|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 7, 2011 5:31:38 GMT -5
Am I the only one looking at this and realizing just how screwed up the bigger picture is?
Here the county and the city are so completely out of funds they have no option but to decriminalize domestic violence. Stop being angry at Kansas grab your pitchforks and be angry at the excessive cost cutting without meaningful additional revenue that the republicans are always pushing for.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 7, 2011 5:40:41 GMT -5
What are the bets that they can still find the money to prosecute illegal immigrants?
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Oct 7, 2011 6:04:02 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... I want to repeat - I am only guessing on the reason. It could very well be the reverse - more people see / are impacted by DV, so not prosecuting that would have wider effects that not prosecuting drug crime. |
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 7, 2011 10:48:17 GMT -5
DAMN IT, KANSAS! I officially revoke your right to be a state of the Union.
|
|
|
|
Post by askold on Oct 7, 2011 11:32:27 GMT -5
Ah, South Africa USA. Not even the end of apartheid Obama could turn it into a modern country. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Oct 7, 2011 12:04:34 GMT -5
What are the bets that they can still find the money to prosecute illegal immigrants? ...Illegal immigration is a federal offense, and is therefore prosecuted by the federal courts. Domestic violence is, as seen here, prosecuted on the county/municipal level. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 7, 2011 18:07:56 GMT -5
What are the bets that they can still find the money to prosecute illegal immigrants? ...Illegal immigration is a federal offense, and is therefore prosecuted by the federal courts. Domestic violence is, as seen here, prosecuted on the county/municipal level. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Oct 7, 2011 19:34:09 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.) But wouldn't or shouldn't appearing soft on something far worse than drugs make re-election even harder? Maybe I just don't understand how people can get their panties in a knot over drugs. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Oct 7, 2011 21:06:52 GMT -5
But wouldn't or shouldn't appearing soft on something far worse than drugs make re-election even harder? Maybe I just don't understand how people can get their panties in a knot over drugs. As I said, I don't know what motivated the decision. It may have nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with DV. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 7, 2011 21:21:58 GMT -5
Am I the only one looking at this and realizing just how screwed up the bigger picture is? Here the county and the city are so completely out of funds they have no option but to decriminalize domestic violence. Stop being angry at Kansas grab your pitchforks and be angry at the excessive cost cutting without meaningful additional revenue that the republicans are always pushing for. That is not what is going on here, not willing to pay does not translate to being unable to pay. SOMEONE has the funds, they just don't want to give them up. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 7, 2011 21:29:10 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. That, along with an argument I'm making in a thread, ironically denied by LHM himself, is why I said that. Also because of the Pope thing being funny. Speaking from a purely practical point of view, if I were running for office, I WOULD rather appear to be soft on domestic violence, because it just does not get as much political attention as drugs. Or gay people, or abortions to an extent. FUKKEN DOUBLE POST! |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Oct 8, 2011 2:50:32 GMT -5
Speaking from a purely practical point of view, if I were running for office, I WOULD rather appear to be soft on domestic violence, because it just does not get as much political attention as drugs. Or gay people, or abortions to an extent. If I happened to be running for that office, I'd be sure to make DV a big issue if it wasn't one already. Even if I lost, I'd continue to bring it up every chance I got, because that's actually a meaningful crime. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 8, 2011 8:17:52 GMT -5
But wouldn't or shouldn't appearing soft on something far worse than drugs make re-election even harder? I think they chose something worse as a safeguard that the other guy will pay for it. Unfortunately, the city appears to have called the county?s bluff. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Waldorf X on Oct 8, 2011 18:58:31 GMT -5
How much you wanna bet they'll still prosecute minor drug charges, like marijuana? Well, this IS Kansas, the most assbackwards state outside of the south. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 9, 2011 8:05:21 GMT -5
|
|
