Everyday I am hearing of someone getting shot, stabbed, raped, etc.

I think we need more police power and less criminal rights.

I think jails and prisons should be JAILS AND PRISONS, not country clubs with the luxuries of internet, tv, gym, visitors, telephone, etc.

I think it is becoming necessary to exercise more racial profiling.. (NOT to just pick on any specific race, but if you are looking for a white, 30-something year old female who drives a blue nissan, they should be able to stop and search any white, 30-something year old female driving a blue nissan)

I think when a criminal/suspect runs from police, police have the right to use force.  (If the suspect doesn't want to get hurt, HE/SHE SHOULDN'T RUN!)

I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it's worth mentioning it again... I read that in Japan, they beat their criminals.  They even did that to an American visitor once, which caused a big stir.  I also read in the same article that Japan has the lowest violent crime rate in the world, because Japan simply does not tolerate it.  (I'm not saying we should beat our criminals... but what we are doing now is NOT working.)

1.Legalize marijuana
2.Actually keep rapists and murders in prison
3.Give adequate funding to police agencies(they still aren't getting it)

Legalization will release a lot of nonviolent drug offenders, and will help to reduce crime rates in urban areas by taking the marijuana market out of the hands of street gangs and thugs and putting it into the "legal mainstream". The extra capital in taxes and the money saved, can be re-focused on giving police departments adequate funding and going after the REAL problem on the streets: drug manufacturers(of substances like methamphetamines(sp?)), and drug smugglers. It also will allow them to give more attention to border security.

And more importantly, perhaps rapists will actually do hard time. The way things are right now, the average convicted rapist does less time in prison than the average convicted drug offender. Sad.

Also, I think properly funding after-school programs, keeping college oppurtunities as broad as possible, funding neighborhood watch groups, and finding ways to make security systems more affordable for inner-city homes could all help.

1.Legalize marijuana
2.Actually keep rapists and murders in prison
3.Give adequate funding to police agencies(they still aren't getting it)




I agree on all 3 points.  I think prostitution should be legal too.  If someone chooses to use their body to make money, so be it.   Alot of ordinary people take part in prostitution by the men wining and dining ladies and then getting something in return.   The prostitutes are just straight up.  I think the government is overstepping its authority by telling us what to do with our own bodies.   I'd rather see it regulated and taxed, with "managers" instead of "pimps" and in the safety of a legal building as opposed to on dangerous street corners.  Prostitution tends to lead to unnecessary crimes too.

I think part of the problem is us too... I think the general public feels helpless now, like "nobody else seems to care, what can I do alone?"

Was different where I was in the 70's.  I remember in about 1979 there was some guy driving around our school in a red van, offering kids a ride home... he never hurt anyone, but the kids who encountered him called him "creepy".

All heII broke loose.  The neighborhood had a meeting and arranged for parents from different blocks to meet the kids at school and walk with them in groups.

The school pulled all students into the auditorium and warned us all to be careful and not to ever walk alone.  The principal even offered to drive us home personally if we had no other way.

The radio stations issued warnings to students at our school to be cautious.

The police patrolled the area surrounding the school during hours that students would be walking home.

All this because a creepy guy in a van offered some kids a ride home.

Two words: Public floggings.

Dude, thanks for you points.

As far as I know, violent crime in general has been on the decline over the past generation.  What has risen sharply is violent crimes involving juveniles.  Gun homicides are also rampant in the U.S.

In the long run you have to stop tolerating the imposition of poverty as a social control in our class stratified population.
You have to be willing to attach the roots of crime--poverty, racism, despair--in order to decrease crime in the long run.

Giulliani did clean up a lot of the petty crime on the streets of New York City, and likewise, I do believe their is a roll for law enforcement.  However, that doesn't just mean more cops patrolling poor neighborhoods in cruisers and helicoptors.  We saw how well that worked in cities like L.A. and Philadelphia.  You need "tough law and order" cops, but you also need law enforcement who can walk about comfortably in the neighborhoods to which they are assigned.  The cops have to show the people they are part of the community, not the army of occupation.

Again, in the long run, we must understand crime as preventable social pathology in both the individual and society at large.

Dude, thanks for you points.

As far as I know, violent crime in general has been on the decline over the past generation.  What has risen sharply is violent crimes involving juveniles.  Gun homicides are also rampant in the U.S.

In the long run you have to stop tolerating the imposition of poverty as a social control in our class stratified population.
You have to be willing to attach the roots of crime--poverty, racism, despair--in order to decrease crime in the long run.

Giulliani did clean up a lot of the petty crime on the streets of New York City, and likewise, I do believe their is a roll for law enforcement.  However, that doesn't just mean more cops patrolling poor neighborhoods in cruisers and helicoptors.  We saw how well that worked in cities like L.A. and Philadelphia.  You need "tough law and order" cops, but you also need law enforcement who can walk about comfortably in the neighborhoods to which they are assigned.  The cops have to show the people they are part of the community, not the army of occupation.

Again, in the long run, we must understand crime as preventable social pathology in both the individual and society at large.


Good post.  ;)  Here's my idea for what needs to be done, with our justice system:

Life without parole needs to me mandatory for cold murder.  Death penalty can be given if the criminal is pretty hopeless in changing for the better.  Rapists need longer sentences, 20 to 40 years and life if they're habitual. 

