I am not sure what the point of this article is but would point out to the author and to readers that an exoneration is not the same thing as a determination of "actual innocence". The fact that we do have an occassional exoneration does demonstrate that the system provides convicted offenders with the due process they deserve.In addition, the raw numbers by themselves mean nothing. Careful consideration of the total number of cases and the fact that nonwhite males commit more crimes easily explain why exonerees are more often black males. Even still, the numbers are too small and there are too many other variables to conclude that racism is as much of a factor in our courts as some people would lead us to believe.
There is no such thing as an evil gun. Blaming law abiding citizens for the acts of mass murderers isn't contructive (or progressive) either. Instead of chasing wild geese we should invest our efforts in common sense strategies that work instead of laws which will be unenforced or are unenforceable. The public needs to become more educated in 1. Target Hardening, 2. Conflict Avoidance and 3. Motive Reduction techniques which result in fewer violent crimes and have the effect of addressing acts that are committed with and without the use of a firearm.
When you commit a felony you forfeit certain rights and accept the fact that many (rights) will be diminished for the sake of your protection and the protection of other offenders and prison staff. Prison society rules dictate that all offenders be treated the same (as much as possible). ICON is a punishment to be sure and granting interviews to offerenders who are spending time in ICON amounts to a sentence reduction. Offenders who get "special treatment" (including interviews) are often placed at additional risk from other offenders. Prison work duties are an earned privledge (not a right). The work they do does little to defray the costs of their incarceration. The pay offenders receive for the work they do is minimal because their expenses are minimal. Offenders cannot be allowed to accumulate large sums of money because it's often used to purchase contraband. Offenders don't have mortage or car payments to pay while they are in prison.Offenders should expect zero tolerance when it comes to disobediance (end of story).
Claims of racial bias were grounds of appeal prior to the signing of the RJA and they can still be heard in our courts if it is repealed. The fact that nearly every death row inmate filed an appeal under the RJA demonstrates that lawyers have abused this law. The idea that capital murders are committed with statistical parity or that courts should adopt quotas is ridiculous.
It's a rare event when just a few words accurately describe everything about a piece of legislation. This "decoder ring" is very similar to the one used by Democrats in previous years too. The lesson for readers is to watch the legislature for bills of interest.
It's time for a "diversity speech" over at Indy. This column wreaks of intolerance (no substitute for objectivity). Crouther couldn't find a single Rand gem to hold onto to make his points about Republicans or the right.
Crouther used an entire article to advocate dismissal, engage in ad-hominem or justify his own denial but not a single sentence mentions any solutions that readers might consider. In short, the wrong person was picked to do Indy's talking (blah, blah, blah, blah, blah).
Not being able to demonstrate who you are has consequences. Not requiring persons to demonstrate who they are has consequences. Granted it's not likely that persons will vote using another persons name but the fact that it is so easy to vote for someone else makes our elections less credibile. This problem is bound to come up every time there is a contested election. What's the purpose of conducting elections if the ballots aren't worth counting? Flatten this issue once and for all and implement the suggested law.
Claims that the purpose of requiring photo ID's would cause potential voters to avoid the polls are especially specious. It stands to reason that persons who wouldn't (or are too lazy to) acquire a valid photo ID are the same persons who would either have other persons vote for them (which is wrong) or not vote at all.
Photo ID's are neccessary to engage with 21st century society. Not having some form of photo ID can prevent potential voters from cashing checks, making credit card purchases and signing contracts such as mortgages.
All Comments »
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation