December 27, 2010

President Obama can eat a bowl of shut the hell up.

posted by rcade at 12:16 PM on December 27, 2010

President Obama can eat a bowl of shut the hell up.

You made that FPP just so you could say that, huh?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:35 PM on December 27, 2010

So murdering and torturing dogs warrants you getting a "second chance".

Thanks, Obama. Good to know you can get off on animal cruelty with presidential approval.

posted by Drood at 02:29 PM on December 27, 2010

So murdering and torturing dogs warrants you getting a "second chance".

I don't think you know what the word "warrants" means, or the word "murder". Maybe you should look both of them up before you use them in conjunction with a false premise like that one.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:27 PM on December 27, 2010

There are serious public policy issues in endlessly continuing punishment for people who have been convicted of a crime and punished. As rumple says, it creates a permanent underclass. It also has an impact on recidivism. If you don't want people to return to crime, then they have to be given an opportunity to live their life the right way. But, if you can't get a job (because no one will hire you) or go to school (because many financial aid is not available), what doors are open at that point? Our discussions about Vick are a perfect example of the unwillingness of many people to let Vick pick up the pieces and try to live his life the right way going forward. Obama is right to be concerned about these issues. Maybe instead of giving kudos to Lurie, he should spend time working with Sen. Webb who is trying to reform our ridiculous criminal justice system.

posted by bperk at 03:38 PM on December 27, 2010

I was goofing on the wheels-off McCain discussion.

I wish Obama had picked a different example, but he's right to be concerned that so many prisoners in this country are never given a second chance. We place too much value in the U.S. on punishment and too little on redemption. The notion that someone could pay their debt to society and emerge from prison fully rehabilitated seems to only apply to white collar criminals.

posted by rcade at 05:49 PM on December 27, 2010

What rcade said.

My issue is with the hypocrisy in our criminal justice system here in the USA. In our desire to punish and to make ourselves "safe", we seem to have forgotten some very important legal principles having to do with ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and the like. Do you really want to live under a system like that? Unfortunately, the answer for too many people is yes...as long as someone else is getting punished.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:35 PM on December 27, 2010

lbb, I'm not sure what you're getting at,

I expressed what I'm getting at in very simple terms. What part of it aren't you getting?

but I know many people from a wide range of countries, and they all speak of how wonderful our legal system is. Might not be perfect, but it beats most of what else is out there.

As my late lamented grandfather would have said, "This is not a competition to see who's the worst." He never thought that "doesn't suck as bad as some others do" was any occasion for bragging, and I don't either.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:39 PM on December 27, 2010

And, what part of we seem to have forgotten some very important legal principles having to do with ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and the like has anything to do with this case?

Are you saying Vick was set up? Laws were changed? He was tried twice?

Seriously, I really have no idea what you are talking about on this thread, not trying to be cute, your point just escapes me completely.

posted by dviking at 01:02 AM on December 28, 2010

they all speak of how wonderful our legal system is. Might not be perfect, but it beats most of what else is out there

Sure, but what (I think) lbb is saying is the principles that made it great are under fire from a number of sides. For example, there's a large subset of folks who feel like any threat to our precious children is reason enough to suspend habeus corpus and start hanging people from lamp posts.

posted by yerfatma at 08:28 AM on December 28, 2010

dviking:

Simple terms? perhaps, but aslo very vague, anybody can throw out claims of ex post facto laws/double jeopardy/etc, but if you're not going into detail it's just wasted words. So, maybe specifics are in order. what the hell are you talking about?

I must have missed the bit where I woke up and pissed in your cheerios this morning, dviking.

I'll keep this brief: in the United States, a convicted felon who has served the entirety of his/her judicially imposed sentence may also (depending on where you reside) lose in perpetuity the right to vote, hold public office, own a gun, or work in any number of licensed professions including everything from physician to electrician. This is done even in cases without any clear and compelling evidence that suspension of these rights will have any effect to improve public safety, and in the face of evidence that the loss of these rights is detrimental often to the point of poverty, making it difficult if not impossible for a convicted felon to live the lawful life we say we want him/her to live. We have legal principles that prohibit punishing people beyond their term of sentence or punishing them further under the terms of laws that were not in effect at the time of their crime, and yet we look the other way when this happens (specifically in the case of sexual offenders, although I wouldn't swear that it doesn't happen in the case of other crimes as well). That's what the hell I'm talking about. If you want to know more, there's a whole internet at your beck and call.

