Quarantine Procedures” will give the state of New York the ability to come in your home and take you away

[spat]

Of course not. But lawsuits are only starting . But why are these laws necessary? So if you were infected with a real deadly disease like smallpox or Marrburg do you think you should be allowed to spread it?
And yes , I have had to make that choice. We have had prisoners who were HIV positive but their significant other had no idea. By law , I couldn’t tell them .
What would you do?
Not so black and white when they had to tell you so they could get their necessary medical treatment. Remember, They were prisoners. Compelled “testimony “.

As far as getting a civil suit, it’s habeas corpus . Not a normal lawsuit. It takes as fast as it is in getting any other hearing including arraignments. It means it’s done in days at most especially if there is no arraignment.
Guys learn the law and what redress you actually have. These things are not as black and white as one might believe.

That's the point.

3 years ago now, and lawsuits are only starting.

Also, we aren't talking about quarantining infected people. That's not what was done during covid, and it's not what NY wants now.

Or do you not remember that *everyone* was locked down, with no effective redress.

And even now that people are *finally* getting the courts to say the actions of government were illegal, there is still no real redress.

The people who illegally closed the churches have absolutely no repercussions, and the churches that were illegally closed have no remuneration.

So, let's see, your church was illegally closed for a year, during exactly the sort of conditions people *need* that service. Now, after tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees all you get is an admission that they shouldn't have done that ?

If you think that's an effective redress of those grievances, you're delusional.

If you think it won't be even worse next time, there's no helping you.

 

[Truebeliever]

No, what I'm saying is that if you value your job over your conscience you're a piece of shit.

Of you take a job that you know is likely to force you to choose, then don't go whining to anyone that you had no choice or you'd lose your job.

And absolutely don't go "I was just following orders".

And even in the military, if your superiors are threatening people that they will send you in to commit atrocities, and you don't immediately stand up and say "no, the fuck we won't" publicly , then you are also a piece of shit.

Do you think they would make it that clear cut ? By your standards, anyone working in the nuclear triad should quit right now. They some of them target cities. Or the solider who shoots back at a terrorist knowing a stray rounds are going have collateral damage. Almost every bomber mission in world war 2 is suspect by your standards because they knew there would be massive civilian casualties.
Conscious over job or the greater good . So it’s okay for doctors and lawyers to allow others to kill people in your mind. That a priest should let an innocent man rot in prison because the info that could free him was a deathbed confession. Or even that lawyer, lawyer-client privilege doesn’t die with the client — lawyers don’t do it because they would be disbarred— but that’s okay by your standards. Greater good. The doctor who triages a scene and decides who lives and dies even based on who can pay. You don’t see to have a problem with that . It’s done everyday in almost every hospital. But you seem okay with that . Not so clear but and all of this people do wrestle with their conscience at times And yes, often it’s so they can keep their jobs.

 

[Truebeliever]

That's the point.

3 years ago now, and lawsuits are only starting.

Also, we aren't talking about quarantining infected people. That's not what was done during covid, and it's not what NY wants now.

Or do you not remember that *everyone* was locked down, with no effective redress.

And even now that people are *finally* getting the courts to say the actions of government were illegal, there is still no real redress.

The people who illegally closed the churches have absolutely no repercussions, and the churches that were illegally closed have no remuneration.

So, let's see, your church was illegally closed for a year, during exactly the sort of conditions people *need* that service. Now, after tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees all you get is an admission that they shouldn't have done that ?

If you think that's an effective redress of those grievances, you're delusional.

If you think it won't be even worse next time, there's no helping you.

Who was physically quarantined by force. I’m not talking about closing a business. I’m talking about someone taken against their will and placed in facility for Covid.
It was done for Ebola— but I guess you wanted those people walking around

“Not long after she returned home from covering Ebola in Liberia, NBC medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman violated her voluntary quarantine in New Jersey to pick up takeout from a restaurant in October – even after her colleague became infected.”

https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/health/ebola-us-quarantine-controversy/index.html

They would still get a court hearing

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/10/03/353487190/heres-how-an-ebola-quarantine-works-in-the-united-states

And then there is habeas corpus.
There would be a court hearing .
The lawsuits over Covid are over economic damages or people arrested for opening their businesses or having religious services. And they are going to win big. And in many cases they got TROs while they now sue for those economic damages

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article242788161.html

Or

Supreme Court blocks NY from enforcing Covid limits on churches

The court said the restrictions violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship."

www.nbcnews.com

All the way to SCOTUS with a decision in a little over six months . During those six months, the government lied about the virus or just didn’t know how to treat it and it was believed to be a lot deadlier than it was. But what it was Marburg or vaccine resistant smallpox .

