What can we do to end this madness?

[BC38]

Answer is at this point, we can't. The line of departure to be able to fix the system was crossed long ago.

I would have to disagree. It is never too late to reverse course if enough of the people get fed up with the status quo. And I think the critical mass for that is building.

I will share one idea I remember off the top of my head: first, felony crimes would be strictly no bail. Period.

I would agree with adding that to my other suggestions above. There are currently a lot of crimes that were once misdemeanors that have been reclassified as felonies, so I would amend you suggestion to be felony drug or violent crimes.

But let's get to the REAL cause here: the people themselves. I see people pay a lot of lip service to the problems in the system, but really have a more "meh" attitude about it. Look at some of our cities now. San Francisco, Portland, so on. The oifficials egging on the problems could be recalled or impeached or removed from office at the ballot box. How much of that do you see going on?

Again, I would have to disagree. People aren't that much different now than they have always been. You just hear more about the evil in the world now than you did before the information age.

I think we are starting to see more pushback in the last few years. In fact there have already been a few soft on crime prosecutors in some of our large cities who have been recalled in just the last year or so - a very high-profile one in California comes to mind - entirely due to the people getting fed up with the increasing crime rates. People see that the increases in crime are due to the prosecutor's being more of an advocate for the criminal's rights than the victim's rights, and they are tired of it.

We've seen a President elected on an agenda of changing the course that we've been headed for the last few decades - all because people are fed up with the status quo. We've seen control of school boards being seized by parents fed up with indoctrination. We're seeing laws and SCOTUS decisions being made that favor more traditional viewpoints. To me all these things point to our country starting to head in a better direction. We aren't winning every battle, and may have lost a little ground recently, but I'm hopeful that we will continue gaining ground.

It isn't going to get better until the people themselves step up and make it better. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

The first statement I agree with. The second one, not so much. I believe we are starting to see the pendulum swing back the other way. There are a LOT of people who are getting fed up with what has been happening the last couple of years, and I think they are starting to wake up and oppose it right now.

Whether you and I live long enough to see drastic change is an open question - because none of us are guaranteed to see tomorrow, after all. Obviously it won't happen overnight. But then we didn't get into this mess overnight either.

That's just my viewpoint. But I've been accused of being a bit of an optimist.

 

[BC38]

The first part of that is already happening. Second part soon to follow.

They are charging the bystanders who detained the suspect in THIS CASE that I referenced in the first post?
Or are you making a more general statement?

 

[johngalt]

Wisconsin may be cold in the winter, but we have very good Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws. Including provision that shelters from private law suits.

Unfortunately, MN is a duty to retreat state.

 

[johngalt]

One problem is we have too many stupid Malum Prohibitum laws. Stupid laws breed contempt for the law. Prison should be for Malum in se violations.

 

[BC38]

One problem is we have too many stupid Malum Prohibitum laws. Stupid laws breed contempt for the law. Prison should be for Malum in se violations.

LOL, and can you put that in English? Most of us aren't well versed in Latin (those are Latin terms, right?).
Yeah, I now about Google Translate, but I think points made in plain language are much more effective and persuasive.
Just my opinion.

 

[Racer X]

LOL, and can you put that in English? Most of us aren't well versed in Latin (those are Latin terms, right?).
Yeah, I now about Google Translate, but I think points made in plain language are much more effective and persuasive.
Just my opinion.

We all know its wrong, vs "because I said so"

MURDER is illegal, obviously, same with theft. Jayalking is because I say so. Running a red light when there is no one there is because I said so, but if there is no light, you are just fine. In the context of the world of firearms, 10 round magazines are just fine, 11 is a crime. That is one heck of a "because I say so" especially when some states it is 15, other states 17 rounds, some states, no limit.

Drug possesion and use is because I said so. If you stole the drugs, that's obviously illegal.

Here is the ultimate "because I said so" on that note. I have a prescription for oxycodone. So does my partner. If I'm out, and she gives me one of hers, we both just broke the law. There is absolutely no harm to anyone. I can even pick hers up at the pharmacy and pay for them with my credit card. But that doesn't legally make them mine.

