The Shotgun Blog
« Liberalism leads to poverty?!? | Main | French Intifada »
Monday, November 26, 2007
Judicial Arrogance: Gomery Whines about Mandatory Minimums
The man who Paul Martin hand-picked to bring down his own government, Justice John Gomery, has chosen to become the voice of the Judiciary in Canada against PM Stephen Harper's new crime bill. Officially retired since August, Gomery obviously feels free to speak his mind - and, in his opinion, the mind of most of Canada's judges - regarding the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences in Conservative legislation. From Richard Foot, CanWest News Service, "Judges resent 'implied criticism' of minimum sentences: Gomery" :
"This legislation basically shows a mistrust of the judiciary to impose proper sentences when people come before them," says Gomery.
Yes, sir, that would be correct. Judges have been shown time-and-time-again to go out of their way to avoid penalizing criminals - particularly the louses involved in the despicable Restorative Justice movement.
"Judges view this kind of legislation as a slap in the face."
And a well-deserved one, at that.
Gomery, who retired from the Quebec Superior Court after wrapping up the sponsorship inquiry in 2006, says judges are unhappy about this and other legislation that suggest a failure on their part to impose proper sentences. "Judges find that it's an implied criticism when Parliament imposes mandatory sentences," Gomery says. "It leaves the impression that judges aren't using their discretion wisely or in accordance with the wishes of the legislature. And judges are resentful about that."
How, exactly, does a man with such a weak grasp of elementary logic become a respected Judge? Sir: laws are made by the legislature. Judges must implement those laws. If judges won't implement those laws by applying reasonable penalties, then they are deliberately undermining the legislature, so the legislature MUST mandate specific sentences. But wait...a speck of logic creeps in...
Gomery admits that mandatory sentences will relieve judges from what he calls the "agonizing" task of choosing an appropriate sentence. "Most judges who sit on criminal matters would say sentencing is the hardest part of their job," he says. "But if Parliament has said, 'You've got to give this guy five years,' then you shrug your shoulders and obey the law and sentence them, even if you feel it's unnecessarily harsh.
Now we've gotten somewhere. Way to go, Gomery, you're absolutely right! IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER A LEGISLATED PENALTY IS TOO HARSH! Congratulations, John. Uh oh...he concludes:
"Still, my own personal view is that it's a mistake to take away discretion from judges," says Gomery.
In other words: Judges know it's wrong, but they still want to retain the right to override legislation at their every whim.
Arrogance.
Posted by Neil Flagg on November 26, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fa226488834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judicial Arrogance: Gomery Whines about Mandatory Minimums:
Comments
Arrogance.
Posted by Neil Flagg on November 26, 2007 |
It's pretty arrogant by the legislature to define sentences, there is after all a seperation between the people who make the laws, the ones who enforce the laws and the ones who judge according to the laws.
That you seem to fail to grasp this is telling.
Minimum sentencing has not proven to be effective in "scaring people into behaving good" or not committing any crime. The death penalty in the US has not ended murder or violence, so what makes you think that minimum sentences in Canada will prevent the crimes they impose them on?
Organized Crime is a business, if the risk outweight the benefits then they either adjust the benefits (e.g. jack up the prices) or they stop doing it. What do you think is more likely?
The problem with crime is that the laws of the open market don't apply, people cannot go to another store to get their goods for less because there is only one supplier, essentially the Government is createing a monopoly.
With minimum sentencing take a guess who are the ones they are going to scoop up, the big operations or the small ones? Chances are pretty good it ain't going to be the big ones.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-26 10:56:38 PM
Yes let's have unelected elitists dictating how our society deals with it's monsters.
That should work just fine.
It is the job of government to figure out how best to protect it's citizens from one another. It is the judges job to enforce those decisions.
Got that yellow snow guy?
Posted by: John | 2007-11-26 11:06:21 PM
He sounds pretty thick between the ears, it's no surprise the Liberals made him their patsy - he's not bright enough to figure out which Liberals stole $40 million dollars from Canadians.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-11-26 11:27:04 PM
If they had not abused their discretion, then there would be no need. The bottom line is that the majority of Canadians are more than fed up with judicial activism.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-26 11:33:32 PM
RESPECTED?
