Democrat DA Orders No More Arrests for Breaking-Entering, Shoplifting, Property Destruction, Etc.

[Ray From Cleveland]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

I'm curious. What do you think happens to most people who are arrested for criminal trespassing, possession of marijuana, terroristic threats, etc...?

Are you under the impression that these folks pay a bond or sit in jail for months waiting for a trial?

No, they have a preliminary hearing and bond is set by a judge. If they can't or won't post bond, yes, they sit in jail until their hearing. But in most misdemeanor cases, the bond is set low enough for the suspect to pay a bond bail agency to get out.

 

[candycorn]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

I'm curious. What do you think happens to most people who are arrested for criminal trespassing, possession of marijuana, terroristic threats, etc...?

Are you under the impression that these folks pay a bond or sit in jail for months waiting for a trial?

No, they have a preliminary hearing and bond is set by a judge. If they can't or won't post bond, yes, they sit in jail until their hearing. But in most misdemeanor cases, the bond is set low enough for the suspect to pay a bond bail agency to get out.

I suggest you study PR bonds and enlighten yourself as to how frequently they are used.

Your fantasy on how arrests for minor crimes work will quickly fall apart. Put another way, you think someone smoking a joint will get locked up until their hearing. It's light years away from what happens in many (if not most) cases.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

I'm curious. What do you think happens to most people who are arrested for criminal trespassing, possession of marijuana, terroristic threats, etc...?

Are you under the impression that these folks pay a bond or sit in jail for months waiting for a trial?

No, they have a preliminary hearing and bond is set by a judge. If they can't or won't post bond, yes, they sit in jail until their hearing. But in most misdemeanor cases, the bond is set low enough for the suspect to pay a bond bail agency to get out.

I suggest you study PR bonds and enlighten yourself as to how frequently they are used.

Your fantasy on how arrests for minor crimes work will quickly fall apart. Put another way, you think someone smoking a joint will get locked up until their hearing. It's light years away from what happens in many (if not most) cases.

You were not all that descriptive in your scenarios. You went from "possession" to terrorist threats. I was assuming you meant possession as intent to sell, not a joint in an ashtray somewhere.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When I first saw this story, I thought it had to be an April Fools joke. But, it is not. Democrat Rachel Rollins, the DA of Suffolk County, which includes Boston, has ordered the police to stop arresting people for breaking and entering, destruction of private property, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, and other crimes. She has also ordered the police not to cooperate with ICE in arresting illegal immigrants in courthouses, regardless of their crime.

This, folks, is a step toward the situation in Venezuela and in so many other Third World countries where the rule of law does not exist or is very unreliable.

Vicki Batts puts it well when she says,

While Rollins may say her memo is about creating an “equal” justice system, the victims of these now-permissible crimes aren’t likely to feel they are being treated equally. But of course, that’s really the goal here, isn’t it? No one cares about the shopkeepers and homeowners that are victimized. Under far-left dogma, criminals are the true victims, we’re just too “hateful” to see it.​

Left-Wing Cities Going Lawless - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Another Soros-Linked District Attorney Blocks Boston Police from Making Arrests on Shoplifting, Destruction of Property, Resisting Arrest, Drug Offenses... No Deportation of Illegals

If you think these articles must be exaggerating, here is Rollins' memo:

Rachael Rollins for Suffolk DA | Charges To Be Declined

The articles are lies, baseless demagoguery, and hasty generalization fallacies.

What one individual might say or do is not ‘representative’ of an entire class of persons.

And there are no ‘left-wing’ cities.

Hey, dumb ****.

You know that saying "fallacy" is not an argument, right?

.

 

[candycorn]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

I'm curious. What do you think happens to most people who are arrested for criminal trespassing, possession of marijuana, terroristic threats, etc...?

Are you under the impression that these folks pay a bond or sit in jail for months waiting for a trial?

No, they have a preliminary hearing and bond is set by a judge. If they can't or won't post bond, yes, they sit in jail until their hearing. But in most misdemeanor cases, the bond is set low enough for the suspect to pay a bond bail agency to get out.

