Hail Ashcroft!

[Ryan]

More antics from the DC Nazi. Hasn't anyone gassed him yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94039,00.html

Ashcroft

[bfp]

now i will have to agree- thats going a little overboard.

[bfp]

this is common in the courts today in washington as well. democrats have been striking down anyone bush nominates for the fact that they do not agree on the slightest issues. there was nothing wrong with estrada; yet they used a filibuster merely because he was a "minority" on the wrong side of the boat. shame on them.

[Wes]

holy shit...what a fucking nutjob.

ashcroft

can we do a vote of no confidence in the whole US Government

What the hell? Why is everyone so against this?

I mean it is a little out there, but what he's trying to do makes perfect sense.

Was I the only one who was appalled that the woman who hit the homeless man and left him to die in her garage was sentenced less harshly than the girl who hit the waitress as she was leaving the restaurant without paying? Either way you go, it's not fair to someone. At least having the sentencing be strict is a way to make it fair to everyone who commits that same crime. As it is right now I would be COMPLETELY pissed off if I was throwing a party and got busted under that ridiculous crack-house law and was thrown in prison for 20 years but some other guy who was really running a CRACK HOUSE was only sentenced to 9 years with parole. Albeit using the crack-house laws for busting parties is ridiculous in it's own right...do you see my point?

I say go for it. The only thing the judge/jury should be responsible for is determining if the defendant is guilty or not. At least...for the most part. There are exceptions to EVERY rule.

[guerillahost]

Originally posted by Ryan
More antics from the DC Nazi. Hasn't anyone gassed him yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94039,00.html

Ashcroft

awesome!

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Skywise
What the hell? Why is everyone so against this?

I mean it is a little out there, but what he's trying to do makes perfect sense.

Was I the only one who was appalled that the woman who hit the homeless man and left him to die in her garage was sentenced less harshly than the girl who hit the waitress as she was leaving the restaurant without paying? Either way you go, it's not fair to someone. At least having the sentencing be strict is a way to make it fair to everyone who commits that same crime. As it is right now I would be COMPLETELY pissed off if I was throwing a party and got busted under that ridiculous crack-house law and was thrown in prison for 20 years but some other guy who was really running a CRACK HOUSE was only sentenced to 9 years with parole. Albeit using the crack-house laws for busting parties is ridiculous in it's own right...do you see my point?

I say go for it. The only thing the judge/jury should be responsible for is determining if the defendant is guilty or not. At least...for the most part. There are exceptions to EVERY rule.

Josh, the inconsistencies in punishments handed down to criminals is merely a side effect of having a judicial system run by human beings. Every judge and juror is going to bring their own opinions, emotions, and life experiences to the table when making a decision about the fate of a convicted criminal. Accordingly, there is a certain amount of inequity that is inherent to the system. My problem comes with Ashcroft once again stepping beyond the boundaries of his position to start "watching" federal judges who he deems "too lenient." This completely obstructs the idea of judicial discretion and creates numerous potential complications including, but not limited to:

1) How do we define "too lenient?" Will the same penalty be handed down to someone who kills an abortion doctor as for someone who kills a person during a drug deal?

2) This could force judges to pass down overly harsh punishments out of fear for being added to this "watch list."

3) It attempts to make a uniform policy out of a system that already varies from place to place within the United States. For example, someone in Florida or Texas who commits capital murder will likely receive death as a penalty, while people in other states are much less likely, if not legally protected from receiving as harsh a punishment.

In addition to all of this, you have to keep in mind that an overwhelming majority of judges do their best in passing down fair sentences to individuals convicted of crimes. These radical cases we hear about are exceptions and are only reported to us because they get people all huffed up and help the media companies sell more newspaper and TV commercials. The main problem with leniency in criminal cases can more likely be traced back to the prisons being so crowded with drug offenders and petty criminals that they are unable to house the violent offenders that we all want locked away. I'm sure Mr. Ashcroft would be the first person to reject the numbers that prove this.

There's my $.02.

Ahh...well that makes sense. I can appreciate that.