How on earth could you call "Justice" Gomery respected? Let's examine the evidence all Canadians know of:
1. He was responsible for implementing the CD-R 'levy', when it was obviously clear that the legislation was written specifically for cassette tapes and every legitimate use of the cassette was exempted from the levy. He ignored this, and contrary to the will of Parliament, did what the Heritage Minister wanted by vastly expanding the scope of what was legitimately leviable.
2. He was instructed by Paul Martin to whitewash him, and blame everything on Jean Chretien. Mission accomplished.
The guy is a pawn for the Liberal party. I have more respect for exotic dancers.
Posted by: John SKillman | 2007-11-27 12:51:21 AM
1. He was responsible for implementing the CD-R 'levy', when it was obviously clear that the legislation was written specifically for cassette tapes and every legitimate use of the cassette was exempted from the levy. He ignored this, and contrary to the will of Parliament, did what the Heritage Minister wanted by vastly expanding the scope of what was legitimately leviable.
Posted by: John SKillman | 27-Nov-07 12:51:21 AM
On the plus side though, the levy has prevented the CRIA to sue anybody in Canada for downloading. In fact the levy has been proven so successful in preventing lawsuits that the CRIA now tries to get it overturned so that they actually can sue.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 2:08:52 AM
Yes let's have unelected elitists dictating how our society deals with it's monsters.
That should work just fine.
Posted by: John | 26-Nov-07 11:06:21 PM
Since when are pot growers "Monster"? The latest round of minimum sentences is based on the current proposal when it comes to pot growers and drug traffickers, none of which will do anything from deterring people from buying or selling this stuff.
-------------------
It is the job of government to figure out how best to protect it's citizens from one another. It is the judges job to enforce those decisions.
Got that yellow snow guy?
Posted by: John | 26-Nov-07 11:06:21 PM
Oh, someone has taken Facism 101 instead of Civil Education 101.
The Governments role is not to protect citizens from each other, if that would be the case they could just all drug us up and throw us in a cell, for our own "safety". The Governments job is to enable it's citizens to go through their daily lifes within certain guidelines that everybody has agreed on. The Police, in a non facist state, is not an arm of the Government, but an independent body. Likewise, the only places where Judges work for the Government are totalitarian Regimes in which the Judges do the bidding of those in power.
Of course your sentiment towards this shouldn't surprise, considering that you fall right in line with all the other people here who loudly shout about freedom and democracy and then turn around and want to establish a police state and an iron-grip like Government.
Sorry John, you FAIL.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 2:14:29 AM
If they had not abused their discretion, then there would be no need. The bottom line is that the majority of Canadians are more than fed up with judicial activism.
Posted by: Alain | 26-Nov-07 11:33:32 PM
Funny I wouldn't want to be a judge, simply because it is a thanklessw job. Judges do have discretion and they do use it, but blanket statements like these are pure hyperbowl.
Maybe you should try to be a Judge some time and let us know how easy of a job it is. I bet just like Epsi when it comes to growing food you go "1, 2, 3, 4, see how easy it is?" Without ever having made your hands dirty.
As you are so keen on "Judical Activism", got an example of that?
You guys are a piece of work.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 2:18:36 AM
Gomery's critique is what's telling. It tells us the government is on the right track and doing it's job to protect the citizens. It tells us they think they're above criticism, all-knowing arrogance from their lofty perches.
The Legal/Justice system has failed us time and again, making mockery of a civilized society.
All too often we've seen the perpetrators of crimes get a second chance to re-offend, their victims getting the short end, justice denied.
It's up to our elected officials to make the laws, our Judiciary to interpret and apply them.
Trudeau's Charter has been a real play toy for them.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-27 6:53:00 AM
There's an ex RCMP officer who shot and unintentionally killed a guy in holding cells. Was convicted of manslaughter with no minimum sentence. BUT he used a gun so must serve a minimum sentence of 4 yrs according to the legislation.
So here is a man who, due to his former occupation, must serve 4 yrs in solitary confinement . A man who had to carry a gun as part of his job.