I suggest you study PR bonds and enlighten yourself as to how frequently they are used.

Your fantasy on how arrests for minor crimes work will quickly fall apart. Put another way, you think someone smoking a joint will get locked up until their hearing. It's light years away from what happens in many (if not most) cases.

You were not all that descriptive in your scenarios. You went from "possession" to terrorist threats. I was assuming you meant possession as intent to sell, not a joint in an ashtray somewhere.

B misdemeanors, A misdemeanors.... (what those crimes are) Really; check out how many times PR bonds are issued for these things. Keeping this cycle going is nutty.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

That kid's graffiti days were over. This is just what we need to do here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It isn't removing the punishment; it's re-framing the punishment.

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

That kid's graffiti days were over. This is just what we need to do here.

After all his father tried to do for him, when the kid went home, he sucker punched his father.

I don't know that I'd ever approve of actual Singapore caning, but what I will say is the reason our prison population is what it is today is because we don't have a strong enough deterrent to crime. Three squares a day, snacks if your family puts money into your account, a workout room, a pool room, a football field, and a little private room in case your wife wants to start a family while you're locked up.

So what should prison life be like? Watch the movie Cool Hand Luke. That's what prisons used to be like, and why Americans avoided them at all costs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And by re-framing, you mean a reduction of punishment.

Well guess what, I don't want the siding on my house dinged up with a pellet gun five or six times before somebody is punished for it. I want punishment the first time so it doesn't happen again. I don't want somebody breaking into my garage three or four times before they are punished, I want them punished harshly the first time so they never come back.

Non-violent crime costs victims money; sometimes big money. Just because somebody doesn't stab you with a knife doesn't mean your life will be un-affected by other criminal acts.

It's like that case in Singapore many years ago. An American exchange student thought he would show Singapore what Americans are all about, so he got a can of spray paint and ruined the finishes of a couple of cars. He got caught and was sentenced to seven whacks with the cane.

He was a rich kid and his father had political ties, so he was able to have our government ask Singapore to release the kid to our custody unharmed. Singapore said no. For foreign relations, they reduced the sentence from seven whacks to five, but they stated "We cannot let something like this go unpunished. Our punishment is why we don't have this problem here and you are getting your police cars spray painted in New York city."

Was the government wrong? Of course not. That's why they don't have punks spraying cars with paint over there. The punishment is brutal.

I'm curious. What do you think happens to most people who are arrested for criminal trespassing, possession of marijuana, terroristic threats, etc...?

Are you under the impression that these folks pay a bond or sit in jail for months waiting for a trial?

No, they have a preliminary hearing and bond is set by a judge. If they can't or won't post bond, yes, they sit in jail until their hearing. But in most misdemeanor cases, the bond is set low enough for the suspect to pay a bond bail agency to get out.

I suggest you study PR bonds and enlighten yourself as to how frequently they are used.

Your fantasy on how arrests for minor crimes work will quickly fall apart. Put another way, you think someone smoking a joint will get locked up until their hearing. It's light years away from what happens in many (if not most) cases.

You were not all that descriptive in your scenarios. You went from "possession" to terrorist threats. I was assuming you meant possession as intent to sell, not a joint in an ashtray somewhere.

B misdemeanors, A misdemeanors.... (what those crimes are) Really; check out how many times PR bonds are issued for these things. Keeping this cycle going is nutty.

Perhaps. But the only thing nuttier is encouraging people to commit those misdemeanors.

 

[candycorn]

I'm curious. What do you think happens to most people who are arrested for criminal trespassing, possession of marijuana, terroristic threats, etc...?

Are you under the impression that these folks pay a bond or sit in jail for months waiting for a trial?

No, they have a preliminary hearing and bond is set by a judge. If they can't or won't post bond, yes, they sit in jail until their hearing. But in most misdemeanor cases, the bond is set low enough for the suspect to pay a bond bail agency to get out.

I suggest you study PR bonds and enlighten yourself as to how frequently they are used.

Your fantasy on how arrests for minor crimes work will quickly fall apart. Put another way, you think someone smoking a joint will get locked up until their hearing. It's light years away from what happens in many (if not most) cases.

