|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 6, 2011 16:11:56 GMT -5
Holy FUCK!
And America edges ever closer to third world theocracy status.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hyperio on Oct 6, 2011 16:16:53 GMT -5
Don't they know that implicitly allowing domestic violence might end in increased costs for hospitals, not to mention increased likelyhood it will all end in a number of homicides?
Anyway, isn't security a function of government in all political models? Shouldn't decreasing it be the lass resort, in other words, even for the most staunch of "small government" supporters?
WTF, American conservatives? Is the rich man's account more important for you than a child's life?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 6, 2011 16:18:00 GMT -5
For once, this is NOT religion's fault.
(I'm just picturing Pope Benedict shouting, "Not it!")
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 6, 2011 16:19:58 GMT -5
Holy FUCK! And America edges ever closer to third world theocracy status. Oh, please. It’s a fuckin’ budget game. So third world, sure. Theocracy, thankfully not so much. Let’s worry about theocracy where it really is rearing its head. (I'm just picturing Pope Benedict shouting, "Not it!") I would so make an image macro of that if I had a proper pope picture. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 6, 2011 16:26:04 GMT -5
Oh, the theocratic bit will come later, but this is clearly going to be taken as a green light by those who THINK its their God given right to beat their spouse. So while the law change isn't the result of theocracy, it certainly enables theocratic thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 6, 2011 16:27:08 GMT -5
Oh, the theocratic bit will come later, but this is clearly going to be taken as a green light by those who THINK its their God given right to beat their spouse. So while the law change isn't the result of theocracy, it certainly enables theocratic thinking. You got a point there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Oct 6, 2011 17:09:58 GMT -5
For once, this is NOT religion's fault. I was surprised by that, too. Which is hilarious, considering the points LHM just brought up. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 6, 2011 18:24:14 GMT -5
Excuse me while I headesk reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 6, 2011 18:27:54 GMT -5
For once, this is NOT religion's fault. I was surprised by that, too. Which is hilarious, considering the points LHM just brought up. You wouldn't abreviate my name if we were in Kansas, bitch! This j/k in poor taste was brought to you by the Phelpses protesting of Steve Job's funeral |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Oct 6, 2011 18:50:51 GMT -5
WTF? And people will let them do this? Words cannot describe my anger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Oct 6, 2011 19:50:58 GMT -5
If they do repeal the domestic abuse laws, I encourage anyone living with any of these politicians to brutally assault them the minute they get home.
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Oct 6, 2011 20:06:35 GMT -5
WTF, American conservatives? Is the rich man's account more important for you than a child's life? You mean a flesh and blood not a fetus child? Hell to the no. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Oct 6, 2011 20:47:44 GMT -5
Looking at this from POV of someone who works in a prosecuting attorney's office (and wants to get a job as a prosecutor...)
Prosecutors have very broad discretion when it comes to what charges are files and what the outcome of those cases are. (A prosecutor can charge, say, possession with intent to sell, then offer a plea to simple possession.) The only checks are an abuse of discretion suit (which is next to impossible to prove) or the court refusing to accept the plea.
If the county and city are both refusing to file charges on DV, this is an interesting game of chicken. That said, it is a money game. There are only so many attorneys to prosecute all crime; something has to give. I do wonder what prompted the offices to decide on DV, but I suspect it's a political decision. (They know the people will not stand for letting abusers go free, so the money will appear.) Not charging drug crime would have the same outcome, but the political fallout would be worse. (Don't know about KS, but here, State Attorneys - what FL calls the head prosecutor for a region - is an elected position. Appearing soft on drugs would most likely make re-election harder.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 7, 2011 4:17:12 GMT -5
Looking at this from POV of someone who works in a prosecuting attorney's office (and wants to get a job as a prosecutor...) Prosecutors have very broad discretion when it comes to what charges are files and what the outcome of those cases are. (A prosecutor can charge, say, possession with intent to sell, then offer a plea to simple possession.) The only checks are an abuse of discretion suit (which is next to impossible to prove) or the court refusing to accept the plea. If the county and city are both refusing to file charges on DV, this is an interesting game of chicken. That said, it is a money game. There are only so many attorneys to prosecute all crime; something has to give. I do wonder what prompted the offices to decide on DV, but I suspect it's a political decision. (They know the people will not stand for letting abusers go free, so the money will appear.) Not charging drug crime would have the same outcome, but the political fallout would be worse. (Don't know about KS, but here, State Attorneys - what FL calls the head prosecutor for a region - is an elected position. Appearing soft on drugs would most likely make re-election harder.) This is a very interesting statement, Eric. But people would rather risk appearing soft on drugs than appearing soft on dom. violence? How fucked up is this? I don't know whether it's a good or bad thing that wmdkitty isn't here anymore... |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Oct 7, 2011 4:17:22 GMT -5
Appearing soft on drugs, as opposed to soft on domestic violence? If people are really stupid enough to put a higher priority on victimless crimes, we might as well just call off the whole human experiment and nuke at least that particular area...
|
|
