Taxation without representation

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Whether it's jaywalking, speeding, underage drinking, or etc you and everyone you know has broken the law.

And if I broke the law and get punished for it, I.E. getting a speeding ticket, I don't gripe that on the highway it's 65 so I should be able to do 65 where I got the speeding ticket.

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And if I broke the law and get punished for it, I.E. getting a speeding ticket, I don't gripe that on the highway it's 65 so I should be able to do 65 where I got the speeding ticket.

Nope, with the same jurisdiction people who are arrested for identical crimes receive different punishment ranging from complete dismissals to time in prison. The system is too unevenly enforced to pretend the law is the law and what happens happens. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Nope, with the same jurisdiction people who are arrested for identical crimes receive different punishment ranging from complete dismissals to time in prison. The system is too unevenly enforced to pretend the law is the law and what happens happens. 

So you support mandatory minimum sentencing?

I've never been able to get behind that cause because it removes the ability for cases to be decided on a case by case basis.

Let's us Marijuana as an example.

If it's your first time ever getting caught, you don't have any other misdemeanors, etc, why should you get the same sentence as someone who has repeatedly been caught, has committed other crimes, etc?

Edited October 23, 2018 by Raider5678

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So you support mandatory minimum sentencing?

I've never been able to get behind that cause because it removes the ability for cases to be decided on a case by case basis.

Let's us Marijuana as an example.

If it's your first time ever getting caught, you don't have any other misdemeanors, etc, why should you get the same sentence as someone who has repeatedly been caught, has committed other crimes, etc?

Yes, it is necessary for sentences to be meted out according to the particular circumstances of the case and prior history of the defendant.

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So you support mandatory minimum sentencing?

I've never been able to get behind that cause because it removes the ability for cases to be decided on a case by case basis.

Let's us Marijuana as an example.

If it's your first time ever getting caught, you don't have any other misdemeanors, etc, why should you get the same sentence as someone who has repeatedly been caught, has committed other crimes, etc?

The right to vote is provided by the constitution. Can we at least agree that any State looking to deny one the right to vote should at least have to meet a similar standard outlined by Article Five for amending the Constitution? Sense it takes two-thirds vote in Congress to amend the Constitution how about agreeing it should take at least two-thirds on a state legislature to deny individuals the right to vote?  

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, it is necessary for sentences to be meted out according to the particular circumstances of the case and prior history of the defendant.

Nothing about minimum sentencing changes the unequal manner in which law is enforced. Here in the U.S. people with resources can get away with nearly anything.

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The right to vote is provided by the constitution. Can we at least agree that any State looking to deny one the right to vote should at least have to meet a similar standard outlined by Article Five for amending the Constitution? Sense it takes two-thirds vote in Congress to amend the Constitution how about agreeing it should take at least two-thirds on a state legislature to deny individuals the right to vote?  

I can agree that the right to vote should be universally enforced in regards to the states.

However, there is only a certain amount that you can enforce that before you're taking away state rights.

If the entire country made it so that if you're in jail, you don't vote, and then once you're out you can vote again, I'd support that.

However, I wouldn't support the federal government than using that position to change laws in all states to decide what does and doesn't constitute who goes to jail.

And I say that fully knowing should the government take that position, then the states that have legalized marijuana would have people being put in jail, not states being forced to legalize marijuana. 

It is a state's right to decide if it wants to legalize marijuana or not. I agree that people should have the right to vote once they get out of jail. However, I don't support saying that just because it's legal in some states, other states shouldn't be able to jail people for it.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I can agree that the right to vote should be universally enforced in regards to the states.

However, there is only a certain amount that you can enforce that before you're taking away state rights.

If the entire country made it so that if you're in jail, you don't vote, and then once you're out you can vote again, I'd support that.

However, I wouldn't support the federal government than using that position to change laws in all states to decide what does and doesn't constitute who goes to jail.

And I say that fully knowing should the government take that position, then the states that have legalized marijuana would have people being put in jail, not states being forced to legalize marijuana. 

It is a state's right to decide if it wants to legalize marijuana or not. I agree that people should have the right to vote once they get out of jail. However, I don't support saying that just because it's legal in some states, other states shouldn't be able to jail people for it.

I agree with the bold part. 

