Regional Subtleties

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by sycamore
I'm sorry you had to live in South for 4 years. After Dearmont closed, that officially became the worst on campus.

I wanted to live in the armpit of campus because I was a Governor's Scholar, and I was trying to shake the associated nerdy stigma by living in the hell-hole. That, and private rooms were cheap there, and having my own room was what I really wanted.

Plus, being on the ground floor (due to the slope of the hill in back), it was very easy to smuggle in alcohol through someone's window. We were like a well-trained Indy pit crew. I was the only one who was 21, so I'd go buy for everyone, pull up to a window (the screen was taken out earlier), they'd jump out, pop the trunk, whisk it inside, and I'd be off in about 10.2 seconds.

Now you know there were several bars along Broadway, right by Houck Field. I'm not saying that you necessarily wanted to go to them, but they were there.

True, I almost forgot about those.

And I'm sure you spent a few nights over at the Purple Crackle.

Ahhh yes.. picked up some mighty-fine women there. Actually, I much preferred the "White House".. were you there before they got busted?

Several of my mom's friends went there after high school, and at the time (mid-70s), SEMO was the party school.

Yeah, I'd heard the rumors about making Playboy's top-ten party college list, but I never believed them!

I had some great times down there though, most of them involving alcohol.

True dat. I'm a firm believer that life is what you make of it. A lotta people were miserable there. A lotta people hated living in South. A lotta people bitched about there never being anything to do... yeah, I like to rip on Cape, but it wasn't intolerable.

But those were some great years, 'cuz I wanted 'em to be. I met a ton of great people that I still keep in touch with, I dated a ton of girls, I drank a lot and tried some pretty cool drugs. And I didn't pay a penny doing so (made money, in fact). Yeah, life was good.

[Nic Name]

I don't think the Constitutional distribution of powers between the Congress and the State Legislatures with regard to criminal law is appropriate for the USA in the 21st century.

All Americans should be subject to the same criminal laws and punishments, whatever state they live in and regardless of the State in which any crime is committed.

That's the way it is in Canadian federalism. Whatever made sense in 1787, the equitable application of criminal law across the entire United State of America is long overdue.

There should be no regional subtleties in Criminal Law.

[Undertoad]

The contrarian viewpoint: all power should be as local as possible, because:

- it permits a wider array of personal preferences in both the law and law enforcement;

- it means that mistakes in the law, and thus damage done by it, are localized and thus smaller;

- it permits localities to be breeding grounds for policies to see how they work;

- it runs against the USian personality, in which there is a deeply independent streak and which is not so government-oriented as most of the nations of the world;

- although my state rep [was] an S.O.B., at least he's local enough that I can figure that out. For higher offices the pols are less visible and less accessible.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Nic Name
That's the way it is in Canadian federalism. Whatever made sense in 1787, the equitable application of criminal law across the entire United State of America is long overdue.

Yeah, we should try to be more like Canada. Um, OK...

That McDonald's approach to law would never be accepted in the U.S., and it would be utterly unwieldy and ridiculous. Laws in one area simply don't make sense in another.

California would surely secede if such a system were inacted. They already think they're their own country.

[Nic Name]

In Beverly Hills, shoplifting is a felony, because everything is overpriced. Ryder has two strikes ... so, in a state that bases it's Criminal Law on the rules of baseball ... one more dress out the door without paying and she's doing life for shoplifting.

Meanwhile, across the country ... neighboring states are forum shopping the accused snipers because the criminal laws vary drastically within the same trade area of the Home Depot in Falls Church.

Yeah, that's a rational criminal law system you've got in the United States.

Originally posted by Nic Name
In Beverly Hills, shoplifting is a felony, because everything is overpriced. Ryder has two strikes ... so, in a state that bases it's Criminal Law on the rules of baseball ... one more dress out the door without paying and she's doing life for shoplifting.

Nice try, but it doesn't work like that.

First of all, it is not a rule that, upon the third felony conviction, a convict go to jail for life. It is an option that the prosecution can push for. They do not have to, and they most likely would not, since she has no violent felony convictions (rape, murder, aggravated assault, burglary, etc).

Secondly, even if she did, a judge could very easily reduce the sentence to something more appropriate.

Third, it is very rare that a person is sent up on the "three strikes" law on shit like shoplifting. When it does happen, it is ALWAYS because they have been convicted of violent felonies in the past.

Personally, I am against the three strikes law because I find it to be grossly flawed. But let's not make it out to be something it's not.

[juju]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Laws in one area simply don't make sense in another.

Shouldn't justice be universal? Could you expand on this?

Originally posted by dave
First of all, it is not a rule that, upon the third felony conviction, a convict go to jail for life. It is an option that the prosecution can push for. They do not have to, and they most likely would not, since she has no violent felony convictions (rape, murder, aggravated assault, burglary, etc).

Secondly, even if she did, a judge could very easily reduce the sentence to something more appropriate.

Well, it still could happen. I for one don't feel comfortable relying on the mercy of the prosecuting attorneys. Saying they're unlikely to push for it doesn't make me feel safe at all. What if they DO decide to push for it?

Perhaps he did mischaracterize the law a bit, but I don't think that necessarily discredits his entire argument.

Also, i've just woken up from a very deep sleep. So I can only pray I didn't just say something that'll make me look incredibly stupid. :)

[Nic Name]

Nice try Dave ...

Personally, I am against the three strikes law because I find it to be grossly flawed. But let's not make it out to be something it's not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in527248.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...imep.court.tm/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1105/p01s02-usju.html

http://www.amend3strikes.org

[juju]

Hey, I have that 60 minutes II episode sitting on my hard drive right now. I have't even watched it yet! Actually, I didn't even know I had it.

Man, this tv card is cool.

Originally posted by Nic Name
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in527248.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...imep.court.tm/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1105/p01s02-usju.html

http://www.amend3strikes.org

Hey, jackass, look up the fucking law. Tell me if it applies to Winona Rider. Thanks.

Also, Andrade's prior convictions also include BURGLARY (on a NUMBER of separate occasions, by the way), which is considered to be a violent crime.

In short, eat my ass.

[juju]

Hmm.. I can't help but notice that those links say "mandatory minimum sentencing". Dave, man, I trusted you.

So just because you read it on the internet, it must be true.

I'm sure no reporter has ever fucked up some facts in his story either.

Everyone jokes about people getting their "facts" from CNN, but when it fits your side of the argument, it's A-OK.

In other words, eat my ass.

[Nic Name]

Dave, I love how pissed off you get when you're wrong.

Who's Winona Rider?

[juju]

Oh, so now you're getting your "facts" from court documents. HA! What a joke.

[Nic Name]

We're discussing the law, not the facts. Try to keep up.