• 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?

aquapub said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some criminals can be rehabilitated.
"Violent" criminals? Not so sure.
But others can be.
So, him halting "prison construction" isn't completely tied to his rehab for "violent" criminals, cause non-violent criminals end up in prison too, and rehabilitation is our only hope for cutting down on crime.
I don't know about you, but being as your the "biggest fascist on the forum", I'd bet that you think we should keep building prisons and locking people away forever instead of letting them out when their time is up and putting them on a correctional program. With that said, we would eventually have to turn Alaska into one big prison camp.
Anyways, hiim representing Saddam sucks, its probably just a publicity stunt or something, you know how stupid people can be.
I mean, Brittney Spears was crying about the Paparazzi stalking her and complaining about getting too much attention, now she poses nude on a magazine cover. Its an example of how people will do anything for publicity.
 
aquapub said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm..... Not sure exactly how much control Mr. Cuomo actually had over the decision to grant parole in this situation so Im not exactly sure that he is to blame.

It is sad that 11 more murders happened because some idiots decided to let free a killer. Exactly why the Death Penalty should be used more often.
 
Caine said:
Hmmmm..... Not sure exactly how much control Mr. Cuomo actually had over the decision to grant parole in this situation so Im not exactly sure that he is to blame.
Click to expand...

Cuomo was a liberal Democrat who appointed a very liberal parole board. If New York hadn't elected this Democrat, a sane parole board would likely have been appointed.

His culpability is direct and thorough.
 
Originally posted by aquapub:
Have you contracted Bill Clinton's disease?

"Define, "the."'
Click to expand...
Just answer the question! [that is, of coarse, if you know the answer]

What is a criminal?
Click to expand...
 
Caine said:
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
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that it's not the law. I'm arguing that:

1) laws should be made by Congress, not the Supreme Court-according to the Constitution.

2) either way, Miranda warnings should not have been made a law. Ignorance of the law is the problem of those who won't walk into a public library and educate themselves or graduate high school.

No children should have to be molested; no women should have to be raped; no one should have to die...just because the police didn't explain basic American legal concepts (which is the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL to know) to a violent criminal to make sure he avoids confessing.

I think Miranda should be overturned so we can start using the ignorance of pedophiles and murderers against them...like we do in a hundred other ways already.

BTW, I'm still waiting for liberals to find that example they've been so frantically searching for (for years) of a person who was wrongly executed.
 
Billo_Really said:
Just answer the question! [that is, of coarse, if you know the answer]
Click to expand...


You want to play games, do it on your own time. I'll wait for you to make a point, and until then, don't expect me to play along.
 
Originally posted by aquapub:
You want to play games, do it on your own time. I'll wait for you to make a point, and until then, don't expect me to play along.
Click to expand...
Either you don't know or you're just too ***** to answer.

My point will follow your answer.
 
Need more examples of liberals being the criminal lobby?


In 1992 a bunch of 9th circuit judges appointed by Jimmy Carter (D) repeatedly granted stays of execution for a man who killed two 16-year-old boys, even after the Supreme Court ordered them to cease with “these abusive delays.” After granting 4 stays halfway through each execution (cruel and unusual?) these textbook activist judges finally relented and the savage was given a lethal injection.
 
Check this one out:


In 2001, Lionel Tate beat a girl to death so fiercely that her skull was cracked open and her liver was cut in half. The jury didn’t buy the “imitating wrestling moves” defense, and this psycho was sentenced to life without parole. Democrats in the Florida State legislature immediately erupted in protest, but liberal judges appointed by other Democrats earlier would reduce his sentence to time served, and release him on the public.

Within a year, Tate was rearrested for armed robbery.
 
You know what? There IS an example of liberals standing up against criminals. In 1992, just after a series of national polls came out showing that Bill Clinton was suffering with public opinion over crime, he promptly flew back to Arkansas and railroaded a retard to the gas chamber (Ricky Ray Recktor). Although Democrats (and Bill Clinton himself) had earlier come out against using the death penalty on slow people (and just about every other kind of person), they were all willing to look the other way and pretend, just this once, that they give a rat’s rectum about criminal justice.
 
Oh, and here's another great example:


Bill Clinton appointed one of Jimmy Carter’s most embarrassing district court appointments to a federal judgeship, H. Lee Sarokin, who ruled that a creepy, filthy, stalker-bum had a 1st Amendment right to stare at and follow around women and children in public libraries without being removed. Can anyone explain what in the hell this even has to do with the Amendment that protects us against federal violations of our right to free political and religious speech? This is a perfect example of why we call liberals constitutionally illiterate.

