Man beaten in broad daylight in Bronx neighborhood

[Godboy]

So unfortunate the guy didn't have a gun. Would have loved to see the footage of maybe a gun going off in the face of one of the thugs.

I would be more happy when his mom is crying and telling us how he was a good boy that didn't deserve to die. The anguish of bad parents is the most satisfying thing ever.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Again Emily, with one of the most sensible posts in the thread.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. You do have an obligation to get them off the streets before they harm someone but when they are standing in front of the judge mercy triumphs over judgment. When you extend grace to someone they usually try to live up to it. Even if they weren't before.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Again Emily, with one of the most sensible posts in the thread.

Which allows blacks to keep on killing whites and accepting their violent fucked culture. Sorry, but I am tired of being blamed by these monsters that think they can break our laws...They either accept our laws and work to fix our relationship or they can go **** themselves.

Of course, this is not aimed at all blacks but it certainly isn't aimed at a small percentage either.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Matthew, the Bronx has always been a very tough place. Years ago it was well known for high crime rate. Today we have the internet and the news is coming out about every story it seems. Years ago that is not how it was.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Lets keep this story updated. Would love to see the thugs caught.

 

[Politico]

Thugs do this shit to innocent people all the time. This is what you fuckers support!

Were they NYPD?

No they were not white.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. You do have an obligation to get them off the streets before they harm someone but when they are standing in front of the judge mercy triumphs over judgment. When you extend grace to someone they usually try to live up to it. Even if they weren't before.

A judge can show mercy to a degree, but people who feloniously assault others belong in prison.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. You do have an obligation to get them off the streets before they harm someone but when they are standing in front of the judge mercy triumphs over judgment. When you extend grace to someone they usually try to live up to it. Even if they weren't before.

A judge can show mercy to a degree, but people who feloniously assault others belong in prison.

I'm saying the two should be separate. Like separating church and state.

All people who commit crimes or abuses should be held responsible for rectifying those damages. Period.
Forgiving you emotionally or personally is separate.
That has nothing to do with the financial and legal obligations you have to remedy the wrongs committed and damage done.

Why can't people separate this in their minds?
You can forgive a murderer personally and spiritually
and they can still be held to pay back 5 or 10 million in restitution for taking a life.

What if we HAD a law that made it AUTOMATIC that if you are convicted of a Premeditated murder, the fine is 5 million to the survivors and 5 million to the state. Can you imagine if all citizens had to sign such an agreement to pay this cost if convicted, in order to enjoy privileges of citizenship? Who could afford to murder someone if it carried an automatic price tag?

When we join a fitness club, if we damaged equipment, we'd be expected to reimburse the company. When we don't return library books, we get the bill for replacing those books. Why not with crimes -- laying out the costs to the public of prosecuting these, and having citizens agree to pay the costs of any crimes or abuses we commit if we are convicted of premeditated crimes. Any any defense paid for by the state would require FULL cooperation and transparency, if the public is expected to pay those costs. No denying or withholding information that drags out the process and costs more to the public if that's who's paying the bill. For any costs incurred on others who didn't commit the crime, we all agree to pay if we deliberately violated the law. Can you imagine the impact this would have? To even PROPOSE?

If we had consistent punishment and consequences per crime, without mixing in the emotional factor which is separate,
maybe we'd have consistent expectations and people might respect the laws.

Parents and kids can still "forgive each other emotionally" and have healthy normal relations,
and still go through the process of getting grounded for a set period of time for staying out late past curfew
or having pay a 70.00 ticket on the car for parking it in a no parking zone.

Forgiving someone for doing that still means they have to pay the ticket or it's not fair to make someone else pay.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. You do have an obligation to get them off the streets before they harm someone but when they are standing in front of the judge mercy triumphs over judgment. When you extend grace to someone they usually try to live up to it. Even if they weren't before.

A judge can show mercy to a degree, but people who feloniously assault others belong in prison.

I'm saying the two should be separate. Like separating church and state.

All people who commit crimes or abuses should be held responsible for rectifying those damages. Period.
Forgiving you emotionally or personally is separate.
That has nothing to do with the financial and legal obligations you have to remedy the wrongs committed and damage done.

Why can't people separate this in their minds?
You can forgive a murderer personally and spiritually
and they can still be held to pay back 5 or 10 million in restitution for taking a life.

If we had consistent punishment and consequences per crime, without mixing in the emotional factor which is separate,
maybe we'd have consistent expectations and people might respect the laws.

Parents and kids can still "forgive each other emotionally" and have healthy normal relations,
and still go through the process of getting grounded for a set period of time for staying out late past curfew
or having pay a 70.00 ticket on the car for parking it in a no parking zone.