 

[spat]

Who was physically quarantined by force. I’m not talking about closing a business. I’m talking about someone taken against their will and placed in facility for Covid.
It was done for Ebola— but I guess you wanted those people walking around

“Not long after she returned home from covering Ebola in Liberia, NBC medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman violated her voluntary quarantine in New Jersey to pick up takeout from a restaurant in October – even after her colleague became infected.”

https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/health/ebola-us-quarantine-controversy/index.html

They would still get a court hearing

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/10/03/353487190/heres-how-an-ebola-quarantine-works-in-the-united-states

And then there is habeas corpus.
There would be a court hearing .
The lawsuits over Covid are over economic damages or people arrested for opening their businesses or having religious services. And they are going to win big. And in many cases they got TROs while they now sue for those economic damages

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article242788161.html

Or

Supreme Court blocks NY from enforcing Covid limits on churches

The court said the restrictions violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship."

www.nbcnews.com

All the way to SCOTUS with a decision in a little over six months . During those six months, the government lied about the virus or just didn’t know how to treat it and it was believed to be a lot deadlier than it was. But what it was Marburg or vaccine resistant smallpox .

I would say the people arrested for opening their business or attending church *were* quarantined by force.

You can't arrest someone without at least the threat of force

What will happen to the people who issued the illegal quarantine orders ? The people who enforced them ?

If the answer is nothing, then you can expect more of the same. What do they care if the taxpayers have to eventually fork over some cash.

People should be going to prison over that bullshit.

 

[spat]

Do you think they would make it that clear cut ? By your standards, anyone working in the nuclear triad should quit right now. They some of them target cities. Or the solider who shoots back at a terrorist knowing a stray rounds are going have collateral damage. Almost every bomber mission in world war 2 is suspect by your standards because they knew there would be massive civilian casualties.
Conscious over job or the greater good . So it’s okay for doctors and lawyers to allow others to kill people in your mind. That a priest should let an innocent man rot in prison because the info that could free him was a deathbed confession. Or even that lawyer, lawyer-client privilege doesn’t die with the client — lawyers don’t do it because they would be disbarred— but that’s okay by your standards. Greater good. The doctor who triages a scene and decides who lives and dies even based on who can pay. You don’t see to have a problem with that . It’s done everyday in almost every hospital. But you seem okay with that . Not so clear but and all of this people do wrestle with their conscience at times And yes, often it’s so they can keep their jobs.

I don't know where you get this idea that collateral damage in a war is equivalent to government abuse of it's own citizens in peacetime.

And it's very disturbing that you seem to equate military action with law enforcement.

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Truebeliever]

I would say the people arrested for opening their business or attending church *were* quarantined by force.

You can't arrest someone without at least the threat of force

What will happen to the people who issued the illegal quarantine orders ? The people who enforced them ?

If the answer is nothing, then you can expect more of the same. What do they care if the taxpayers have to eventually fork over some cash.

People should be going to prison over that bullshit.

Precedent has been set. It won’t be the same. Maybe similar but not the same . And the political damage done to a certain party is deterrent if they lose this next election .

 

[Truebeliever]

I don't know where you get this idea that collateral damage in a war is equivalent to government abuse of it's own citizens in peacetime.

And it's very disturbing that you seem to equate military action with law enforcement.

It’s not that far off. Rules of engagement limiting what you should or want to do. Similar dangers Similar oaths if you want to go there. And I have worked many who have served in the war zones who have expressed similar sentiments . And some expressed combat was easier . But that’s a different conversation.
I use it as a comparison that I thought you would understand. But let’s use hospitals and our medical professionals instead. Why are aren’t you complaining that they can prescribe meditations that we can’t get but are sold around the world to normal people without prescription. How about triage ? They get to decide who lives and who dies often on how they can pay? And if a doctor doesn’t follow these protocols they are fired and can lose their medical license so they comply. They have more power than any cop , judge or lawyer when you or your loved one is sick as to if sick are going to live or toward their quality of life. Their mistakes cause more deaths and maiming of people than any other profession in the United States. Often obvious mistakes but they aren’t criminally charged including cut off the wrong leg, giving the wrong drug, sending people home from the emergency room who should have been in emergency surgery etc. They detain more people than any police department for psychiatric reasons without a court order or involvement. Go to nursing home if you don’t believe me . Go to the psych ward and find out who put them in there . It’s usually not the police . And this doesn’t include killing patients thru other actions . And if you are pro-choice, how many help terminate pregnancies ( I’m pro-choice to a point but it’s a matter conscience right?)

