Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 171: Crazy Like a Fox (& Friends)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Its a FIX!!!!
---

It's not heartless. It is a crime. They chose to commit it. Pretty much how the legal process works. If the punishments have no weight, then the laws have no weight.

Yes. That's exactly right. The law has no weight because it was decided that it was an unfair law and people shouldn't be punished for breaking an unfair law.
---

I dont think we need to carry this to the new topic

Lets just agree that Corrik doesnt understand empathy and move on
---

So basically it's okay to jail someone for say... the sodomy law. Because hey, it's the law! And they decided to break it! (This includes Blowjobs by the way, which by definition is sodomy)

And let's not forget DUI's. People commit them all the time. Of course most people argue for leniency, but apparently they should be locked away for 6 months. Lest the law carry no weight.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

And let's not forget DUI's. People commit them all the time. Of course most people argue for leniency, but apparently they should be locked away for 6 months. Lest the law carry no weight.

i mean it would make board 8 more tolerable for half a year so maybe
---

Dancedreamer posted...

So basically it's okay to jail someone for say... the sodomy law. Because hey, it's the law! And they decided to break it! (This includes Blowjobs by the way, which by definition is sodomy)

And let's not forget DUI's. People commit them all the time. Of course most people argue for leniency, but apparently they should be locked away for 6 months. Lest the law carry no weight.

You should have to carry out the punishment for what you are convicted, yes. It is common sense. If a crime has a mandatory minimum (which these are under attack for being unconstitutional right now), then you have to serve at least that amount of time or the equivalent to it.
---

...so if i understand this debate correctly, corrik's stance is: if you can get 20 years in prison for eating ice cream and john is in prison because he ate ice cream and after 1 year eating ice cream is no longer illegal because the law changed, john should still remain in prison for the next 19 years because "he knew what the law was and he chose to commit a crime."

did i get this right?
---

I mean... look.

One can argue the mj laws are unjustly cruel (and therefore unconstitutional) as is right now even while being illegal.....

But if you make it so this thing is legal... then hell the fuck yes you release these fuckers.

It's a victimless crime, and I'm not rewmotely sayijg all victimless crimes should have no punishment, but I am saying when some of the weed punishments are INSANE for severity by any definition, that by Christ if it becomes legal so it's not even a crime anymore hell yes you let them out.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...so if i understand this debate correctly, corrik's stance is: if you can get 20 years in prison for eating ice cream and john is in prison because he ate ice cream and after 1 year eating ice cream is no longer illegal because the law changed, john should still remain in prison for the next 19 years because "he knew what the law was and he chose to commit a crime."

did i get this right?

This seems to be the gist of his argument, yes.
---

Corrik posted...

It is common sense.

uh no, this is not common sense.

i think what you're looking for is "blind and insane faith that the law is always 100% just and correct."
---

Sorry, I didn't mean the law itself was unconstitutional for being cruel, I meant the punishment associated with it in some cases.
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

I mean... look.

One can argue the mj laws are unjustly cruel (and therefore unconstitutional) as is right now even while being illegal.....

But if you make it so this thing is legal... then hell the fuck yes you release these fuckers.

It's a victimless crime, and I'm not rewmotely sayijg all victimless crimes should have no punishment, but I am saying when some of the weed punishments are INSANE for severity by any definition, that by Christ if it becomes legal so it's not even a crime anymore hell yes you let them out.

This is actually a good point that works better than the age-of-consent argument from the other topic. There IS a difference between a crime that can at least partially require a second person to be negatively impacted (the underaged boy/girl), and a crime that is literally victimless and was arbitrarily decided to be illegal (while, for example, tobacco and alcohol are not.)
---

Inviso posted...

EmDubyaSee posted...

I mean... look.

One can argue the mj laws are unjustly cruel (and therefore unconstitutional) as is right now even while being illegal.....

But if you make it so this thing is legal... then hell the fuck yes you release these fuckers.

It's a victimless crime, and I'm not rewmotely sayijg all victimless crimes should have no punishment, but I am saying when some of the weed punishments are INSANE for severity by any definition, that by Christ if it becomes legal so it's not even a crime anymore hell yes you let them out.

This is actually a good point that works better than the age-of-consent argument from the other topic. There IS a difference between a crime that can at least partially require a second person to be negatively impacted (the underaged boy/girl), and a crime that is literally victimless and was arbitrarily decided to be illegal (while, for example, tobacco and alcohol are not.)

