- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California votes AGAINST making the human trafficking of a minor a serious felony...
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:28 pm to SOSFAN
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:28 pm to SOSFAN
quote:FFS, SOS, please stay in your own lane.
You don't want to argue with him because you know he is right and as far as your position it changes everytime you're called out for your lies.
Let's be clear. THIS is my position:
1. When a criminal (any crime) is sentenced to prison, he is sentenced to the deprivation of liberty for a fixed term. He is NOT sentenced to that deprivation PLUS additional punishment at the hands of other inmates.
2. If State officials (prison officials) know that a given class of convict (any class, not just sex offenders) is significantly more-likely to be subjected to extra-judicial punishment at the hands of other inmates, it is incumbent upon those officials to take reasonable steps to prevent that extrajudicial punishment.
3. Incarceration in lower-security facilities is proven to lessen the likelihood of that sort of extrajudicial punishment, so it makes sense to use those facilities to house inmates who are likely to be subject to assault by other inmate, all other things being equal.
4. Housing inmates at lower-security facilities can save the State a LOT of money. Some estimates say that the cost per inmate is as little as 1/3 the cost of housing the same inmate in a high-security facility.
5. Child sex offenders have a VERY low rate of attempted escape, so housing them in a lower-security facility is JUST AS LIKELY to result in them serving their full, judicially-imposed sentence as would be housing them in a higher-security facility.
6. Ergo, it makes sense to house that class of inmate at a lower-security facility: (a) because they just as likely to serve their full sentence, (b) because they are less likely to be subject to extra-judicial (and probably unconstitutional) punishment to which they were NOT sentenced by a court at law and (c) because they can be incarcerated for their full sentence in a more fiscally-responsible manner.
NOWHERE in that that calculus is some sort of "sympathy" for sex offenders a variable.
Look, if you think that sex offenders' punishment SHOULD include beatings and potential murder, you are entitled to hold that opinion. Write to your legislator and ask him to sponsor a bill adding that punishment for those offenses. You might even be successful, in the right state.
4
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:30 pm to dukkbill
quote:
There is no misunderstanding at all. Yes, The bill would have created the same sentence enhancement as someone that committed a capital felony is correct. But the enhancement is also applied to the same person that in the same situation committed a weapons offense
The comparison is for an offense of trafficking to one that is a serious or violent offense of which capital offenses are but a small subset of violent offenses and even smaller subset of serious offenses
Your improper limiting the comparison to capital offenses is musdirective. There is nothing in any post suggesting that someone doesn’t understand recidivism laws
As for not understanding and not reading. sb14 adds “the human trafficking of a minor in violation of subdivision c of section 236.1”
Section 236.1c reads “ a person who causes, induces or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to violate…is guilty of human trafficking…”
Now I know you like to post about kink, and that has its own vocabulary, but I don’t think “picking tomatoes” fits that definition. If it does, it definitely sounds like good policy
This is called being dragged. You need to read this post again, PeroHank.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:32 pm to Bourre
quote:
So in PedoHank’s deranged mind, child slavery and trafficking is cool as long as they are being forced to pick vegetables instead of being forced to have sex
He is totally disconnected when it comes to kids…. It is almost like he considers them objects rather than living breathing people…. I suppose that is the only way he can square his positions on grooming, story hour and modern day slavery…
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:33 pm to Bourre
quote:No, Boure, it is not remotely cool. As I said above, it is both reprehensible and already a felony.
in PedoHank’s deranged mind, child slavery and trafficking is cool as long as they are being forced to pick vegetables instead of being forced to have sex
Again, on a scale of "kinda bad" at a 1 and "the worst conceivable thing" at a 10, murder is a 10. Sexual abuse is maybe a 9. Farm labor is maybe a 4 or a 5. Still "bad," but not in the same quantum.
Disagree with my thoughts on the relative seriousness of the three crimes, but don't be dishonest and pretend that I have said one of them is "cool." It is disingenuous, and candidly you are brighter than that.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
FFS, SOS, please stay in your own lane.
No pedohank I will be in every lane to point out your blatant lies and your support of anything hurtful to children. And I won't be the only one that points out your lies.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:37 pm to dukkbill
quote:RE-read that series of posts and responses. That comment was in response to a post that was NOT specific to this bill.
Unless “advocados” are some of your draggy sex acts, the bill neither makes trafficking a “capital offense” nor does it add farming to the three strikes law
It was in response to a post asking generically whether I personally think that "Trafficking children should be treated (the same as) as murder." I don't.