Basically, as long as the punishment doesn't go into a different magnitude than the crime (Draco style), punishment should be enough to prevent crime. No more, no less. Period.

Devo do you think police have enough power (i'm not talking money or funding) to get their job done??  I think the answer is a big NO.  I think many criminals run free or avoid arrest because of the ridiculous rights criminals and suspects have..  unfortunately these rights are at the expense of the victims: past, present and future...

Devo do you think police have enough power (i'm not talking money or funding) to get their job done?? I think the answer is a big NO. I think many criminals run free or avoid arrest because of the ridiculous rights criminals and suspects have.. unfortunately these rights are at the expense of the victims: past, present and future...


How are their hands tied? By having to use search warrants to search people's homes? Perhaps we can do away with that pesky 5th ammendment.

Devo do you think police have enough power (i'm not talking money or funding) to get their job done??  I think the answer is a big NO.  I think many criminals run free or avoid arrest because of the ridiculous rights criminals and suspects have..  unfortunately these rights are at the expense of the victims: past, present and future...


I agree.  Criminal rights should not come at the cost of victims. Ever.  They should only get enough to support body and mind.  Nothing more.

Well, like I said before Duderino... if you were a parent, would you rather have police and/or security search every locker in your childs school to make sure there are no guns hidden there, with or without cause?

Or would you rather take the chance that some deranged kid is hiding a gun and just waiting for the right time, but nobody would know until its too late and people are dead... only because there was no justification for a warrant?

Well, like I said before Duderino... if you were a parent, would you rather have police and/or security search every locker in your childs school to make sure there are no guns hidden there, with or without cause?

Or would you rather take the chance that some deranged kid is hiding a gun and just waiting for the right time, but nobody would know until its too late and people are dead... only because there was no justification for a warrant?


Its easy to drag out arguments like that to try and connect personal feelings to these questions, but its a slippery slope. A search warrant to search your personal property is guaranteed in the 5th ammendment, thats part of the Bill of Rights. If you allow that right to be violated, then who knows where it ends. The Constitution first. Always.

And lockers in a public school building do not count as private property anyway. So the question about whether they should get a warrant or not is null and void.

Its easy to drag out arguments like that to try and connect personal feelings to these questions, but its a slippery slope. A search warrant to search your personal property is guaranteed in the 5th ammendment, thats part of the Bill of Rights. If you allow that right to be violated, then who knows where it ends. The Constitution first. Always.

And lockers in a public school building do not count as private property anyway. So the question about whether they should get a warrant or not is null and void.


Sometimes you have to connect personal feelings because the victims of these crimes are PEOPLE.. People who have children, families, husbands, wives, friends... when we hear about them on the radio, they portray it as "oh, another homicide"

Yesterday 2 people were killed in a courtroom.  Today, at least 7 in a church service.
Aren't you getting tired of hearing this crap on the news???

Well, like I said before Duderino... if you were a parent, would you rather have police and/or security search every locker in your childs school to make sure there are no guns hidden there, with or without cause?

Or would you rather take the chance that some deranged kid is hiding a gun and just waiting for the right time, but nobody would know until its too late and people are dead... only because there was no justification for a warrant?

I'll take that chance.  I was "that deranged kid"!  99.99% of us deranged "deranged" kids have no desire to hurt people.  It's the popular kids, the jocks, that made people miserable.  What was that line from Heathers, "Football season was over, all they had to offer was date rape and AIDS jokes."  It's the jock who gives you a swirly and has his way with your sister.
A lot of this nervousness about crime feeds into the needs of the National Security State.  You can't solve crime by fear, but you can sure keep people divided!
::)

Yesterday 2 people were killed in a courtroom.   Today, at least 7 in a church service.
Aren't you getting tired of hearing this crap on the news???
Well, maybe if Americans weren't obsessed with having so g*dd&m many guns....
Oh, that's right, if everybody in the courtroom and the church was armed, they woulda wasted these guys before our daily offenders even got the guns out of their pants!

Sometimes you have to connect personal feelings because the victims of these crimes are PEOPLE.. People who have children, families, husbands, wives, friends... when we hear about them on the radio, they portray it as "oh, another homicide"

Yesterday 2 people were killed in a courtroom.  Today, at least 7 in a church service.
Aren't you getting tired of hearing this crap on the news???


The justice system has zip to do with emotions. Its supposed to be unbiased. Emotions are the father of bias.  ;)

They don't need a warrant to search a student's locker. Its not private property.

The justice system has zip to do with emotions. Its supposed to be unbiased. Emotions are the father of bias.  ;)

Hey, right on, Dude, you make a salient point!

They don't need a warrant to search a student's locker. Its not private property.

At my high school, if a kid said "you got a warrant?," the vice-principal would have said, "you got an ACLU lawyer?," and kicked him down the hall!

I'll take that chance.  I was "that deranged kid"!  99.99% of us deranged "deranged" kids have no desire to hurt people.  It's the popular kids, the jocks, that made people miserable.  What was that line from Heathers, "Football season was over, all they had to offer was date rape and AIDS jokes."  It's the jock who gives you a swirly and has his way with your sister.
A lot of this nervousness about crime feeds into the needs of the National Security State.  You can't solve crime by fear, but you can sure keep people divided!
::)
Well, maybe if Americans weren't obsessed with having so g*dd&m many guns....
Oh, that's right, if everybody in the courtroom and the church was armed, they woulda wasted these guys before our daily offenders even got the guns out of their pants!


