Harsher Sentences for Crimes?


Gary Fisher

Recommended Posts

The recent outbreak of lawlessness in Ferguson got me thinking about appropriate punishments for crimes. I remember a case about three Muslim girls in England who beat up another girl (not a muslim) after getting drunk, and the judge either suspended their sentences or gave them lighter sentences (I forget exactly which) on the basis that, since they are muslim, they couldn't have understood the consequences of drinking alcohol. There are similar cases all across America as well, and many people have argued that minorities and the very poor should be given lighter sentences in order to counteract the "discrimination" they face in the legal system.

So here's my proposal. In order to counter this miscarriage of justice, and since we will likely never be able to convince the leftists in this country that all people should be treated equally before the law, we should make it so that, when minorities and the poor are found to be actually guilty, then they should face harsher sentences in order to prevent them from piggy-backing off of actual victims of discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just dumb.

The judge however made an error in sentencing.

"Because they were muslim the are not accountable for their actions after drinking?" So it is now ok for a drunken muslim to get behind the wheel and plié into a schoolbus full of kids because muslims can't be held accountable for their actions while drunk? Utter bullshit. The law needs to be applied equally to everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary wrote:

. . . . when minorities and the poor are found to be actually guilty, then they should face harsher sentences in order to prevent them from piggy-backing off of actual victims of discrimination.

end quote

I am sure that was said zestfully though jest-fully. Sentencing should be color blind, unlike traditional, and misnamed, mob justice.

However, people in the 50 to 70 IQ range which is in the normal range for some minorities, need more supervision. Simply understanding instructions is a problem for them. Remember Hurricane Katrina? A lack of private transportation is a factor for the minority's debacle there but the authorities repeatedly told everyone to evacuate, provided cab and bus service if needed, etc. Yet some old folks and thousands of black people did not leave. Though in much of New Orleans black people may be in the majority, so I wont call them a minority in this instance.

With that example in mind everyone must be aware that the police in Beverly Hills and the police in Watts California, though a mile apart, face different challenges. Spend one day in a squad car (if only on the show Cops) in each district to verify that assertion. Due to physical abilities a strong case can be made to ONLY have blacks police blacks, because it would not require multiple white, Asian, or Hispanic cops to take down one belligerent black man. I suggest doubters look up some statistics about physical abilities before protesting. Or watch Monday Night Football or the NBA. There will be more uses of lethal force if a cop is less strong than the perpetrator and rioter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you're thinking: 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you're thinking: 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?

Yeah, I heard that was what President O'bama said to ISIS oops, maybe it was the Tea Party he said that too.

Nevermind,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Gary, who appears to be ignoring the millions of instances where being rich makes you innocent-

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13956&hl=

And for Peter-

Man, I'm actually taking offense, that's sounds fairly racist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for Peter-

Man, I'm actually taking offense, that's sounds fairly racist

Yeah. Stick around, maybe he will call Angela (a German) a Nazi again. In this thread he is pretending to be clear and succinct and realist. I just get racial prejudice under a translucent mask. Like this: "people in the 50 to 70 IQ range which is in the normal range for some minorities."

What a jerk. I just needed those last two posts of his to remember why I have him on my ignore list.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's my proposal. In order to counter this miscarriage of justice, and since we will likely never be able to convince the leftists in this country that all people should be treated equally before the law, we should make it so that, when minorities and the poor are found to be actually guilty, then they should face harsher sentences in order to prevent them from piggy-backing off of actual victims of discrimination.

Are you for real, or is this just some fine-netted trolling? You remind me of somebody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek wrote:

And for Peter- Man, I'm actually taking offense, that's sounds fairly racist.

end quote

Consider it this way Derek. Candor and completely verbalized thinking is my goal. I want to get to the truth of the matter. Half jokingly, anything outside of a private teachers meeting or a teachers college, or a discussion by geneticists, or experts in IQ, the Police Academy or the daily squad room briefing . . . or in a discussion about this incident on Objectivist living or other forums . . . well, the discussion should not be taking place without beer being served to everyone doing the discussing. Complete candor and civility is required for the truth to be named but deliberately making someone mad is not called for.

Some callous remarks were expressed by me, in a push back fashion. My manner of writing is in response to the propagandizing in the media, and the personal, incendiary comments from day one of this incident until the funeral, and will continue up until the November 2014 election, because to the agitators and the Democrat, Progressive, neo communists (without mentioning the disgraced Marx) this is not about justice it is about the election and scoring emotional points. The message from Sharpton and others is about revenge and mob injustice.

Even columns in my local paper have expressed race baiting. On TV, not one interviewed person from Ferguson wants to discuss the truth. Their minds are made up and the truth be damned. The evidence be damned. Final conclusions from the investigation be damned. Emotion and stupidity trumps everything. Yet, I noticed that the youngish outside agitators filmed were all white and looked like the frizzy haired radicals from the 1960's. Does that mean anything? Yes, it means this fits their agenda too.