You were not all that descriptive in your scenarios. You went from "possession" to terrorist threats. I was assuming you meant possession as intent to sell, not a joint in an ashtray somewhere.

B misdemeanors, A misdemeanors.... (what those crimes are) Really; check out how many times PR bonds are issued for these things. Keeping this cycle going is nutty.

Perhaps. But the only thing nuttier is encouraging people to commit those misdemeanors.

Ugh...

So getting back to the example I gave 5 hours ago....

Do you speed excessively on the way home? No.
Why not? Because you'll get a citation.
If you get a lot of citations, they take away your license.

Does NOT having a jail sentence encourage you to speed?
Of course not. You're not doing it now.

 

[ptbw forever]

When I first saw this story, I thought it had to be an April Fools joke. But, it is not. Democrat Rachel Rollins, the DA of Suffolk County, which includes Boston, has ordered the police to stop arresting people for breaking and entering, destruction of private property, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, and other crimes. She has also ordered the police not to cooperate with ICE in arresting illegal immigrants in courthouses, regardless of their crime.

This, folks, is a step toward the situation in Venezuela and in so many other Third World countries where the rule of law does not exist or is very unreliable.

Vicki Batts puts it well when she says,

While Rollins may say her memo is about creating an “equal” justice system, the victims of these now-permissible crimes aren’t likely to feel they are being treated equally. But of course, that’s really the goal here, isn’t it? No one cares about the shopkeepers and homeowners that are victimized. Under far-left dogma, criminals are the true victims, we’re just too “hateful” to see it.​

Left-Wing Cities Going Lawless - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Another Soros-Linked District Attorney Blocks Boston Police from Making Arrests on Shoplifting, Destruction of Property, Resisting Arrest, Drug Offenses... No Deportation of Illegals

If you think these articles must be exaggerating, here is Rollins' memo:

Rachael Rollins for Suffolk DA | Charges To Be Declined

The articles are lies, baseless demagoguery, and hasty generalization fallacies.

What one individual might say or do is not ‘representative’ of an entire class of persons.

And there are no ‘left-wing’ cities.

No, there are no right wing cities and countless left wing cities.

Change your ******* avatar you treasonous piece of shit.

 

[ptbw forever]

"WE" don't

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards.
.

; Democrats do!! Mac; get your Party back!! The loons have taken it over!!

Greg

The Right does too. You're happy to have Trump as President, willing to make excuse after excuse for his petulant, immature behaviors. Behaviors we would not allow from our CHILDREN.

You champion people who are embarrassingly inarticulate (Trump, Dubya, Palin) because you agree with them politically.

And now you've even gone so far as infer that advanced education is a bad thing.

Neither whacked out end of our political spectrum is faultless here. Do I blame the Left more? Yes. But they're not alone.
.

There is no such thing as “advanced education” anymore.

Universities are nothing but new age churches, filled with crazy and very stupid people.

 

[ptbw forever]

"WE" don't

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards.
.

; Democrats do!! Mac; get your Party back!! The loons have taken it over!!

Greg

The Right does too. You're happy to have Trump as President, willing to make excuse after excuse for his petulant, immature behaviors. Behaviors we would not allow from our CHILDREN.

You champion people who are embarrassingly inarticulate (Trump, Dubya, Palin) because you agree with them politically.

And now you've even gone so far as infer that advanced education is a bad thing.

Neither whacked out end of our political spectrum is faultless here. Do I blame the Left more? Yes. But they're not alone.

Just HUH??? What??? What in the devil does this have to do with Trump? Sheesh, how irrational can you be?

Move to Boston, and then don't whine when someone breaks into your house, vandalizes your property, and he is set free because "the default" policy is not to prosecute such crimes.

This is a move toward becoming a banana republic.

I was responding to a post.
.

You are deflecting with your usual false equivalency bullshit.

 

[ptbw forever]

Not necessarily. This is an opportunity to give responsibility back to the people, to see to their own safety, and security. Less reliance on government to solve ones problems is often times a good thing.

LOL! Yeah, okay. You should move to Boston.

