Comments on: The LA Times & the Radioactive 27,000

By: poplockerone

poplockerone — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:49:39 +0000

Marvis – The problem falls with targeting certain type of crminals – specifically gang members, drug dealers, or just an individual that is straight evil (death row material).
When arrest cases arise regarding a normal Joe Blow guy (with a minimal arrest history) that got in trouble for something really really stupid – but it falls under a felony category, then I would consider it be okay with dropping the case down to a misdemeanor charge – as sometimes is done with a wobbler at the state level. Los Angeles County Superior Court has hundreds of these cases filed daily – and the majority of them end up with summary or felony Probation. So, on getting to my point, the high percentage of those sent to State Prison from LA COunty are people that really needed to go in the first place – the worst of the worst.
When combating criminal acts of drive by shootings, gang violence, drug dealing (which violence is a major part of drug dealing and chronic usage) or catching someone involved in serious criminal acts – or what is called a 707b category, tweaking the penal code to make more room in state prison by giving people a break to stay on the streets – your asking for more violence/death and victimization. The cost of court proceedings is not even a major issue here. Your playing with the safety of Californians in general.
Your chances of targeting and placing a person behind bars will just become more exhausting and frustrating – by trying to give more breaks to the low level offenders – your allowing the high level offenders to run free and later re-offend a more serious felony charge. Put it to you this way, I have about maybe 10 people right now on my shit list. I know they are committing crimes all over the county – serious crimes involving guns, extortation, kidnapping, drug dealing….bla bla bla. No one can make a case on them…..they all have lengthy criminal records – been on parole/probation, have strikes, or been convicted of numerous misdemeanor charges.
They are going to be involved in a behavior of continued criminal acts – no one will stop them until they are eventually caught – maybe on one good felony case.
Once caught, they will be given all the equal rights and protections that any other normal law obeying citizen gets – bail, representation, to be faced by your witnesses, a court trial…..ect.
The guy is going to plea out to a lower charge – a misdemeanor and probably be out on the streets within days – back to the same old routine.
You still want to cut this type of guy a break?
Here are some penal code charges that need to be changed in California.
1st offense – driving a stolen vehicle – needs to be a straight felony.
1st offense – in possession of an unregistered weapon – needs to be a straight felony.
1st offense – a person carrying a concealed weapon upon one self – needs to be a straight felony.
The way the law is written now – you can get caught with a gun (1st time) and be allowed to plea out to a lesser charge and still be able to walk out of court and go buy a firearm under your name.
Look at how hard it is to make a case on a pedophile. A pedophile will maybe – if lucky maybe will have a misdemeanor charge of lewd acts or annoying children – all mickey mouse light weight charges. We all know a pedophile is up to no good – what is his real mission? Where is he really going with all of these perverted acts. Yes, you got it – rape – sodomy – molestation.
Do you also want to cut this guy a break too?

By: Cato

Cato — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:01:49 +0000

Well Woody, it’s even more fun finding errors in conservative media because y’all are so damned pompous.

But enough about the right’s favorite media red herring.

What is interesting is that one hand the conservatives—and a politician doesn’t have to be very far right in this case—will look at any number right or wrong as a justification to oppose cuts to prison funding. On the other hand, they will end up in bed with one of their biggest foes, the all-powerful corrections officer’s union. I suppose it’s just the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” scenario, but for the staunchly anti-union California GOP it must be a bitter pill to swallow.

By: Mavis Beacon

Mavis Beacon — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:04:43 +0000

Poperlocker, given your vociferous denunciation do you actually know which felonies would be downgraded?

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be times in human history where we decide to decrease penalties for certain crimes. My personal feeling is that we tend to be overly punitive in California, but even if you don’t feel that way, it’s hardly inconceivable that reducing penalties is always morally wrong, dangerous for citizens, and more expensive. Hopefully your objections are targeted to the specific cases and not evidence of a mind that believes that more jail time for everyone is some kind of solution.

By: Woody

Woody — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:21:07 +0000

My advice – never trust the LAT.

Isn’t finding errors in liberal newspapers fun and easy?

But, maybe it was just their opinion rather than factual.

Just for kicks, here’s a recent mistake by the NYT.

Correction: July 22, 2009
An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.

Correction: August 1, 2009
An appraisal on July 18 about Walter Cronkite’s career misstated the name of the ABC evening news broadcast. While the program was called “World News Tonight” when Charles Gibson became anchor in May 2006, it is now “World News With Charles Gibson,” not “World News Tonight With Charles Gibson.”

Wow. They even had to later correct the correction.

I guess that the NYT didn’t anticipate young Cronkite’s untimely death and ran short of time to prepare a carefully reviewed obituary.

A publisher once said that his first assignment to new reporters was to write the obits. If they made a mistake there, for which they were sure to hear about it, then he couldn’t trust them with bigger stories.

So, don’t trust the NYT, either…and, even its/i> opinions.

By: poplockerone

poplockerone — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:46:05 +0000

How can you support such a dumb idea like changing certain penal code charges from felonies to a lesser charge of a misdemeanor?
So, in reality, what your really doing is cutting criminals a break. Allowing a criminal to victimize additional innocents and commit more crimes – costing tax payers more money in court proceedings – until they commit that certain “over the top” crime and BINGO – you won the State Prison Stay award.
This is absurd.
I can go into numerous more absurd reasons – but its a waste of my precious brain powers.