Something to think about . A doctor can legally violate your rights a lot easier than a cop and the hospitals have their own security to do it.

 

[Acer-m14]

so a medical nurse does the right thing and the cop arrest her .. yep ..

go watch it ..

 

[Truebeliever]

She was arrested for physically stopping a cop from taking a blood sample against HOSPITAL policy. Her statement in the video . Not saying it’s against the law but hospital policy . And if I am so blue line as people here think so I would be telling you she was protecting a cop . Wait, I guess I am -lol. Thats who they wanted the blood sample from. He was a cop.
Imagine if it wasn’t or a doctor ordered the blood sample . Big difference to this argument. She would do it or allow him to do it.
The doctor /hospital mistakes rarely even make the news. Again go to a nursing home and how many can leave if they wanted too? Try to leave a hospital after being admitted. It’s quite an effort to do so if they think you need treatment even if you refuse . And sometimes a psych consultation is ordered- now you can’t leave. That’s an everyday occurrence in large hospitals.
Why do you think they had medical doctors ask patients if there are any firearms in the house especially if they aren’t allowed to break doctor /patient confidentiality unless a doctor thinks you might be a danger to yourself or others ? Or they are using the public health emergency to do their thing? Watch how fast a person might get a psych consult if they answered yes on that chart - no police involved.
They even call us if a medical patient leaves without signing out, and all I tell them is he can do that if he wants to refuse treatment. There is a reason a patient bill of rights is required to be posted at hospitals . And it’s often overlooked .
We have been called by patients who want to leave as well. But there is nothing we can do if they do the psych consult.

 

[Acer-m14]

it was a policy agreement between them .. this is how it done .. so no you can't make me officer ..

then cop went full tilt .. it my way or your under arrest ..

well she got a payday in the end ..

 

[spat]

She was arrested for physically stopping a cop from taking a blood sample against HOSPITAL policy. Her statement in the video . Not saying it’s against the law but hospital policy . And if I am so blue line as people here think so I would be telling you she was protecting a cop . Wait, I guess I am -lol. Thats who they wanted the blood sample from. He was a cop.
Imagine if it wasn’t or a doctor ordered the blood sample . Big difference to this argument. She would do it or allow him to do it.
The doctor /hospital mistakes rarely even make the news. Again go to a nursing home and how many can leave if they wanted too? Try to leave a hospital after being admitted. It’s quite an effort to do so if they think you need treatment even if you refuse . And sometimes a psych consultation is ordered- now you can’t leave. That’s an everyday occurrence in large hospitals.
Why do you think they had medical doctors ask patients if there are any firearms in the house especially if they aren’t allowed to break doctor /patient confidentiality unless a doctor thinks you might be a danger to yourself or others ? Or they are using the public health emergency to do their thing? Watch how fast a person might get a psych consult if they answered yes on that chart - no police involved.
They even call us if a medical patient leaves without signing out, and all I tell them is he can do that if he wants to refuse treatment. There is a reason a patient bill of rights is required to be posted at hospitals . And it’s often overlooked .
We have been called by patients who want to leave as well. But there is nothing we can do if they do the psych consult.

If the cop had done the blood draw himself, he should go to jail for practicing medicine without a license, assault, and a dozen other crimes.

Also, where do you get this idea that "other people can violate your rights, so it's OK for cops to do it too".

Well, there *is* one big difference. If a doctor or hospital violates your rights you can sue him. They don't have immunity.

 

[Truebeliever]

it was a policy agreement between them .. this is how it done .. so no you can't make me officer ..

then cop went full tilt .. it my way or your under arrest ..

well she got a payday in the end ..

Yep. She did .

 

[Truebeliever]

If the cop had done the blood draw himself, he should go to jail for practicing medicine without a license, assault, and a dozen other crimes.

Also, where do you get this idea that "other people can violate your rights, so it's OK for cops to do it too".

Well, there *is* one big difference. If a doctor or hospital violates your rights you can sue him. They don't have immunity.