First of all, I don't condone guns...  I wish I had the power to make every gun disappear...

Secondly, I agree with you about the jocks and the popular kids... like I said in another post somewhere, part of the problem is us.  The public turns the other way on things that are clearly wrong.  In my opinion, a jock should be suspended, if not expelled from sports if he cannot show respect to his fellow students.   Parents should be teaching their children how to interact with others. Even teachers and principals defend their "star students" and blow off bullying and taunting of others, as if the victim is "just making a big deal of nothing", "boys will be boys, ya know" and everyone is too afraid to speak up.  Every student deserves to be treated with equal respect.

Thirdly, I agree with you that 99.99% of deranged kids don't want to hurt anyone... but that still leaves .01% which is too much.

At my high school, if a kid said "you got a warrant?," the vice-principal would have said, "you got an ACLU lawyer?," and kicked him down the hall!


Ok, you got me on a technicality.  Suppose it's a private school, group home, place of employment where an employee who was just disciplined and is suddenly unusually quiet, but has confided in the past that if the employer ever "dissed" him, he'd blow the place up.  It could be any kind of situation, I guess public school was a bad example.

Ok, you got me on a technicality.  Suppose it's a private school, group home, place of employment where an employee who was just disciplined and is suddenly unusually quiet, but has confided in the past that if the employer ever "dissed" him, he'd blow the place up.  It could be any kind of situation, I guess public school was a bad example.

I don't know, you start a policy of a invading people's personal space on the basis of heresay, and you've got kind of a slippery slope.

I don't know, you start a policy of a invading people's personal space on the basis of heresay, and you've got kind of a slippery slope.


I don't like the idea of invading people's privacy either... but I think it's becoming necessary in order to keep the population safe...

Also the fact that HARD CONCRETE EVIDENCE that is somehow obtained illegally is INADMISSIBLE, even a phone-tapped 100% confession.  How do you convict a CONFIRMED CRIMINAL with that law?  That pisses me off.

I don't like the idea of invading people's privacy either... but I think it's becoming necessary in order to keep the population safe...

Also the fact that HARD CONCRETE EVIDENCE that is somehow obtained illegally is INADMISSIBLE, even a phone-tapped 100% confession.  How do you convict a CONFIRMED CRIMINAL with that law?  That ticks me off.

Again, those laws came after decades of corrupt cops coercing and confounding suspects into confessions.  Not to mention there is motivation inside every criminal case to make it seem like anybody, but the defense's client did the dirty deed.
So, there's good reason for this on both the prosecution and the defense side of the equasion.  People have to follow certain rules when investigating crime, not a bad idea in my opinion.
For every one crook let off on a technicality, there are a thousand other innocent people who got out of arrest or imprisonment due to these procedures.
Anyway, in most cases of murder, rape, larceny, fraud, burglary and such crimes, if the prosecution's key piece of evidence is an ill-gotten phone conversation, they don't have much of a case to start with.  If there is a real case against an individual, the forensic evidence would pile up sky high.  Crime investigation is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was twenty years ago.  Thus, the prosecution can generally dispense with an illegal wire-tap confession.

It also  really scares me when the Right starts talking of the Miranda rights as a nuisance!

This is off the main topic a little, but still relates...

Do you know that Richard Allen Davis, kidnapper and killer of Polly Klaas was pulled over with Polly Klaas in the car, most likely still alive and let go???

The officers were suspicious but a dam* glitch in the radios and no "justifiable cause" to search... <sigh>

This is off the main topic a little, but still relates...

Do you know that Richard Allen Davis, kidnapper and killer of Polly Klaas was pulled over with Polly Klaas in the car, most likely still alive and let go???

The officers were suspicious but a dam* glitch in the radios and no "justifiable cause" to search... <sigh>

Yes, and then there were the Milwaukee cops who picked up one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims.  The teenaged kid was naked and bleeding.  The cops brought him back to Dahmer's apartment!  Jeffrey politely explained the boy was his gay lover and they'd just had a quarrel.  After the cops left the boy with Dahmer, the J-Man proceeded to bludgeon the boy to death and devour his viscera.  Subsequently, Dahmer killed about five more people before he was finally caught.

So, yeah, there ain't much quite as bad as bad policework!
:o :o :o

Yes, and then there were the Milwaukee cops who picked up one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims.  The teenaged kid was naked and bleeding.  The cops brought him back to Dahmer's apartment!  Jeffrey politely explained the boy was his gay lover and they'd just had a quarrel.  After the cops left the boy with Dahmer, the J-Man proceeded to bludgeon the boy to death and devour his viscera.  Subsequently, Dahmer killed about five more people before he was finally caught.

So, yeah, there ain't much quite as bad as bad policework!
:o :o :o


Wow, that's bad... I hadn't heard about that one... yes, corrupt police need to be dealt with too...would make it alot easier for the legit cops to do their jobs...

Without having read this whole thread, so I may be repeating what someone else already posted, crime rates, especially violent crime rates, are down according to the last FBI figures I saw.  Clearly, the media plays up every incident, like the killing of the judge and another judge's husband and mother, but that doesn't mean that there is more crime.

Well, whether they are down or not, hearing of killings on the radio every day gets a little old...

And I'm not too sure how the crime can be lower, when 25 years ago kids could play outside, we didn't have to lock our doors, and a guy in a van offering a couple kids a ride stirred up a neighborhood like crazy...  nobody brought guns to school, "drive-by" shootings were mostly unheard of, people picked up hitchhikers (usually without incident)

Well, whether they are down or not, hearing of killings on the radio every day gets a little old...

And I'm not too sure how the crime can be lower, when 25 years ago kids could play outside, we didn't have to lock our doors, and a guy in a van offering a couple kids a ride stirred up a neighborhood like crazy...  nobody brought guns to school, "drive-by" shootings were mostly unheard of, people picked up hitchhikers (usually without incident)


It all depends on where you live, I live in Parma outside of Cleveland and there is little or no crime here, go 5 miles north up into Cleveland, and the crime rates skyrocket.

Well, whether they are down or not, hearing of killings on the radio every day gets a little old...

And I'm not too sure how the crime can be lower, when 25 years ago kids could play outside, we didn't have to lock our doors, and a guy in a van offering a couple kids a ride stirred up a neighborhood like crazy...  nobody brought guns to school, "drive-by" shootings were mostly unheard of, people picked up hitchhikers (usually without incident)


There was less information in 1980, or even 1990.  That's why people felt more safe: ignorance is bliss.  But violence towards minors has gone up, and that's the worst kind.  But in general crime is down since the 70s to early 90s.

There was less information in 1980, or even 1990.  That's why people felt more safe: ignorance is bliss.  But violence towards minors has gone up, and that's the worst kind.  But in general crime is down since the 70s to early 90s.


Not just violence TOWARDS minors, also violence BY minors...

Clearly there are pockets of crime, especially in our larger cities, but crime rates are down, so why is this such a big deal?  Of course, ideally, there would be no crime, street or boardroom, but we all know that isn't going to happen.  It just seems to me that there are other things, that we can better control, that need attention more than (especially) street crime and crimes of passion.  Hang the corporate criminals out to drie (in the hot sun), and work on reducing gang, passion, drug crimes by eliminating their cause, but lets not get paraniod about this.  We never lock our doors unless we are going to be away for a while.

Clearly there are pockets of crime, especially in our larger cities, but crime rates are down, so why is this such a big deal?  Of course, ideally, there would be no crime, street or boardroom, but we all know that isn't going to happen.  It just seems to me that there are other things, that we can better control, that need attention more than (especially) street crime and crimes of passion.  Hang the corporate criminals out to drie (in the hot sun), and work on reducing gang, passion, drug crimes by eliminating their cause, but lets not get paraniod about this.  We never lock our doors unless we are going to be away for a while.

That is correct.  We find street crime more frightening, but it is white collar crime that hurts society the most.  Then again, as Ralph Nader likes to point out, most of the truly atrocious things corporations do are peferctly legal!
::)

I agree that emotions should have no part in allocating punishments.  I think it's outrageous that victim's families are given time in court to make statements that will influence the verdict.  The fact that victims are due human sympathy for their suffering is obvious, but that is completely beside the justice system.  I think it's ridiculous that two killers might get unequal sentences based partly on the character of each victim, or how eloquent the victim's friends and family are during the sentencing phase.  Just give the max to everybody and call it a day.

And I think we have an impression of crime rates going up simply because more and more, crime stories are being sensationalized for public consumption and wrapped up in the guise of 'news'.  It's all about TV ratings.  And people clearly eat it up.  Kids get molested every day, but do you hear about it?  No.  Only if it's part of some hot celebrity 'news' story or 'church scandal'.  People get murdered every day, but it's only news if you have some twist about the 'seemingly idyllic couple' and the photogenic pregnant wife.

And the idea that 'jocks' are the troublemakers is nonsense.  Aww, those poor widdle helpless Columbine nerds tired of always being picked on by the bad, bad tough guys.  Please.

  I think it's outrageous that victim's families are given time in court to make statements that will influence the verdict. 


Why?  The suspect's family is usually right there too, to convince the jury that the actions were because of "ADD" or a "problematic childhood", and that the suspect is actually a victim him/herself.


I think it's ridiculous that two killers might get unequal sentences based partly on the character of each victim


So a man who kills another man who molested his daughter and is not an otherwise general threat to society should get the same sentence as a man who kills another man just for kicks?


And I think we have an impression of crime rates going up simply because more and more, crime stories are being sensationalized for public consumption and wrapped up in the guise of 'news'. It's all about TV ratings. And people clearly eat it up. Kids get molested every day, but do you hear about it? No. Only if it's part of some hot celebrity 'news' story or 'church scandal'. People get murdered every day, but it's only news if you have some twist about the 'seemingly idyllic couple' and the photogenic pregnant wife.


Doesn't really matter if crime rate is going up or down, kids getting molested every day and people getting murdered every day is a big problem, and these sick-o's keep getting away with it.


And the idea that 'jocks' are the troublemakers is nonsense. Aww, those poor widdle helpless Columbine nerds tired of always being picked on by the bad, bad tough guys. Please.


