Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(23-10-2015 01:14 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Preventing someone from exercising discrimination is, trivially, restricting their freedom of action.

Freedom of such close minded individuals end where they try to deprive others of rights or stop them from gaining said laws. It's not like such people are ordered to like idea of same sex marriage so whatever shit they spout about restricting their freedom is nothing more than pathethic whinning. To me at least.

That's... very easy to say. I said trivial because it is, trivially, true. Being prevented from acting as they desire to act is by definition limiting their freedom of action. Period. And because not everybody things the same way, we as societies have to pick which way to enforce things in case of inevitable disagreement.

(23-10-2015 01:14 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  When their desired freedom of action conflicts with another's, society must choose which to prioritise. That's why simply appealing to "freedom" isn't a whole argument.

It may be not a whole argument but bigots have none. Being offended by something is not argument.

It isn't, indeed.
(bigots have reasons for thinking and acting as they do just as much as any human being - I'd say, and I'm sure you'd agree, that those are mostly really bad reasons, but that's not the same as not having them)

(23-10-2015 01:14 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It is problematic to just say things are "clearly" delusional. Assuredly your counterparts would say the same thing about you and your beliefs!

Sure, pieces of human trash who want to discriminate others would say that it's others who are delusional but it does not take a rocket scientist to see who is right.

But, that's just an appeal to incredulity. It's not a compelling argument.
(even when I happen to agree with the point being argued)

(23-10-2015 01:14 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Our responses to the acts of others can be crudely divided into several rough categories. One of those is generally termed something like purity or sanctity. There are certain interpersonal acts (let's just say, for example, violent non-consensual sex acts) to which most people have a strong, immediate negative reaction (and there likewise are, necessarily given the variation of human beings, some who do not share that reaction). But that same wide variation means that for some people, personal distaste for, say, gay sex acts crosswires over with a purity ethic to create the belief that permitting such acts does actual harm to social cohesion.

I know, Haidt wrote about this in The Righteous Mind. I don't care though.

Yes, but... you can't deny the actual, real, and demonstrable thoughts and feelings of others just because you don't share them.

(23-10-2015 01:14 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Being grossed by something is not valid reason to deny others their right as much as certain people would want this.

Your particular feels are not privileged over anyone else's.
(and Flying Spaghetti Monster knows I sometimes get annoyed at how mine aren't either!)

If we want to be reasonable about it we need to - collectively, in whatever social grouping we're in - define our criteria for evaluating policy and try to measure our options in light of them. We can, for example, compare indicators of social well-being before and after changes to marriage law; we can across jurisdictions with otherwise comparable socioeconomic indicators; we need to externalise and render amenable to some degree of empiricism our standards, because otherwise it's just a feels-off, and that's not how rational decisions are made.

(23-10-2015 01:14 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Generally if act do not bring direct and undisputed harm to other I see no reason to oppose it. Being uncomfortable with something is not direct and undisputed harm I would say.

Keywords: I would say.

I mean, yes, because I also lack the motivation behind it, I too fail to intuitively understand emotive opposition to (e.g.) same-sex marriage - but I think that it's almost always worthwhile to try to understand intellectually where those views come from, because only then can we think about how we might change them.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-10-2015, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 02:12 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(23-10-2015 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's... very easy to say. I said trivial because it is, trivially, true. Being prevented from acting as they desire to act is by definition limiting their freedom of action. Period. And because not everybody things the same way, we as societies have to pick which way to enforce things in case of inevitable disagreement.

It's not hard to pick then. There is no reason for state to discriminate certain part of population by not granting them rights that others enjoy. It's more a question of same rights than anything else.

(23-10-2015 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It isn't, indeed.
(bigots have reasons for thinking and acting as they do just as much as any human being - I'd say, and I'm sure you'd agree, that those are mostly really bad reasons, but that's not the same as not having them)

Sure I agree thay have reasons but as it happens their reasons means nothing to me. Being disgusted with something isn't reason enough for state to discriminate part of it own population or rather it shouldn't be.