Compare his sentence to someone who is convicted of manslaughter but chose to carry a gun that day and will now serve 4 yrs in general population.
Exactly the same crime -one could argue the RCMP was less a crime because he didn't chose to carry a gun - and the RCMP serves a harsher sentence - all thanks to the fact the legislature took away judicial discretion and imposed a mandatory minimum.
Posted by: Nbob | 2007-11-27 7:11:46 AM
Nbob,
Would this be the RCMP officer who unintentionally shot the victim a couple of times in the abdomen and then through the head?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-27 7:17:10 AM
Nbob: if there was an injustice done in such a case, let it be undone. But where are the details? Link to the details please, lest we believe this is just propaganda.
Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-11-27 7:17:51 AM
The minimum sentencing is a joke anyway. One year for selling drugs? If you really want to put a dent in the drug trade, make it a minimum of ten years for growing or selling the stuff! Not this panty waist 1 year or 2 years minimum. What a farce!
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-27 8:32:14 AM
Ten years for growing or selling weed ?
This is not Turkey, Markalta.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-27 8:46:10 AM
Markalta ~
Now you've really stepped in it, encroaching on Mark's favourite pastime. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 8:57:52 AM
marc: You do understand the term illegal? If you prefer to limit real penalties to non-marijuana drugs, what about hash? It's not so bad, eh? And, oh yeah, exctasy, I hear the kids really like that one too. Hardly anyone dies from that.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-27 9:26:13 AM
The pro-legalization crowd misses the obvious point that Markalta touches on: if pot becomes legal, then the dealers will simply spend their time pushing more Ecstacy, hashish, heroin, cocaine, etc. The dealers, the crime, the destruction, won't magically vanish!
Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-11-27 9:40:33 AM
Feel-Good story of the day, despite what some Canadian Leftoid judges might say:
"Pistol-Packing Grandma Stops Would-Be Burglars"
CARTHAGE, Missouri — A 63-year-old grandmother with a handgun stopped two burglars at her backdoor in Carthage.
The Jasper County Sheriff's Department said a woman and a 16-year-old boy were arrested after the foiled break-in Friday and charged with first-degree burglary.
The grandmother was at home with her grandchild when the burglars broke down her back door.
She grabbed a handgun and stopped the pair, but they ran away when the woman went back inside to call the sheriff's department.
Deputies arrested the suspects about three hours later in Carthage.
Lt. Aaron Richardson of the sheriff's department said first-degree burglary charges have been filed against Faith Barrick, 39, of Carthage, and a 16-year-old male accomplice.
PITY SHE DIDN'T JUST shoot them dead. They certainly deserved it.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 9:46:05 AM
And to follow up:
"Hip shot deters charging grizzly"
"It was just a monster bear". It happened as fast as Vic Workman could say, “Whoa bear, whoa bear, whoa!” And with that, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks commissioner from Whitefish unleashed a hip shot at a large, charging grizzly bear with his .300 caliber short magnum rifle Sunday morning. “He was about 10 feet away,” Workman recalled Monday. “He was coming directly at me. Either the shot or the impact made him veer to his right and he veered about five feet to my left.” The bear kept on running and hasn’t been seen since.
WOW! IT'S A good thing guns aren't outlawed - and the commissioner had good gun control!
ONE QUESTION:
Why didn't he just try negotiating with the bear?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 9:56:29 AM
The pro-legalization crowd misses the obvious point that Markalta touches on: if pot becomes legal, then the dealers will simply spend their time pushing more Ecstacy, hashish, heroin, cocaine, etc. The dealers, the crime, the destruction, won't magically vanish!
Posted by: Neil Flagg | 27-Nov-07 9:40:33 AM
If the danger / penalty is the same for all the drugs then why would a dealer risk anything for a low(er) profit weed? They could just go and push the harder drugs, with the same risk, for more profit.
You can turn this argument around as you want, it's not even about legalization of Drugs in this case, it's about the question if minimum sentencing would actually have an effect on the drug trade, just have a look at south of the border and tell me how their War on Drugs (both internally and externally) is going.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 9:57:02 AM
ONE QUESTION:
Why didn't he just try negotiating with the bear?
