Thursday, January 24, 2008

Why Do Our Lawmakers Love Criminals So Much?

State lawmakers this week passed some reforms to Connecticut's criminal justice system, but failed to approve the most important part, Gov. M. Jodi Rell's "three strikes and you're out" proposal.

Basically, Rell was pushing for a law that would require a mandatory life sentence for criminals convicted of their third violent crime, and would require them to serve at least 30 years of their sentence.

I emphasize "third" ... not the first violent offense, and not the second violent offense ... OK, if someone is convicted of three violent offenses, they have proven that they are violent and that they cannot control yourself and act like a human being -- they have proven that they need to be caged for the protection of society. And, that's only the three times they were convicted.

But, no, our wonderful state legislature would not accept such a measure, so Rell said she would try again in the coming session. You can read the Register's story about that here.

But I want you to pay close attention to 2 things in the story.

1. Rep. Michael Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven, basically said Rell has no chance of getting that proposal passed. Here's a clip from the story:

Lawlor strongly opposed Rell’s three-strikes plan. He insisted a reformed persistent offender law provides prosecutors and judges with an option to send violent repeat offenders away for life when circumstances warrant it. He called Rell’s proposal “unworkable” and “unenforceable.”

“The prosecutors I talked to, and I talked to a lot of them, said a three-strikes law without discretion (for judges during sentencing) would never be used,” Lawlor said.

OK. To start with -- if a prosecutor does not do his job and utilize the law to put bad people away for as long as humanly possible, then that prosecutor should be fired.

Then, Lawlor says that instead of a mandatory sentence, there should be the "option" to send violent repeat offenders away for life. Why? If you make something optional, then people can opt out, which is the exact opposite of what we're trying to achieve here. Too many judges and prosecutors have already opted not to do use such a law, that's why we're having the discussion now.

Now, right here, please understand where I'm coming from -- I don't think people should go to prison for buying, selling or using drugs, or for shoplifting, or embezzling or tax fraud. I think prison should be reserved for criminals who put innocent people in danger, whether it be mugging or burglary or any violent crime.

Most citizens want tough laws to fight crime, and to keep criminals away -- with the obvious exceptions of the criminals' friends and families, and liberals who for some reason refuse to accept that fact that there are bad people in this world beside conservatives. But, most sane people want tough laws.

So that's why Lawlor's opposition so intrigues me. When lawmakers were grappling with the gay marriage debate, Lawlor stated that gay marriage would be made legal at some point and that he would fight for it until then, because that's what the people wanted.

But on this criminal justice issue, instead of doing what the people want, Lawlor does the opposite. Seems to me that Mike Lawlor does what Mike Lawlor wants to do, regardless of what the people of the state want. He'll fight for gay marriage, because he wants it legal; what the people want makes no difference, because I think the majority were opposed to gay marriage in this state.

2. The other person you should note is Rep. William R. Dyson, a Democrat from New Haven. He and other minority lawmakers were concerned that tougher criminal penalties would increase the number of blacks in prison.


So, let me get this straight -- if the state puts more criminals in jail, we're supposed to assume those criminals are going to be black?

Who cares what color they are? They're criminals!

I'm tired of hearing people whine about too many prison inmates being black. They're not in there because they're black, they're in there because they broke the law.

The initial response I have to that is, if there are too many blacks in prison, then blacks are committing too much crime. But then the debate comes in on whether blacks go to prison for crimes that white people get away with, and honestly, I don't know if that's true. If it is, then that's wrong, but the answer is not to not put blacks in prison when they commit crimes, the answer is to make sure whites go to prison for those crimes too.

Try and put all this into perspective, and stop thinking humans should be treated any differently than animals: What do you do with vicious dogs, once they show that they can't be not vicious? If someone is convicted of three violent crimes -- again, convicted, you only know about those three -- then they obviously can't control themselves, and every day that they walk the street is a day you or your loved ones might run into them.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Shhh ... Don't Offend the Muslims

Remember a while back when an art exhibit in New York featured a Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and pornographic pictures, and Christians freaked out?

And those Christians were criticized, as if taking offense to someone desecrating your religious figures is somehow irrational?