Well again, I don't want that to be the only point off that, because I'm not saying just because a crime is victimless means there shouldn't be punishments to fit it.

But I will say it's one hell of a Tie breaker for me.
---

Inviso posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...so if i understand this debate correctly, corrik's stance is: if you can get 20 years in prison for eating ice cream and john is in prison because he ate ice cream and after 1 year eating ice cream is no longer illegal because the law changed, john should still remain in prison for the next 19 years because "he knew what the law was and he chose to commit a crime."

did i get this right?

This seems to be the gist of his argument, yes.

This is how the law works.

The laws the day of your crime are the laws you are held to.

Why would someone be happy that someone was not held accountable to the law? At the very most, indifference is acceptable. You could argue the law has changed and thus it would be unfair to hold them to a higher standard than the current law, but you could also argue they did the crime and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Thus, they committed the crime and are held accountable to it.

Indifference, at best.
---

If you add in the fact that making marijuana illegal in the first place was racially motivated and offenders of color are inordinately punished far more harshly, when you make marijuana possession or use no longer illegal, you should vacate those sentences immediately.
---

Lawful Neutral Corrik strikes again.
---

Corrik posted...

Why would someone be happy that someone was not held accountable to the law?

*sigh*

People are more important than laws
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Lawful Neutral Corrik strikes again.

This is the worst example of it yet!

Move over Judge Dredd, Corrik just took your place as the alignment archetype
---

Honestly it's more like Lawful Evil because it's not like he actually holds himself or the people he likes to these standards.
---

Inviso posted...

EmDubyaSee posted...

I mean... look.

One can argue the mj laws are unjustly cruel (and therefore unconstitutional) as is right now even while being illegal.....

But if you make it so this thing is legal... then hell the fuck yes you release these fuckers.

It's a victimless crime, and I'm not rewmotely sayijg all victimless crimes should have no punishment, but I am saying when some of the weed punishments are INSANE for severity by any definition, that by Christ if it becomes legal so it's not even a crime anymore hell yes you let them out.

This is actually a good point that works better than the age-of-consent argument from the other topic. There IS a difference between a crime that can at least partially require a second person to be negatively impacted (the underaged boy/girl), and a crime that is literally victimless and was arbitrarily decided to be illegal (while, for example, tobacco and alcohol are not.)

You have to apply the thinking completely across the board if you are going to support it. You don't get to pick and choose where to apply it. Support it or don't support it.

It isn't, well, I like to smoke weed so I support this, but don't in other places.

If someone punches you in the head and kicks you in the ribs a bunch of times and is convicted of aggravated assault for a couple years. Then the law changes to make that simple assault, and it is only aggravated assault if the person causes severe hospitalization as a result. You cannot complain, if you support this, and the person who kicked your ass is released from his aggravated assault, is re-applied under simple assault (and given no jail time), and no longer has a felony to his name.

You either support it or you don't. You choose what you want to do. It is just easy because this one is in front of you and you support legalizing marijuana while also not having to think to how this could apply in other situations across the spectrum.

If you were charged with a DUI in PA august 9th of 2017 you had stricter penalties than August 10th.

Situations like this happen all the time due to amending or changing of laws, punishments, and minimums. You would have a ton of things you have to change.

How about in reverse? What if they make the laws more punishing? Should they add to your punishment? You are arguing that the laws at the time shouldn't matter, but the laws should matter to what the courts now think they should be.

There is a severe breakdown here that you are not understanding because you support legalized weed, and thus, are tunnel visioned to that, despite where it affects elsewhere.
---

Hell, with inconsistent marijuana laws across the states, people don't even know what the punishment is! One state may just fine you and another might throw you in jail. How can you argue "people knew what they were getting into" when they really don't?
---

Yeah, let's not forget Mr. "Well hold on a minute, what if this petit girl is a model citizen but just happens to get unlucky and is caught slightly over the BAC limit three times because her body is small and even one drink puts her over. I mean, I'm not trying to absolve myself of any scumbaggery after I totally only got pulled over the three times I EVER drove while drunk, but don't you think you're being a bit harsh to consider such harsh laws?"
---

Corrik posted...

You have to apply the thinking completely across the board if you are going to support it. You don't get to pick and choose where to apply it. Support it or don't support it.

