Dissolving the Fed Gov vs Sex Offenders

[WDRacing]

Basically I'd like to dissolve the Fed Gov entirely and handle everything on a State level. We can still be the United States of America, we just don't need a Federal Government anymore IMHO. Nothing they do can't be done by the existing State Gov and the infrastructure already in place.

Examples are, CA can legalize, and tax medical marijuana in anyway they deem appropriate and AZ can enforce immigration law however their state feels appropriate. Each state could have it's own social programs and it's own taxes to pay for them. Each state already has the ability to democratically govern themselves. Everyone can live in whatever state they feel best suits them. Opens the door for more freedoms and a better life for everyone because it removes control from the Government and places it back where it belongs, to the people.

Think about all of the things we disagree on. Your state could be for all of the things you believe in. Everything from immigration to welfare and health care could be done how the people choose. It's far easier for people to control individual states then it is to control the Federal Government.

Discuss...

[Cold_Zero]

Virginia, South Carolina and Vermont all have 'opt out clauses' when they signed the Constitution. To be honest, who needs to dissolve the Federal Leviathan (government) when you can just break apart the union?

Brian, you would enjoy Mike Church in Sirius Patriot Radio. He has a T Shirt for sale that says, "I am the Colonial revolutionary your hippy friends warned you about."

[WDRacing]

I'll have to check that station out.

[seang]

Would that create factions?

[vikesfankevin1986]

Meh I would rather see the Federal government in charge of everything. At least then you would know the laws as you went from state to state and they would be consistant. Like stated in the first post CA has their own laws as does AZ. In a paper I did for school I learned the age of consent (for sex) varies from state to state. In Minnesota 16 is the legal age. One can legally have sex with a 16 year old on one side of the river but then you go across the river to Wisc and 18 is the age. That makes no sense. Keep it consistant. If we do what you propose, we may as well let every state be its own country...

[AZhitman]

Would that create factions?

We already have those.

[IBCoupe]

I like the balance we have now. It's right where it was designed to be.

[AZhitman]

In a paper I did for school I learned the age of consent (for sex) varies from state to state. In Minnesota 16 is the legal age. One can legally have sex with a 16 year old on one side of the river but then you go across the river to Wisc and 18 is the age. That makes no sense.

On that note, I used to manage a sex offender caseload. Several of my offenders were raised in Mexico, where those numbers mean nothing. Imagine the mess when an 18 year old born and raised in Mexico nails his 15-year old GF from upscale Glendale and her parents find out. A whole PILE of moral / ethical issues ensue.

[AZhitman]

I like the balance we have now. It's right where it was designed to be.

The party of no.

(Just kidding. I agree for the most part.)

[IBCoupe]

On that note, I used to manage a sex offender caseload. Several of my offenders were raised in Mexico, where those numbers mean nothing. Imagine the mess when an 18 year old born and raised in Mexico nails his 15-year old GF from upscale Glendale and her parents find out. A whole PILE of moral / ethical issues ensue.

A topic for another thread entirely, but that's another one I feel strongly about. Our sex offender laws need to be seriously revamped. Congress has even brought sex offender laws into the rules of evidence - for the most part, your past crimes can't be used against you as evidence that you've committed the crime that you're accused of.

Except for sex offenders and sexual assaults. That you were a rapist means that you were probably a rapist here, too. That you had sex with a fifteen-year-old twenty years ago means that you probably had sex with a fifteen-year-old today.

But that you stole a TV last week can't be used to show that you stole a TV this week, too. Nevermind that statistically, this makes no sense. Same-crime recidivism rates (how often someone is convicted of the same crime as one they were previously convicted) for drug crimes? 24.8%. Same-crime recidivism for theft? 33.5%. Burglary? 31.9%. Assault is 21.9%. Motor vehicle theft is 18.6%. Fraud is 21.6%.

And rape? 7.7%. Only 7.7% of convicted rapists will be convicted of rape again, while 33.5% of thieves will be convicted of theft again. And that's the one we say is indicative. The only thing lower is homicide, at 6.6%.

My source is page 6 of this report:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf

[AZhitman]

Great point. There's a few other mitigating factors that are uncontrolled for that would skew those numbers some, but your point is well-taken.

For example, I'm betting murder is even lower on the scale (below 7.7%). See where I'm going?

[IBCoupe]

Haha, yeah, I just added that in after I noticed I omitted it. But I'm not in favor of using past murder convictions as evidence in favor of a present murder charge, either. And we don't currently allow it.

[vikesfankevin1986]

In a paper I did for school I learned the age of consent (for sex) varies from state to state. In Minnesota 16 is the legal age. One can legally have sex with a 16 year old on one side of the river but then you go across the river to Wisc and 18 is the age. That makes no sense.

