So What Should Happen To This Punk?

Don't know about the murder charge, but Obama and Rubio probably have him slated for citizenship under the amnesty program. Originally Posted by ExNYer

A very idiotic remark in a case where a person is dead and a family is mourning and you make a cheap political comment- very classy man- very classy.

Here is a novel idea. If he is convicted of manslaughter, instead of jail time he can get a job and pay the family a large portion of his earnings as restitution. Society does not have to pay to incarcerate him for an extended period of time. The family gets something, which comes no where near replacing the loss but is better than what they would get if he is in jail.

There are a lot of cases where a sentence of restitution would be far better than one of revenge, but too many Thumpers love their old testiment eye-for-an-eye justice system.

Quite true Old-T, yet these WERFs proclaim themselves to be Christian, yet I have yet to find anything in their professed beliefs and actions to remotely emulate what I learned about Christianity. Their actions are FAR FAR FAR from the understanding and forgiveness that I learned growing up. Restitution, albeit falling far short, would be better than eye-for-an-eye.

Normally I would agree with the restitution concept, however this kid has proven that he is violent, and a danger to society. We could, however, reduce the tax burden on people, reduce the jail population and do more good by using restitution as a remedy for non-violent crimes. There's no reason to put non-violent criminals behind bars.

Normally I would agree with the restitution concept, however this kid has proven that he is violent, and a danger to society. We could, however, reduce the tax burden on people, reduce the jail population and do more good by using restitution as a remedy for non-violent crimes. There's no reason to put non-violent criminals behind bars. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Agree- to an extent- COG what would you consider a child molester? They are certainly not violent-but they are scum who shouldn't be walking free or given a slap on the wrist. I do think the 17 year should receive some prison time- he's 17 and not 12- anyone who is 17 should know not to EVER hit an official for any reason.

I think that is a VERY violent crime, WE.

Agree- to an extent- COG what would you consider a child molester? They are certainly not violent-but they are scum who shouldn't be walking free or given a slap on the wrist. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Not violent?????????????????? Please, Please, Please stand up and remove your brain from being a seat cushion. THERE IS NO MORE VIOLENT CRIME than that which you have just mentioned. You may think it to be non-violient, but you are SO WRONG. I DEFINITELY agree with COG on this.


Oh btw, hopefully the mods will give us a little lee-way and not decide these last few posts fall into the verboten category.

I agree with the restitution approach in many cases--I wasn't trying to advocate it here. Violent offenders and those where there's a reason to believe they won't live up to their end, those I would not be in favor of letting out.

I have a friend who was picked up for a DUI where she wrecked another car. Fortunately for everyone she came before a judge who made her get her car modified, go to AA, and pay restitution. Everyone benefits over her being in jail: her, her kids, the victim, and the tax payer.

There is a difference between violent actions and violent criminals. Kids getting into a fist fight is a violent action. Is there a history of violence with this kid? None that I have seen. A violent criminal is one who uses violence in the act of committing a crime. Rapists and murderers would fall into this category. This kid committed a violent action and should have to pay restitution to the victims of his action. Locking this kid up is not an "eye for an eye". It is nothing more than creating a situation where he is going into a system that will increase the likelihood that he will come out a violent offender with a chip on his shoulder.

Not violent?????????????????? Please, Please, Please stand up and remove your brain from being a seat cushion. THERE IS NO MORE VIOLENT CRIME than that which you have just mentioned. You may think it to be non-violient, but you are SO WRONG. I DEFINITELY agree with COG on this.


Oh btw, hopefully the mods will give us a little lee-way and not decide these last few posts fall into the verboten category. Originally Posted by chefnerd

No not in all cases- it's sickening but remember you have 14 year old girls who have sex with 40 plus year p;d men- and the men are not violently raping the girl- don't confuse molestation with rape- there are some sickos who do get violent from time to time- but you have a lot of them who lure innocent underage children either with gifts, promises and they mentally take advantage of them- if they physically take advantage of them that is deemed RAPE- which of course is a violent crime.. When you watch to catch a Predator are all these "molesters" going over there to be violent with the underage kids or are they going over to have sex with someone whom they shouldn't be having sex with. Last week a 28 year school teacher got arrested for having sex with a 14 year old student- it's a sick crime but is it violent? When I think of a violent crime I am referring to physical injury- against a person's will.

Not violent?????????????????? Please, Please, Please stand up and remove your brain from being a seat cushion. THERE IS NO MORE VIOLENT CRIME than that which you have just mentioned. You may think it to be non-violient, but you are SO WRONG. I DEFINITELY agree with COG on this.


Oh btw, hopefully the mods will give us a little lee-way and not decide these last few posts fall into the verboten category. Originally Posted by chefnerd

Answer this question- A 28 year old female student has sex with a 14 year old student. Is that a violent crime?

A 35 year old man takes a 25 year old girl in a dark alley holds a knife to her neck and proceeds to rip off her clothes and penetrates her while she is crying and resisting.

If you can't see that one is a molestation crime and deemed "non- violent" and the the other is a violent rape crime than you have some issues.

Both cases are crimes and sick but the latter is far more violent.

As I mentioned before there are 15 year old girls having sex with perverted older men as we speak and think nothing is wrong with it- molestation is a mental sick crime- but violent- in most cases no unless it's rape or unless it involves the person have sex with a very young person who knows nothing about sex- i.2 a 3 year old kid- those are sick crimes in which the guilty person needs to be hanged.

I understand the differences, and each case would have to heard on its own merit. But generally speaking, sexual activities with someone below the age of consent are presumptively violent, regardless of what activities were involved, or the attitude of the parties. But certainly there are matters of degree which should be heard by the Court trying the case. An 18 year old boy with a 15 year old girlfriend is going to be different than a 40 year old man 8 year old child. While each is a crime, and presumptively (IMHO) violent, the punishment ought not be same.

An 18 year old boy with a 15 year old girl friend could be a Hs school senior and his girlfriend one grade behind in the right circumstances. That is based on the different states and when they allow kids to start school. More likely they would be two years apart but still not unheard of. How is that a violent relationship?

Guilty of manslaughter, he'll be out in 6 to 8.