Forgiving someone for doing that still means they have to pay the ticket or it's not fair to make someone else pay.

I have zero idea what you are getting at. How does the legal system forgive someone?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I think she was talking about the victim, Smarterthanaveragebear.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. You do have an obligation to get them off the streets before they harm someone but when they are standing in front of the judge mercy triumphs over judgment. When you extend grace to someone they usually try to live up to it. Even if they weren't before.

A judge can show mercy to a degree, but people who feloniously assault others belong in prison.

I'm saying the two should be separate. Like separating church and state.

All people who commit crimes or abuses should be held responsible for rectifying those damages. Period.
Forgiving you emotionally or personally is separate.
That has nothing to do with the financial and legal obligations you have to remedy the wrongs committed and damage done.

Why can't people separate this in their minds?
You can forgive a murderer personally and spiritually
and they can still be held to pay back 5 or 10 million in restitution for taking a life.

If we had consistent punishment and consequences per crime, without mixing in the emotional factor which is separate,
maybe we'd have consistent expectations and people might respect the laws.

Parents and kids can still "forgive each other emotionally" and have healthy normal relations,
and still go through the process of getting grounded for a set period of time for staying out late past curfew
or having pay a 70.00 ticket on the car for parking it in a no parking zone.

Forgiving someone for doing that still means they have to pay the ticket or it's not fair to make someone else pay.

I have zero idea what you are getting at. How does the legal system forgive someone?

For example, in the case of Juan Quintero who shot and killed Officer Rodney Johnson.
Instead of getting the death penalty or being held to any restitution at all,
he was deemed mentally impaired and given a life sentence, even though technically he
was an illegal deportee who already had a criminal record.

Why not hold people accountable for the costs of their crimes,
or in the case of mentally ill people, whichever family knew they had criminal or behavioral sickness
and let them run around without reporting it, should be held for the costs of negligence if they "had knowledge"
this person was a DANGER to society.

Our system does not hold people accountable for the restitution proportionate to the crime.
We expect taxpayers to pay, who didn't commit the crimes.

Now that's FINE to give people second chances to rectify their lives,
such as the STAR program that is proven to work more cost-effectively.

But it STILL needs to HOLD people accountable for the damages
and not "confuse giving people second chances" such as with probation
with "exempting them from responsibility for paying the COSTS."

You can be on probation and still be expected to pay the costs.
What if you wipe out the head of a family where other members depend on that income?
Why shouldn't your income be used to invest in helping that family become independent
so they aren't thrown into poverty or crisis if you commit premeditated murder and cost them on multiple levels?

Why aren't we looking at the true social and financial costs,
and adding that to the consequences of the crimes?

Somehow we are indirectly forgiving this "inability to pay" and making taxpayers pay.

But what if we set up a system (for example I propose the real estate model
used by Lifestyles Unlimited as one way to help anyone develop 1 milliion to 5 or even 10 million in wealth
in the shortest amount of time Lifestyles Unlimited - The education and mentor group for real estate investors
so that it IS POSSIBLE for any person, even incapacitated if they have help from family,
to invest money so they COULD pay off million dollar fines if that was the price tag put on premeditated murder.

Wouldn't people look at what they COULD be doing to become financially viable
if you were going to do that much work to raise millions of dollars?
Why do that work to pay off fines for crimes, when you could have done that work to keep that wealth
for yourself and your own family.

The impact could be on multiple levels, for the purpose of PREVENTION
even though it is proposed for RESTITUTION. When you look at the work and
costs it would take, clearly we would need to invest in prevention as more reasonable.

We aren't looking at the costs, because we don't expect anyone to be able to pay.
Well what if we could?

What all have we been "forgiving" and dumping on the public to pay for?
How many billions per year has the criminal justice system cost us that we don't think about.
when we could be COLLECTING instead of paying triple for crimes committed by others charged to public expense?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't think people of ANY race agree to getting beaten up by thugs of ANY race.

Even if you forgive the fact this stuff happens every day, why not just agree to hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
Why does forgiveness of one person or another have anything to do with holding them accountable for crimes?

You can forgive people for crimes or abuses, and still carry out the law.
Forgiveness does not mean tolerating or excusing the wrongdoing.

Just as REFUSING to forgive is not required in order to hold people to the law.

I think people are mistaking both,
thinking it is necessary to hate and blame in order to enforce laws
and that forgiving means letting it happen again and again. That's not true forgiveness, but fear of confronting it that allows it to keep going. Forgiving still involves working with people to ensure the issues are resolved; it isn't a free pass to commit wrongs!

Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. You do have an obligation to get them off the streets before they harm someone but when they are standing in front of the judge mercy triumphs over judgment. When you extend grace to someone they usually try to live up to it. Even if they weren't before.

A judge can show mercy to a degree, but people who feloniously assault others belong in prison.

I'm saying the two should be separate. Like separating church and state.

All people who commit crimes or abuses should be held responsible for rectifying those damages. Period.
Forgiving you emotionally or personally is separate.
That has nothing to do with the financial and legal obligations you have to remedy the wrongs committed and damage done.

Why can't people separate this in their minds?
You can forgive a murderer personally and spiritually
and they can still be held to pay back 5 or 10 million in restitution for taking a life.

If we had consistent punishment and consequences per crime, without mixing in the emotional factor which is separate,
maybe we'd have consistent expectations and people might respect the laws.

Parents and kids can still "forgive each other emotionally" and have healthy normal relations,
and still go through the process of getting grounded for a set period of time for staying out late past curfew
or having pay a 70.00 ticket on the car for parking it in a no parking zone.

Forgiving someone for doing that still means they have to pay the ticket or it's not fair to make someone else pay.

I have zero idea what you are getting at. How does the legal system forgive someone?

For example, in the case of Juan Quintero who shot and killed Officer Rodney Johnson.
Instead of getting the death penalty or being held to any restitution at all,
he was deemed mentally impaired and given a life sentence, even though technically he
was an illegal deportee who already had a criminal record.

Why not hold people accountable for the costs of their crimes,
or in the case of mentally ill people, whichever family knew they had criminal or behavioral sickness
and let them run around without reporting it, should be held for the costs of negligence if they "had knowledge"
this person was a DANGER to society.

Our system does not hold people accountable for the restitution proportionate to the crime.
We expect taxpayers to pay, who didn't commit the crimes.

Now that's FINE to give people second chances to rectify their lives,
such as the STAR program that is proven to work more cost-effectively.

But it STILL needs to HOLD people accountable for the damages
and not "confuse giving people second chances" such as with probation
with "exempting them from responsibility for paying the COSTS."

You can be on probation and still be expected to pay the costs.
What if you wipe out the head of a family where other members depend on that income?
Why shouldn't your income be used to invest in helping that family become independent
so they aren't thrown into poverty or crisis if you commit premeditated murder and cost them on multiple levels?

Why aren't we looking at the true social and financial costs,
and adding that to the consequences of the crimes?

Somehow we are indirectly forgiving this "inability to pay" and making taxpayers pay.

But what if we set up a system (for example I propose the real estate model
used by Lifestyles Unlimited as one way to help anyone develop 1 milliion to 5 or even 10 million in wealth
in the shortest amount of time Lifestyles Unlimited - The education and mentor group for real estate investors
so that it IS POSSIBLE for any person, even incapacitated if they have help from family,
to invest money so they COULD pay off million dollar fines if that was the price tag put on premeditated murder.

Wouldn't people look at what they COULD be doing to become financially viable
if you were going to do that much work to raise millions of dollars?
Why do that work to pay off fines for crimes, when you could have done that work to keep that wealth
for yourself and your own family.

The impact could be on multiple levels, for the purpose of PREVENTION
even though it is proposed for RESTITUTION. When you look at the work and
costs it would take, clearly we would need to invest in prevention as more reasonable.

We aren't looking at the costs, because we don't expect anyone to be able to pay.
Well what if we could?

What all have we been "forgiving" and dumping on the public to pay for?
How many billions per year has the criminal justice system cost us that we don't think about.
when we could be COLLECTING instead of paying triple for crimes committed by others charged to public expense?

most people who are arrested and jailed for a crime, don't have any money . You can't get blood from a turnip

However, there are plenty of cases were criminals are ordered to pay restitution.

Are suggesting that criminals family's should be billed to pay for their jail time?

 

[emilynghiem]

I think she was talking about the victim, Smarterthanaveragebear.

Yes, in the case of the Officer I cited, the family is Christian
and the surviving widow, also an Officer, really struggled to do
both the forgiving on the spiritual level but go through the criminal justice system
that did not have a way to handle this case to bring real closure.

It is not equipped to handle mentally ill.

And yes, there is a real issue with families that want to
forgive the killer and do not want them executed,
but the law and courts decide otherwise.

Why can't we have forgiveness AND accountability/restitution to the public
without killing people. Why can't they live out their lives working out a restitution deal instead.

It seems we either have no consequences or we kill them.
And for mentally ill, it is a complete roulette game, where one may get executed
and others go through the revolving door / merry go round with no accountability
to taxpayers, the offenders who get no help, or the victims and society left at risk
when these people get released to half way houses and run away again and again....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I think she was talking about the victim, Smarterthanaveragebear.

Yes, in the case of the Officer I cited, the family is Christian
and the surviving widow, also an Officer, really struggled to do
both the forgiving on the spiritual level but go through the criminal justice system
that did not have a way to handle this case to bring real closure.

It is not equipped to handle mentally ill.

And yes, there is a real issue with families that want to
forgive the killer and do not want them executed,
but the law and courts decide otherwise.

Why can't we have forgiveness AND accountability/restitution to the public
without killing people. Why can't they live out their lives working out a restitution deal instead.

It seems we either have no consequences or we kill them.
And for mentally ill, it is a complete roulette game, where one may get executed
and others go through the revolving door / merry go round with no accountability
to taxpayers, the offenders who get no help, or the victims and society left at risk
when these people get released to half way houses and run away again and again....

Because , as I said in another thread, and was laughed at btw, the courts do not get justice for the victim, they get justice for society as a whole.

Sometimes the victim is consulted about a plea bargain or whatever, but that is a courtesy, the fact is that the legal system works for society as a whole.

 

[emilynghiem]

Forgiveness is free, trust is earned. You do have an obligation to get them off the streets before they harm someone but when they are standing in front of the judge mercy triumphs over judgment. When you extend grace to someone they usually try to live up to it. Even if they weren't before.

A judge can show mercy to a degree, but people who feloniously assault others belong in prison.

I'm saying the two should be separate. Like separating church and state.

All people who commit crimes or abuses should be held responsible for rectifying those damages. Period.
Forgiving you emotionally or personally is separate.
That has nothing to do with the financial and legal obligations you have to remedy the wrongs committed and damage done.

Why can't people separate this in their minds?
You can forgive a murderer personally and spiritually
and they can still be held to pay back 5 or 10 million in restitution for taking a life.

If we had consistent punishment and consequences per crime, without mixing in the emotional factor which is separate,
maybe we'd have consistent expectations and people might respect the laws.

Parents and kids can still "forgive each other emotionally" and have healthy normal relations,
and still go through the process of getting grounded for a set period of time for staying out late past curfew
or having pay a 70.00 ticket on the car for parking it in a no parking zone.

Forgiving someone for doing that still means they have to pay the ticket or it's not fair to make someone else pay.

I have zero idea what you are getting at. How does the legal system forgive someone?

For example, in the case of Juan Quintero who shot and killed Officer Rodney Johnson.
Instead of getting the death penalty or being held to any restitution at all,
he was deemed mentally impaired and given a life sentence, even though technically he
was an illegal deportee who already had a criminal record.

Why not hold people accountable for the costs of their crimes,
or in the case of mentally ill people, whichever family knew they had criminal or behavioral sickness
and let them run around without reporting it, should be held for the costs of negligence if they "had knowledge"
this person was a DANGER to society.

Our system does not hold people accountable for the restitution proportionate to the crime.
We expect taxpayers to pay, who didn't commit the crimes.

Now that's FINE to give people second chances to rectify their lives,
such as the STAR program that is proven to work more cost-effectively.

But it STILL needs to HOLD people accountable for the damages
and not "confuse giving people second chances" such as with probation
with "exempting them from responsibility for paying the COSTS."

You can be on probation and still be expected to pay the costs.
What if you wipe out the head of a family where other members depend on that income?
Why shouldn't your income be used to invest in helping that family become independent
so they aren't thrown into poverty or crisis if you commit premeditated murder and cost them on multiple levels?

Why aren't we looking at the true social and financial costs,
and adding that to the consequences of the crimes?

Somehow we are indirectly forgiving this "inability to pay" and making taxpayers pay.

But what if we set up a system (for example I propose the real estate model
used by Lifestyles Unlimited as one way to help anyone develop 1 milliion to 5 or even 10 million in wealth
in the shortest amount of time Lifestyles Unlimited - The education and mentor group for real estate investors
so that it IS POSSIBLE for any person, even incapacitated if they have help from family,
to invest money so they COULD pay off million dollar fines if that was the price tag put on premeditated murder.

Wouldn't people look at what they COULD be doing to become financially viable
if you were going to do that much work to raise millions of dollars?
Why do that work to pay off fines for crimes, when you could have done that work to keep that wealth
for yourself and your own family.

The impact could be on multiple levels, for the purpose of PREVENTION
even though it is proposed for RESTITUTION. When you look at the work and
costs it would take, clearly we would need to invest in prevention as more reasonable.