This judge was also known for baselessly, frivolously over-turning legitimate jury verdicts (which he had ZERO authority to do) to set free horrific murderers like Billie Bailey, William Henry Flamer, and Rubin Carter.
 
Here's another:



Bill Clinton appointed lunatic hippy judge, Rosemary Barkett to a federal appeals position. This woman voted to overturn the conviction of a psychotic racist butcher who killed an 18-year-old kid slowly and mailed a tape of the whole thing to the kid’s mother and to the media. Based on? She thought this psychotic black man was an “otherwise good person” expressing rage at a racist society. “This is not simply a homicide case.” It is a “social awareness case.” Said the liberal judge.

With Democrats in control of Congress, this enemy of criminal justice was confirmed 61-37 to the 11th Circuit.
 
Republicans want to build more prisons, mandatory minimum sentences (like Jessica’s Law, Meagan’s Law, both of which liberals oppose), 3-strikes laws, and the death penalty. Liberals oppose all of this.

Their solution when they were running things? Bring all prison construction to a screeching halt, give $40 million to midnight basketball leagues, $650 million to positive attitude programs, and $1.8 billion for the Violence Against Women Act. Translation: the system is the problem, so hold no one accountable. Abandon concerns for “vindictive, barbaric punishments like long sentences and the death penalty” and “reach out” to minorities and violent crime will go down.

The only problem with this? The evidence shows that violent crime skyrockets under these lunatic, anti-justice policies.
 
aquapub,

I am against the death penalty and you did not answer my question.

What is a criminal?
 
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060125/NEWS01/601250313/1009&theme

I just want to say that his release has so many conditions that, while may not seem much to most people, are a ton of work for him. He has to get treatment, which many people believe will actually you know, not make him want to molest anymore. Guess what, prison doesn't do that...it doesn't correct mentality and can even create worse mental conditions.

"He called Hulett a dangerous man, one far likelier to offend again than Corrections determined. A long prison sentence during which Hulett would receive no treatment could create an even more dangerous person after his release, Cashman said. "

"Corrections' refusal to offer Hulett counseling in prison forced Cashman to decide between prison and treatment, the judge said. Cashman said his priority -- the only way to protect the public -- was to get Hulett into treatment soon. The only way that could happen was outside prison, the judge reasoned."

That is why...this was not some snap judgement, but a long drawn out deliberation by the judge who wanted treatment and rehabilitation instead of just straight vengeance.
 
aquapub said:
“reach out” to minorities and violent crime will go down.
Click to expand...
You don't agree with this statement?

Well, I think we should substitute "minorities" with "communities" and it fits.

Why do you think policing have made the change to just charging people with crimes, to "Community Policing"?

Not only do police charge crimes and all that good stuff, but they try to get involved with communities to help people help themselves and stay away from crime.
 
Caine said:
1) You don't agree with this statement?

Not only do police charge crimes and all that good stuff, but they try to get involved with communities to help people help themselves and stay away from crime.
Click to expand...


Individual responsibility.

When we tried to "reach out" to minorities (which translated into setting a bunch of 1st Degree murderers and pedophiles free, reversing the death penalty, fabricating ways to make legitimate evidence inadmissable, calling violent crimes "expressions of rage" against a racist society, and shifting our priority to building criminals' self-esteem rather than punishing them and removing them from society) under liberals in the 1960s and 1970s, we experienced one of the most collossal, sustained spikes in violent crimes in our history.

Making excuses for people who are damaged goods only gets more innocent people hurt.

Since our rules are no longer established democratically and are handed down to us by an unelected, unaccountable oligarchy of judges (which is the exact opposite of what the founders expressly intended), it is of paramount importance for the public good that we do not put anymore people in power who will give us another liberal Supreme Court to trample criminal justice in this country.
 
2 more examples of violent criminals needlessly released (and treated like a damn hero) by liberals on society to commit more atrocities are:

-Dennis Dechaine
-Willie Horton.
 
Excuse me, but what does this thread have to do with separation of powers?

Perhaps, if I could had read a few more paragraphs of the original post, I would see the relation to separation of powers. But the sheer, ridiculous ignorance of the post forced me to stop reading.

My eyes are hurting now. I'll get some relief by washing them out in clorox.
 
Originally Posted by aquapub
2 more examples of violent criminals needlessly released (and treated like a damn hero) by liberals on society to commit more atrocities are:

-Dennis Dechaine
-Willie Horton.
Click to expand...
Why do you give examples of something you cannot define?

I'll ask you again, "What is a criminal?"
 
Billo_Really said:
Why do you give examples of something you cannot define?

I'll ask you again, "What is a criminal?"
Click to expand...

Criminal is someone who breaks the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom