Let's help blacks by drastically RAISING the definition of a felony.

[ShootSpeeders]

Right now the definition of a felony is "Any crime for which you could (not did but merely could) have gotten a year or more in prison. " That's a very very very low bar and means that many blacks are classed as felons though their crime is minor. In many cases they never did a day in prison but they are still a felon. Makes it tough to get a job and impossible in many states to vote and impossible in all states to own a gun and defend yourself and family.

Instead of drawing the line at one year, let's raise that to say 20 years. Those are the serious crimes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, then why not decrease the time for DUI"s to no jail time? Why not decrease the penalty of rape to four months? Child rape, okay......maybe six months.

A felony is a deterrent for the reasons you stated: no guns, no voting, no job. I don't know about other states, but over here, your juvenile records do not carry into your adult life; they are virtually sealed at that point unless you were charged as an adult for a serious crime.

By removing the deterrent of a felony charge, you are not helping blacks at all. In fact, you will make things worse. Beat up your wife, no problem because it's no longer a felony. Attack a person on the street with a deadly weapon, no problem, it's not a felony. Break into a home and rob the owner of his goods? No problem, it's not a felony.

If you put out an ad, people will answer it.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

In many cases they never did a day in prison but they are still a felon. Makes it tough to get a job and impossible in many states to vote and impossible in all states to own a gun and defend yourself and family.

Instead of drawing the line at one year, let's raise that to say 20 years. Those are the serious crimes.

What about the Whites who also have this problem? I suppose they don't matter.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

A felony is a deterrent for the reasons you stated: no guns, no voting, no job.

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

What about the Whites who also have this problem? I suppose they don't matter.

The new felony definition would apply to everyone regardless of race. That should be obvious.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A felony is a deterrent for the reasons you stated: no guns, no voting, no job.

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What about the Whites who also have this problem? I suppose they don't matter.

The new felony definition would apply to everyone regardless of race. That should be obvious.

Yeah, obvious to anyone who didn't read your OP.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

That was his own fault. THINK

 

[FA_Q2]

A felony is a deterrent for the reasons you stated: no guns, no voting, no job.

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

And do you think that putting him in jail would have somehow helped that situation?

Unlikely - you cannot help the addicted by making them a felon and taking away what little chance they had at recovery. All that does is make the situation seem more hopeless. Jailing drug addicts simply makes no sense.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And do you think that putting him in jail would have somehow helped that situation?

Unlikely - you cannot help the addicted by making them a felon and taking away what little chance they had at recovery. All that does is make the situation seem more hopeless. Jailing drug addicts simply makes no sense.

Yo don't know anything about law. People get sent to jail for misdemeanors all the time. You think only felons go to prison !!!

Jailing druggies is ok but don't label them a felon. Calling them such makes it too tough when they get out of the can.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A felony is a deterrent for the reasons you stated: no guns, no voting, no job.

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

And do you think that putting him in jail would have somehow helped that situation?

Unlikely - you cannot help the addicted by making them a felon and taking away what little chance they had at recovery. All that does is make the situation seem more hopeless. Jailing drug addicts simply makes no sense.

I didn't mean put him in jail, what I meant was jail whoever sold him the drugs. He couldn't have killed himself without the dope in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

That was his own fault. THINK

That may be, but it's ridiculous to say they are "victimless" crimes.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

That was his own fault. THINK

That may be, but it's ridiculous to say they are "victimless" crimes.

I disagree. When a criminal harms only himself, it's a victimless crime. A drunk driver who plows into a tree and injures himself has committed a victimless crime, though he should still be prosecuted since there is a huge potential he will injure or kill OTHER people in the future. That can't really be said of druggies.

 

[FA_Q2]

A felony is a deterrent for the reasons you stated: no guns, no voting, no job.

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

And do you think that putting him in jail would have somehow helped that situation?

Unlikely - you cannot help the addicted by making them a felon and taking away what little chance they had at recovery. All that does is make the situation seem more hopeless. Jailing drug addicts simply makes no sense.