We aren't looking at the costs, because we don't expect anyone to be able to pay.
Well what if we could?

What all have we been "forgiving" and dumping on the public to pay for?
How many billions per year has the criminal justice system cost us that we don't think about.
when we could be COLLECTING instead of paying triple for crimes committed by others charged to public expense?

most people who are arrested and jailed for a crime, don't have any money . You can't get blood from a turnip

However, there are plenty of cases were criminals are ordered to pay restitution.

Are suggesting that criminals family's should be billed to pay for their jail time?

1. Let's SET UP a way that ANYONE could earn 1 to 5 million in 2 to 10 years.
So if you were to get a 10 to 20 year sentence, you could use this system to pay back millions in fines.
a. The real estate method, of buying houses for rentals and then investing in more until you own apt complexes,
is one way. Maybe other people (like the geniuses we have here, OnePercenter and NatrualGas or whoever)
can come up with better programs and options for people.

b. Also setting up Insurance coudl be a way.
Why make law abiding citizens buy insurance for health care.
Why not require those with records to buy it, if they have a higher risk of costing the public money for crimes.

c. What I really would like to see: what about holding corporate officials responsible for restitution for money they've swindled corruptly at taxpayer expense by govt abuses?

What if such wrongdoers were held to set up a credit system, where they serve the public by lending against these debts from damages and crimes, and then working with the wrongdoers over time to pay it back? They can use their business experience to help those who need to pay back who otherwise can't, and could lend in the meantime, in proportion to millions or billions these corporate frauds cost to taxpayers that is owed anyway.

Examples: Maxxam corporation cost over 1.6 billion in estimated bailouts from bad S&L loans abused to buy out redwood forest land in a hostile takeover, then gut this landmark and cost another 500 million for the govt to buy back the land to try to save it.

Solyndra is criticized for costing 500 million to taxpayers.

War contractors are still not held accountable for illicit contracts still questioned to this day,
similar to how Al Gore and his carbon credits are still under fire as never questioned due to political conflicts of interest in going after this group instead of that one, etc.

If you ask the Green party or these other groups that have been researching the illicit contracts and abuses at taxpayer expense, there are many cases that could be pursued. So if corporations were held to pay these back, or at least lending against the profits made at public expense, we could fund some kind of restitution financial credit system and hold wrongdoers responsible for paying back while the victims and taxpayers receive the compensation up front.

2. What I'm saying is if a family KNOWS someone is legally or mentally incompetent,
but allows/enables them to run around and commit more violations that cost the public or victims.

Example: the family that hid the man who kidnapped and killed a little girl. She might have survived if they turned him in, but they delayed and obstructed justice and she died in the process.

People who know who drugged and raped those girls at a party,
or military rape that is covered up with KNOWLEDGE these people are criminal.

What if people are NOT legally or financially able to sign such a contract to pay for costs.
What if these people required a "cosigner" who DID accept the legal and financial costs.

wouldn't the game change then, if we started adding up the costs of crimes
and really holding the wrongdoers accountable.

And if you can't afford to pay, then either requiring insurance or a cosigner.

If we require insurance for cars, due to accidents that can happen, what about other incidents?
What about premeditated crimes and holding people accountable for reporting dangerous criminal illness?

 

[emilynghiem]

I think she was talking about the victim, Smarterthanaveragebear.

Yes, in the case of the Officer I cited, the family is Christian
and the surviving widow, also an Officer, really struggled to do
both the forgiving on the spiritual level but go through the criminal justice system
that did not have a way to handle this case to bring real closure.

It is not equipped to handle mentally ill.

And yes, there is a real issue with families that want to
forgive the killer and do not want them executed,
but the law and courts decide otherwise.

Why can't we have forgiveness AND accountability/restitution to the public
without killing people. Why can't they live out their lives working out a restitution deal instead.

It seems we either have no consequences or we kill them.
And for mentally ill, it is a complete roulette game, where one may get executed
and others go through the revolving door / merry go round with no accountability
to taxpayers, the offenders who get no help, or the victims and society left at risk
when these people get released to half way houses and run away again and again....

Because , as I said in another thread, and was laughed at btw, the courts do not get justice for the victim, they get justice for society as a whole.

Sometimes the victim is consulted about a plea bargain or whatever, but that is a courtesy, the fact is that the legal system works for society as a whole.

So why not require criminals to pay restitution proportionate to their crimes to society?

For example, drug and human traffickers could work at factory jobs along the border,
and replace sweatshop workers currently exploited, so more women and children could go to school
instead of sold into slavery, while their convicted oppressors could work those jobs for the rest of their lives
to support the women and children they enslaved.