Justice System Failure

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,786
11,297
940
I consider this a justice system failure when such a vile beast is only locked away for four years. These type judges that will not apply the full extent of the law to those who hurt a child should be disbarred IMO. If it is an issue with lenience in the legislative recommendations for punishing such that would rape a 3 month old baby then legislators better get on the ball and stiffen the penalties for doing such acts. I would not be opposed to the death penalty for anyone raping and injuring a child under five years of age.

 
Seems to be quite a few stories lately with the same set of circumstances and the same outcome.
 
...godang it, pknopp, I'm surprised ..I thought it would be a lot of cop hating links
 
...godang it, pknopp, I'm surprised ..I thought it would be a lot of cop hating links

Nope, just unfair corrupt justice system links.
 
Dear heavens, 4 years is not nearly enough time behind bars!! What the heck?
The judiciary in many areas has became very corrupt. That is a real problem.

I am also wondering wtf is wrong in the minds of those who would do such to a child. There must be something in them that is severely broken to even have the desire to have sex with a baby.
 
I consider this a justice system failure when such a vile beast is only locked away for four years. These type judges that will not apply the full extent of the law to those who hurt a child should be disbarred IMO. If it is an issue with lenience in the legislative recommendations for punishing such that would rape a 3 month old baby then legislators better get on the ball and stiffen the penalties for doing such acts. I would not be opposed to the death penalty for anyone raping and injuring a child under five years of age.

/—-/ They are decriminalizing pedophilia in California and the libtards here attack me for pointing it out.
 
I consider this a justice system failure when such a vile beast is only locked away for four years. These type judges that will not apply the full extent of the law to those who hurt a child should be disbarred IMO. If it is an issue with lenience in the legislative recommendations for punishing such that would rape a 3 month old baby then legislators better get on the ball and stiffen the penalties for doing such acts. I would not be opposed to the death penalty for anyone raping and injuring a child under five years of age.

/—-/ They are decriminalizing pedophilia in California and the libtards here attack me for pointing it out.
Some do not like it when you point out the sickness...
 
One problem might be that when the Legislatures discuss this sort of crimes, they cannot even envision an act so vile and inhumane. Hence, they don't provide an appropriate punishment. When they look at child rape, they are probably envisioning the NAMBLA thing.
 
One problem might be that when the Legislatures discuss this sort of crimes, they cannot even envision an act so vile and inhumane. Hence, they don't provide an appropriate punishment. When they look at child rape, they are probably envisioning the NAMBLA thing.
That could very well be. People have historically not dealt with pedophilia very well as it is just to vile and heinous to bare in their minds and easier to either ignore it or deny it happens.
 
...godang it, pknopp, I'm surprised ..I thought it would be a lot of cop hating links
See what you get for thinking of thinking? Now that you hate babies that are raped you can get back to the real victims, bad cops..
I'd take that fellow out back and pop a cap in dat head.
 
The second link about the longer sentence gave the judges opinion- he said he had to use the law, not public opinion in his decision. Although there was no citation of which law he used to determine the original sentence.

Yet, we're told, repeatedly, to let the courts decide the proper punishment- wtf?
 
The second link about the longer sentence gave the judges opinion- he said he had to use the law, not public opinion in his decision. Although there was no citation of which law he used to determine the original sentence.

Yet, we're told, repeatedly, to let the courts decide the proper punishment- wtf?
A dear friend of mine is a retired judge. We used to talk frequently and he'd tell me his personal thoughts on some of the most disgusting matters he sat in on as judge because they really struck him as sick people. He was my confidant and I was his for many years. I know that certain tards went after him after he gave the death sentence to a brutal murderer. He also made enemies when he ordered that prisoners in the local jail be treated humanly. I am sure being a judge it is not the easiest job if they are actually doing their job but to allow monsters that would harm a child or be complicit with those that would harm a baby or a defenseless child because they simply cannot control their sexual desires deserve no mercy, IMO.

Per charges without innocent victims involved there does need to be some judicial discretion.
 