The cop wouldn’t have immunity. He might be indemnified but it’s not qualified immunity . You don’t understand qualified immunity. As don’t most of the YouTubers and even a lot of the internet lawyers out there . A lot of the cases you hear are attempting to circumvent state court where they could sue but generally get a lower payout and go to federal court and create a new avenue of financial income and try to use a new interpretation of the law to squeeze it into federal court. Thats why the cases are getting kicked out. Or it based on a new “right” discovered by the court like Miranda warnings back in the 1960s. There was no such thing before and the lawsuits came.

 

[Acer-m14]

does the same apple to leo doing everything they can to get into your home with no warrant or justifiable reason ..

 

[Truebeliever]

does the same apple to leo doing everything they can to get into your home with no warrant or justifiable reason ..

Nice clip of edited and selectively edited. Learn the law and case law. And the exception to the search warrant exceptions. Worse, you don’t know all of the facts or what the cop knows when they show up.
please don’t look to this video auditors for legal advice Especially lackluster and audit the audit— they don’t know as much as they think they do . And knowing part of the is sometimes more dangerous than part of the law. Cops included.

 

[spat]

The cop wouldn’t have immunity. He might be indemnified but it’s not qualified immunity . You don’t understand qualified immunity. As don’t most of the YouTubers and even a lot of the internet lawyers out there . A lot of the cases you hear are attempting to circumvent state court where they could sue but generally get a lower payout and go to federal court and create a new avenue of financial income and try to use a new interpretation of the law to squeeze it into federal court. Thats why the cases are getting kicked out. Or it based on a new “right” discovered by the court like Miranda warnings back in the 1960s. There was no such thing before and the lawsuits came.

The fact remains that cops have immunity that nobody outside of government has.

They shouldn't.

They should have to carry malpractice insurance like doctors do. And if that means we need to pay them like doctors so they can afford it, I'm fine with that.

I can't imagine why any *good* cop wouldn't want that. You'd get paid enough to afford the average cops malpractice insurance, but if you're better than average, you just get to keep the extra money.

 

[Truebeliever]

The fact remains that cops have immunity that nobody outside of government has.

They shouldn't.

They should have to carry malpractice insurance like doctors do. And if that means we need to pay them like doctors so they can afford it, I'm fine with that.

I can't imagine why any *good* cop wouldn't want that. You'd get paid enough to afford the average cops malpractice insurance, but if you're better than average, you just get to keep the extra money.

Again, you are incorrect. Qualified immunity can apply to almost anyone where the law makes a requirement on you. It’s just not often called that . Call a child abuse hotline, you have qualified immunity. You can’t be successfully sued for making the call if you are wrong. What about the Good Samaritan laws? I can point out more but these are just some. You are just plain wrong and don’t understand qualified immunity actually is.
As far as malpractice insurance for cops, good cops would get sued all the time . It’s the “do nothings” who get sued less. Therefore would get the lower rates encouraging more “do nothings “.
. Oh, a black guy did something— don’t arrest/ticket/or even stop him because you will be sued for racial profiling . That happens now. Furgerson effect was very real .
Or cut no one any breaks because if they file a complaint against you for the stop eventhough he didn’t give them the ticket, the complaint board doesn’t believe you had a real reason because you didn’t issue the ticket- true story. So that cop doesn’t give breaks anymore.

These suggestions can come back and bite the very people who made them.
And cops and police departments get sued all the time and more often than not, the cop was right but the local government gave go away money to the plaintiff.
Imagine being this cop

Cop sued 20 times over alleged misconduct sees cases against him fall apart

He’s been sued 20 times over alleged police brutality and other misconduct — and portrayed as a prime example of everything that’s wrong with the NYPD. But following the dismissal of three cases ea…

nypost.com

 

[spat]

Again, you are incorrect. Qualified immunity can apply to almost anyone where the law makes a requirement on you. It’s just not often called that . Call a child abuse hotline, you have qualified immunity. You can’t be successfully sued for making the call if you are wrong. What about the Good Samaritan laws? I can point out more but these are just some. You are just plain wrong and don’t understand qualified immunity actually is.
As far as malpractice insurance for cops, good cops would get sued all the time . It’s the “do nothings” who get sued less. Therefore would get the lower rates encouraging more “do nothings “.
. Oh, a black guy did something— don’t arrest/ticket/or even stop him because you will be sued for racial profiling . That happens now. Furgerson effect was very real .
Or cut no one any breaks because if they file a complaint against you for the stop eventhough he didn’t give them the ticket, the complaint board doesn’t believe you had a real reason because you didn’t issue the ticket- true story. So that cop doesn’t give breaks anymore.