This isn't true at all lmao
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Hell, with inconsistent marijuana laws across the states, people don't even know what the punishment is! One state may just fine you and another might throw you in jail. How can you argue "people knew what they were getting into" when they really don't?

Ignorance of the law is NEVER an acceptable argument. Ever.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Hell, with inconsistent marijuana laws across the states, people don't even know what the punishment is! One state may just fine you and another might throw you in jail. How can you argue "people knew what they were getting into" when they really don't?

This is actually very very true.

And even when it is an arrest level crime it's up to the cop. They can let you off with a warning and just the fine( Happened to my brother).

I don't know of any other crime like it.

Ever heard of
Just getting a man slaughter warning?
---

Inviso posted...

Yeah, let's not forget Mr. "Well hold on a minute, what if this petit girl is a model citizen but just happens to get unlucky and is caught slightly over the BAC limit three times because her body is small and even one drink puts her over. I mean, I'm not trying to absolve myself of any scumbaggery after I totally only got pulled over the three times I EVER drove while drunk, but don't you think you're being a bit harsh to consider such harsh laws?"

Yeah, that's hella not in context!
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Hell, with inconsistent marijuana laws across the states, people don't even know what the punishment is! One state may just fine you and another might throw you in jail. How can you argue "people knew what they were getting into" when they really don't?

This is actually very very true.

And even when it is an arrest level crime it's up to the cop. They can let you off with a warning and just the fine( Happened to my brother).

I don't know of any other crime like it.

Ever heard of
Just getting a man slaughter warning?

No, I have never heard of a "man slaughter warning".

That said, yes, sometimes you can plea down for your crime or get off with a warning at the incident, yes.
---

Corrik posted...

You have to apply the thinking completely across the board if you are going to support it. You don't get to pick and choose where to apply it. Support it or don't support it.

No, you really really dont have to.

Example: people who support amnesty for illegal immigrants
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Yeah, let's not forget Mr. "Well hold on a minute, what if this petit girl is a model citizen but just happens to get unlucky and is caught slightly over the BAC limit three times because her body is small and even one drink puts her over. I mean, I'm not trying to absolve myself of any scumbaggery after I totally only got pulled over the three times I EVER drove while drunk, but don't you think you're being a bit harsh to consider such harsh laws?"

Yeah, that's hella not in context!

We started a discussion about how there should be specific punishments across the board for DUI offenses, and you started arguing about our ideas being too harsh and not taking into account extenuating circumstances, or how rough it is to have your license taken away as a punishment. Basically, you were emblematic of that all-too-common mindset of "it's only bad when it happens to ME, everyone ELSE is just complaining and should suck it up."
---

When even mwc makes sense. What a day
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

You have to apply the thinking completely across the board if you are going to support it. You don't get to pick and choose where to apply it. Support it or don't support it.

No, you really really dont have to.

Example: people who support amnesty for illegal immigrants

Do you understand how when you pick and choose things and are not consistent across the board that people feel you are just dancing on your issues and picking the ones that only benefit you (or your party)?

It would be like a sex offender (statutory rapist) on here arguing that sex offenders should be pardoned because it isn't a serious crime if the girl wanted to have consensual sex. Well, no duh! You are a sex offender!

The law is the law. The laws may be dumb, and you could argue they shouldn't exist or should be changed. But, you have to accept the laws and follow them (or face the consequences for choosing to break them).
---

Peace___Frog posted...

When even mwc makes sense. What a day

You have to remember that MWC is all an act and he's admitted as much, so it's not too shocking.
---

Really the craziest thing to me is that he cant even understand why someone else might think this is a good thing
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Yeah, let's not forget Mr. "Well hold on a minute, what if this petit girl is a model citizen but just happens to get unlucky and is caught slightly over the BAC limit three times because her body is small and even one drink puts her over. I mean, I'm not trying to absolve myself of any scumbaggery after I totally only got pulled over the three times I EVER drove while drunk, but don't you think you're being a bit harsh to consider such harsh laws?"

Yeah, that's hella not in context!

We started a discussion about how there should be specific punishments across the board for DUI offenses, and you started arguing about our ideas being too harsh and not taking into account extenuating circumstances, or how rough it is to have your license taken away as a punishment. Basically, you were emblematic of that all-too-common mindset of "it's only bad when it happens to ME, everyone ELSE is just complaining and should suck it up."