Pray tell me what country you would like the US to model...and please, try to list a country that has even somewhat remotely the size and demographics of the US. Switzerland is a cute little country that may have a better system, but it doesn't have to deal with a 1000th of what we have to.

And pray tell me why you have your sights set to unambitiously low that you believe the US should model its justice system on that of any other country. Just as with the "not as bad as some" claim, this strawman argument fails first because it is a strawman, but just as importantly because it chooses the wrong goal altogether. A worthy goal is neither to be "better than X" or "just like X"; it's to be the best that we can be.

Finally, don't get so stuck on Michael Vick. You can hate him all you want, but as others have pointed out, this isn't about Michael Vick. It's about something much bigger and much more important.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:48 AM on December 28, 2010

I sort of take offense to your from-the-clouds authoritative tone, lil_brown_bat. So I'm gonna call you out.

We have legal principles that prohibit punishing people beyond their term of sentence

I don't think you've fully thought this one out. Felony disenfranchisement is not beyond the term of a felon's sentence, it's... a term of their sentence.

This is done even in cases without any clear and compelling evidence that suspension of these rights will have any effect to improve public safety, and in the face of evidence that the loss of these rights is detrimental often to the point of poverty,

Talk about presuming the conclusion. The need (or desire) for punishment is not always measured by its effect on public safety and/or rehabilitation and/or future success of the criminal. These are some (notably liberal) considerations among many in the political landscape, which I would say happend to be (at the time) dominated by conservatives. Which I guess is what's pissing you off so much.

We have legal principles that prohibit punishing people beyond their term of sentence or punishing them further under the terms of laws that were not in effect at the time of their crime, and yet we look the other way when this happens (specifically in the case of sexual offenders, although I wouldn't swear that it doesn't happen in the case of other crimes as well).

You must be referring to the Adam Walsh Act, which splits sex offenders into three groups in terms of severity, requiring the most severe type of sex offender to register with the state as such for the rest of his/her life. It's true this law applies to sex offenders ex post facto, however this case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that registration did not constitute punishment. Hence the phrase that you use "punish them further" is null and void in the eyes of the law at least. More importantly, I hate to tell you this, but a lot of people find this law sensible. It does not represent to many people a break in the system - and I'm not just pointing to "the masses" here.

So hopefully we're at least having a regular debate about stuff and you can now step off your soapbox. My family being from an Eastern European country I care not to name, I will also add that "you clearly have no idea how much better the system here is than anywhere else" without trying to suggest that we should settle for anything than the best. Perhaps in the future "criminality" will be treated as a "disability" that we can't discriminate against, much like alcoholism is, and perhaps that will be a good thing. But all said and done, this is a great type of problem to have, that is being debated within the confines of a system that is working.

posted by phaedon at 11:50 AM on December 28, 2010

In at least some American states, phaedon, some men convicted of certain sexual felonies are not only forced to register for life, they are kept in prison beyond the sentenced term. Sometimes they get housed in a mental facility but the reason is exactly that their ongoing series of crimes is proof of mental illness.

And as for the fact that America's system is better than others, possibly better than all others currently existing, hardly means we should stop striving to improve it. As several previous comments have mentioned but you seemed to have missed them.

posted by billsaysthis at 12:01 PM on December 28, 2010

Our justice system works differently for poor people than it does wealthy people. That indicates a broken system.

It's true this law applies to sex offenders ex post facto, however this case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that registration did not constitute punishment. Hence the phrase that you use "punish them further" is null and void in the eyes of the law at least. More importantly, I hate to tell you this, but a lot of people find this law sensible

This is all wrong. First, just because the Supreme Court has decided something, it doesn't make the decision right or just. They have played a major role in disconnecting our criminal justice system from its founding principles. Second, our criminal justice system shouldn't be sensible in the eyes of the masses. What kind of system do you think the masses would come up with? Definitely not a fair and just one.

posted by bperk at 12:18 PM on December 28, 2010

It's not an argument about tone, it's a request to turn down the volume.

Your comment began "I sort of take offense to your from-the-clouds authoritative tone ..."

Getting back to the subject, it seems to me that Vick could do a lot of good as an exemplar of rebuilding your life after a prison term. It doesn't make his dog-related offenses less heinous, but he could use his celebrity to help lend a voice to rehabilitation. The U.S. has a ridiculously huge prison population per capita and they're disproportionately young black males. Almost all of them will be back on the street trying to make something of their lives.

posted by rcade at 12:32 PM on December 28, 2010

You should've seen the "it goes to 11" edit of that passage before I changed it.

posted by phaedon at 01:10 PM on December 28, 2010

I don't get the defence of the system, phaedon. Millions more people in prison than any other Western nation, and a clear tiered access to justice along economic and racial lines. It's not as good as you're seemingly suggesting.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:12 PM on December 28, 2010

phaedon, I was not referring to three strikes and your out type laws. Those sentences are on the books, better or worse, and the person convicted of two previous felonies generally knows the next one is going to be worse.