Posted by: obc | 27-Nov-07 9:56:29 AM
ONE QUESTiON:
Do you have to practice hard to be that dense or does it come natural?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 9:59:04 AM
I think I'll order myself a Taser off the Internet.
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-11-27 10:06:05 AM
*
Justice? Give your head a shake.
--
"In 2006, Steele was charged with unrelated drugs and gun charges from evidence based largely on the phone taps. He served four months of a six-month sentence after pleading guilty in February 2007."
*
Posted by: neo | 2007-11-27 11:09:27 AM
Yellow Snow is oh, so smug witty!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 11:28:00 AM
Watch out where the doggies go....
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-27 11:36:19 AM
Actually--I must correct myself--watch out where teh HUSKIES go....
http://oxypoet.blogspot.com/2006/12/watch-out-where-huskies-go.html
And talking about the man Franck Zappa--you have to listen to the following debate
Frank Zappa--what a man--too bad he is not around anymore:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc&feature=related
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-27 11:58:57 AM
Bob Tarantino has the goods as well:
http://bobtarantino.blogs.com/blog/sentencing/index.html
Posted by: James Goneaux | 2007-11-27 12:56:59 PM
James: Thanks for that link. These judges need to be removed from the bench and replaced with someone willing to do the job properly! Who appoints these retards?
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-27 1:21:06 PM
Markalta,
For countries like the States and Canada who's participing directly in the illegal drug industry around the world, I don't want to see us taxe payers to pay more and more for the collateral problems - again.
By the way, stop sticking to the "legal" part because our country is already one of the biggest cobaye and consumer of new "legal" drugs witch is far worst for our health.
If you're inna bad mood, don't take your prozac and call me, I'll make you some of my best jazzy cookies 100% bio ;-.
Mark,
upgrading the jail sentences won't reduce the number of drug users - so as the sellers and producers. If history had learn us something...
I don't want to pay more taxes for drugs related criminals witch will be replaced anyway.
It's only more money for the government.
Fuck off.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-27 2:38:24 PM
a quote from the Zappa link given by Lady ... a comment about National Defense (at 10:10 or so)
"the biggest threat to America today is not Communism ... its moving America toward a fascist theocracy and everything that's happened during the Reagan administration is steering us right down that pipe."
This disbelief of the commentators is hilarious considering how right he was ... mainstream America has continued on right down that same pipe.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-11-27 2:40:38 PM
"Now you've really stepped in it, encroaching on Mark's favourite pastime. :)"
Well said.
(Witch by the way is a better pastime than to hate daily the entire planet onna blog. At least, I'm not a frustrated old man with no life at all).
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-27 2:51:34 PM
In response to the discussion between NBob and Speller regarding the RCMP officer shooting a prisoner in cells I must make some comments. The prisoner was intoxicated and had been involved in a series of violent incidents that evening, winding up at the local hospital to check on a friend who had been beaten up and taken to hospital. While there he created such a disturbance that the RCMP were called. The officer was alone on duty that night. The "drunk" refused to quiet down or leave so the officer put him under arrest for public drunkenness, handcuffed him and placed him in the back of his cruiser. He went back into the hospital to confirm that all was well there. When he came back to the cruiser the prisoner had kicked out and broken windows, bent a rear door, and was partly out of the vehicle. On the drive to the police station the prisoner several times said he would kill the policeman. At the police station, other than two in cells for drunkenness, the only other person was an elderly warden/janitor. After booking in the prisoner, as per standard procedure, his handcuffs were removed, the warden unlocked a cell, then left to the booking area with the prisoner and policeman in the cell. With a lapse of time of only seconds the warden heard two rapid shots. On returning toward the cell he met the policeman, with flak jacket pulled up and over his head saying something like "I had to shoot him". The policeman said the prisoner had jumped him, pulled up his vest,went for his gun, and had the barrel pointed towards him. In the stress of the moment not everything is clear to the policeman but he said he reverted to training he had been given to save his own life. He regained control of the gun and fired two shots. one caused a relatively minor flesh wound to the abdomen area and the other struck the prisoner in the head. After two hung jury trials, the jury on the third trial decided to convict the policeman on the lesser charge of manslaughter apparently on the grounds that the second shot was not necessary.