 

[alwslate]

With no due process? Un-Constitutional.
For which crimes would you advocate such a drastic solution - where do you set that threshold?

Hopefully you're just being facetious...

I'm not being facetious. But I'm not about to specify for which crimes on a public forum. Drastic crimes deserve drastic solutions, I'll leave it at that.

 

[rwsmith]

Yes,I hear...

I firmly believe that if weapons charges weren't negotiable/avail for plea bargains, and mandatory charging for them every time, it would make a significant difference.

...that gun charges are typically thrown out as part of any 'deal'.

 

[BC38]

I'm not being facetious. But I'm not about to specify for which crimes on a public forum. Drastic crimes deserve drastic solutions, I'll leave it at that.

Well somebody would have to draw that line, and it is YOUR proposal.

And some people would be found guilty and executed on the spot, just like a wild west lynching. Who is assigned to assume the responsibility for that decision in each case?

Of course you would have to amend the Constitution to eliminate those pesky due process rights, including trial by jury of peers. Seems to me like that kind of "justice" was one of the things we revolted against Mother England over.

Nah, I don't think we really wanna' go there. WAY too much room for error and/or abuse.

 

[BC38]

We all know its wrong, vs "because I said so"

MURDER is illegal, obviously, same with theft. Jayalking is because I say so. Running a red light when there is no one there is because I said so, but if there is no light, you are just fine. In the context of the world of firearms, 10 round magazines are just fine, 11 is a crime. That is one heck of a "because I say so" especially when some states it is 15, other states 17 rounds, some states, no limit.

Drug possesion and use is because I said so. If you stole the drugs, that's obviously illegal.

Here is the ultimate "because I said so" on that note. I have a prescription for oxycodone. So does my partner. If I'm out, and she gives me one of hers, we both just broke the law. There is absolutely no harm to anyone. I can even pick hers up at the pharmacy and pay for them with my credit card. But that doesn't legally make them mine.

LOL, how do we "all know it's wrong?" Whatever "it" is.

What we call murder in an Islamic culture might be called an "honor killing". Not saying that is right, only that there is little that one can say is universally agreed upon.

The argument can be made that jaywalking and running a red light endangers others if those rules become just a "suggestion" that we only have to follow if we feel like it.

Ever started to change lanes and suddenly discovered that there was a car in your blind spot? It is entirely possible to make a similar mistake at a red light or crossing the street. Especially in a heavy traffic area. The red light is necessary to regulate the flow of traffic. If it is OK to run it when nobody is coming, how about when there is someone coming, but you have time to get across before they get there? Same with jaywalking. What about when people misjudge whether they can get across the intersection or street safely and there is an accident? They aren't the only one affected by the accident.

The old saying "your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose" comes to mind. Civilized society requires more than just laws against murder, rape, and robbery.

I'm not saying we don't have too many laws, and that some of them are unjustified, because I also believe both of those things are true.

Just playing devil's advocate, because I believe the law has to balance individual freedom against the safety and rights of the whole.

 

[delcrossv]

LOL, how do we "all know it's wrong?" Whatever "it" is.

What we call murder in an Islamic culture might be called an "honor killing". Not saying that is right, only that there is little that one can say is universally agreed upon.

The argument can be made that jaywalking and running a red light endangers others if those rules become just a "suggestion" that we only have to follow if we feel like it.

Ever started to change lanes and suddenly discovered that there was a car in your blind spot? It is entirely possible to make a similar mistake at a red light or crossing the street. Especially in a heavy traffic area. The red light is necessary to regulate the flow of traffic. If it is OK to run it when nobody is coming, how about when there is someone coming, but you have time to get across before they get there? Same with jaywalking. What about when people misjudge whether they can get across the intersection or street safely and there is an accident? They aren't the only one affected by the accident.

The old saying "your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose" comes to mind. Civilized society requires more than just laws against murder, rape, and robbery.

I'm not saying we don't have too many laws, and that some of them are unjustified, because I also believe both of those things are true.

Just playing devil's advocate, because I believe the law has to balance individual freedom against the safety and rights of the whole.

Well, seeing how we don't live in Islamabad, what is okay there isn't really germane.