I can't speak about Florida but in California--talk about stereotypical liberal states--we somehow get away with keeping (okay, habitual) sex offenders locked up after the full term of their sentence has been served. Given that American Conservatives are generally the ones screaming louder about government abuses of power against the individual I don't see how speaking out against this can be construed as pushing a liberal agenda.

posted by billsaysthis at 06:09 PM on December 28, 2010

MW12, you are damn right. This has undoubtedly been the most fascinating discussion I've seen on here since... well, the last Michael Vick post. Say what you will about the guy, but I appreciate the commentary coming out about it all on this board.

bperk hit it right on the money and I'm glad someone brought up the classism angle. Poor folks have a much larger struggle with the justice system than rich folks, which is inherently unfair and points to a broader fundamental flaw in the system. The best and brightest out of law school ought to be going to the public defenders' offices around the country, where they're needed the most, but instead they flock to corporate law and the public defenders' offices are left with those waiting for a better/easier? opportunity. As far as the public/masses determining punishment, good lord, what a scary concept. All too often the populace prefers the biblical "eye for an eye" approach, which may be momentarily satisfying for the victim and victim's immediate supporters, but ultimately does nothing for society as a whole. Rehabilitation is regarded with derision and scorn when in reality it can be the most effective mechanism for 1) protecting the public by 2) reducing recidivism and 3) encouraging good citizenry. If you want a good analysis of the harshness of our penal system, take a look at this terrific New Yorker piece from a year ago. And to think we're building more and more of these supermax prisons... and tossing maintenance of them to the highest private bidders. A scary world we're creating for ourselves out there, unless we're lucky enough to obey every letter of the law and never find ourselves in compromising situations.

I don't understand where these folks live who think our legal system is wonderful. I agree it has its merits, but I do think there are fundamental problems as well. Now for those living in Iran, yes, definitely, our system is wonderful as hell and should be adopted, but we have to consider how culturally-based our system is as well. I admire the hell out of the fact that British police officers don't carry firearms regularly and still get their jobs done, but I don't see how that could ever work in American police culture. Along those lines, other countries are trying new and different approaches with their penal system that are fascinating to watch from the outside, but knowing how things operate here and who pulls the strings, we know those radical approaches would be shot down (pardon the pun) immediately, both by a confused and scared public and by lawmakers more interested in keeping their public confused and scared and voting them back into office with "I'm tough on crime! Raar!" stances that call for supermax prisons in every state from coast to coast. I don't see that as something to admire in the least.

posted by evixir at 08:21 PM on December 28, 2010

lbb, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I know many people from a wide range of countries, and they all speak of how wonderful our legal system is. posted by dviking at 09:02 PM on December 27

I thought you knew some? Wait, is that why it's a trick question?

Interesting discussion, all. I don't have enough opinion ammo to add much to this discussion but thanks for keeping it (mostly) hinged.

posted by tron7 at 10:30 PM on December 28, 2010

dviking:

How this discussion changed from a debate on how Vick has been treated, to one on sex offenders is beyond me.

It never was a debate on how Vick has been treated, that's how. That may have been all that you wanted to discuss, but it wasn't the subject of the article cited by the FPP and it wasn't the subject of this thread.

lbb, to call my last post a straw man is hilarious, as it was you that started that back and forth, with the witty "This is not a competition to see who's the worst."

I didn't call your post a strawman; I called a specific statement ("Pray tell me what country you would like the US to model") a strawman, and it is: an attack on an argument that has not been made. As for my grandfather's saying, it's too bad that you don't appreciate the wit, but clearly I did not "start it", since the comment was made in reference to your statement that our legal system "[m]ight not be perfect, but it beats most of what else is out there." In other words, you started making comparisons; I didn't. Then, when I said that I didn't think comparisons were helpful in creating a better legal system, you came back and asked me what country I thought we should emulate. Huh?

He never thought that "doesn't suck as bad as some others do" Which is clearly not what I had said previously, and it completely ignored the real point, which is "what system is better?" I guess it takes a straw man to know one.

The original article didn't make any comparison between different legal systems. If it's what you want to discuss, fine, but why do you get to say that that's what "real point" is?

