• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

Kelzie said:
Liberty does not equal voting rights under any interpretation of the constitution, no matter how imaginative.

And congrats, Florida does it. Now howbout the other dozen or so states that deny ex-felons the right to vote?
Click to expand...

Umm how is voting not a civil liberty?


Here's a couple more states:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/faq.aspx
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Umm how is voting not a civil liberty?


Here's a couple more states:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/faq.aspx
Click to expand...

That would be one more state.

Reading "civil liberties" from "liberty" is a big stretch. You think ex-felons can be denied their right to free speech too? No. Because "civil liberties" wasn't meant.
 
Kelzie said:
That would be one more state.

Reading "civil liberties" from "liberty" is a big stretch. You think ex-felons can be denied their right to free speech too? No. Because "civil liberties" wasn't meant.
Click to expand...

Any liberty can be restricted with due process, once you are convicted and become a ward of the state through due process you no longer have any rights save for those which the state sees fit to grant you. And yes even core rights granted in the Bill of Rights can be restricted for criminals IE the right to bear arms. Civil liberties is precisely what was meant what do you think they meant?
 

Liberty. As in freedom. As in being in jail. And once they are no longer wards of the state, the states have no right to restrict their liberties. Paying their debt to society and all.
 
Kelzie said:
Liberty. As in freedom. As in being in jail. And once they are no longer wards of the state, the states have no right to restrict their liberties. Paying their debt to society and all.
Click to expand...

Then they would have said freedom, they said liberty, liberty is inclusive of much more than just personel freedom, and like I said jail time is just part of the debt which they have to repay. Do you think convicted felons should be allowed to purchase firearms or that convicted child molestors should be allowed to live near schools? Of course felons liberties can be restricted after they have completed their jail sentences.
 

Liberty means freedom.

As for the rest of your examples, those are logical. There is no logic behind denying criminals the right to vote.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The logic is that it's a punishment.
Click to expand...

That's not logical, seeing as they already served their punishment.
 
Kelzie said:
That's not logical, seeing as they already served their punishment.
Click to expand...

It's part of the punishment and sanction you face if you comit a felony. Should you be able to get back your voting privileges. Under some circumstances yes, but the burden is on the person to abide by all parole requirements and stay out of trouble for x years, then apply to have them reinstated.
 

Except they can't do that in all states, can they?
 
M14 Shooter said:
You will find very few pro-2nd amendment people who support felons regaining their right to arms -- if any. Straw, man.
Click to expand...

I support Felons regaining thier right to arms!

Depending on the felony.

"Imperfect" self defense, for example, should be one where you don't lose your right to bear arms. (Usually these are prosecuted as Voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter, and are punishable as class D or E Felonies (state of NC))
 
Kelzie said:
Except they can't do that in all states, can they?
Click to expand...

It's a state issue, each can do what it wants.
 
Originally posted by alphieb
Didn't Bush get a bunch of felons in Florida to rig the polls?
Click to expand...
He also brought back into government the convicts from Iran/Contra.
 
Why do Republicans keep lying to the American people? How do they live with themselves?
 
aps said:
Why do Republicans keep lying to the American people? How do they live with themselves?
Click to expand...

I don't know Aps, I'm a Republican and I sleep fine at night, well except for the fact that I have a 3 month old at home... I don't lie to the American people. Or are you not talking generally and you mean just specific Republicans?
 
aps said:
Why do Republicans keep lying to the American people? How do they live with themselves?
Click to expand...


Why are liberal smears against the good guys never accompanied by facts or evidence? :lol:
 
Want proof that Republicans are anti-crime and vice versa?

Try this:


When liberals took control of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren (the pro-criminal Supreme Court of the 60s and 70s so revered by liberals), they declared war on precedent (which only matters to them when a LIBERAL precedent has been established-as they proved in Stanford, Penry, Bowers, just to name a few) and turned our criminal justice system on its head.

Example: They made it so that police had to give a speech while arresting someone that would virtually guarantee they would never confess (Miranda). This was all based on the Justices New York County District Attorney’s office: Confessions rapidly dropped from 49% to 14% directly following the ruling.

Example: They made it so that evidence obtained “illegally” couldn’t be used to convict the suspect (Mapp) rather than suspending or firing the police officer who broke the law. The way they wrote this policy (which the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to do in the first place), instead of punishing the officer, they punish random civilians by unleashing what turned out to be hundreds of thousands (and still counting) of rapists and murderers back on society.