On that note, I used to manage a sex offender caseload. Several of my offenders were raised in Mexico, where those numbers mean nothing. Imagine the mess when an 18 year old born and raised in Mexico nails his 15-year old GF from upscale Glendale and her parents find out. A whole PILE of moral / ethical issues ensue.

I can imagine. I almost hit my friend over the topic. The paper was actually about whether or not their should be a common age when someone is considered an adult because we have different ages for driving, smoking, drinking, standing trial, ect. The paper was a lot more involved than I thought it would be. But anyways, when I was telling my friend about it, he flipped out when the words sex and 16 year olds came up in the same sentence. He started attacking my research, my sources, my databases, pretty much everything you could. Hes like who told you to use this and do it that way. The University of Minnesota did, you know that school you are getting your degree from also? Then I mentioned I am doing my generals at the University of Minnesota and he did his at a community college so my way is probabaly better than what he was taught. He got even more pissed. What's funny is he is so huge on sources and credentials and facts and blah blah blah. When he calmed down he said this..."well your research just doesn't agree with my beliefs." (He's Catholic) First off he was totally missing the point of my paper and just because he doesn't agree doesn't mean you can throw facts out door.
FACT: If I wanted to I could bang a 16 year old and it is legal. But then why do our mores of society say this is so wrong? It's legal but its wrong? But yea it causes a whole s*** throwing fest. I would hate to have to deal with a case over something like that.

[AZhitman]

Haha, yeah, I just added that in after I noticed I omitted it. But I'm not in favor of using past murder convictions as evidence in favor of a present murder charge, either. And we don't currently allow it.

I actually retained something working on my Masters in CJA.

[stebo0728]

I like the balance we have now. It's right where it was designed to be.

I disagree. Read the book "Original Intent". One mans take, but makes alot of sense. Not that we are WAY outta wack necessarily, but some knee jerk changes of the past have gotten us a bit cadywompus.

And on the sex offender thing, I thing some major changes need to be made as well. Did you know, here in GA anyway, if you take a piss on the golf course, and get caught, you have to go on the "sex offender" list? Asinine! And how about the 17 yr old kid that has consensual sex with his 16 r old girlfriend, daddy gets mad, kids gets convicted, "sex offender" list again!

Old creepy guys that molest little kids, Id be ok with shooting them in the street (as long as they clean it up before he festers) but come on, some of the sex offender crap is out of control.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I like the balance we have now. It's right where it was designed to be.

I disagree. Read the book "Original Intent". One mans take, but makes alot of sense. Not that we are WAY outta wack necessarily, but some knee jerk changes of the past have gotten us a bit cadywompus.

And on the sex offender thing, I thing some major changes need to be made as well. Did you know, here in GA anyway, if you take a piss on the golf course, and get caught, you have to go on the "sex offender" list? Asinine! And how about the 17 yr old kid that has consensual sex with his 16 r old girlfriend, daddy gets mad, kids gets convicted, "sex offender" list again!

Old creepy guys that molest little kids, Id be ok with shooting them in the street (as long as they clean it up before he festers) but come on, some of the sex offender crap is out of control.

I agree. There are some sick people out there but I heard a story a while back (not sure if its the one you mentioned) but in one of the southern states, it was something like a 17 or 18 year old had consensual ORAL sex with his 16 or 17 year old girl friend and got years in prison (not sure of the number but I believe it was inbetween 10-20.) He has already served like 5 years and his lawyers are still fighting it, as they should. It was a black man so I strongly believe that had something to do with it. That pisses me off so much because get this...
My friends g/f got raped at a party by her b/f. He broke her jaw and ribs. She has titanium ribs now because of it. He also sliced her achilles tendons so should couldn't get away (as if breaking her jaw and smashing her ribs wasn't enough.) He held a knife to her throat and raped her...the result...No jail time...Had to pay for medical expenses plus 50,000 dollars and there is a restraining order on him. Because they both go to college he had to move out of a frat house because it was too close to where she was living. This girl gets followed home (cops have been called a number of times) and gets poked in the ribs and picked on constantly by his friends because of all the s*** she had put him through...
But a guy does prison time for having consensual oral sex with a girl around his age? Tell me, what is to stop someone from raping a girl in this country, especially if they have money? Doesn't the average rapist do like 3 months or something? It scary when someone can sit there and think "is this girl worth 3 months of my life?"
I did 4 years active duty Air Force and went on 2 deployments and I will tell you that 3 months is not s***...scary

[AZhitman]

I could share TONS of stories like that. And lest anyone here think I'm a hard-core, non-feeling conservative wingnut, I testified COUNTLESS times in court on behalf of some of my caseload who I felt had gotten railroaded.

But I'm just a hateful bigot, so what do I know.