I don't in any way feel that the 'jocks' picking on other kids is an excuse for murder or any other form of violence.  However, I do still maintain my opinion that the "popular" kids, whether they be 'jocks' or not, have a tendency to taunt and pick on people.  Many kids are treated badly at home, and then they go to school and get treated badly there too.. it is wrong.  And when it comes to a star football player, school officials tend to look the other way.  While the "preppies" (sorry if I dont know the current terminology) are discriminating as to who joins their "cliques"...you have to dress a certain way, listen to a certain type of music, have enough money, otherwise you are nobody... the "thugs" do not.  They will accept just about any outcast... which is why we are seeing more and more of them as this decade progresses.. so while I do agree that being picked on in school is a sorry excuse for murder, I still feel that it needs to be stopped, because it is still wrong, and also it would eliminate that "excuse" that is used far too often...

Sorry, but I agree with Lee. Emotion is not supposed to be a factor in the justice system. Emotions are irratonal and unreliable. The justice system is meant to be impartial, and emotions are the father of bias(like I said before).

.
And the idea that 'jocks' are the troublemakers is nonsense.  Aww, those poor widdle helpless Columbine nerds tired of always being picked on by the bad, bad tough guys.  Please.



Wowee.. Are you two parents? Having attended school and now have a child in school I must say that bullying is a serious problem, and the bullies are getting more aggressive and your attitude, and those of people like you, foster the idea that the tough guys aren't so bad and the kids being bullied are "poor widdle helpless nerds".  I have a special needs child who is is classified by the "bad, bad, tough guys" as a a nerd and they zeroed in on him.  Didn't last long I can tell you, but only because I am badder and tougher then them and a couple of the parents who really didn't think their behavior was so bad(it was).  I shudder to t;hink who they went after after him and only hope they ran into a proactive parent, this behavior doesn't just stop, it has to be stopped. Obviously you don't think that it is such a bad thing, hopefully parents of "nerds" who have to deal with you and yours don't take your sh#t.

Wowee.. Are you two parents? Having attended school and now have a child in school I must say that bullying is a serious problem, and the bullies are getting more aggressive and your attitude, and those of people like you, foster the idea that the tough guys aren't so bad and the kids being bullied are "poor widdle helpless nerds". I have a special needs child who is is classified by the "bad, bad, tough guys" as a a nerd and they zeroed in on him. Didn't last long I can tell you, but only because I am badder and tougher then them and a couple of the parents who really didn't think their behavior was so bad(it was). I shudder to t;hink who they went after after him and only hope they ran into a proactive parent, this behavior doesn't just stop, it has to be stopped. Obviously you don't think that it is such a bad thing, hopefully parents of "nerds" who have to deal with you and yours don't take your sh#t.


Go Danoota!! :)

Sorry, but I agree with Lee. Emotion is not supposed to be a factor in the justice system. Emotions are irratonal and unreliable. The justice system is meant to be impartial, and emotions are the father of bias(like I said before).


Then "emotional distress" should be removed from the court's vocabulary, right??

Oh, I'd almost forgotten how much nonsense people read into posts over here in the P&R nonsense thread.  Look, I never said bullying wasn't a problem, or that it shouldn't be punished.  I'm not saying it's okay for special needs kids to get bullied.  But to stereotype jocks as bad guys is ridiculous.  Sure bigger kids often pick on smaller kids... but smaller kids often pick on even smaller kids.  What's next -- are we going to start talking about how menacing tough black guys pick on the poor little helpless white kids?  If a kid is assaulting another kid, he/she should be punished and possibly thrown out of school, regardless of his/her race, gender, sexual orientation or extracurricular interests.  We don't need to engage in ridiculous stereotypes.

And no, I don't think EITHER the victim's family OR the perpetrator's family should have anything to say in a criminal trial, unless they're providing testimony as a witness that bears directly on the crime.  Sorry, you don't get less time just because your victim was a drug-dealing scumbag pimp vs. a supposedly promising upstanding fair-haired captain of the football team.

Yeah, if you kill someone intentionally, I think your sentence should be a set term, regardless of your emotional reason.  Everybody's got a story.  If you and I both intentionally kill someone, and my jury happens to 'relate' to my story better than yours, I should get a lighter sentence?  That's fair?  That's why there's so many problems with the jury system as it is.

Wowee.. Are you two parents? Having attended school and now have a child in school I must say that bullying is a serious problem, and the bullies are getting more aggressive and your attitude, and those of people like you, foster the idea that the tough guys aren't so bad and the kids being bullied are "poor widdle helpless nerds".  I have a special needs child who is is classified by the "bad, bad, tough guys" as a a nerd and they zeroed in on him.  Didn't last long I can tell you, but only because I am badder and tougher then them and a couple of the parents who really didn't think their behavior was so bad(it was).  I shudder to t;hink who they went after after him and only hope they ran into a proactive parent, this behavior doesn't just stop, it has to be stopped. Obviously you don't think that it is such a bad thing, hopefully parents of "nerds" who have to deal with you and yours don't take your sh#t.


And what s#it is that exactly, that you hope isn't taken by some mythical parent of some mythical kid that my mythical kid is beating up?  What exactly are you basing all this "badder and tougher" macho crap on?

  Sorry, you don't get less time just because your victim was a drug-dealing scumbag pimp vs. a supposedly promising upstanding fair-haired captain of the football team.