In the rest of the country, the default policy is to prosecute people who commit those crimes, and the only way they are not prosecuted is if a prosecutor gets permission from a senior prosecutor not to prosecute. Rollins has now turned that traditional standard upside down. The default--in Boston--is now *not* to prosecute people who commit those crimes unless a "supervisor" (a more senior prosecutor) directs otherwise.

So... There’s no point in calling the cops for such offenses? Then one is going to have to “save themselves”. As should be. It makes for stronger, freer, more independent people. Quit expecting some government super hero to save you, and solve all your problems.

You do understand that Boston has more harsh gun laws and other laws to prevent self defense, right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they have a preliminary hearing and bond is set by a judge. If they can't or won't post bond, yes, they sit in jail until their hearing. But in most misdemeanor cases, the bond is set low enough for the suspect to pay a bond bail agency to get out.

I suggest you study PR bonds and enlighten yourself as to how frequently they are used.

Your fantasy on how arrests for minor crimes work will quickly fall apart. Put another way, you think someone smoking a joint will get locked up until their hearing. It's light years away from what happens in many (if not most) cases.

You were not all that descriptive in your scenarios. You went from "possession" to terrorist threats. I was assuming you meant possession as intent to sell, not a joint in an ashtray somewhere.

B misdemeanors, A misdemeanors.... (what those crimes are) Really; check out how many times PR bonds are issued for these things. Keeping this cycle going is nutty.

Perhaps. But the only thing nuttier is encouraging people to commit those misdemeanors.

Ugh...

So getting back to the example I gave 5 hours ago....

Do you speed excessively on the way home? No.
Why not? Because you'll get a citation.
If you get a lot of citations, they take away your license.

Does NOT having a jail sentence encourage you to speed?
Of course not. You're not doing it now.

Actually no, I don't speed. This is because I have a CDL license. Even if I get a violation in my car, that counts on my professional record as well. So if I start getting speeding tickets, not only does my insurance increase, but so does the insurance my employer pays. That means I won't get any raises and perhaps even lose my job if his insurance company decides to not insure me any longer.

And this is a perfect example of how a strong enough deterrent works. If your livelihood does not depend on driving, sure, you will speed and drive more recklessly. I see it all day long.

But let's say speeding actually carries a ten day jail sentence. Would you speed on the highway? I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't go one mile over the speed limit. In fact I'd drive about three miles under it.

 

[ptbw forever]

Not necessarily. This is an opportunity to give responsibility back to the people, to see to their own safety, and security. Less reliance on government to solve ones problems is often times a good thing.

This is how Lenin took down the Tsar. This is a deliberate assault intended to destroy the nation and pave the way for a Marxist dictatorship.

But therein lies the gamble... They’ll have to bet it all that their side emerges victorious.

They are already all in. I don't see any path for the democrats to return to a normal party. They've crossed too many lines.

But they’ve yet to cross the Rubicon. Once they do... There’s no turning back. No Moderates, or fence sitters. No surrender. Just the vanquished; and those left to rebuild...

No moderates support the Democrats.

 

[ptbw forever]

Denying facts won't make them go away. If you would bother to actually break and down and read her memo, she states clearly that from now on "the default" action will be *not* to prosecute the crimes listed in her memo, and that the only way that the default action cannot be followed is with supervisor permission. So "the default" action on such crimes is not to prosecute them. Do you know what "default" means?

And, pray tell, with Rollins in charge of the DA's office, how has there been a problem with "improper prosecution" for crimes such as breaking and entering, larceny, shoplifting, trespassing, and even resisting arrest? How can you "improperly prosecute" someone for resisting arrest, breaking and entering, property destruction? If they committed the crime, what is "improper" about prosecuting them for it? Hey? Explain that one to us.

Of course I know what default means. All the things on that list can still be prosecuted if a more experienced supervisor feels it is proper. All they have to do is ask. Taking those decisions out of the hands of inexperienced people sounds like a good thing to me. You think a more experienced supervisor will let people go when they should be prosecuted?

Yes they will. It's called kissing up. The prosecutors (knowing the will of the commie DA) will be hesitant to take any action unless no other alternative is available.