Example: In Brewer vs. Williams (1977), they overturned the conviction of a man (Williams) who had led police to the body of the little girl he killed, because, despite being warned by 3 lawyers and 2 officers that he had a right not to say anything, the guy confessed in full detail without an attorney present…which, by the Warren Court’s own ruling, only matters if the suspect REQUESTS AND IS DENIED a lawyer.
 
aquapub said:
Why are liberal smears against the good guys never accompanied by facts or evidence? :lol:
Click to expand...

Why are Conservative smears against the good guys never accompanied by facts or evidence?
 
Or this:



Let’s look at New York. Before 9/11, Mayor Guliani (R) was most widely known for being THE reason people could feel safe living in/around NY City again. From his impressive days as a prosecutor taking down organized crime families in the city to his mayoral days taking a tough stand against violent crime, he, more than anything or anyone else, is the reason NY City is a habitable place.

On the contrary, when Mario Cuomo (D) was running New York State, we saw criminal justice horror shows like multiple murderer, child molester, rapist, Arthur Shawcross serving only 15 years in prison, and then being released by Cuomo’s liberal parole board. Shawcross’s “dignity,” as they put it, was their primary concern. Everywhere they tried to put this guy the community would erupt in protest. So liberals decided it best to dump him in Rochester, NY without mentioning it to the community or to the police. Shawcross went on to commit 11 more murders before being captured again.
 
Or this:



Remember Ramsey Clark? He’s the Democrat who was Attorney Gereal under Johnson. He believes in rehabilitation for violent criminals. He imposed a moratorium on the death penalty. He halted all prison construction when he took over. He currently represents Saddam Hussein. Democrats…anti-criminal justice?...NOOO.
 
Or this:



Liberals outlawed the death penalty and gave rise to one of the greatest spikes in violent crime in this country’s history. When the death penalty was reinstated in the 1980s, we began what has become the most steady, significant drop in violent crime in 50 years. Most of the modernized European countries and Australia have abolished the death penalty. Their violent crime rates are astonishingly high. England’s was right up there with them until they started getting really tough on crime in the mid 1990s.
 
Hmm... Judges are Judges, they aren't members of political parties (lol).

Its called the 5th Amendment. Although alot of people know about it, there ARE some worthless shitbags on the streets who DON'T know about it, and don't understand that once arrested they can refuse to answer questions in order not to "self-incriminate" themselves. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Its the ****ing law, we are still required to operate by the law, reguardless if Police action is in the best intrests of the safety of the people. If we made laws and then decided not to abide by them, what ****ing good are the laws? And what kind of nation does that really make us? (Oh wait, Bush is doing this now with his Signing statements, but thats another issue entirely)

Its called the 4th Amendment. Not much more to say on this one but the same thing I said above, we made rules for a reason, not so we can run over top of them and only abide by them "when we want to". Thats what fascists do.

Now, this one really pisses me off. This is a HUGE technicality, and this guy shouldn't have gotten off. But guess what? **** like this happens in EVERY Era of the supreme court. This isn't a huge "landmark" example of Liberals siding with criminals, because not just liberals side with criminals when we have specific laws stating as such.

All of your examples are Liberals actually following the friggin' Bill of Rights instead of allowing Police to trample all over it in the name of "the safety of the people".
There are those who would rather have thier rights and be a little less safe, and there are those who are so scared shitless of life that they want the government to rule supreme over them so they can feel safe. You are the latter, I am the former.

As a cop, I understand its annoying as hell doing our job with all these little bits of law we have to make sure we stick to before we can arrest someone. But I understand the importance of it, and WHY we have to do it, and it doesn't bother me. I'd rather be sticking with the laws that we have now then busting into anyones house I feel like, and doing what I feel like, when I feel like it because I am the almight police. **** that, leave that **** for Russia or Hitler's Germany.
 

Again, I'm all for the Death Penalty, so I can't really debate with you on that one.

When it comes to stuff like being tough on crime, I'd say im more conservative, but not to the wacko point where I want the government to trample on my rights in order to get the job done.

This is one form of punishment I wish they would use more, and more often. And the damned appeals should be quicker too, so it doesn't take them 20 years to kill someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…