[WDRacing]

Changed the title for you guys...should be an interesting Google search now.

[audtatious]

But I'm just a hateful bigot, so what do I know.

Of course you are....you have white skin.

[seang]

Tell me, what is to stop someone from raping a girl in this country, especially if they have money?

A loving family member who owns a sniper rifle.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Tell me, what is to stop someone from raping a girl in this country, especially if they have money?

A loving family member who owns a sniper rifle.

In a way I wish that's how it was...our justice system is too light on most people and too hard on others. That whole insanity plea is garbage. I think most of the time if you kill someone you have to be insane or messed up in the head.

[IBCoupe]

I think most of the time if you kill someone you have to be insane or messed up in the head.

So shouldn't an insanity plea be more common?

It's not as if you get out of doing the time. Usually, people who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are sentenced to a mental health facility, and are usually committed for longer periods of time than if they had gone to prison.

[vikesfankevin1986]

If I killed someone I think I would rather spend my entire life in a mental health facility than 25 years in prison...

[srellim234]

IB- Unfortunately that is not the perception given to the average person on the street. We're fed the notion that for many of the murder cases with an insanity plea the probable outcome would be capital punishment, life without possibility of parole, or go to a mental institution where the guilty party will be released back into society when he gives a psychiatrist the right answers.

It's crude, I know, but I think another option should be life in a mental institution without possibility of release.

[IBCoupe]

If I killed someone I think I would rather spend my entire life in a mental health facility than 25 years in prison...

Really? You mean confined to a building, usually confined to your room, force-fed drugs, with really nothing you could say or do that makes you appear sane? Surrounded by crazy people? Under probably more supervision than your average prisoner?

Srellim, you're right. It's unfortunate that this is the public perception.

[stebo0728]

Our esteemed Community Organizer spent some time pandering to the unions yesterday. It was at a speech to the AFL-CIO where he came up with this quote: "You have a perfect economic storm that's hit our middle class directly in every region, every segment of this country."

Perfect for what? For government to swoop in and solve all of your problems. Although, that ALWAYS comes with a price. This is a price that liberals try to convince you is worth it - more government, most taxes, more redistribution. In the end you are to believe that you would never have weathered the storm without your trusty government officials there to guide you.

This is a prime example of never letting a good crisis go to waste. This "perfect economic storm" means that it is perfect for government and for unions. But as for the private sector?

Oh and while we are talking about pandering to the unions. Our Community Organizer also pledged to the AFL-CIO that he would "keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," otherwise known as the card check bill. That is just what Americans want right now - more power concentrated in the hands of unions and Washington. But ... Obama knows where the votes are. He knows that pandering to the unions is a big part of keeping Democrats (and himself) in charge.

If for no other reason than to reduce the power and influence of unions in our economy, the Democrats must be removed from power in Washington. For the most part, the time for unions has come and gone. They are a destructive force in our schools and a destructive force in our economy.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

[IBCoupe]

Or "perfect" as in this:


It's funny when the foundation of an opinion rests on a particular interpretation of a single word. Like "reptilian."

[vikesfankevin1986]

If I killed someone I think I would rather spend my entire life in a mental health facility than 25 years in prison...

Really? You mean confined to a building, usually confined to your room, force-fed drugs, with really nothing you could say or do that makes you appear sane? Surrounded by crazy people? Under probably more supervision than your average prisoner?

Srellim, you're right. It's unfortunate that this is the public perception.

My wife thinks it's weird but I can sit in the dark on the couch and just think. Obviously being confined to a room is different but I think I could handle it a lot better than most.
Force-fed drugs? Just take them willingly so then you aren't being forced. I know a ton of people that sit on the couch all day and drink alcohol...very similar to the 2 things above...
Why act crazy? Act for a month then act normal. Obviously I'm not a law student but I do know you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Is the new evidence going to be "well hes not crazy now, so he must not have been during the crime." If the laywer convinced them I was crazy they can probably convince them I was not faking it or that the meds worked.
Surrounded by crazy people could suck but like you said I may be confined, so what's the problem? I'm surrounded by stupid people and people I swear are crazy all the time.
Finally, supervision means I won't be getting beat up or raped. I would rather have cops harass me every once in a while then not have cops at all.

[IBCoupe]

"Take them willingly"

Is it really "willingly" if you're only doing it because otherwise you'd be forced?

"Act for a month then act normal"

Then they'll just say that you're acting normal because treatment is working, and that if you leave, you'll probably go back to being crazy.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I'll take a damn pill to not be in prison. Neither of those 2 things convince me that it's worse than prison...and that's all I'm saying...Like I said in other posts, I was active duty Air Force, there were tons of things that I was "forced" to do. I went on 2 deployments and if I was not in the military I would not have been jumping at the chance to go on one.