Kaz's lexicon; you stupid piece of shit slut who makes your living getting your head banged on headboards. = He needs to demean any woman smarter than him.
What a dumb comment. Every murderer doesn't get life without possibility of parole. And your comment about the young going on to commit more crime after the first because they were born without something is opinion. People, even children, have committed murder on impulse and regretted it immediately. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get prison time, even life, but it doesn't mean they were born to commit a second crime either.
Let me educate some of you, on minimum sentencing and how it came about.
Read below:
Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1951. The acts made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses. With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Congress enacted different mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana.
The Eighty-second United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 1951 to January 3, 1953, during the last two years of the second administration of U.S. President Harry S. Truman.
The apportionment of seats in this House of Representatives was based on the Sixteenth Census of the United States in 1940. Both chambers had a Democratic majority.
Separate from each state's own courts, federal courts in the United States are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. (See War on Drugs for more information about US drug laws.) When a guideline sentencing range is less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the latter prevails. Under the Controlled Substances Act, prosecutors have great power to influence a defendant's sentence and thereby create incentives to accept a plea agreement. In particular, defendants with prior drug felonies are often subject to harsh mandatory minimums, but the prosecutor can exercise his discretion to not file a prior felony information. Then the mandatory minimum will not be applied.
And this, from 1991:
Provide certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing by avoiding unwarranted disparity among offenders with similar characteristics convicted of similar conduct, while permitting sufficient judicial flexibility to take into account relevant aggravating and mitigating factors;
(translation - those with money not receiving the same sentences as those without money)
Readers Digest version for the reading and cognitive impaired.
Liberals complained that the "rich" (read white) were receiving lighter sentences then the "poor" (read minorities) were and that this was unfair.
Liberals campaigned for the "Minimum Sentencing Guidelines", to force the Courts to address this disparity and THEY GOT IT.
Now all of a sudden, liberals are the ones crying about the "Minimum Sentencing Guidelines" are too harsh and want to change what THEY DEMANDED.
Now I fully expect that instead of refuting the FACTS, liberals will just pooh - pooh the FACTS and ignore them.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