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I agree with the bold part. 

Agreed. So let's focus on that for now.

 

Do you think those in prison should be able to vote or not? Regarding a national scale.

My initial position on this is no.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Do you think those in prison should be able to vote or not? Regarding a national scale.

My initial position on this is no.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Yep..

 

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Agreed. So let's focus on that for now.

 

Do you think those in prison should be able to vote or not? Regarding a national scale.

My initial position on this is no.

I say they should be able to yes. I believe part of the reason they currently can't in a lot of states is because local officials don't want them to for partisan political reasons and not criminal justice reasons.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I am not even area of any state where one would permanently lose the ability to drive. 

Good point. That loss is typically for a prescribed amount of time.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing about minimum sentencing changes the unequal manner in which law is enforced. Here in the U.S. people with resources can get away with nearly anything.

Yes, it does because it might be set too high for some cases.

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, it does because it might be set too high for some cases.

Minimum sentencing doesn't dictate what prosecutors must charge people with. It only dictates the sentence once one is convicted on a specific charge.  

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Minimum sentencing doesn't dictate what prosecutors must charge people with. It only dictates the sentence once one is convicted on a specific charge.  

Try this: A woman drank half a bottle of vodka whilst holding her baby and she fell asleep. She suffocated the baby. If she was convicted of manslaughter and the minimum was 5 years, she'd have got five years. The judge gave her two years suspended for two years because she was normally a good mother and would have to live with her actions for the rest of her life. What would a mandatory minimum sentence have achieved? Or a woman that shot her boyfriend after the most severe abuse and convicted of murder. The sentence is mandatory death for murder but  in this instance there are extenuating circumstances which justifies incarceration rather than death. Britain was like this just before the abolition of the death penalty.

Edited October 23, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Try this: A woman drank half a bottle of vodka whilst holding her baby and she fell asleep. She suffocated the baby. If she was convicted of manslaughter and the minimum was 5 years, she'd have got five years. The judge gave her two years suspended for two years because she was normally a good mother and would have to live with her actions for the rest of her life. What would a mandatory minimum sentence have achieved? Or a woman that shot her boyfriend after the most severe abuse and convicted of murder. The sentence is mandatory death for murder but  in this instance there are extenuating circumstances which justifies incarceration rather than death. Britain was like this just before the abolition of the death penalty.

I don't know how to answer your questions. Here in the U.S. mandatory sentences for those convicted of crimes has no influence over Prosecutors discretion in charging individuals. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I can agree that the right to vote should be universally enforced in regards to the states.

It seems like such a basic, foundational part of a democratic society that nobody should be able to take it away from you. It's your one vote, your way to affect the representation that will ultimately govern you. I think even prisoners, even the worst of them, should be able to vote if they're still considered citizens.

This is where America needs to take a stand on basic freedoms. We're not the criminals our penal system numbers paint us as. We're underpaid for our part in constantly improving productivity. The vast majority are severely underrepresented in politics. Too much of our public funds line the pockets of the already wealthy, and what's left is watered-down so it can be ridiculed to promote private interests. We need a modern overhaul of what it means to be an American citizen, imo.

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It seems like such a basic, foundational part of a democratic society that nobody should be able to take it away from you. It's your one vote, your way to affect the representation that will ultimately govern you. I think even prisoners, even the worst of them, should be able to vote if they're still considered citizens.

This is where America needs to take a stand on basic freedoms. We're not the criminals our penal system numbers paint us as. We're underpaid for our part in constantly improving productivity. The vast majority are severely underrepresented in politics. Too much of our public funds line the pockets of the already wealthy, and what's left is watered-down so it can be ridiculed to promote private interests. We need a modern overhaul of what it means to be an American citizen, imo.

I agree. Politicians shouldn't be able to decide the voting pool. It leaves the door wide open to corruption. 

[Raider5678]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It seems like such a basic, foundational part of a democratic society that nobody should be able to take it away from you. It's your one vote, your way to affect the representation that will ultimately govern you. I think even prisoners, even the worst of them, should be able to vote if they're still considered citizens.

 

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

We live in a democracy where people can use their ability to vote to choose politicians to make laws. As a result, their responsibility is abiding by those laws, and if they want them changed to advocate for them being changed. If they break them, however, they threaten the foundation of democracy: People have the ability to govern themselves.