Murder is much more serious, and I make no apologies for thinking that murder is more reprehensible that forced farm labor.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:No, but it would treat them the same way for purposes of sentence enhancement under the recidivism statute.
It would render the defendant eligible for the Death Penalty?
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Murder is much more serious, and I make no apologies for thinking that murder is more reprehensible that forced farm labor.
You don't care about a child's soul being murdered.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:40 pm to NC_Tigah
I may have trouble following your links
This should get to a public non-paid version of SB14 in the current session LINK
This is the status in assembly with the committee hearing held today LINK
I may have lost the context on where your links are connected to the matter. But pursuant to your other posts, I agree, neither “serious offenses” nor “violent offenses” include only capital offenses. There are capital offenses included.
The purpose is to take those who force children to commit commercial sec acts to face the same sentence enhancements as those that might perpetrate the actual sex acts with the minors
This should get to a public non-paid version of SB14 in the current session LINK
This is the status in assembly with the committee hearing held today LINK
I may have lost the context on where your links are connected to the matter. But pursuant to your other posts, I agree, neither “serious offenses” nor “violent offenses” include only capital offenses. There are capital offenses included.
The purpose is to take those who force children to commit commercial sec acts to face the same sentence enhancements as those that might perpetrate the actual sex acts with the minors
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:40 pm to SOSFAN
quote:You seem to think that a victim's life is somehow improved by having the State spend three times as much money to apply the same sentence and violate the Constitution at the same time.
No pedohank I will be in every lane to point out your blatant lies and your support of anything hurtful to children. And I won't be the only one that points out your lies.
I don't.
Your problem here is that you think the analysis applies only to (for example) child sex offenders. The same analysis applies to ANY class of offenders which is disproportionately likely to be subject to intra-inmate violence and which is low-risk for attempted escape.
I think the State should enforce the sentences imposed by its courts, that it should not allow extra-judicial enhancement of those punishments, and that it should exercise its responsibilities in a fiscally-responsible manner.
You seem to disagree with each of those concepts. Such is life, I suppose.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Again, on a scale of "kinda bad" at a 1 and "the worst conceivable thing" at a 10, murder is a 10. Sexual abuse is maybe a 9. Farm labor is maybe a 4 or a 5. Still "bad," but not in the same quantum.
Earlier you called it “forced manual labor”, which is slavery. If you think child slavery is a 4 or 5, then your moral compass is broken (which we already knew)
Also, do you think they set up pens for the kids. Certain kids get placed in your vegetable picking pen and the rest get put in a sexual pen? How do you know a kid isn’t both a sex slave and a labor slave?
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'd really like to hear their explanation on their vote.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:42 pm to TexasTiger89
quote:
God's children are not for sale.
Unfortunately they are.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You seem to think that a victim's life is somehow improved by having the State spend three times as much money
Just know if you ever get busted you too will end up in maximum security.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Actually it isn't, obviously. It is only incumbent that they do what they can to improve penal uniformity in their own facilities. The FACT there is a lower chance a convicted multiple child rapist and trafficker of being raped/murdered during house arrest does not mean the POS should serve his term at home.
If State officials (prison officials) know that a given class of convict (any class, not just sex offenders) is significantly more-likely to be subjected to extra-judicial punishment at the hands of other inmates, it is incumbent upon those officials to take reasonable steps to prevent that extrajudicial punishment.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:44 pm to AggieHank86
quote:You're going to need to cite that BS, Hank.
and violate the Constitution at the same time.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Murder is much more serious, and I make no apologies for thinking that murder is more reprehensible that forced farm labor.
Again, the words you are tying to avoid is child slave labor.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:47 pm to SOSFAN
quote:SOS, you have your own personal baggage on this issue, and I sympathize, but stop projecting your mental and emotional health challenges onto me.
You don't care about a child's soul being murdered.
If I did not care, I would not think it should be a felony. I do think it should be a felony. I just give it a different rank in the hierarchy of felonies than you do.
Given your history, I even understand your personal ranking. It would be difficult for you to be objective on the matter, and (again) you have my sympathies.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:48 pm to AggieHank86
quote:How would a Manson-type case be dealt with under the recidivism statute?
No, but it would treat them the same way for purposes of sentence enhancement under the recidivism statute.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 4:49 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Please elucidate.
How would a Manson-type case be dealt with under the recidivism statute?
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News