A dear friend of mine is a retired judge. We used to talk frequently and he'd tell me his personal thoughts on some of the most disgusting matters he sat in on as judge because they really struck him as sick people.
I'm sure- but, anecdotal is just that. I'm sure there are some good cops too- my brother was one and I have ridden with him on Saturday nights (years ago)- he told me stories about some of the things he saw and I witnessed a couple of really disgusting sights riding with him. I'm glad I had enough self knowledge to know not to be a cop-
the same thing judges should use when accepting an appointment or running for election.

The key to your response is "if"- they do their job. Their job is to apply law, not decide it. DA's prosecute with, often, questionable evidence that may or may not be accurate or may be coerced, and I never read about that being questioned. If a jury finds someone guilty then the judge sets the sentence- allegedly according to law. As I said about this case, the law the judge said he used wasn't cited- so we don't know what he was basing his finding on other than his personal opinion about something we aren't privy to- that, to me equates to deciding the law. His "forgery" transgression seemed to be worse than the real crime he committed. So, maybe the judge saw the error of his ways- but, remember a couple years ago, there were two stories I recall about a couple of teen age girls who claimed they were raped and the accused got off with a slap on the wrist because thy were "good boys"- and there was the kid in the Dallas are who got the word 'affluenza' into our lexicon- again, all three of those cases the sentences were at least questionable and it appears law being decided not applied.
 
A dear friend of mine is a retired judge. We used to talk frequently and he'd tell me his personal thoughts on some of the most disgusting matters he sat in on as judge because they really struck him as sick people.
I'm sure- but, anecdotal is just that. I'm sure there are some good cops too- my brother was one and I have ridden with him on Saturday nights (years ago)- he told me stories about some of the things he saw and I witnessed a couple of really disgusting sights riding with him. I'm glad I had enough self knowledge to know not to be a cop-
the same thing judges should use when accepting an appointment or running for election.

The key to your response is "if"- they do their job. Their job is to apply law, not decide it. DA's prosecute with, often, questionable evidence that may or may not be accurate or may be coerced, and I never read about that being questioned. If a jury finds someone guilty then the judge sets the sentence- allegedly according to law. As I said about this case, the law the judge said he used wasn't cited- so we don't know what he was basing his finding on other than his personal opinion about something we aren't privy to- that, to me equates to deciding the law. His "forgery" transgression seemed to be worse than the real crime he committed. So, maybe the judge saw the error of his ways- but, remember a couple years ago, there were two stories I recall about a couple of teen age girls who claimed they were raped and the accused got off with a slap on the wrist because thy were "good boys"- and there was the kid in the Dallas are who got the word 'affluenza' into our lexicon- again, all three of those cases the sentences were at least questionable and it appears law being decided not applied.
A baby and a teen is not comparable either.


My son was run through a world of fake shit when he was a teen. The girl who made the accusations that the corrupt DA used against son said in court she lied because I had fired her mom and dad. That whole mess was a political farce against a teenager by teenage a slut a few years younger than him that political foes used to get to me through my son. Like mother like daughter in that case. I only hired her step dad because Rod pleaded with me to help him as his wife was sleeping around on him, etc... and they all convinced me to hire the wife because they needed the money. I did all that against my better judgment so shame on me for going against my own instincts but shame on them even more so for what they all did that was illegal as all get out. Son was pretty innocent and naive until after that whole incident.

I've also known some very good officers but have seen some extremely corrupt ones too.

Have known some good attorneys too but most of them I wouldn't piss on to put a fire out if they were on fire.
 
My son was run through a world of fake shit when he was a teen.
I have a nephew who went through a similar situation and was told by attorneys to accept a "plea" deal- and get listed as a sexual predator- all because a teen aged girl gave him his first blow job (unsolicited) and told her mother about it- the kid turned into a religious nut- he was always a bit fragile- the attorneys said there was no way to fight it since it was a "she said, he said" deal- she was older than him too. SMH-
 

Forum List

Back
Top