- 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: Judge Raquel West: the days of going easy on teens and giving them probation are OVER
Posted on 3/19/26 at 12:07 am to hogcard1964
Posted on 3/19/26 at 12:07 am to hogcard1964
quote:
She's garbage
I just watched her let a thief of over $30,000.00 off with extended probation.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a guy showing anti-social violent tendencies getting a long sentence, but I know where you're coming from as well.
I grew up playing baseball with a guy who became an attorney and also a gambling addict. He was using escrow funds to gamble and losing (like all gamblers do), and he was basically playing a Ponzi Scheme...using client B's money to fund client A's transaction, then using client C's money to fund client B's, and so on.
He stole over a million bucks, and his clients had no recourse to get it back. His insurance wouldn't cover it and he was broke from gambling, so there was no one to provide restitution.
He got something like 4 years, served two and a half, I think, in a minimum security prison where he (I'm not kidding) played tennis for half the day.
Now, he didn't stick a gun in anyone's face, but he stole a hell of a lot more money than the $200 you're likely to get from robbing a convenience store and he got almost no time in a pretend prison for it.
That ain't right either.
0
Posted on 3/19/26 at 12:35 am to mtntiger
If it keeps him from procreating…
Posted on 3/19/26 at 12:41 am to Ailsa
Fast track her to the Supreme Court
Posted on 3/19/26 at 5:38 am to Ailsa
if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime 
Posted on 3/19/26 at 6:39 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
We know that severe punishments do not provide any kind of effective deterrent. That's a well studied phenomenon.
Certainty of being caught does. But severity of punishment does not.
"well studied" can mean a lot of different things
This post was edited on 3/19/26 at 6:40 am
Posted on 3/19/26 at 6:41 am to Ailsa
Does the family of black folk think they shouldn’t be punished?
Selfish group. They got what’s coming to them.
Selfish group. They got what’s coming to them.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:01 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
We know that severe punishments do not provide any kind of effective deterrent. That's a well studied phenomenon.
Not sure what “studies” you refer to, but I can guarantee he won’t pistol whip some store clerk while he’s locked up.
So he’s been “effectively deterred” from crime for a while.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:18 am to jizzle6609
I typed out a long reply that would surely get me banned.
Then I got a cup of coffee and thought better of it.
In summary, I’m beyond fatigued.
Then I got a cup of coffee and thought better of it.
In summary, I’m beyond fatigued.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:23 am to mtntiger
quote:No it's thugs like this that descend into more an more violent crimes 25 and he'll likely only serve 5-10 but AT LEAST for that time it is one less violent felon walking among us.
Honestly, 25 years is a bit harsh, but at least he'll be behind bars for a spell.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:24 am to rickyh
quote:
Fast track her to the Supreme Court
Replace Roberts. Come on down West.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:35 am to Ailsa
This thug looks nothing like a teen. Perhaps she did him a favor; probably would not survive 25 years on the streets committing crimes.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 8:26 am to Pvt Hudson
quote:
So he’s been “effectively deterred” from crime for a while.
Of course he's not. The judge even said that was part of the reason for his sentence. He's been brawling in prison (also a crime).
quote:
I can guarantee he won’t pistol whip some store clerk while he’s locked up.
I don't object to a protective theory of incarceration at all. But that's not what was claimed.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:28 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Certainty of being caught does. But severity of punishment does not.
That's an absolute lie. Look at other countries where you lose body parts for stealing. Crime is extremely low...why? Because the punishment is not worth the crime.
Worried about being caught is last on a criminal list but facing decades in prison would have them thinking hard.
Also use your own brain to discuss not a AI answer. Criminals knowing the justice system will turn them loose will effectively increase crime with the Criminals back on the street. If they are locked away they cannot be robbing others.
This post was edited on 3/19/26 at 9:33 am
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:41 am to SOSFAN
quote:
That's an absolute lie.
Nope. It's been studied pretty extensively.
quote:
Crime is extremely low...why? Because the punishment is not worth the crime.
Nope. Here's why.
Not all countries who have extreme penalties (what would be unconstitutional penalties in the US) have very low crime rates. Countries in which poverty is extreme enough that people are desperate enough to commit crimes anyway do not have low crime rates, and countries in which the probability of being caught are low do not have low crime rates.
It's pretty clear that the drivers of deterrence are:
1. Having something to lose
2. High probability of being caught
But hey, we don't need to look at other countries. There was a time during the colonial phase of THIS country in which punishment was exactly like macho internet types like yourself say they want now. Almost immediate trial, short, maybe 1-3 days, and if convicted, no appeal, no stay of execution, you went right to the gallows to be publicly hanged for a felony and right to the stocks or to be tarred and feathered or hoss whipped if the crime was a misdemeanor. They didn't even have prisons back then...only jails to hold people until trial.
Guess what the murder rate was?
No, go on, guess.
Yeah, give it a shot.
And you can always fact check me and look it up yourself.
In fact I encourage it.
But give it a guess first.
Public hangings, everybody watching, everybody seeing what they would be in for if they committed a felony, short trials, immediate punishment meted out, hanged people defecating on themselves, eyes bulging out, twitching on the end of their rope, feet kicking, the sound of necks breaking at the bottom fo the rope throw, women swooning in the audience...had to be a big deterrent, right?
HAD to be.
There's NO WAY that didn't scare the hell out of people and keep the crime rate super low, right?
I mean, if you lived in that town, these were almost certainly people you personally knew up there swinging from those ropes.
No way you could avoid the conclusion that you would be next if you did what they did.
So what do you think the murder rate was back then?
Had to be low, right?
Wait for it...
Wait for it...
It was six times higher than it is now.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:43 am to wackatimesthree
If a criminal is locked up he cannot be committing crimes...period.
That's common sense and not the 50 pages of bs you just posted.
That's common sense and not the 50 pages of bs you just posted.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:44 am to SOSFAN
quote:
If a criminal is locked up he cannot be committing crimes...period.
That's common sense and not the 50 pages of bs you just posted.
Dear drooling idiot,
I already addressed that.
Was that short enough for your attention span?
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:46 am to SOSFAN
quote:
If a criminal is locked up he cannot be committing crimes...period.
That's common sense and not the 50 pages of bs you just posted.
At the risk of exceeding your self-admitted fragile attention span, here's a longer response.
Your claim is that harsh punishments act as a deterrent, not whether the protective theory of incarceration is valid.
I've already affirmed that I think the protective theory of incarceration is valid.
That has nothing to do with how wrong you are about the other claim you made.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:47 am to wackatimesthree
So you state that incarceration time is not a deterrent to crime while agreeing that criminals cannot commit crime if they are in prison.
If you don't get help here get it somewhere.
If you don't get help here get it somewhere.
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:49 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Your claim is that harsh punishments act as a deterrent, not whether the protective theory of
If the punishment is severe enough it helps stop crime has been proven in multiple countries. Im sorry your feelings are hurt because your boy got 25 yrs
Posted on 3/19/26 at 9:51 am to SOSFAN
quote:
So you state that incarceration time is not a deterrent to crime while agreeing that criminals cannot commit crime if they are in prison.
No offense, but are you really so stupid as to not be able to see that those are two different things?
This post was edited on 3/19/26 at 9:51 am
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News