Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
ParticipantRattlesnakes.
Participantnot sure. didnt see any bike tire marks. steep in parts, really steep.
dont think there was a no bike sign…
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]LOL, no, actually, they wouldn’t.
A legal system makes decision based on ‘the law’, technicalities, actual law, sometimes, actual intent of the law.
A justice system provides outcomes that are just, equitable, righteous. Or in simple synonym terms; good, honest, fair.
Both can be enacted quite capriciously.
If the accused was doing it to you, would you want a result that complied with the letter of the law or would you want a result that was ‘good, honest & fair’?
[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=no_such_reality]The problem is pretty simple.
There’s what will happen in the California LEGAL system.
then there is what should happen in a JUSTICE system.
don’t get the too confused. It’ll just piss you off.
The fact that the defendent is a gub’ment worker hopefully doesn’t affect it one way or another. Nor should it.
Although we can just had her to the list of bad behavior by those stringently hired and ‘qualified’ gub’ment workers.[/quote]
a justice system would probably have a lot of similarites to our legal system.
we’d probably have people, not computers, decide what to charge, and what the deal if any should be.
we’d have laws, with specific penalties.
we’d have judges probably monitor the proceedings are see if they felt the law was being complied with.
we’d probably have lots of disagreement about what those particular indicviduals actually do, sinc e reasonable people can differ …
how would a justice system differ from the current legal system, other than in terms of producing a specific outcome in a specific case?[/quote][/quote]
a justice system would have rules, though, right? And it would follow the rules? Withoutrules, it would be hard to say it was very just. you wouldn’t know ahead of time what was illegal. Or how things go. So we want to have rules. and we want to follow the rules. I think what you’re saying is have rules, but if the outcome isn’t fair or just, then don’t follow the rule.
we could do that/
except the judges might then do soem really wacky stuff….
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]The problem is pretty simple.
There’s what will happen in the California LEGAL system.
then there is what should happen in a JUSTICE system.
don’t get the too confused. It’ll just piss you off.
The fact that the defendent is a gub’ment worker hopefully doesn’t affect it one way or another. Nor should it.
Although we can just had her to the list of bad behavior by those stringently hired and ‘qualified’ gub’ment workers.[/quote]
a justice system would probably have a lot of similarites to our legal system.
we’d probably have people, not computers, decide what to charge, and what the deal if any should be.
we’d have laws, with specific penalties.
we’d have judges probably monitor the proceedings are see if they felt the law was being complied with.
we’d probably have lots of disagreement about what those particular indicviduals actually do, sinc e reasonable people can differ …
how would a justice system differ from the current legal system, other than in terms of producing a specific outcome in a specific case?
Participantlawyers sometimes talk about “what a case is worth”.
in terms of money. time.
some cases are pretty predictable; a simple dogbite; a pound of pot at the border.
other cases are more one-off.
how much would a judge or prosecutor think this case is worth?
I think that could vary a lot. odd, hot-button factors at play.
i wouldn’t say the criminal justice system is messed up because of that unpredictability.I would say that’s an expected consequence of having human beings with human feelings and particular human experiences deciding what the case is worth.
Participant[quote=CA renter]This is incredibly frightening. The worst part is that the charges have been reduced to misdemeanors. IMO, this should be a felony charge for solicitation to commit forcible rape and sodomy. The intent of the two men does not matter at all. It is very clear that the crazy woman wanted the victim to be brutally raped; that it didn’t happen is just a lucky coincidence.
The argument for reducing the charges is like suggesting that hiring someone to kill a person is somehow less evil than killing someone yourself. The intent to commit a brutal rape was there, she lucked out because the “hit men” didn’t go through with it. She is still every bit as guilty as any rapist who attempts to brutally rape another person. And it was a premeditated act, too, as evidenced by her communications with the two men.
She deserves major jail time of *at least* ten years, IMO. And if she used her position at work to obtain any information about the victim or to post ads or communicate with the men, then she should lose her pension as well since committing a felony while working as a public employee can now result in losing one’s pension.[/quote]
the judge at prelim reportedly dismissed the felony charges, but the appellate court reinstated them; now the issue of whetehr the state should be permitted to go forward on the felony charges is pending before the supremes i think according to the article.
Just because the judge at prelim dismisses the charges DOES NOT mean they are dismissed for good and ever…either side has a right to appeal on certain rulings at preliminary hearing.
im not sure what the right answer is here. i disagree, CAR, that this is like hiring a “hitman”. it’s not quite that. it’s a bit more of a grey area. she arguably wasn’t really truly intending to have the victim non consensually raped but she clearly wanted to make a third party think it would be ok to have sex with her in a rapelike way. that sure sounds liek the wanted the victim to at least stand a chance of being raped. That’s different in a sense than hiring a hitman, which is less speculative in terms of what the mission is.
but that guy who responds to the rape ad, probably should check before coming over and just “raping” her, since a reasonable personal ads list responder wouldn’t just go for it after all, they might have the wrong address, or wrong person….
on the other hand, maybe the defendant thinks the responder will just go for the rape first and ask questions later. I’m not sure what the answer is exactly, but it’s not a question of “soft” judges …even on the appellate court, there was a dissenting opinion. reasonable minds can differ, apparentyl. I havent read any of it, other than the article, this thread was first i’d heard of it.
What was she really thinking? what was her intent? I’m guessing if I could get in her mind, she didn’t really think there was a definite rape in the future, but there was at least a small offhand chance of a rape from an overeager ad responder; that might be enough for solicitation. that extra step of the amils “stop by anytime between 9-3 i like the element of surprise” is definitely a step in the right direction, as it seems like an invitation to just do it….but it still seems unreasonable for a fellow to bust down the door anythime during those hours to do a simulated rape.
i bet her primary vision was different though … of a stream of creepy dudes coming over to the house and saying, “is this the rape fantasy place? is this the rape fantasy place?” of course, that’s the best case scenario, which isn’t a great pitch to the jury…if the felony charges are reinstated, it will definitely be an intriguing trial.
definitely interesting, super creepy, and what i find really interesting is the defendant won MOTHER OF THE YEAR award a couple years back for slavish devotion to her daughter. makes you thinkmight be better to not trust extreme people who are at the very top of their field in mothering! almost makes the people shooting guns at your lot seem like neighbors of the year….
ParticipantI guess this is why we have HOAs
Participantpeople like to think theya re bigger than they are, property wise. we live in a pretty small lotted area, couple acres, but people act like they have a “ranch” in the “country”. umm, dude, there’s a walmart within quick jogging distance….just because there is potentially room for one or two horses doesn’t mean you live ona ranch.
i think we are born with a n inability to see the smallness of our lives and selves. or else there is some sort of denial going on.people are nuts…
Participantthe unschooling is over. the oldest is in college, the middle is in hs just won his first game minutes ago in a jv tennis match; oh man; so sweet; he needs the win….); the youngest is a part timer at a charter school and follows his mama around the other days, plays piano, practices magic tricks. so clever and interested. i left a rolling stone article around the house from this month about jesse snodgrass, an autistic kid at a local temecula hs who got busted in an undercover sting by a manipulative cop. heread it in full, we discussed…kid’s only 11…stuff like that is worth a week or more in school from my perspective. lots of dead time in school…
hell, I don’t know what the longterm outcome is. but they can all read and write and do their maths so fast it makes my head spin…
Participantbasically im still rebelling against my mama, who is a lifelong dyed in the wool hardcore union teacher in NYC. and who is a true beleiver in the system.
i dissent.
im not opposed to teachers getting a chunk of the pie, they’re not bad people for the most part, and do what they think is best, sort of, in a way.
I just think they’re lying.
i better get back into therapy…
ParticipantThe big lie of school is that education is always good more is always better and that you get it in a school.
The lie is falling apart.
Student loans will be the start of a psychic uprising.
Mistrust schools …
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]Not playing your heart out is better for your cholesterol and staying in shape.
You want to be placid and zen for the rest of your life. Keep on going and going and going. Never get excited over anything especially food.
People who play their heart out would probably pig out at the buffet or drink a 6 pack of beer in one sitting.[/quote]
We’re all going to die. Not a single one of us will avoid it, no matter how hard we try. I’ve seen too many people who were obsessed about their health die at a young age.
Eat, drink, and be merry…relish every moment with every ounce of passion you can muster because it may well be your last. Just try to do everything in relative moderation. Might as well enjoy it while you’re here because you can’t take it with you when you die. 🙂
I’m learning this as I go because I used to worry about everything, especially health/life/death (still do), but have realized that worry will not extend life nor make it better in any way. Watched too many people who ate fully organic, exercised excessively, etc…and died way, way too young. We cannot control fate; it is a difficult lesson to learn.[/quote]
can’t control fate: but I don’t skydive or have unprotected sex with third world country prostitutes. I mean not skydiving doesn’t guarantee I won’t be hit by a bus. But I still don’t need to add to my risk profile. I like to think of having a risk budget. Sometimes I spend a bit riding my bicycle without a helmet. Still don’t want to go nuts and overspend on risk by say taking up snake handling or smoking a pipe. Even if we cannot control fate we can budget risk. We are all the Actuaries of our sad little existences
ParticipantHey cricket.
What do you want to do?
I am having trouble thinking of anything I want to do other than keep doing what I’m doing.
ParticipantSCHOOL IS HELL, by matt groening.
so few citations to the simpson’s creator’s presimpsonian pivotal work, yet it covers virtually everything one needs to know about education.
-
AuthorPosts