These suggestions can come back and bite the very people who made them.
And cops and police departments get sued all the time and more often than not, the cop was right but the local government gave go away money to the plaintiff.
Imagine being this cop

Cop sued 20 times over alleged misconduct sees cases against him fall apart

He’s been sued 20 times over alleged police brutality and other misconduct — and portrayed as a prime example of everything that’s wrong with the NYPD. But following the dismissal of three cases ea…

nypost.com

We would absolutely be a lot better off with more "do nothing" cops who weren't out looking for stuff to do.

I think most of us would prefer a model where you guys sat around a station waiting for calls like a fire department, rather than driving around literally looking for trouble.

Your jobs would be far safer and easier. There is something very interesting about how antagonistic so many of you are to the idea.

One real big way to solve the problem though would be to simply require any money or property seized, whether through a fine or confiscation, to be destroyed, rather than sold of spent.

Once the profit motive for the government goes away, I bet a lot of the billshit goes with it.

 

[Truebeliever]

We would absolutely be a lot better off with more "do nothing" cops who weren't out looking for stuff to do.

I think most of us would prefer a model where you guys sat around a station waiting for calls like a fire department, rather than driving around literally looking for trouble.

Your jobs would be far safer and easier. There is something very interesting about how antagonistic so many of you are to the idea.

One real big way to solve the problem though would be to simply require any money or property seized, whether through a fine or confiscation, to be destroyed, rather than sold of spent.

Once the profit motive for the government goes away, I bet a lot of the billshit goes with it.

Your do -nothing cops is why crime was off the roof . Traffic would be a lot more dangerous unless a “big brother “ system is installed to monitor traffic for speeding etc. Places are going that except people are taking off their license plates etc to get around it . You really don’t know much about the subject or where the models of policing you have suggested have been attempted in other areas or in the past . They all fail or are a lot worse than here .

 

[spat]

Your do -nothing cops is why crime was off the roof . Traffic would be a lot more dangerous unless a “big brother “ system is installed to monitor traffic for speeding etc. Places are going that except people are taking off their license plates etc to get around it . You really don’t know much about the subject or where the models of policing you have suggested have been attempted in other areas or in the past . They all fail or are a lot worse than here .

No, the do nothing cops have nothing to so with crime being high.

DAs and judges that refuse to prosecute some people to the fullerst extent of the law are the reason. Bargains should be illegal, they are a subversion of the law. The DA is acting unethically if they fail to prosecute the law to the limit of their ability in every case.

The solution to shitty judges and DAs is not overzealous cops. That in fact makes the problem *worse* because the shitty DAs and judges use it as an excuse to be even shittier.

 

[Truebeliever]

No, the do nothing cops have nothing to so with crime being high.

DAs and judges that refuse to prosecute some people to the fullerst extent of the law are the reason. Bargains should be illegal, they are a subversion of the law. The DA is acting unethically if they fail to prosecute the law to the limit of their ability in every case.

The solution to shitty judges and DAs is not overzealous cops. That in fact makes the problem *worse* because the shitty DAs and judges use it as an excuse to be even shittier.

Again, you are not well versed in this subject. Yes, a big problem is woke prosecutors but plea bargaining is necessary. Otherwise the system would be clogged , the guilty would go free instead of getting some type of punishment especially with “weak “ cases where a witness like a rape victim might have issues publicly testifying. It’s the plea bargain details that can be the issue.

As far as active vs passive policing - most of the felony cases are made by the active cops . Stolen car , street robberies, DWI arrests are made mostly by observations by active cops .

 

[spat]

Again, you are not well versed in this subject. Yes, a big problem is woke prosecutors but plea bargaining is necessary. Otherwise the system would be clogged , the guilty would go free instead of getting some type of punishment especially with “weak “ cases where a witness like a rape victim might have issues publicly testifying. It’s the plea bargain details that can be the issue.

As far as active vs passive policing - most of the felony cases are made by the active cops . Stolen car , street robberies, DWI arrests are made mostly by observations by active cops .

Since the *vast* majority of arrests are *not* first time offenders, I feel quite confident in saying "if you kept them locked up the first time, none of this would be necessary".

That includes plea bargains. The system would only be overwhelmed, because it's jam packed with frequent flyers. And they're frequent flyers because plea bargains keep letting them back out to reoffend.

 

[Truebeliever]

Since the *vast* majority of arrests are *not* first time offenders, I feel quite confident in saying "if you kept them locked up the first time, none of this would be necessary".