Well, here's a interesting story about what happens to an artist if the religion they offend is Islam.

Friday, January 4, 2008

John Edwards - What a Nice Neighbor

I won't even comment on this story, other than to say that I already thought John Edwards and his loudmouth wife were a couple of snobs.

You go ahead and read it, and ask yourself if Edwards (or his wife, seeing as for some reason she's got a public voice) would associate with you and your peers.

To Hell With the Writers Guild

Amid all the noise about striking writers, late-night talk shows are returning to the air. David Letterman has writers, Jay Leno does not ...

Here's a quick story about striking writers being angry at Leno for writing and delivering his own jokes in his nightly monologues.

I have to say, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the writers. If they work, they get paid. Whether they feel they are fairly compensated for their work is a personal opinion, and if they feel they are NOT paid fairly, then they should go find another job.

Come on, be realistic. Were all these shows really that great? The majority of what passes for TV entertainment these days is just pure crap, so it's not like the strike is depriving the country of something really valuable.

When people with lucrative jobs complain about it not being MORE lucrative, I get a little nauseous.

My opinion on unions usually ends up with me catching a lot of heat, but I'm of the mindset that every employee is replaceable ... I give a lot more leeway to cops and firefighters, because they do jobs every day that could get them killed, and nurses, because of what they deal with, but most everyone else I just feel should just shut up and either go to work or don't.

I may bitch and moan about my job, but I'm free to leave anytime I want if I think I can do better somewhere else.

More Threats from the 'Religion of Peace'

Here's a story about a sporting event that had to be called off because of threats from Islamic terrorists.

Just one more example of how a huge segment of the "religion of peace" is ... well, so NOT peaceful.

You don't see these problems with super-religious Christians, Jews or Mormons ... the most they do these days is annoy people.

I wish the world -- especially ultra-libs here in the U.S. -- would realize that no matter how sensitive you are, no matter how much you may respect everyone else's rights, no matter how much you criticize America or Bush or those warmongering Republicans, if you're not a Muslim you are simply an infidel.

And a target.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Some Interesting Stories for Today

I was just having my morning coffee and doing some reading online, and came across a few stories you might be interested in.

  • Here's a story about the California tiger attack. Seems a woman who had been at the zoo the day of the attack saw four individuals taunting the tiger, and according to the story, she says she could tell the tiger was getting pissed off.

  • This is a interesting story about the reaction of some French and German folks to some new laws, including a smoking ban.

  • This story makes you wonder how much control you actually have over your own money.
That's it for now ...

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Coulter's Take on Huckabee

I enjoy listening to Mike Huckabee, one of the GOP candidates for president, because I think he's intelligent and has some good ideas.

That being said, I haven't decided whom I will vote for.

So I read with interest Ann Coulter's column this week about Huckabee. You might, too. It's not really anything earth-shattering, but it's interesting nonetheless. If it goes into the archives before you get to read it, it's the column titled, "Liberals Sing 'Huckelujah'".

An Interesting Immigration Story

A California border town is using some interesting measures to decrease the number of kids coming over the border to attend school in the U.S.

Here's the story.

One thing to note is that one of the people involved in this effort is also an advocate for amnesty for illegal immigrants, and even supplies water to Mexicans crossing the border illegally.

The town is not trying to keep Mexicans out, but rather is trying to fix the problem of schools in some districts filling up because of Mexicans crossing the border, which forces kids who actually live in the districts (you know, legal taxpaying citizens' kids) to have to be bussed over to other districts. Basically, some American kid can't go to school in his own town because Mexicans have taken all the spots, and some of the folks in those towns are bent.

I found the story interesting because I, for one, don't mind immigration as long as the people play by the rules and pitch in their fair share. For a Mexican family to send their kid to an American school is fine, but not when it is at the expense of an American.

To put it bluntly, until someone is here legally, they come second, period.

It's OK to Persecute Christians

Here's a quick little story about a woman and her children who were thrown off a bus in Fort Worth -- for reading the Bible on the way to church.

The way I see it, American society has become so warped and twisted that we are expected to tolerate -- and even embrace -- every form of "individuality" as long as it's not heterosexual, white Christian behavior.

Absolutely appalling.