Was not my point at all, and I agree... the race, social status, gender and age of the victim should be completely irrelevant... but whether the victim did something to provoke the killer or not is what I'm getting at.  And I don't mean something like cutting the perp off on the freeway.

What I meant was that someone who seriously violates an otherwise law abiding perpetrator to the extent that he resorts to murder, while wrong, and while should carry a heavy sentence, is not the same as a random killer who is a serious threat to the public.

Was not my point at all, and I agree... the race, social status, gender and age of the victim should be completely irrelevant... but whether the victim did something to provoke the killer or not is what I'm getting at.  And I don't mean something like cutting the perp off on the freeway.

What I meant was that someone who seriously violates an otherwise law abiding perpetrator to the extent that he resorts to murder, while wrong, and while should carry a heavy sentence, is not the same as a random killer who is a serious threat to the public.




So a man who kills another man who molested his daughter and is not an otherwise general threat to society should get the same sentence as a man who kills another man just for kicks?



Legally, yes.  I can relate -- I might do it myself.  But I'd have to do the time.  The way I see it, the penalty for premeditated murder should be life anyway, so whether I can 'understand' one crime more than the other is irrelevant.  Emotionally, I sympathize with the desire to exact revenge or whatever, but I still think it's wrong to surrender to those emotions, and once you make judgments about which people and situations you sympathize with, you're bringing in a LOT of bias into the process, and it's ultimately unfair.

The only instance where I would, reluctantly make an exception, is in terms of pre-emptive self-defense -- if you know your life's in imminent danger from someone in particular.  Even that can be really, really sketchy, because who's to say whether a person's sense of being threatened is really legitimate?  "I was having an affair with another one of O.J.'s ex-wives, so I knew he'd be after me..."  Y'see what I mean?  But I'll concede that there are legitimate cases, which I don't think should carry any penalty at all.

Wowee.. Are you two parents? Having attended school and now have a child in school I must say that bullying is a serious problem, and the bullies are getting more aggressive and your attitude, and those of people like you, foster the idea that the tough guys aren't so bad and the kids being bullied are "poor widdle helpless nerds". 



that reminded me of a kinda funny story... my friend's 13 year old son (who is a pretty good kid for the most part) made the mistake of going along with his friends by picking on a kid at his school...my friend (the child's mother) got wind of it, but didn't mention a word to her son...  so one morning she dressed up in her best 80's clothes, and while driving her son to school, announced "Oh, I almost forgot to tell you... I'm going to school with you today!"  When her son looked totally mortified, she said "Oh, don't worry, we'll have fun!  I'm gonna sing opera to your class!"  She even got out of the car when they got to the school.. when he asked why she was doing this, she said "Well I heard you've been picking on other kids, so I guess I have to watch you all the time..."

He is now friends with the kid he picked on.  :)

But to stereotype jocks as bad guys is ridiculous.  Sure bigger kids often pick on smaller kids... but smaller kids often pick on even smaller kids.  What's next -- are we going to start talking about how menacing tough black guys pick on the poor little helpless white kids?



I don't think anyone here stereotypes bullies.  It so happened the Columbine bullies were out of control jocks and were allowed by the school and their parents carry on with outrageous behavior.  That has been established as a fact.  You seem to have come up with the black kids picking on the white kid scenario when I am sure we all know that that is a two way street.(or do you subconsciously equate black with menacing tough?).  I am sure you don't advocate bullying of special needs kids, but the fact is the bullies always go after those who are smaller, weaker, less able to defend themselves in a variety of ways including mentally and emotionally. You came forth with the "poor widdle nerd" comment.  That shows a lack of understanding of the situation that bullied kids are in, and is usually the attitude taken by the parents of problems.

that reminded me of a kinda funny story... my friend's 13 year old son (who is a pretty good kid for the most part) made the mistake of going along with his friends by picking on a kid at his school...my friend (the child's mother) got wind of it, but didn't mention a word to her son...  so one morning she dressed up in her best 80's clothes, and while driving her son to school, announced "Oh, I almost forgot to tell you... I'm going to school with you today!"  When her son looked totally mortified, she said "Oh, don't worry, we'll have fun!  I'm gonna sing opera to your class!"  She even got out of the car when they got to the school.. when he asked why she was doing this, she said "Well I heard you've been picking on other kids, so I guess I have to watch you all the time..."

He is now friends with the kid he picked on.  :)


And I know how he felt.  I had a short stint on the bully train.  It didn't last long because my mom stepped right in and let me know very clearly that this is "not how we conduct ourselves".  The fact is when if bullies are stopped in the beginning, and their actions are not allowed to escalate, then unless there are
factors beyond the normal bad behaviour, the action stops pretty quickly.  There are reasons kids bully, but the mistake is to use the reasons as an excuse.

Become less tolerant, that's all!!! :-[

We put up with it, so what...also while we're at it give prisoners books to read instead of BARBELLS to PLAY with...if they can learn how to get out of jail without strongarming another, we let them get out with a brighter education!

This still gets me after all these years of seeing them weight yards in prisons and depicted in movies..but has anyone tried to eliminate it successfully??

ACLU will just holler to let them keep their tv's as well!

And the idea that 'jocks' are the troublemakers is nonsense.  Aww, those poor widdle helpless Columbine nerds tired of always being picked on by the bad, bad tough guys.  Please.