The judge in that trial decided that a constitutional exemption should apply in this case because of the cruel and unusual punishment of an RCMP officer being incarcerated with a prisoner population that would be out to get him every day of his timein prison. After that exemption was denied by the Alberta Provincial Court of Appeal an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was made about two weeks ago. A decision is pending.
I would appeal to commenters such as Speller to keep their ill informed biases to themselves.
In the interests of full disclosure I attended a goodly portion of all three trials because I know and greatly respect the ex RCMP officer. He is my niece's husband.
Posted by: Bob Wood | 2007-11-27 3:03:24 PM
marc: First of all thanks for your profanity. Sorry that I hit such a nerve for you, but I see everyday the results of drugs and I have had enough. Crystal meth, cocaine, etc. do too much damage.
I agree we are not Turkey. However, we should start handing out sentences which will be a deterrent to thugs and losers who sell this crap! If you have nothing better to do than worry over your stash, well you need a different hobby.
Spend more time following the Habs. that's a much more healthy pastime!
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-27 3:25:08 PM
I agree we are not Turkey. However, we should start handing out sentences which will be a deterrent to thugs and losers who sell this crap!
Posted by: Markalta | 27-Nov-07 3:25:08 PM
And by what amount of sentencing would this be? The DEATH penalty hasn't stopped murder form occuring, so what do you propose? To make drug trafficking and grow-ops a history in Canada?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 3:50:36 PM
Snowrunner: I'm afraid you are very wrong. Name me one executed person who ever killed someone!
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-11-27 3:58:44 PM
Neil -
Here's a summary of the Ferguson case at the Court of Appeal.
http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/Featured-Court-Rulings/R.-v.-Ferguson--Cruel-and-Unusual-Punishment--and-Constitutional-Exemptions.php
The trial judge thought a fit sentence, in all the circumstances, was no prison but 2 yrs community service and 500 hours community service. The CoA , though sympathetic, said a minimum sentence is a minimum sentence and over ruled the trial judge.
Minimum sentences are wrong because they only address half the equation of "just" punishment. What's worse is they make the second half of the equation almost impossible to calculate which brings much injustice to the justice system.
Since the days of Plato western systems of justice have followed the principle - " the punishment must fit the crime AND must fit the offender" . Limiting the "fit" of the crime also limits the " fit" to the offender and people like Ferguson serve more time than the trial judge thought fit.
Ferguson is not unique - something like it occurs all too regularly.
HEY KIDS !!!! Here's a Puzzle!!!! PLAY ALONG!!!
Object:
Avoid an injustice
Background:
X,Y,Z, were co-accused... arrested for the crime of splonqing.....first time before a judge and they all plead guilty.
Judge sez:
-Mr. X you splonqed because of greed, you wanted more money for more bling. On the other hand - you have no criminal record, you say "guilty" first chance you get -saving state resources and saving victims/families anguish of a trial - So a fit sentence for a first offender like you is 4 yrs.
-Mr.Y you splonqed because you're an addict. You acted under duress...you needed a fix. But that's no excuse- you put yourself in duress because it was your choice to take drugs and your choice not to do anything about the problem. On the other hand - you have no criminal record, you say "guilty" first chance you get - So a fit sentence for a first offender like you is the same as X. However I'm going to add 2 years of probation to make sure you get the drugs under control. Now since X didn't get that bit tacked on to the end of his sentence I'll reduce your jail by 6 months to make both sentences more or less the same - 3 1/2 yrs.
-Mr. Z you splonqed because your grandma couldn't wait in the hospital line for a liver transplant any longer so you scraped up enough money to send her stateside only to discover complications. The hospital wanted another 5 thousand "yesterday" or she was being shipped back home where she'd probably die before any transplant. You acted under duress and you did not get any personal gain from the crime. You have no criminal record, you say "guilty" first chance you get - So a fit sentence for a first offender like you is less than X and Y -2 1/2 yrs.
Everyone sez:
The judge was fair and everyone got what they deserved
But Wait! PROBLEM:
The judge missed the section that sez : splonqing - minimum penalty 4 yrs jail.
