocence? You do understand that "innocent until proven guilty" does not mean that an arrested individual is just excused and sent home, right? How do you account for our high rate of incarceration?

How would you decide who is "gaming the system" and who is legitimately not guilty? What process do you suggest for this? How would you decide who should "loose some of his rights"? And who would you allow to keep their rights? Would they still be rights if they can be taken away in a capricious manner?

What accounts for recidivism? Could our tough approach to people who have served their time in prison be a factor? Could denying them jobs and assistance be a factor? How do you suggest a person support themselves when they can't get a job, people treat them like they are less than human and they are ineligible for public assistance?

And how is it that the US, with it's harsher punishments and focus on retribution rather than rehabilitation is less successful at bringing people back into society successfully, if what they need is harsh punishment? If that is really the case, wouldn't countries that actively work to keep offenders out of prison and to retrain, counsel and rehabilitate people while they are in prison be so much less successful at preventing recidivism?

I recommended The New Jim Crow to you a while ago. Did you get a chance to read it yet?

troll: "(/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." - from Wikipedia definition.

(I would add to the above definition "... one who posts nonsensical rants, post after excruciating post, in a robotesque stream-of-consciousness fashion, ignoring all contradictory posts of others, for reasons unknown but seemingly as mere emoting, relating apparently to some psychological problems of frustration and disappointment in one's personal life. Is more to be pitied than harshly judged. Lampooning is the only rational response by the normal - even though the subject displays NO apparent sense of humor whatsoever.)

All right......waving the white flag......done with this. I didn't ever mean to assume anything. My personal belief is that people should be responsible for themselves, when they can't , in this country we make a law to ensure that they do not hurt others. If the laws can be bent or twisted, they cease to be affective.

I have stuff to think about......it isn't so simple. But, then I don't think it is simple on either side of this debate because there is no question that our legal system has issues. How to approach fixing them is debatable.

>110 JGL53:
"(I would add to the above definition "... one who posts nonsensical rants, post after excruciating post, in a robotesque stream-of-consciousness fashion, ignoring all contradictory posts of others, for reasons unknown but seemingly as mere emoting, relating apparently to some psychological problems of frustration and disappointment in one's personal life. Is more to be pitied than harshly judged. Lampooning is the only rational response by the normal - even though the subject displays NO apparent sense of humor whatsoever.)"

Some posts warrant being ignored.

> 111

"Some posts warrant being ignored."

Agreed.

And thanks for not ignoring mine.

Before we all go home, could someone explain reference in the title of this thread?

> 113

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Six_You_Get_Eggroll

- When the number of Mr. Cosby's rape accusers passed fifty (50) I thought of the lagniappe that sometimes accrues when a certain total number of people is exceeded in some situations. I believe Mr. Cosby surely qualifies for some bonus now - like free eggrolls, for example.

Yes, I know - others may very well suggest some different reward.

All is made clear now. Thank you!

A tiny piece of 1968 that I missed.

Why it took so long to charge Bill Cosby

Makes a case for extending the statute of limitations on sexual assault because it often takes the victims a very long time to be able to report the crime.

As most people in the top 50 per cent of measured intelligence can readily perceive, The Daily News is a piece of garbage that gives a bad name to 'yellow journalism', however I must congratulate them for a cover that should be up for "Best Cover Page of the Year" award:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-york-daily-news-cover-tackles-bill-cosby...