That said, Malum prohibitum laws should be misdemeanors. Too many of them are felonies.

 

[BC38]

Well, seeing how we don't live in Islamabad, what is okay there isn't really germane.

You're right, we don't. I was merely making the point that standards of right vs. wrong are not universally agreed upon - even here in this country (obviously).
Not a reflection of my own opinion. Again, just playing devil's advocate.

That said, Malum prohibitum laws should be misdemeanors. Too many of them are felonies.

Agreed 1000% We can't perfect human nature or society with more laws. We can't perfect it by redefining more and more violations as felonies either. If we could we would have a perfect society by now!

 

[LVSteve]

That said, Malum prohibitum laws should be misdemeanors. Too many of them are felonies.

This, times lots.

 

[Racer X]

Well, seeing how we don't live in Islamabad, what is okay there isn't really germane.

That said, Malum prohibitum laws should be misdemeanors. Too many of them are felonies.

10 rounds vs 11 is absolutely a "because I said so" Justifying 10 vs 11 is impossible from a scientific data gathering standpoint. Raw numbers don't exist. That's why the spread is between 10, 15, 17 and no limit. It's what they could get away with.

 

[Oldengineer]

The madness will stop when we experience a catastrophic event. Something like WWII or the pandemic squared. My guess is that The folks in Ukraine don't have our problem. They're all busy frying much bigger fish.

 

[biku324]

Or Somalia. Last week we an IED that killed 28 and wounded 73. Anywhere else it would be world news; here it was just a Monday.

 

[lawandorder]

Crime waves seem to eb and flow.............

.......We are in one of, if not the worst, periods of ramped up crime this country has ever faced. It seems during each proceeding crime wave things have reached a breaking point where our citizens say enough and they say that with force. Enough force to swing the pendulum back to a period of law and order. The cycle then seems to repeat. Usually a high profile incident triggers the point where folks say enough.

Shortly after Issac C. Parker sat at the Federal Bench for the western district of Arkansas with the Indian Territory attached, a combined area of 74,000 square miles, his first term of court dealt with numerous capital crimes. Several death sentences were handed down. The Judge scheduled 6 of these sentences to be carried out simultaneously. The 6 were hung at once on the gallows at Fort Smith. The national press was shocked.

A Fort Smith newspaper had an article that included this comment,

Without the certainity of punishment there is NO deterrent to crime!

Law & Order or anarchy, our choice.

 

[pharmer]

I think these employees are are on the right track. They'll probably be fired and charged but they knew the cops ain't coming and that the "shopper" would get away without consequences. Joe
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIFKtOsZl8c&pp=ygUbNyBlbGV2ZW4gd29ya2VycyBiZWF0IHRoaWVm[/ame]

 

[ladder13]

The US owns uninhabited islands called Minor Outlying Islands. Put the worst of them there.

 

[johngalt]

LOL, how do we "all know it's wrong?" Whatever "it" is.

What we call murder in an Islamic culture might be called an "honor killing". Not saying that is right, only that there is little that one can say is universally agreed upon.

The argument can be made that jaywalking and running a red light endangers others if those rules become just a "suggestion" that we only have to follow if we feel like it.

Ever started to change lanes and suddenly discovered that there was a car in your blind spot? It is entirely possible to make a similar mistake at a red light or crossing the street. Especially in a heavy traffic area. The red light is necessary to regulate the flow of traffic. If it is OK to run it when nobody is coming, how about when there is someone coming, but you have time to get across before they get there? Same with jaywalking. What about when people misjudge whether they can get across the intersection or street safely and there is an accident? They aren't the only one affected by the accident.

The old saying "your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose" comes to mind. Civilized society requires more than just laws against murder, rape, and robbery.

I'm not saying we don't have too many laws, and that some of them are unjustified, because I also believe both of those things are true.

Just playing devil's advocate, because I believe the law has to balance individual freedom against the safety and rights of the whole.

Malum Prohibitum and Malum in se are not just made up concepts, they are established legal terms, their meaning is well understood in the legal profession. Of course there is differences of opinions as to which category a law might fall under. Most should be obvious under the 'reasonable person" standard.