Now you have to adjust the penalties without creating any injustice ! GOOD LUCK !
Posted by: Nbob | 2007-11-27 4:00:12 PM
Snowrunner: I'm afraid you are very wrong. Name me one executed person who ever killed someone!
Posted by: Markalta | 27-Nov-07 3:58:44 PM
Probably anybody who died through the State (in modern times, in the West) as they had already comitted a murder.
Or did the person they killed rise from the grave and was reunited with their family once the killer died?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 4:03:02 PM
The executed killers can kill no more. Again you are wrong. This rather than the hundreds of killers who are paroled who do kill again. Therefore capital punishment is a deterrent.
10-20 year sentences for dealing drugs would be a deterrent as well.
Posted by: markalta | 2007-11-27 4:08:16 PM
"The executed killers can kill no more."
That's all that needs to be said. Period!
But Yellow Snow cannot accept that reality.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 4:13:34 PM
If it weren't for his obnoxiousness, Yellow Snow would have no personality at all. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 4:19:15 PM
"Spend more time following the Habs. that's a much more healthy pastime!"
Yeah well I grew up with José Theodore so...
"Crystal meth, cocaine"
Let me add Crack, Freebase and anything ralted with heroine. The problem with these is that they turn people into livingdeads. These people should be taken out of our streets and put into closed boot camps and then sent into our armed forces. There life is finished anyway.
As for the resellers, they would be replaced anyway.
What we're targetting, at least in Quebec, is the organised crime and prevention towards kids in schools.
Raise your child decently and that's the best you can do about it.
Ressellers of hard drugs are ready to die - you think a higher sentence witch will bring a higher fiscal burden on us will hold any of those guys from selling drugs ? Common.
There will always be drugs and resellers MarkAlta - even in China or Iran.
I understand your fustrations man but lets be realistic: the vices of men have no end in democracy (witch is great when used with moderation and good judgement) and I don't want to pay for your theory witch only is an "apparance" of a solution at his best.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-27 4:20:00 PM
"Spend more time following the Habs. that's a much more healthy pastime!"
Yeah well I grew up with José Theodore so...
"Crystal meth, cocaine"
Let me add Crack, Freebase and anything ralted with heroine. The problem with these is that they turn people into livingdeads. These people should be taken out of our streets and put into closed boot camps and then sent into our armed forces. There life is finished anyway.
As for the resellers, they would be replaced anyway.
What we're targetting, at least in Quebec, is the organised crime and prevention towards kids in schools.
Raise your child decently and that's the best you can do about it.
Ressellers of hard drugs are ready to die - you think a higher sentence witch will bring a higher fiscal burden on us will hold any of those guys from selling drugs ? Common.
There will always be drugs and resellers MarkAlta - even in China or Iran.
I understand your fustrations man but lets be realistic: the vices of men have no end in democracy (witch is great when used with moderation and good judgement) and I don't want to pay for your theory witch only is an "apparance" of a solution at his best.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-27 4:29:38 PM
Holographic Nonsense,
And you do not see any of the religious institutions running America--whatsoever.
I said Frank was a Genius...he was a guitar player. He was a genius as a musician.
He also made a stand back then, 22 years ago, to defend peoples right to use certain words--seven in particular--of which "fuck" an old anglo-saxon term, was one of them.
yet this does raise an interesting point.
Are people who are geniuses always right?
Anyone with half a brain knows the answer to that question.
And the Americans I know still believe in freedom and liberty and the freedom of Democracy and I do not see them changeing that aspect of their nation any time soon. Whether people should be concerned about anyone taking over--that would be the same concern for all people. Odd, I do not see you ranting about those nations that have applied theocracy onto their people, such as Iran and all the rest of the islamofacists--but you choose to go after America. This tells me allot about what you are all about.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-27 4:44:23 PM
"I said Frank was a Genius...he was a guitar player. He was a genius as a musician."
He was also a political commentator, conservative and libertarian ... so it is interesting that he calls out, back in the 1980s, the penchant of the Christian right to manage the population in a fascist manner ... a trend that has deepened in the past seven years.
