JoeRedskin
03-12-2008, 08:25 PM
Okay this is my last post on this thread there are to many dense people who will turn it anyway they want.
1)I never said what he did was not a crime, despite that fact some dim bulbs in here think I did.
Your earlier quote: "I already said that if he committed a real crime he should receive the max sentence."
To assert he did not commit a "real crime" seems to be me to be an assertion that his actions were in some way not criminal. Sorry, which words that you use should I assign their traditional definition and which should I understand to be Hijinx definitions?
2) This is a misdemeanors crime at most. Any federal charges would be a stretch at best. The money laundering would be hard to prove seeing how he wasn't owner of the accounts the money moved to. I can't see a jury conviction on this one. The moving women across state lines thing is a law meant to stop "white" slavery. And has major jail time with it. Can anyone really say the guy deserves 10-12 years for this? Maybe if he killed one of the girls.
I'll let the judge and jury decide what he gets. Again, it's that silly rule of law thing. If he is never charged, or if after charges are filed he goes free, more power to him. It does not change the appropriate public ramifications for the admitted misdeeds of a public official.
3) My original point remains true. This will be blown up and made into a greater deal then it was, because of party politics and media attention.
If party politics and media play a part in this, it is, again, something this particular political person brought upon himself. He played the high moral card in all of his prior elections. As with all those exposed for hypocrisy, political opponents will seize upon the flaws and the public will be particularly unforgiving.
4)This is one of those "crimes" that doesn't affect anyone else except Spitzer, the hooker, and his family.(but not much more than if he just cheated)
5)Most of this victimless "crime", (ie. prostitution, most drug use, gambling, etc) are only crimes because someone is imposing their morals on someone else. (see prohibition, that worked well, as is the "war on drugs"
These are both the same point. Essentially - victimless crimes do not affect negatively affect the society as a whole. Rather, they are entirely personal. This is a long-running philisophical battle. I am of the mind that there are no entirely "personal" crimes - particularly crimes involving public officials.
Regardless, you may disagree with whether a particular type of conduct should be criminalized, but it is the society as a whole that makes the decision. Your opinion is your opinion and that fine. The law is the law and unless you can convince enough people to "impose" your opinion on the rest of us then law isn't going to change.
6) The fact this guy was a dem, doesn't matter to me I didn't think Larry Craig deserved to lose his job either. But leave to some, who wanted to turn everything I say into ,"your just mad because he is a dem" and make personal insults at me.
Again, you opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
1)I never said what he did was not a crime, despite that fact some dim bulbs in here think I did.
Your earlier quote: "I already said that if he committed a real crime he should receive the max sentence."
To assert he did not commit a "real crime" seems to be me to be an assertion that his actions were in some way not criminal. Sorry, which words that you use should I assign their traditional definition and which should I understand to be Hijinx definitions?
2) This is a misdemeanors crime at most. Any federal charges would be a stretch at best. The money laundering would be hard to prove seeing how he wasn't owner of the accounts the money moved to. I can't see a jury conviction on this one. The moving women across state lines thing is a law meant to stop "white" slavery. And has major jail time with it. Can anyone really say the guy deserves 10-12 years for this? Maybe if he killed one of the girls.
I'll let the judge and jury decide what he gets. Again, it's that silly rule of law thing. If he is never charged, or if after charges are filed he goes free, more power to him. It does not change the appropriate public ramifications for the admitted misdeeds of a public official.
3) My original point remains true. This will be blown up and made into a greater deal then it was, because of party politics and media attention.
If party politics and media play a part in this, it is, again, something this particular political person brought upon himself. He played the high moral card in all of his prior elections. As with all those exposed for hypocrisy, political opponents will seize upon the flaws and the public will be particularly unforgiving.
4)This is one of those "crimes" that doesn't affect anyone else except Spitzer, the hooker, and his family.(but not much more than if he just cheated)
5)Most of this victimless "crime", (ie. prostitution, most drug use, gambling, etc) are only crimes because someone is imposing their morals on someone else. (see prohibition, that worked well, as is the "war on drugs"
These are both the same point. Essentially - victimless crimes do not affect negatively affect the society as a whole. Rather, they are entirely personal. This is a long-running philisophical battle. I am of the mind that there are no entirely "personal" crimes - particularly crimes involving public officials.
Regardless, you may disagree with whether a particular type of conduct should be criminalized, but it is the society as a whole that makes the decision. Your opinion is your opinion and that fine. The law is the law and unless you can convince enough people to "impose" your opinion on the rest of us then law isn't going to change.
6) The fact this guy was a dem, doesn't matter to me I didn't think Larry Craig deserved to lose his job either. But leave to some, who wanted to turn everything I say into ,"your just mad because he is a dem" and make personal insults at me.
Again, you opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it.