Got it. An inexperienced newcomer's judgment is better than an experienced prosecutor. I'm always amazed at right wing logic.

By the opposing logic a seasoned hooker would make a better wife. After all... Of all people; she should know what makes a man happy...
I’m always amazed at Leftwinger logic...

Are you actually trying to argue that less experience is better than more experience? Yep, right wing logic is truly unique.

And yet the right wingers in this thread are once again destroying you and your dumbass friends.

 

[ptbw forever]

And what happens when they start arresting too many felons?

The courts, jails, and police are better equipped to handle the onslaught since 2 ounces of pot are no longer on the docket.

That's avoiding the question. I mean if we have to give into the criminal element because there are simply too many of them, they take up too much time, they are of a certain race, then what happens when the same problems arise with felons?

You’re right; we should have jail time for people who jaywalk. After all, that is a crime.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the tens of thousands of new jail cells, prison hospitals, mess halls, corrections officers, etc? Or is Mexico paying for that too?

I don't have a problem paying for jails. I think we should have more of them.

Another newly christened big-government republican ladies and gentlemen!

How did you get so stupid?

 

[candycorn]

I suggest you study PR bonds and enlighten yourself as to how frequently they are used.

Your fantasy on how arrests for minor crimes work will quickly fall apart. Put another way, you think someone smoking a joint will get locked up until their hearing. It's light years away from what happens in many (if not most) cases.

You were not all that descriptive in your scenarios. You went from "possession" to terrorist threats. I was assuming you meant possession as intent to sell, not a joint in an ashtray somewhere.

B misdemeanors, A misdemeanors.... (what those crimes are) Really; check out how many times PR bonds are issued for these things. Keeping this cycle going is nutty.

Perhaps. But the only thing nuttier is encouraging people to commit those misdemeanors.

Ugh...

So getting back to the example I gave 5 hours ago....

Do you speed excessively on the way home? No.
Why not? Because you'll get a citation.
If you get a lot of citations, they take away your license.

Does NOT having a jail sentence encourage you to speed?
Of course not. You're not doing it now.

Actually no, I don't speed. This is because I have a CDL license. Even if I get a violation in my car, that counts on my professional record as well. So if I start getting speeding tickets, not only does my insurance increase, but so does the insurance my employer pays. That means I won't get any raises and perhaps even lose my job if his insurance company decides to not insure me any longer.

And this is a perfect example of how a strong enough deterrent works. If your livelihood does not depend on driving, sure, you will speed and drive more recklessly. I see it all day long.

But let's say speeding actually carries a ten day jail sentence. Would you speed on the highway? I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't go one mile over the speed limit. In fact I'd drive about three miles under it.

You never speed? Yeah, you're lying. Oh brother.

Is this really the government you want....minor violations result in a 10 day jail sentence? Let me guess...you're going to say yes. And you'll be lying again.

Trump fluffers are hilarioius.

 

[keepitreal]

Wow: DA candidate Rachael Rollins is hailed nationally, but locally her plan not to prosecute petty crimes alarms some - The Boston Globe

We just keep lowering standards.

No, we just keep allowing these idiots
to do whatever the **** they want

Here Sir, the PEOPLE govern

The PEOPLE are the true PROPRIETORS of government

Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
—That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course I know what default means. All the things on that list can still be prosecuted if a more experienced supervisor feels it is proper. All they have to do is ask. Taking those decisions out of the hands of inexperienced people sounds like a good thing to me. You think a more experienced supervisor will let people go when they should be prosecuted?

Yes they will. It's called kissing up. The prosecutors (knowing the will of the commie DA) will be hesitant to take any action unless no other alternative is available.

Got it. An inexperienced newcomer's judgment is better than an experienced prosecutor. I'm always amazed at right wing logic.

By the opposing logic a seasoned hooker would make a better wife. After all... Of all people; she should know what makes a man happy...
I’m always amazed at Leftwinger logic...

Are you actually trying to argue that less experience is better than more experience? Yep, right wing logic is truly unique.

And yet the right wingers in this thread are once again destroying you and your dumbass friends.

No.