I got bullied in pretty much the same way as the kids at Columbine.  The only difference between them and me is I never had a gun and I never wanted to hurt anybody. 
When the rash of school shootings started about eight years ago, with the Columbine massacre being the crown welt on the rash, I recalled my jr. high vice-principal saying to me, "that's the way kids are, and there's nothing I can do about it."
Yeah, I have been there. Boys will be boys.  Somehow it is natural, even healthy, for some bullying to test your strengths.  I saw a change of heart in the early '00s.  Bullying made the news as an actual and real social pathology.  People have to start dying before anybody picks up on your problem in America.  As one school-shooter declared, "I did this because people like me are mistreated every day!"
I suffered scars from bullying that took half a lifetime to heal.
Oh, and the conventional wisdom about bullies---"hit 'em back and they won't bother you no more"-- is a canard.
Bullies are not sportsmanly.  They are angry, insecure, and destructive.  If you beat the bully, he doesn't shake your hand.  He gets his bully friends to hold you down while he mauls you.  I've been there.

Incidentally, the cruelest bullies I have ever seen operate have all been female.  The jocks and the thugs were plenty mean to me, but the way I saw female bullies bully other girls was almost a nazi-level of vindictiveness!

I got bullied in pretty much the same way as the kids at Columbine. The only difference between them and me is I never had a gun and I never wanted to hurt anybody.
When the rash of school shootings started about eight years ago, with the Columbine massacre being the crown welt on the rash, I recalled my jr. high vice-principal saying to me, "that's the way kids are, and there's nothing I can do about it."
Yeah, I have been there. Boys will be boys. Somehow it is natural, even healthy, for some bullying to test your strengths. I saw a change of heart in the early '00s. Bullying made the news as an actual and real social pathology. People have to start dying before anybody picks up on your problem in America. As one school-shooter declared, "I did this because people like me are mistreated every day!"
I suffered scars from bullying that took half a lifetime to heal.
Oh, and the conventional wisdom about bullies---"hit 'em back and they won't bother you no more"-- is a canard.
Bullies are not sportsmanly. They are angry, insecure, and destructive. If you beat the bully, he doesn't shake your hand. He gets his bully friends to hold you down while he mauls you. I've been there.

Incidentally, the cruelest bullies I have ever seen operate have all been female. The jocks and the thugs were plenty mean to me, but the way I saw female bullies bully other girls was almost a nazi-level of vindictiveness!


I can personally attest to pretty much everything you have said in this article being true. Preach on, brother. :) ;D

I can personally attest to pretty much everything you have said in this article being true. Preach on, brother. :) ;D

You bet!
And remember, bullies will fight back, however, they are cowards.  I have known bullies of all ages and all walks of life, and not one could face life on its terms and every last one of them would run rather than face the music!

I dealt with bullying for a short time in junior high... I was in the same neighborhood in NY from the time I was born until the middle of 6th grade.  Most of the kids in my school had also been around the area their whole lives, so we all kind of grew up together and I never had a problem.

When I moved to California though, in the middle of 6th grade, the kids loved to hassle me about my NY accent - I just tried to ignore it but it kept getting worse.  I complained to one of my teachers who told me to "just ignore it and they will stop".  Yeah, right.  I even went to the guidance counselor and told her who was making fun of me.  The next day, I was not only the girl who talked funny, but also a snitch.

Luckily in the summer after 8th grade, we had moved again so I went to a different high school, and the people there were really nice.  (I no longer had my accent by then)

Since school officials really don't do anything to stop bullying, the most effective tools to stop bullying are the popular friends of the bully who actually have an iota of a conscience and aren't afraid to speak out...  rarely happens though...

I think a little question I slipped into this thread got overlooked because of the bullying discussion... so back to the justice system for a sec...

To those who argued that emotion should not be involved in the justice system, does that mean we should FINALLY remove the term "emotional distress" from the court's vocabulary?

I would love to see that happen...

I think a little question I slipped into this thread got overlooked because of the bullying discussion... so back to the justice system for a sec...

To those who argued that emotion should not be involved in the justice system, does that mean we should FINALLY remove the term "emotional distress" from the court's vocabulary?

I would love to see that happen...

Of course not.  That would be silly.  When the courts talk about "emotional distress" it has no bearing on the actual verdict in a criminal matter.  If the court finds a person guilty of murder, the court make take the "emotional distress" caused by the murder."  The courts can evaluate the damages of emotional distress and demand restitution.  The emotional disposition of a perpetrator around the time of a violent crime is indespensible as an indicator of motives.  However, the fact that the perpetrator commited the murder has long been established by the time emotional matters are brought in to evidence.
I have a philosophical problem with allowing a two-tiered system of criminal and civil court in which a person exonerated in criminal court can still be prosecuted civilly.  However, that's the subject of countless pages of tedious legal texts.

I don't think anyone here stereotypes bullies.

Hmmm... I suppose I misinterpreted these comments, then:


... It's the popular kids, the jocks, that made people miserable.  What was that line from Heathers, "Football season was over, all they had to offer was date rape and AIDS jokes."  It's the jock who gives you a swirly and has his way with your sister...


