Apparently, hookers are just as bad as rapists and child molestors...

I swear to whatever god you choose, I must be the only United States southerner who thinks prostitutes are mostly harmless and that there's nothing wrong with the idea.

How is a prostitute a sex offender? That's not even logical in relation to the law.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Quote :

The law, which dates back to 1805, makes it a crime against nature to engage in “unnatural copulation”—a term New Orleans cops and the district attorney’s office have interpreted to mean anal or oral sex.

Shouldn't that law apply to everyone and anyone who has oral sex or anal sex? Stupid unnatural copulation law. This is even more moronic -- and far, far more harmful -- than Alabama's ban on sex toy sales.

As someone who lives in Alabama I can say for a fact that that ban harms no one. Least of all the people selling the sex toys. They're just relabeled as "adult novelties" and all come with capitalized warnings like "THIS IS A NOVELTY ITEM ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR ANY SEXUAL PURPOSES." In fact, I believe there's a sex toy shop in Montgomery, our capital.

Heh, there is a sex shop in Montgomery, several in fact (pass by this pretty small one all the time when going to visit relatives). Yeah, it's pretty much one of Alabama's many laws that they really don't bother enforcing at all.

Eh, I don't get the point of the whole prostitute=sex offender association either. They normally don't do those sort of things for free.

TheHermit wrote:

If you don't keep prisoners stimulated, they stimulate themselves with riots, rape, and violence. What else are violent people going to do when you intentionally keep them bored? I'm genuinely curious why you think "free cable" should even be in the same league of injustice as "endemic rape".

How about we just keep all violent offenders locked in solitary 24/7/365? That'd certainly prevent any riots or violence.

Thanos6 wrote:

How about we just keep all violent offenders locked in solitary 24/7/365? That'd certainly prevent any riots or violence.

Now this is what I love: Cold hearted evil.

Lapin wrote:

I swear to whatever god you choose, I must be the only United States southerner who thinks prostitutes are mostly harmless and that there's nothing wrong with the idea.

How is a prostitute a sex offender? That's not even logical in relation to the law.

Personally I'd say it would be more logical to class the guy PAYING the prostitute as a sex offender. But of course that's LOGIC which doesn't apply to the American legal system.

Next thing you know, they'll be classing rape victims as prostitutes.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Personally I'd say it would be more logical to class the guy PAYING the prostitute as a sex offender. But of course that's LOGIC which doesn't apply to the American legal system.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Um, actually. They are. A "john" is in a lot of legal hot water too, not just the hooker.

Thanos6 wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

If you don't keep prisoners stimulated, they stimulate themselves with riots, rape, and violence. What else are violent people going to do when you intentionally keep them bored? I'm genuinely curious why you think "free cable" should even be in the same league of injustice as "endemic rape".

How about we just keep all violent offenders locked in solitary 24/7/365? That'd certainly prevent any riots or violence.

Please tell me you're being facetious.

Well, he is against the 5th amendment.

Thanos6 wrote:

How about we just keep all violent offenders locked in solitary 24/7/365? That'd certainly prevent any riots or violence.

Do you really need a link to tell you this idea is monstrously cruel and will be is abused by prison staff?

If it's too long for you to read, consider this: some inmates are sent to supermax just for getting into a fistfight, and while there their mental health deteriorates drastically. The thing you don't seem to be taking into account is that most prisoners eventually get out; they serve their time, get put on parole, or whatever. If you are intentionally making them crazy (and it's hard to imagine a situation in which sensory deprivation for months at a time will not make you koo-koo), you're just punishing them for punishment's sake and putting innocent people in danger just to slake your bloodlust. I hold you in the highest contempt; you're one of the reasons I laugh bitterly when I hear America called "the greatest nation on earth".

ETA: I mean, really, is the concept of rehabilitation that hard to grasp?

Quote :

"That's called mental health!" Lipscomb says in amazement.

Direct quote... makes you wonder how some people logically are in charge of these prisons

TheHermit wrote:

Thanos6 wrote:

How about we just keep all violent offenders locked in solitary 24/7/365? That'd certainly prevent any riots or violence.

Do you really need a link to tell you this idea is monstrously cruel and will be is abused by prison staff?

If it's too long for you to read, consider this: some inmates are sent to supermax just for getting into a fistfight, and while there their mental health deteriorates drastically. The thing you don't seem to be taking into account is that most prisoners eventually get out; they serve their time, get put on parole, or whatever. If you are intentionally making them crazy (and it's hard to imagine a situation in which sensory deprivation for months at a time will not make you koo-koo), you're just punishing them for punishment's sake and putting innocent people in danger just to slake your bloodlust. I hold you in the highest contempt; you're one of the reasons I laugh bitterly when I hear America called "the greatest nation on earth".

ETA: I mean, really, is the concept of rehabilitation that hard to grasp?

P.S. It's also expensive as shit.

I didn't say I agreed with the idea, just that if you wanted to win the support of "tough on crime" people, that'd be the way to do it.

(Though, much like the death penalty, I WOULD have no problem with the idea if you could be 100% sure it was only applied to guilty murderers; unfortunately, since you can't, I have to oppose it)

But yes, I do have a problem with the Fifth Amendment. I see no reason there should be an inherent "right to remain silent." At the very least, a jury should be allowed to say "well, if s/he won't testify, that's awfully suspicious."