Have any witnesses interviewed by the police, Department of Justice, and the FBI felt intimidated by the local mob mentality? Of course. From the leaked online shots of the victim we can assume he was a member of The Bloods street gang. Are The Bloods known for intimidating witnesses? Of course, and they have done so to at least three witnesses that I have noticed who have similar eye witness accounts. But behind doors and with public anonymity the truth will emerge. Perhaps an FBI gang task force can be assigned to eradicate the roaches too. You didnt here it from me, but you know what happened, agents Moldier and Scowly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But behind doors and with public anonymity the truth will emerge. Perhaps an FBI gang task force can be assigned to eradicate the roaches too.

This ain't your Jimmy Stewart FBI Peter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joan Rivers is reported to be near death. I wish her well. She wrote:

Ignore aging: Comedy is the one place it doesnt matter. It matters in singing because the voice goes. It matters certainly in acting because youre no longer the sexpot. But in comedy, if you can tell a joke, they will gather around your deathbed. If youre funny, youre funny. Isnt that wonderful?

end quote

Michael wrote about my comments:

I think that was an apology from Peter and an explanation of suffering from rhetorical excess... (scratching head) Yeah... I think that's what it was...

end quote

I suppose it was Michael. Derek, I sincerely doubt I would have spoken in that Ann Coulter manner in person. In person I never deliberately cause ripples, name call, discriminate, or try to be crude, but the internet is a way for me to polemicize and spout off against the things I view as wrong.

Ayn Rand described racism in this way: . . . . It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a mans genetic lineage . . . .

end quote

Am I being racist if I say there are differences in the statistical, genetic content of a racial or ethnic group but that prevalence should not be automatically ascribed to an individual? I dont think so. Everyone views everyone else in this way: are they the same as me or different from me? We are born that way. Differences in race, age, sex, mood, sanity, threat risk, likeability, etc., are instantly noted. At the online Ebony site blacks discuss their own prejudices against blacks, as with darker skin color.

New Yorks stop and frisk law is a good example of a way to stop crime and be safe. More minorities are frisked. The police are more suspicious of minorities for the obvious reason that they are right to do so. If a cop profiles based on race, that is being a good cop. Putting a plan into affect to discriminate would certainly NOT BE racism. Still, all men and women should be seen as equal under the law.

Is it possible to deal with people without considering their race or ethnicity? The solution is to treat everyone as an individual which is exactly what affirmative action does NOT do. The recent shooting of a white youth by a black cop created no ripples in the sea of racial news and politics. Tell the Press, and the progressive, commie, race baiting machine to drop the subject, and I am sure they will call you a racist.

Here are some excerpts from Ann Coulters column about using a persons race as a reason to hire them. The whole column and others can be found at the internet site, Townhall. From Townhall:

Would it Kill You to Hire More Black Cops? (Yes)

Ann Coulter | Aug 27, 2014

In a massive, detailed 2000 study of the effect of court-ordered affirmative action plans on police departments, economist John Lott found that the more minorities on a police force, the higher the rates of murder, manslaughter, violent crime, robbery and aggravated assault will be. Violent crime increased by a minimum of 3.3 percent every year after affirmative action policies went into effect -- and the spike in crime was highest in black neighborhoods.

The problem was not with black cops, Lott's study showed, but rather with the lowering of standards across the board, resulting in less-qualified officers of every race. To get more of MSNBC's "voices of oppression" on police forces, requirements are reduced for all recruits. (Just as quality declined at MSNBC when "voices of oppression" had to be added to their lineup.)

We end up with cops who are criminals, the Rampart scandal of the 1990s and great movies like "Training Day."

About a decade into a federal consent decree requiring the Los Angeles Police Department to hire more minority officers, the LAPD'S Rampart division was employing gang members in uniforms . . . . By the time of the Rampart scandal, two dozen black police officers in Los Angeles were suspected of gang activity. Most were forced out. Four officers were proved to have been engaging in criminal acts -- including a bank robbery and an attempted murder. All were black and Hispanic. (Let's call them "officers of oppression.") . . . . As a top official with the LAPD told Golab, "This is not an LAPD problem; this is a black problem."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek, I am very interested in your position on affirmative action, so please do come back and share.

Regarding the Ann Coulter article, I would argue that the approach to hiring more black police officers was wrong. Why lower recruit standards? Obviously, you're going to get less qualified candidates. There must be lots of other alternatives, or perhaps a combination of alternatives that might have been employed. Increase salaries? Widen the geographical area where candidates are recruited? Recruit from other professions or from the military?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Seems that OL is nuanced enough to actually argue/discuss/converse/debate the state of race in our country...

Affirmative action is certainly debatable.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now