- This topic has 735 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 8, 2009 at 12:09 PM #427768July 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM #427050
briansd1
Guest[quote=afx114]Palin’s resignation has given a boost to her support among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans would support Palin for president[/quote]
That is indeed good news. That means that Palin will be a factor in the next election cycle.
It’s better than reality TV.
I hope she runs for president.
We need some fun while we wait for the craziness in real estate to unwind.
July 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM #427277Guest[quote=afx114]Palin’s resignation has given a boost to her support among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans would support Palin for president[/quote]
That is indeed good news. That means that Palin will be a factor in the next election cycle.
It’s better than reality TV.
I hope she runs for president.
We need some fun while we wait for the craziness in real estate to unwind.
July 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM #427565Guest[quote=afx114]Palin’s resignation has given a boost to her support among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans would support Palin for president[/quote]
That is indeed good news. That means that Palin will be a factor in the next election cycle.
It’s better than reality TV.
I hope she runs for president.
We need some fun while we wait for the craziness in real estate to unwind.
July 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM #427636Guest[quote=afx114]Palin’s resignation has given a boost to her support among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans would support Palin for president[/quote]
That is indeed good news. That means that Palin will be a factor in the next election cycle.
It’s better than reality TV.
I hope she runs for president.
We need some fun while we wait for the craziness in real estate to unwind.
July 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM #427798Guest[quote=afx114]Palin’s resignation has given a boost to her support among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans would support Palin for president[/quote]
That is indeed good news. That means that Palin will be a factor in the next election cycle.
It’s better than reality TV.
I hope she runs for president.
We need some fun while we wait for the craziness in real estate to unwind.
July 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM #427110scaredyclassic
ParticipantThe “rule of law” loving people don’t usually talk about judges cutting child molestors breaks. usually the rule of law people are taking about soft judges and screaming for mandatory sentencing laws, three strikes, life sentences, etc.
That’s nice that you’re willing to let judges do a little judging. Most people won’t. judges are more and more fearful of giving people–especially admitted child molestors–breaks. And legislators are tying judges hands by forcing jduges to impose mandatory sentences upon conviction, esp. in child molestation cases. That’s good that you’re open minded enough to understand that some child molestors shouldn’t be locked up.
make sure you let the lawyers know next time you’re on jury duty. when the judge asks if you’ll follow the law, as they always do when selecting a jury, stand up loud and proud and let them all know that you intend to follow the spirit as well as the written law, since it is the jurors, and not the judge, who decide the facts in a case in CA, and then take those facts and apply the law… and that if the written law and the “spirit” of the law, as you interpret the spirit to be, conflict, you’ll follow the spirit.
The judge just sentences on the crimes jurors just liek you find to be true! And with mandatory sentences, the ball is in your court to do the right thing!
And let me know how it works out!
My bet (if you say the above speech): defense keeps, prosecutor excuses…if you’re a minority, the defense will accuse the prosecutor of kicking you because you’re a minority and will try to force the judge to keep you. The defense will hope you’re a wacko who can be persuaded to overlook the written law to get to the spirit of the law and hopefully nullify a verdict. bet you didn’t realize you were such a crazy freewheelin’ “liberal wiener”!
July 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM #427337ParticipantThe “rule of law” loving people don’t usually talk about judges cutting child molestors breaks. usually the rule of law people are taking about soft judges and screaming for mandatory sentencing laws, three strikes, life sentences, etc.
That’s nice that you’re willing to let judges do a little judging. Most people won’t. judges are more and more fearful of giving people–especially admitted child molestors–breaks. And legislators are tying judges hands by forcing jduges to impose mandatory sentences upon conviction, esp. in child molestation cases. That’s good that you’re open minded enough to understand that some child molestors shouldn’t be locked up.
make sure you let the lawyers know next time you’re on jury duty. when the judge asks if you’ll follow the law, as they always do when selecting a jury, stand up loud and proud and let them all know that you intend to follow the spirit as well as the written law, since it is the jurors, and not the judge, who decide the facts in a case in CA, and then take those facts and apply the law… and that if the written law and the “spirit” of the law, as you interpret the spirit to be, conflict, you’ll follow the spirit.