That has nothing to do with application of the law. That has to do with arguing what you think the law should be. Completely not related. The law is the law. I stated why your hypothetical laws did not make sense to me and why they probably shouldn't be applied the way you are stating.

If those ARE the laws, then a person breaking the law needs to be held accountable to them. Just is what it is.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Really the craziest thing to me is that he cant even understand why someone else might think this is a good thing

Nope. I really can't.
---

Corrik posted...

It would be like a sex offender (statutory rapist) on here arguing that sex offenders should be pardoned because it isn't a serious crime if the girl wanted to have consensual sex. Well, no duh! You are a sex offender!

The entire premise of statutory rape is that underage people literally cannot consent

Are you trying to say that all the people who think its good are pot smokers? LOL
---

Corrik posted...

The law is the law except when it pertains to me.

---

Corrik posted...

but you could also argue they did the crime

of course you could, but then the question becomes: "should it have been a crime in the first place?"

ice cream eating probably shouldn't be.
---

Under Corrik's regime:

Bob gets oral sex from Jennifer.
Bob goes to jail for the Sodomy Law.
Bob knew the consequences and should therefore stay in jail, even after Sodomy is no longer a crime.

Meanwhile Ethan kills 4 people in a car accident under the influence of alcohol
Ethan gets probation.
Ethan knew of the consequences, but hey! His punishment is fair because it's the LAW

In another country, it's against the law to be an atheist
Jim is an atheist and is arrested
He is sentenced to death
Jim knew of the consequences, and should obviously be put to death, even if they decide atheism isn't a crime anymore.

Jim's brother, Bill is a Christian
It's also against the law to be a Christian in that country
Bill is also sentenced to death
The new regime decides being a Christian is no longer against the law.
But Bill should still be put to death because he knew the consequences of his actions.

David is a slave owned by the Johnson family.
David is arrested for escaping.
Slavery is outlawed, but David still belongs in jail because he broke the law of running away as a slave, even though slavery is now illegal.
---

I guess for me it's like a wrongful conviction. In both cases, someone is put in jail for a crime they didn't commit. One because the crime doesn't exist and the other because they didn't commit the crime.
---

Corrik posted...

Nope. I really can't.

people think certain laws are dumb so if someone goes to jail because of a dumb law, they're happy when they get released because the law changed.

it really isn't rocket science.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Really the craziest thing to me is that he cant even understand why someone else might think this is a good thing

Nope. I really can't.

Can we just leave it here?

You cant reason with someone who cant understand this.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

It would be like a sex offender (statutory rapist) on here arguing that sex offenders should be pardoned because it isn't a serious crime if the girl wanted to have consensual sex. Well, no duh! You are a sex offender!

The entire premise of statutory rape is that underage people literally cannot consent

Are you trying to say that all the people who think its good are pot smokers? LOL

I am sure a Statutory Rapist would disagree to that premise.

Just like I would assume someone who smokes weed or wants it legalized would disagree to the premise that it is illegal.

Yes, I think the overwhelming vast majority of people who think it is good for them to be released either supports legalization of weed, uses it already, disrespects the legal system, or just supports a political party that generally supports the idea.
---

Corrik probably thinks the Central Park 5 should still be in prison despite evidence exonerating them of the crime.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I guess for me it's like a wrongful conviction. In both cases, someone is put in jail for a crime they didn't commit. One because the crime doesn't exist and the other because they didn't commit the crime.

If they were wrongfully committed, then I agree they should be released, and even compensated in some way.

However, this case seems to be with people who were fairly convicted under the laws at their time and were already sentenced (I can see those who had not been sentenced yet let off - that is a fair argument).
---

Corrik posted...

Yes, I think the overwhelming vast majority of people who think it is good for them to be released either supports legalization of weed, uses it already, disrespects the legal system, or just supports a political party that generally supports the idea.

wow, weird that the vast majority of people who support this would fit into 99% of the population like that
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik probably thinks the Central Park 5 should still be in prison despite evidence exonerating them of the crime.

I never heard of what you are talking about.
---

Corrik thinks Nelson Mandela should have died in prison
---

I mean its true, I do disrespect the legal system, because its awful
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I mean its true, I do disrespect the legal system, because its awful

I am considering reporting my attorney to the bar (under suggestion of another attorney) if that makes you feel better about sticking it to the legal system!
---