That you then added another straw man with And pray tell me why you have your sights set to unambitiously low that you believe the US should model its justice system on that of any other country cracked me up. I never once suggested we do anything of the sort, it was you that seemed to think there was something better out there.

I think I've already done enough quoting to demonstrate that you have things exactly backwards here. I'm done discussing this with you.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:12 PM on December 28, 2010

Thanks, tron7, for saving me some scrolling and quoting. :)

dviking, I'd wager to say the reason we're all taking shots at it is because most of us have had some sort of experience with it, if not firsthand, then obliquely through friends or family. It touches all of our lives in some way so we're intimately aware of what's screwy with the system. My point was that those who don't live under its auspices nor have any firsthand experience with it will naturally think it wonderful due to ignorance of the reality which is our legal system. Most of us would think it wonderful if we hadn't directly/indirectly experienced otherwise.

posted by evixir at 09:34 AM on December 29, 2010

Whatever you say, dviking. I'm just repeating myself at this point, so if you want to call it "passive-aggressive" for me to decline to keep doing so, you go right ahead.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:45 AM on December 29, 2010

To praise a guy who wants to win football games and hires a phenom talent at a bargain price, as some sort of humanitarian is an example of how Obama seems to be more interested in celebrity, sports and his own PR then looking like he has any judgment as to what warrants his attention.

I think that Vick was a side discussion. The main point was to commend Lurie for incorporating alternative energy. The Eagles are putting in wind turbines, solar panels, etc. to generate energy for their stadium. That's one of Obama's pet issues. Of course, there is no fun discussing alternative energy on a sports forum.

posted by bperk at 03:41 PM on December 29, 2010

To praise a guy who wants to win football games and hires a phenom talent at a bargain price, as some sort of humanitarian is an example of how Obama seems to be more interested in celebrity, sports and his own PR then looking like he has any judgment as to what warrants his attention.

Besides that not being the substance of the discussion as bperk notes, how much attention and time do you think he took away from his schedule to comment on Vick's success? What ten, maybe twenty seconds? In other words, what the fuck are you getting on about?

That's as ridiculous a criticism of Obama as the many infantile jabs that were lobbed at Bush.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:23 PM on December 29, 2010

If Obama didn't use the presidency as a bully pulpit on issues of importance, he'd be derided as a wimp. Do you disagree that the issue of prisoners not getting a second chance is important?

The reason Obama got involved in the pastor's Koran burning issue was because it was inflaming the entire Arab world and putting our troops in danger. The media coverage had blown up the nobody's threat so big that he had no choice but to get involved.

posted by rcade at 12:06 PM on December 30, 2010

I don't think a president should be fighting a war for the principles of freedom like free speech etc, in places were we defend their right and ours to burn the flag of the United States, or build a mosque anywhere then turn around and try to tell some two bit ass hole minister he shouldn't burn a Koran in protest.

You do know that the Presidential oath requires the President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, right?

posted by bperk at 01:16 PM on December 30, 2010

While I don't agree with you - I think it's not just a matter of opinion, it is an instance of right and wrong (Like the mosque) - but the good news is I certainly don't think you're crazy.

But I think you're criticizing Obama for doing something every sitting President has done: Provide comment and opinion on the issues of the day.

And in those instances that you mentioned he asked Americans to take the high road. I thought that was honorable and smart. He was absolutely correct in requesting that the Minister not burn the Koran, or that New Yorkers (not that I recall a large number of New Yorkers having a problem with it. Seemed to me it was a whole bunch of non New Yorkers who really took greater issue.) embrace the idea of the Mosque. I don't think he is solely talking to the Muslim world when he says that. He's also addressing his allies and attempting to regain some of the lost international integrity that practically vanished under Bush.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:25 PM on December 30, 2010

... my main issue is Lurie did nothing charitable or socially responsible by hiring Vick.

Lurie and the Eagles took a PR hit for signing Vick. You're just assuming it was cynically motivated. You don't know his intentions. This Philadelphia Inquirer story says that his wife Christina had a say in the signing -- the first time she's ever gotten involved in a football decision -- because it had "social ramifications."

Jeffrey Lurie said after the signing, "My own measurement of Michael Vick will be 100 percent, 'is he able to create social change in this horrendous arena of animal cruelty?'"

It's clear that social responsibility was on the Lurie's minds when they made this move.

posted by rcade at 11:48 AM on December 31, 2010

Why am I not surprised that you would reflexively dismiss information that's contrary to your opinion? Discussing this with you is a complete waste of time. Your mind is made up.

posted by rcade at 12:44 PM on December 31, 2010