(23-10-2015 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But, that's just an appeal to incredulity. It's not a compelling argument.
(even when I happen to agree with the point being argued)

It may be not compelling but it's true. It's not little dictators who are right here regardless of their ranting about their "freedom to discriminate" being taken away.

(23-10-2015 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, but... you can't deny the actual, real, and demonstrable thoughts and feelings of others just because you don't share them.

I don't deny their feelings I just don't care about them. Nor I see reason for state to care. It's not like certain close minded individuals have something that even resemble good argument against for example same sex marriage.

Or maybe they have some, hmm... specific form of argument: numbers. But only that.

(23-10-2015 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your particular feels are not privileged over anyone else's.
(and Flying Spaghetti Monster knows I sometimes get annoyed at how mine aren't either!)

They aren't. Neither should be feels of religious idiots whose only "arguments" againts thing they dislike tend to be about feels or cause god says so.

(23-10-2015 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If we want to be reasonable about it we need to - collectively, in whatever social grouping we're in - define our criteria for evaluating policy and try to measure our options in light of them. We can, for example, compare indicators of social well-being before and after changes to marriage law; we can across jurisdictions with otherwise comparable socioeconomic indicators; we need to externalise and render amenable to some degree of empiricism our standards, because otherwise it's just a feels-off, and that's not how rational decisions are made.

Or we just can grant others the same right.

Such considerations may be good for other things but what is to consider in same sex marriage?

(23-10-2015 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Keywords: I would say.

I mean, yes, because I also lack the motivation behind it, I too fail to intuitively understand emotive opposition to (e.g.) same-sex marriage - but I think that it's almost always worthwhile to try to understand intellectually where those views come from, because only then can we think about how we might change them.

I very much doubt the possibility of changing one views about such things. Nor I care about understanding them. It may sound far from being open minded but sometimes just one side is right and in this case it's clearly isn't the one who is trying to deny others same rights.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(23-10-2015 07:29 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Thankfully, they also prevented me from producing potentially exonerating evidence at trial, and they allowed some evidence that should not have been admitted, which got my case (eventually) reviewed by the higher courts, after seemingly-endless delays by the prosecution (at one point, they even claimed a lawyer quit ON THE DAY a reply was due to one of my appeals, which bought them another four months to get a reply in, via the new attorney). They did not establish in trial the required elements for such conviction, so the judge had simply removed the elements they could not prove to the jury from the jury instructions, and thus the conviction was baseless. Nine years of my life for nothing.

Is there any compensation? This seems like a gross miscarriage of justice.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 05:17 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(22-10-2015 03:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I knew this guy, did time with him here in Missouri. He actually got caught with 6 pounds of weed, and so instead of 30 years (like I had) he got Life in prison. I only lost 9 years of my life... he lost 21.

At the end of August, he was finally let out by order of the Governor of Missouri.

http://www.abc17news.com/news/jeff-mizan...n/34634924

Edit to Add: Full disclosure, I was not in the same facility he was in Jefferson City Correctional Center, I was in an adjacent facility (next door, or actually up the hill), called Algoa Correctional Center, but my Law Library work put me in contact with him.

21 years taken....this is sickening. The most this should hold is probation especially if it was a first offense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 06:02 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(24-10-2015 05:17 AM)MrKrispy601 Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 03:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I knew this guy, did time with him here in Missouri. He actually got caught with 6 pounds of weed, and so instead of 30 years (like I had) he got Life in prison. I only lost 9 years of my life... he lost 21.

At the end of August, he was finally let out by order of the Governor of Missouri.

http://www.abc17news.com/news/jeff-mizan...n/34634924

Edit to Add: Full disclosure, I was not in the same facility he was in Jefferson City Correctional Center, I was in an adjacent facility (next door, or actually up the hill), called Algoa Correctional Center, but my Law Library work put me in contact with him.