" I do not see you ranting about those nations that have applied theocracy onto their people, such as Iran and all the rest of the islamofacists--but you choose to go after America"
First of all, I am not ranting. I realise a paranoid rant is the default form of argument for many here, but I am simply stating observations ... and no doubt extremism of all kinds must be confronted (religious, political, economic, cultural).
Mitigating religious extremism is the challenge of the day for all moderates. Extremist Islam cannot be purged by extremist Christianity, or vice-versa. Each one creates and expands the other.
Posted by: holographic | 2007-11-27 5:04:40 PM
homographic ~
Does that mean "ignorant" or "idiot" in your native tongue? SHEEESH!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 5:07:18 PM
The executed killers can kill no more. Again you are wrong. This rather than the hundreds of killers who are paroled who do kill again. Therefore capital punishment is a deterrent.
10-20 year sentences for dealing drugs would be a deterrent as well.
Posted by: markalta | 27-Nov-07 4:08:16 PM
Most people who kill do so out of the spur of the moment. Most killings aren't planned.
Gan related violence is a different thing, but you will not deter anybody by putting out a death sentence (just look at the US and tell me that the Gang Violence has decreased since they brought back the death penality).
Likewise, throw one in jail for 20+ years for drug trafficking and s/he may not do it anymore but there will be enough people who will. Organized Crime is a business, and mostly they are a monopoly, they will increase the prices to match the incrased risk. Throw one smuggler / grower into jail and you will probably have two others who are willing to take the risk for an even bigger payoff.
That's something you people don't seem to understand, when money is the motive there will always be someone who thinks the risk is worth it and corruption of the legal system to your liking will change that.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 5:51:41 PM
Yellow Snow pees on a righteous justice system once again - but he "feels good" when defending criminals at the expense of innocent citizens.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-27 5:55:49 PM
Could be Gomery is trying to get back in the good graces of his Liberal 'family'. He must have a few fences to mend after the Adscam gong show.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-27 6:34:50 PM
Yellow Snow pees on a righteous justice system once again - but he "feels good" when defending criminals at the expense of innocent citizens.
Posted by: obc | 27-Nov-07 5:55:49 PM
I know you're a one line wonder obc and you can't probably ever get your head around the thing that the purpose of the justice system isn't vengence but a system to try and right a wrong without giving any one person / entity in the equation too much power. The current system in the English Speaking world is based on the British system which is based on the Magna Carta, there was always a strong emphasis on the protection of the accused from wrongful prosecution. "In dubio pro reo" but I guess that's a lost line on you as well.
You accuse a judge of being judgemental when that is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It's not about "easy" convictions it is about the protection of the individual from the State, considering how you keep raving on half the time about how evil Government is you should be extatic about this, but let's be honest here for a moment obc, you want a nice little facist Government because you actually believe that you would be the one in power in the end.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-27 11:52:52 PM
Holographic Nonsense,
Having done an analysis of terrorism and extremism around the world, I assure you that even the most devout Evangelical, Catholic, or marginalized Christian Group is not involved in any extremist terrorist activity whatsoever, to the extent that it makes even the slightest ripple on the terror-radar.
Not that they haven't before--just it is not now.
There are two main groups of people around the world, who ARE involved in terrorist activity--and they include Socialists (about 15% in general) and islamofacists. The religion by itself does not create extremism--the ideology does, when employed in the hands of those whose ends are evil. Even of the groups who are socialists--there is a propensity of those to come from societies that value war, violence, murder and terror for their way.
And Zappa had every right to be cautious, as any society that wants tor etain its freedom and liberty should be cautious--yet just because people are cautious does not mean that their caution is prophetic--on the contrary, people who get to voice their cautions only get to say so in a free and democratic society. No one said, "Zappa you nutjob" and zapped him out of existence! He lived his life to the full extent that he did (albeit cut short by cancer--tragic) and got much more than fifteen minutes of fame.
The fear of Christian terrorists or facists is a moot point today, because WHO is defending your right to be wrong? Well, it is not the islamofacists--that is certain. It is the religious right! They adhere to democracy--EVEN if it means they do not get their way on everything.
So, you are wrong!
And you are free to be wrong--just do not permit it to cloud your judgement.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-28 9:00:20 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.