That includes plea bargains. The system would only be overwhelmed, because it's jam packed with frequent flyers. And they're frequent flyers because plea bargains keep letting them back out to reoffend.

So if someone did their time , we shouldn’t let them out . And how do you think those first arrests happened?

 

[Bigfoot]

 

[Acer-m14]

i just drove 45 mph in a 30 zone in town .. not one cop in sight .. not one car scratched or pedestrian struck ..

i think i was doing 70 in 55 a few time going to moms house .. had a good tail wind gust at times ..

no duty to protect .. you have no way to watch every street .. and save someone

your speed cameras are a joke too .. they to do not stop any accidents .... just another money stream .. with no victim

just stay in the cop shop and wait for the clean up call ..

 

[spat]

So if someone did their time , we shouldn’t let them out . And how do you think those first arrests happened?

Oh, absolutely they should be let out.

And sentences shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime.

But, someone sentenced to 5 years for a violent crime shouldn't be back out in 6 months either.

And people should just get a speedy trial, not be out on bail for years.

I also don't believe in sentencing guidelines. I believe I properly defined crimes where there is a single sentence. The sentencing phase would cease to exist. "This is what you were convicted of, this is the sentence it gets, there is no negotiation, no pleading, no motions".


Our whole justice system is fucked. People like you make excuses for it by saying "well, we caused this problem to fix that problem". No, that's like the guy who takes 20 pills every morning, and 19 of them are for the side effects introduced by each other.

We won't fix it. The whole thing needs a ground up rewrite, and that would require legislatures filled with people who actually came to legislate, not to line their pockets.⁰

 

[Acer-m14]

if your driving over the posted limit and nothing happened .. then nothing should happen ..

but if you cause a accident when over the limit .. which is only a suggestion per say .. then there is a price to pay ..

but not with $$$$ ..

its your time in jail ..

get the $$$ out of the equation

 

[Truebeliever]

Oh, absolutely they should be let out.

And sentences shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime.

But, someone sentenced to 5 years for a violent crime shouldn't be back out in 6 months either.

And people should just get a speedy trial, not be out on bail for years.

I also don't believe in sentencing guidelines. I believe I properly defined crimes where there is a single sentence. The sentencing phase would cease to exist. "This is what you were convicted of, this is the sentence it gets, there is no negotiation, no pleading, no motions".


Our whole justice system is fucked. People like you make excuses for it by saying "well, we caused this problem to fix that problem". No, that's like the guy who takes 20 pills every morning, and 19 of them are for the side effects introduced by each other.

We won't fix it. The whole thing needs a ground up rewrite, and that would require legislatures filled with people who actually came to legislate, not to line their pockets.⁰

Again, a lack of understanding of the system . The plea bargain is what charge the defendant will plead guilty to. Mandatory sentence? Okay, the DA will let him plea to a much lesser crime as to avoid the mandatory sentence.
Sentencing guidelines? You mean solid 7 years unlike 5 to 10 years for a certain crime as it is now? So the first timer should get the same sentence as someone who repeats the crime?
Now , we can definitely find some common ground on the corrections law that allows for “good time “ reductions of the sentence and the how and who of the parole system.

 

[spat]

Again, a lack of understanding of the system . The plea bargain is what charge the defendant will plead guilty to. Mandatory sentence? Okay, the DA will let him plea to a much lesser crime as to avoid the mandatory sentence.
Sentencing guidelines? You mean solid 7 years unlike 5 to 10 years for a certain crime as it is now? So the first timer should get the same sentence as someone who repeats the crime?
Now , we can definitely find some common ground on the corrections law that allows for “good time “ reductions of the sentence and the how and who of the parole system.

If the first timer should get less than the repeat offender, that should be written into the law. Not left up to the prosecutor and judge to dispense at their whim.

The plea bargain is an offer by a prosecutor to allow a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser crime than the one they are accused of. It is offered because the prosecutor doesn't want to actually have to prove the crime in court. By definition that is subverting justice.

The prosecutor should be legally and ethically bound to charge and prosecute *every* crime he has sufficient evidence to have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction on. The law shouldn't be ambiguous to where he even has a choice of charges.

Anything less leads to "well, she didn't mean any harm in having the server in her bathroom", or "well, he had a disadvantaged childhood, so we'll let him slide on this".

As for repeat offenders, I think an exponentially escalating scale would be good, but it needs to be specifically written into law.

Something like sentence doubled for each previous felony conviction or something like that.

So, the law specifies the sentence for the first time offender, and frequent fliers get harsher sentences.