The judge just sentences on the crimes jurors just liek you find to be true! And with mandatory sentences, the ball is in your court to do the right thing!
And let me know how it works out!
My bet (if you say the above speech): defense keeps, prosecutor excuses…if you’re a minority, the defense will accuse the prosecutor of kicking you because you’re a minority and will try to force the judge to keep you. The defense will hope you’re a wacko who can be persuaded to overlook the written law to get to the spirit of the law and hopefully nullify a verdict. bet you didn’t realize you were such a crazy freewheelin’ “liberal wiener”!
July 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM #427625ParticipantThe “rule of law” loving people don’t usually talk about judges cutting child molestors breaks. usually the rule of law people are taking about soft judges and screaming for mandatory sentencing laws, three strikes, life sentences, etc.
That’s nice that you’re willing to let judges do a little judging. Most people won’t. judges are more and more fearful of giving people–especially admitted child molestors–breaks. And legislators are tying judges hands by forcing jduges to impose mandatory sentences upon conviction, esp. in child molestation cases. That’s good that you’re open minded enough to understand that some child molestors shouldn’t be locked up.
make sure you let the lawyers know next time you’re on jury duty. when the judge asks if you’ll follow the law, as they always do when selecting a jury, stand up loud and proud and let them all know that you intend to follow the spirit as well as the written law, since it is the jurors, and not the judge, who decide the facts in a case in CA, and then take those facts and apply the law… and that if the written law and the “spirit” of the law, as you interpret the spirit to be, conflict, you’ll follow the spirit.
The judge just sentences on the crimes jurors just liek you find to be true! And with mandatory sentences, the ball is in your court to do the right thing!
And let me know how it works out!
My bet (if you say the above speech): defense keeps, prosecutor excuses…if you’re a minority, the defense will accuse the prosecutor of kicking you because you’re a minority and will try to force the judge to keep you. The defense will hope you’re a wacko who can be persuaded to overlook the written law to get to the spirit of the law and hopefully nullify a verdict. bet you didn’t realize you were such a crazy freewheelin’ “liberal wiener”!
July 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM #427696ParticipantThe “rule of law” loving people don’t usually talk about judges cutting child molestors breaks. usually the rule of law people are taking about soft judges and screaming for mandatory sentencing laws, three strikes, life sentences, etc.
That’s nice that you’re willing to let judges do a little judging. Most people won’t. judges are more and more fearful of giving people–especially admitted child molestors–breaks. And legislators are tying judges hands by forcing jduges to impose mandatory sentences upon conviction, esp. in child molestation cases. That’s good that you’re open minded enough to understand that some child molestors shouldn’t be locked up.
make sure you let the lawyers know next time you’re on jury duty. when the judge asks if you’ll follow the law, as they always do when selecting a jury, stand up loud and proud and let them all know that you intend to follow the spirit as well as the written law, since it is the jurors, and not the judge, who decide the facts in a case in CA, and then take those facts and apply the law… and that if the written law and the “spirit” of the law, as you interpret the spirit to be, conflict, you’ll follow the spirit.
The judge just sentences on the crimes jurors just liek you find to be true! And with mandatory sentences, the ball is in your court to do the right thing!
And let me know how it works out!
My bet (if you say the above speech): defense keeps, prosecutor excuses…if you’re a minority, the defense will accuse the prosecutor of kicking you because you’re a minority and will try to force the judge to keep you. The defense will hope you’re a wacko who can be persuaded to overlook the written law to get to the spirit of the law and hopefully nullify a verdict. bet you didn’t realize you were such a crazy freewheelin’ “liberal wiener”!
July 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM #427858ParticipantThe “rule of law” loving people don’t usually talk about judges cutting child molestors breaks. usually the rule of law people are taking about soft judges and screaming for mandatory sentencing laws, three strikes, life sentences, etc.