Hey, you know Americans. 'Solving' a problem involves SO much less brain-work than working out how to prevent it from happening in the first place. Oh sure, people get killed or mentally damaged, but they're not me so they don't matter.

Quote :

I see no reason there should be an inherent "right to remain silent." At the very least, a jury should be allowed to say "well, if s/he won't testify, that's awfully suspicious."

You are fucking stupid.

1. The "right to remain silent" is part of the Miranda warning and is similar but IS NOT THE SAME as the 5th amendment. It gives you the right to shut your yap from the moment you are arrested and read your rights up until you are in the presence of a lawyer. Anything you say after you are arrested CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW. That's dead fucking serious. They will misconstrue any stupid shit you say against you at your time of arrest.

What you are thinking of is "pleading the 5th":
2. The 5th amendment protects against self incrimination against the crime you are accused of at the time or any other unrelated crime you may have been committing (i.e. I couldn't have killed her because I was at home making pot brownies). Griffin vs. California makes it illegal for a prosecutor to draw attention to a defendant's silence during a trial. Silence doesn't equal guilty, you fucking idiot.

If you can't see the value in protecting YOUR RIGHTS, being as you only think that omg those bad people use their constitutional rights to their advantage maybe you don't deserve them.

e: Good example of needing this right from wiki:

Quote :

The right was asserted at grand jury or congressional hearings in the 1950s, when witnesses testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities or the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee claimed the right in response to questions concerning their alleged membership in the Communist Party. Under the Red Scare hysteria at the time of McCarthyism,
witnesses who refused to answer the questions were accused as "fifth
amendment communists". They lost jobs or positions in unions and other
political organizations, and suffered other repercussions after "taking
the fifth."
Senator Joseph McCarthy
(R-Wisc.) asked, "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the
Communist party," while he was chairman of the Senate Government
Operations Committee Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Admitting to a previous communist party membership was not sufficient.
Witnesses were also required to "name names," to implicate others they
knew to be communists or who had been communists in the past.

But obviously they deserved it because they were secretly communists trying to destroy america because they refused to incriminate their friends amirite

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

I see no reason there should be an inherent "right to remain silent." At the very least, a jury should be allowed to say "well, if s/he won't testify, that's awfully suspicious."

Many intelligent things.

Seriously, do not ever talk to cops. Even if you haven't done anything, they can still arrest you. Observe.

Thanos6 wrote:

But yes, I do have a problem with the Fifth Amendment. I see no reason there should be an inherent "right to remain silent." At the very least, a jury should be allowed to say "well, if s/he won't testify, that's awfully suspicious."

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Thanos6, proud supporter of the police state.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

I see no reason there should be an inherent "right to remain silent." At the very least, a jury should be allowed to say "well, if s/he won't testify, that's awfully suspicious."

Many intelligent things.

Seriously, do not ever talk to cops.

Every criminal everywhere ever agrees.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

I see no reason there should be an inherent "right to remain silent." At the very least, a jury should be allowed to say "well, if s/he won't testify, that's awfully suspicious."

Many intelligent things.

Seriously, do not ever talk to cops. Even if you haven't done anything, they can still arrest you. Observe.

I'm seriously hoping that this statement isn't being directed towards witnesses as well.

Bamshalam wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

Seriously, do not ever talk to cops. Even if you haven't done anything, they can still arrest you. Observe.

I'm seriously hoping that this statement isn't being directed towards witnesses as well.

Well, watch the video and come to your own conclusions.

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend a half-hour listening to someone expound on ideas I know I'm going to reject utterly.

Freezer wrote:

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend a half-hour listening to someone expound on ideas I know I'm going to reject utterly.

Oh cool so we don't have to take you seriously then.

Mafiosa wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend a half-hour listening to someone expound on ideas I know I'm going to reject utterly.

Oh cool so we don't have to take you seriously then.

If it takes you a half-hour to get through anything I write, that's on you (and your English instructors).

I just wonder how many of you would be taking this guy seriously if his speech was entitled "Why I Stopped Snitchin'?" Because that's what it is.

To put it bluntly: The cops are not out to get you. They want the bad guys, not whoever they can nab. People who take the stance that the few cops we see getting busted are the tip of the iceberg, not the exceptions to the rule are almost as much of the problem as the criminals themselves. And are usually the first to bitch when crimes go unsolved.

You want to clam up no matter what if a cop talks to you, it's your right. Just don't bitch when the cops can't crack your case because they can't get a lead, because no one will talk.

Freezer wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend a half-hour listening to someone expound on ideas I know I'm going to reject utterly.

Oh cool so we don't have to take you seriously then.

If it takes you a half-hour to get through anything I write, that's on you (and your English instructors).

You didn't refuse to watch it because it was long, you just willingly refuse new ideas for the fuck of it. You said that just now.

hurpa durpa deedlidly doo

VileCorp wrote:

So, exactly how many times, and with how much violence were you raped?

You know, I've always wanted to know the same thing about you.

Mafiosa wrote:

You didn't refuse to watch it because it was long, you just willingly refuse new ideas for the fuck of it. You said that just now.

hurpa durpa deedlidly doo

Would you be sniping at me if I refused ot watch a half-hour vid on the benefits of drinking your own urine? A testimonial on the effectiveness of no-carb diets? Why the Libertarian Party should be taken seriously? Why Roman Polanski got a raw deal?

No. Because those are self-evidently bad (Or at best, more bad than good) concepts. So why should I give time to something I consider just as bad a concept?

I shouldn't and I won't. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.