If they're breaking the law then they're not consenting to what the majority have chosen as the law. As a result, I don't feel they should have the privilege to choose the law while they're serving out their punishment.

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I agree. Politicians shouldn't be able to decide the voting pool. It leaves the door wide open to corruption. 

Politicians aren't forcing people into jail so they can't vote. They're doing that to themselves.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

We live in a democracy where people can use their ability to vote to choose politicians to make laws. As a result, their responsibility is abiding by those laws, and if they want them changed to advocate for them being changed. If they break them, however, they threaten the foundation of democracy: People have the ability to govern themselves.

If they're breaking the law then they're not consenting to what the majority have chosen as the law. As a result, I don't feel they should have the privilege to choose the law while they're serving out their punishment.

Politicians aren't forcing people into jail so they can't vote. They're doing that to themselves.

I disagree. In many parts of the country I believe various laws are specifically passed on enforced to disenfranchise specific Demographics. That was what Jim Crow was all about. 

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

We live in a democracy where people can use their ability to vote to choose politicians to make laws. As a result, their responsibility is abiding by those laws, and if they want them changed to advocate for them being changed. If they break them, however, they threaten the foundation of democracy: People have the ability to govern themselves.

If they're breaking the law then they're not consenting to what the majority have chosen as the law. As a result, I don't feel they should have the privilege to choose the law while they're serving out their punishment.

Sometimes laws need to be broken to show how unjust they are, and nobody should lose their right to vote because of it. If the laws are just, the votes from those who break them won't be sufficient to overturn them. And if the laws are unjust, voting against them is part of what little true liberty we have. It solves a lot of problems if people get to vote no matter what.

To me, it's about loyalty to the country and the society you participate in, not necessarily all the laws currently in force. Many people have spent years in jail for things that are legal now.

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Saying that the law is the law isn't enjoying how imperfect laws are. It's saying it's the law. Period. 

Additionally, we have state laws for a reason. Just because the majority of the people in the country want something, doesn't mean all the states have to do it.

Wyoming gave women the right to vote 51 years before the rest of the country when it was still massively unpopular with the rest of the nation. 

Perhaps you feel all women should have all waited until 1920 to get the right to vote?(This is a rhetorical question)

 

We can bring up examples of history until the cows come home, but the law is the law. Period. Unless you're advocating states shouldn't have the right to have laws individually.

 

 

Often times discussing the nuances of an issue can bring enlightenment. Digging in one's heels because "that's the way it is and nothing more need be said" has been known to limit growth.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

But we don't take away rights from other people with poor judgement.

Yes we do.

People with mental health problems are often not allowed to vote.
People whose judgement is not good enough to drive safely don't get a license.

It would be good if we got a bit more consistent about it.

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes we do.

People with mental health problems are often not allowed to vote.
People whose judgement is not good enough to drive safely don't get a license.

It would be good if we got a bit more consistent about it.

The 24th Amendment was past in 1962 because of the long documented efforts of various localities to use a variety of tests, tolls, laws, and etc to disenfranchise voters. There is not an equivalent history associated with getting a driver license. 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The 24th Amendment was past in 1962 because of the long documented efforts of various localities to use a variety of tests, tolls, laws, and etc to disenfranchise voters. There is not an equivalent history associated with getting a driver license. 

Most of the world gets on just fine without the 24th amendment.
But we usually have driving tests. 

I thought it applied to having to "pay to vote" and that other things like "being the right colour to vote" were covered elsewhere (14th + 15th?) . Of course, they often amounted to the same thing.

BTW, it was passed, rather than past.

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Most of the world gets on just fine without the 24th amendment.
But we usually have driving tests. 

I thought it applied to having to "pay to vote" and that other things like "being the right colour to vote" were covered elsewhere (14th + 15th?) . Of course, they often amounted to the same thing.

BTW, it was passed, rather than past.

My point was that there is a long history of voter disenfranchisement in the U.S.. As a result extra consideration needs to be considered when laws which impact ones ability to vote. Such a history doesn't exist with regards to drive licenses. Political organizations are actively working  on way to exploit the law to disenfranchise drivers.