...Secondly, I agree with you about the jocks and the popular kids... like I said in another post somewhere, part of the problem is us.  The public turns the other way on things that are clearly wrong.  In my opinion, a jock should be suspended, if not expelled from sports if he cannot show respect to his fellow students...

My comment simply addressed the fact that it is unfair to stereotype 'jocks' as the problem, and that for sympathizers of the Columbine perpetrators  to use the abuse scenario as some understandable justification for killing innocent kids is insane. 

How could that comment possibly have been interpreted as some attack on you or your child, whom I know nothing about?  And why then did you feel justified in casting aspersions on my supposed character and parenting skills when you know nothing about me?


You seem to have come up with the black kids picking on the white kid scenario when I am sure we all know that that is a two way street.(or do you subconsciously equate black with menacing tough?).


Good. Lord. The whole POINT I'm making is that perceiving and stereotyping jocks as the "big bad meanies" is offensive in the same way that it's offensive to do the same with black males.   If a jock bullies another kid, it's because that kid is a bully, not because of some character defect inherent in jocks.  If a black kid bullies another kid, it's because that kid a bully, not because of some character defect related to being black.

Please refrain from the personal attacks, interpreting posts as personal attacks that aren't even DIRECTED at you, and random speculation about poster's supposed lack of parenting skills.

I think a little question I slipped into this thread got overlooked because of the bullying discussion... so back to the justice system for a sec...

To those who argued that emotion should not be involved in the justice system, does that mean we should FINALLY remove the term "emotional distress" from the court's vocabulary?

I would love to see that happen...


I agree.  In terms of criminal law, I think it unfair to allow varying degrees of punishment based on how much the victim is perceived as suffering.  The law takes it as a given that people/society suffer from crime.  The guy who kills the single unattached woman commits less of a crime than the guy who leaves three kids without a mother?  Don't think so, pal.

IMO, though, the guy who kills the single unattached woman with a single bullet should get a slightly lighter sentence than the guy who ties her up, beats her, tortures her THEN kills her.


Well, separate counts of murder, assault and torture handle that.

Hmmm... I suppose I misinterpreted these comments, then:

My comment simply addressed the fact that it is unfair to stereotype 'jocks' as the problem, and that for sympathizers of the Columbine perpetrators  to use the abuse scenario as some understandable justification for killing innocent kids is insane. 


Good. Lord. The whole POINT I'm making is that perceiving and stereotyping jocks as the "big bad meanies" is offensive in the same way that it's offensive to do the same with black males.   If a jock bullies another kid, it's because that kid is a bully, not because of some character defect inherent in jocks.  If a black kid bullies another kid, it's because that kid a bully, not because of some character defect related to being black.




My comment on jocks was stereotypical in a way, but not in the way you are perceiving it.  I was not implying that 'jocks' are responsible for all the bullying... that is not a true statement.  I *WAS* implying, however, that in the case of a star athlete or straight A student, the school officials tend to look the other way, whereas if a "stoner" was bullying another kid, the school would probably be more inclined to do something about it.  So the jocks are ultimately the ones who get away with it.

Of course not.  That would be silly.  When the courts talk about "emotional distress" it has no bearing on the actual verdict in a criminal matter.  If the court finds a person guilty of murder, the court make take the "emotional distress" caused by the murder."  The courts can evaluate the damages of emotional distress and demand restitution.  The emotional disposition of a perpetrator around the time of a violent crime is indespensible as an indicator of motives.  However, the fact that the perpetrator commited the murder has long been established by the time emotional matters are brought in to evidence.
I have a philosophical problem with allowing a two-tiered system of criminal and civil court in which a person exonerated in criminal court can still be prosecuted civilly.  However, that's the subject of countless pages of tedious legal texts.


I personally am sick and tired of the overuse of the term "emotional distress" in courts.  How do you put a dollar figure on emotional distress?   Hmm... should I sue my boss?  He gave me a bunch of extra work to do and that emotionally distressed me...  hey.. now that I think about it... i should sue my mom.  she spanked me when I was a kid and that distressed me too...

"Emotional Distress" has turned into nothing more than a get-rich-quick scheme.  But look at the likes of the infamous McDonalds case.  Lady buys a cup of coffee.  Coffee is hot. (DUH!)  Lady spills coffee.  Lady burns private parts.  Husband sues MCDONALDS because he can't have sex with her due to her burns. (Emotional Distress, I'm assuming)  HUSBAND WINS!!!   >:(

I might add that in the event of true "emotional distress", a judge should be able to award the plaintiff costs associated with counseling, PAYABLE TO THE COUNSELOR.  These cash handouts are just ridiculous.

My comment on jocks was stereotypical in a way, but not in the way you are perceiving it.  I was not implying that 'jocks' are responsible for all the bullying... that is not a true statement.  I *WAS* implying, however, that in the case of a star athlete or straight A student, the school officials tend to look the other way, whereas if a "stoner" was bullying another kid, the school would probably be more inclined to do something about it.  So the jocks are ultimately the ones who get away with it.


I see your point, and while I was reacting out of my disdain for stereotyping, my post was not an attack on you or anyone else.  I just find it generally offensive the way athletes often tend to be labeled as bad guys.

By the way, I was 5'10" 130 lbs. in high school, and I quit the track team because I hated not being fast enough to ever win even 3rd place, so this is not some overly-defensive ex-jock talking.  Quite the contrary.