That’s nice that you’re willing to let judges do a little judging. Most people won’t. judges are more and more fearful of giving people–especially admitted child molestors–breaks. And legislators are tying judges hands by forcing jduges to impose mandatory sentences upon conviction, esp. in child molestation cases. That’s good that you’re open minded enough to understand that some child molestors shouldn’t be locked up.
make sure you let the lawyers know next time you’re on jury duty. when the judge asks if you’ll follow the law, as they always do when selecting a jury, stand up loud and proud and let them all know that you intend to follow the spirit as well as the written law, since it is the jurors, and not the judge, who decide the facts in a case in CA, and then take those facts and apply the law… and that if the written law and the “spirit” of the law, as you interpret the spirit to be, conflict, you’ll follow the spirit.
The judge just sentences on the crimes jurors just liek you find to be true! And with mandatory sentences, the ball is in your court to do the right thing!
And let me know how it works out!
My bet (if you say the above speech): defense keeps, prosecutor excuses…if you’re a minority, the defense will accuse the prosecutor of kicking you because you’re a minority and will try to force the judge to keep you. The defense will hope you’re a wacko who can be persuaded to overlook the written law to get to the spirit of the law and hopefully nullify a verdict. bet you didn’t realize you were such a crazy freewheelin’ “liberal wiener”!
July 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM #427226Ricechex
ParticipantMolest is actually an inappropriate term. “Molest” means to bother, harass, annoy–think of the signs you see at the zoo. The 18 year old would be a “sex offender.”
That said, he is not “sex offender” as the 18 year old participated in consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. This needs to be taken in context. If he was an 18 year old impregnating a 12 year old child, this would almost certainly be sex offense. Teens of 17 and 18 have little difference in emotional and mental development. There is nothing to suggest that Bristol Palin was coerced, manipulated and physically forced to have sex.
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
Should we label 6 and 5 year olds playing “doctor” and looking at each other’s body’s parts, as sex offenders and victims? Let us hope not. However, if it a 14 year old and 6 year old, the story looks a little different.
July 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM #427452ParticipantMolest is actually an inappropriate term. “Molest” means to bother, harass, annoy–think of the signs you see at the zoo. The 18 year old would be a “sex offender.”
That said, he is not “sex offender” as the 18 year old participated in consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. This needs to be taken in context. If he was an 18 year old impregnating a 12 year old child, this would almost certainly be sex offense. Teens of 17 and 18 have little difference in emotional and mental development. There is nothing to suggest that Bristol Palin was coerced, manipulated and physically forced to have sex.
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
Should we label 6 and 5 year olds playing “doctor” and looking at each other’s body’s parts, as sex offenders and victims? Let us hope not. However, if it a 14 year old and 6 year old, the story looks a little different.
July 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM #427740ParticipantMolest is actually an inappropriate term. “Molest” means to bother, harass, annoy–think of the signs you see at the zoo. The 18 year old would be a “sex offender.”
That said, he is not “sex offender” as the 18 year old participated in consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. This needs to be taken in context. If he was an 18 year old impregnating a 12 year old child, this would almost certainly be sex offense. Teens of 17 and 18 have little difference in emotional and mental development. There is nothing to suggest that Bristol Palin was coerced, manipulated and physically forced to have sex.
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
Should we label 6 and 5 year olds playing “doctor” and looking at each other’s body’s parts, as sex offenders and victims? Let us hope not. However, if it a 14 year old and 6 year old, the story looks a little different.
July 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM #427811ParticipantMolest is actually an inappropriate term. “Molest” means to bother, harass, annoy–think of the signs you see at the zoo. The 18 year old would be a “sex offender.”
That said, he is not “sex offender” as the 18 year old participated in consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. This needs to be taken in context. If he was an 18 year old impregnating a 12 year old child, this would almost certainly be sex offense. Teens of 17 and 18 have little difference in emotional and mental development. There is nothing to suggest that Bristol Palin was coerced, manipulated and physically forced to have sex.
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
Should we label 6 and 5 year olds playing “doctor” and looking at each other’s body’s parts, as sex offenders and victims? Let us hope not. However, if it a 14 year old and 6 year old, the story looks a little different.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.