I didn't mean put him in jail, what I meant was jail whoever sold him the drugs. He couldn't have killed himself without the dope in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You responded to a post that directly referenced drug possession - not intent to distribute. I do agree that there is a rather large difference between the two.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A felony is a deterrent for the reasons you stated: no guns, no voting, no job.

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

And do you think that putting him in jail would have somehow helped that situation?

Unlikely - you cannot help the addicted by making them a felon and taking away what little chance they had at recovery. All that does is make the situation seem more hopeless. Jailing drug addicts simply makes no sense.

I didn't mean put him in jail, what I meant was jail whoever sold him the drugs. He couldn't have killed himself without the dope in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You responded to a post that directly referenced drug possession - not intent to distribute. I do agree that there is a rather large difference between the two.

There is, that's why very few prisoners are in jail for drug possession alone. Most are there for selling or the drugs they possessed are in addition to another crime.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Right now the definition of a felony is "Any crime for which you could (not did but merely could) have gotten a year or more in prison. " That's a very very very low bar and means that many blacks are classed as felons though their crime is minor. In many cases they never did a day in prison but they are still a felon. Makes it tough to get a job and impossible in many states to vote and impossible in all states to own a gun and defend yourself and family.

Instead of drawing the line at one year, let's raise that to say 20 years. Those are the serious crimes.

Is putting more people behind bars your "small government" solution?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have to draw the line some where. I don't think non-violent victimless crimes like drug possession should be felonies.

You don't? Well maybe you can tell that to my cousin. She lost her 28 year old son to an overdose about a year and a half ago.

That was his own fault. THINK

That may be, but it's ridiculous to say they are "victimless" crimes.

I disagree. When a criminal harms only himself, it's a victimless crime. A drunk driver who plows into a tree and injures himself has committed a victimless crime, though he should still be prosecuted since there is a huge potential he will injure or kill OTHER people in the future. That can't really be said of druggies.

I ran into my cousin a few months ago while grocery shopping. She and her husband both looked like they just got done crying before they left the car. I don't think they will ever be the same. They are victims of their sons actions as well as who sold him the dope.

Years ago I rented an apartment to the son of an old girlfriend. He lost his job and he used dope. I had no idea how he paid for it until somebody snuck into my house and started it on fire. Nearly burned it to the ground. Apparently he was not paying for his dope. My insurance company cancelled all my policies and I couldn't get insurance for three years. I guess the only silver lining is that I was not a victim of his habit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Aries]

Right now the definition of a felony is "Any crime for which you could (not did but merely could) have gotten a year or more in prison. " That's a very very very low bar and means that many blacks are classed as felons though their crime is minor. In many cases they never did a day in prison but they are still a felon. Makes it tough to get a job and impossible in many states to vote and impossible in all states to own a gun and defend yourself and family.

Instead of drawing the line at one year, let's raise that to say 20 years. Those are the serious crimes.

Just a way to keep them from voting. GOP will never let that happen or dem voter registration would skyrocket. Our justice system is used as a tool to oppress the black community, always has been.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Right now the definition of a felony is "Any crime for which you could (not did but merely could) have gotten a year or more in prison. " That's a very very very low bar and means that many blacks are classed as felons though their crime is minor. In many cases they never did a day in prison but they are still a felon. Makes it tough to get a job and impossible in many states to vote and impossible in all states to own a gun and defend yourself and family.

Instead of drawing the line at one year, let's raise that to say 20 years. Those are the serious crimes.

Is putting more people behind bars your "small government" solution?

HAHAHA. You have no idea what this thread is about do you.?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Years ago I rented an apartment to the son of an old girlfriend. He lost his job and he used dope. I had no idea how he paid for it until somebody snuck into my house and started it on fire. Nearly burned it to the ground. Apparently he was not paying for his dope. My insurance company cancelled all my policies and I couldn't get insurance for three years. I guess the only silver lining is that I was not a victim of his habit.

Your post makes no sense.

How did setting your house on fire pay for his drug bills?

And i really doubt all the insurance companies conspired to deny you insurance for 3 years!! And what if they did.? RENT