21 years taken....this is sickening. The most this should hold is probation especially if it was a first offense

The article clearly states he was imprisoned for repeat offence.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(24-10-2015 05:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  Is there any compensation? This seems like a gross miscarriage of justice.

The judge is no longer a judge, so there's nothing really to do about that. I have a lawsuit against the county but, again, it may take years to see any results from that, and the odds of success are low because the onus is on me to show that they "knew or should have known" I was not guilty of the charge they brought. Sovereign Immunity mens the State defines the circumstances under which the king (state) or his agents may be sued. In this case, I have to demonstrate that the agents of the king stepped outside their lawful authority on purpose, and not by accident. Demonstrating wrongful incarceration is difficult when the State can use the "oopsie" defense under Sovereign Immunity standards. I may yet win, but it's not a given just because of how long the system took to work.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
24-10-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(23-10-2015 09:00 AM)yakherder Wrote:  The drug war is way more complicated than it was even a short time ago. 30 years ago, "fixing" it would have been as simple as decriminalization. Today, the cartels are more than powerful enough to threaten the sovereignty of the nations in which they operate, should their preferred source of revenue be compromised. Many are already well invested into industries like oil, real estate, etc. We missed the boat on that one.

Combine legalization and the liberal use of drones. That would solve it. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-10-2015, 07:43 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(24-10-2015 07:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 09:00 AM)yakherder Wrote:  The drug war is way more complicated than it was even a short time ago. 30 years ago, "fixing" it would have been as simple as decriminalization. Today, the cartels are more than powerful enough to threaten the sovereignty of the nations in which they operate, should their preferred source of revenue be compromised. Many are already well invested into industries like oil, real estate, etc. We missed the boat on that one.

Combine legalization and the liberal use of drones. That would solve it. Drinking Beverage

I don't think decriminalising it would be a bad move anyway. Those drug lords might not be making as much money through the drugs any more but they'll still be in a strong economic position and their costs will be down because they won't have to spend so much on evading agents of the law, and they'll be able to *legitimately* employ people, so maybe they'd be on sides.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(24-10-2015 07:17 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 05:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  Is there any compensation? This seems like a gross miscarriage of justice.

The judge is no longer a judge, so there's nothing really to do about that. I have a lawsuit against the county but, again, it may take years to see any results from that, and the odds of success are low because the onus is on me to show that they "knew or should have known" I was not guilty of the charge they brought. Sovereign Immunity mens the State defines the circumstances under which the king (state) or his agents may be sued. In this case, I have to demonstrate that the agents of the king stepped outside their lawful authority on purpose, and not by accident. Demonstrating wrongful incarceration is difficult when the State can use the "oopsie" defense under Sovereign Immunity standards. I may yet win, but it's not a given just because of how long the system took to work.

I just thought that maybe since the state does agree that you were wrongfully convicted they'd give you some money to compensate, not to acknowledge that the officials acted in bad faith, but just to say sorry for fucking up your life...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
24-10-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: Missouri Releases Another Prisoner
(24-10-2015 07:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  I just thought that maybe since the state does agree that you were wrongfully convicted they'd give you some money to compensate, not to acknowledge that the officials acted in bad faith, but just to say sorry for fucking up your life...

Yeah, I WISH that's how it worked. What you get is a "your case was never proven and therefore the conviction was illegal" official finding from the high courts, and an order for the lower courts to review the conviction and dismiss it, which results in your eventual release (you'd think it'd be the same day but nope, it can take weeks). But even then, it is called "error" by the local judge, and judicial error is 100% protected by law. You're simply let loose with an "oopsie!"

Attaining compensation for errors requires proof that it was done to you on purpose, when they should have known better, or that they deliberately prevented you from presenting evidence to which you were legally entitled, in your own defense, that they reasonably knew or should have known would have prevented the conviction from occurring. Otherwise, it's just toooo bad what happened to you, and good luck out there.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: