Police misconduct

[Badsmerf]

Judges have immunity to what? And why? Just curious as I've never heard this before.

[gunnarthor]

 

Judges have immunity to what? And why? Just curious as I've never heard this before.

Judicial immunity. Pretty much from everything. Judges have assaulted witnesses and ordered bailiffs to beat up lawyers. I'm reaching pretty far back into my law school days - it doesn't come up much - but basically, a judge can't be sued/charged for anything that is arguably in their job description and control of the court room (how people enter and exit) is surely one of them, although that would probably be the key question here. There are exceptions, like a judge can't take a bribe or such but outside that, it's tough.

 

The reason for the immunity is pretty straight forward. If you don't have it, everybody who is in court will sue their judge if they get a decision they don't like. Prosecutors have a near absolute immunity as well. 

 

That said, the ACLU-PA is actually suing a judge for nearly the opposite reason - she wouldn't let a person leave until ICE came. 

 

https://www.aclupa.org/files/1315/5482/7430/Parker_-_2019.04.08_-_ECF_20_-_Am_Compl.pdf

[gunnarthor]

As an example, one of the big problems we have in our system is punishment that is different by a person's race. We have judges and/or prosecutors who absolutely refuse to let any person of color into the drug courts but let white defendants in all the time. No remedy for that. We've had judges that have ordered Native American men to not drink as a condition of release even when they weren't arrested for alcohol related offenses. A prosecutor in a southern MN county told a social worker he wasn't going to charge a man for domestic assault because the woman was from Mexico and he didn't want her to get a visa out of it.

 

(Advocacy and publicity are potential remedies, of course, but not legal ones).

[ewen21]

Why do you take issue with suing police for misconduct?

Is your stance that cops should have full immunity from lawsuits, no matter what they do? Or is it that you think all cops are 100% pure, and would never engage in misconduct? I'm trying to understand your position.

Are you actually serious with those questions?

 

I mean this with all sincerity

[TheLeviathan]

 

Are you actually serious with those questions?

I mean this with all sincerity

 

I'm guessing he does.  The problem with your rhetoric about "taking sides" is you appear to be siding with cops guilty of misconduct.

 

So the questions seem valid.  They only seem absurd because your position is absurd.

[Mr. Brooks]

Are you actually serious with those questions?

 

I mean this with all sincerity

Sorry, it wasn't self evident from your post exactly why you take issue with suing the police for misconduct. Perhaps I'm just slow, but nevertheless, yes it's a serious question.

[ewen21]

 

Why do you take issue with suing police for misconduct?

Is your stance that cops should have full immunity from lawsuits, no matter what they do? Or is it that you think all cops are 100% pure, and would never engage in misconduct? I'm trying to understand your position.

 

I guess I don't like this statement:

"More light on the subject of police misconduct is strongly needed"

 

What does that even mean?  That there needs to be EVEN MORE transparency on this?  Is he saying every instance where police misconduct is evident it should be reported in the media for the public to digest?  Is he saying more articles need to written on this? That we need to perseverate more on this than we already do as a society?  

 

WHY???  Why do we need to put "more light on the subject of police misconduct"??

There isn't enough light shed on it now?  Didn't Colin Kaepernick and al those woke dudes shed enough light on it?  Didn't the BS "hands up don't shoot" narrative and BLM speak out against the police enough?  We need to unmask cops and report cops guilty of misconduct to the public?

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

This needs to be front and center news?

 

 

On the list of topics to discuss I do not see this as being something that needs to be emphasized.  PLENTY of attention is given in this area already and I do not see what this discussion seeks to accomplish. 

 

I am not saying it should be ignored, nor am I saying the police deserve 100% immunity for their actions.  My issue is that this is suddenly now a conversation.  Where is the evidence that shining a spotlight on this and opening up records to the public (like USA Today did in the link I provided) does us any good?  It is bad enough distrust between people living in high crime areas and police exists on a very high level.  It is almost is bad with the woke white university brats who want to pretend it's the 1960s.  What is this thread accomplishing?  This feels like a mock trial of the profession and I don't like that

 

In sum, I feel this thread seeks to tell us that whatever "we" think of cops it is actually worse than the perception.  I happen to think the perception of police is probably more negative than it needs to be because a lot of focus is ALREADY put on instances where cops demonstrate misconduct.  

[TheLeviathan]

Cops have hidden misconduct behind the Blue Wall and corruption for a long, long time. So, yeah, time to see how far that hole goes.

 

Seems like a simple thesis. For someone that chides other posters about how they respond to posts, seems like this is a very clear thesis to me. Take your own advice I guess.

[gunnarthor]

 

I guess I don't like this statement:

"More light on the subject of police misconduct is strongly needed"

 

What does that even mean?  That there needs to be EVEN MORE transparency on this?  Is he saying every instance where police misconduct is evident it should be reported in the media for the public to digest?  Is he saying more articles need to written on this? That we need to perseverate more on this than we already do as a society?  

 

WHY???  Why do we need to put "more light on the subject of police misconduct"??

There isn't enough light shed on it now?  Didn't Colin Kaepernick and al those woke dudes shed enough light on it?  Didn't the BS "hands up don't shoot" narrative and BLM speak out against the police enough?  We need to unmask cops and report cops guilty of misconduct to the public?

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

This needs to be front and center news?

 

 

On the list of topics to discuss I do not see this as being something that needs to be emphasized.  PLENTY of attention is given in this area already and I do not see what this discussion seeks to accomplish. 

 

I am not saying it should be ignored, nor am I saying the police deserve 100% immunity for their actions.  My issue is that this is suddenly now a conversation.  Where is the evidence that shining a spotlight on this and opening up records to the public (like USA Today did in the link I provided) does us any good?  It is bad enough distrust between people living in high crime areas and police exists on a very high level.  It is almost is bad with the woke white university brats who want to pretend it's the 1960s.  What is this thread accomplishing?  This feels like a mock trial of the profession and I don't like that

 

In sum, I feel this thread seeks to tell us that whatever "we" think of cops it is actually worse than the perception.  I happen to think the perception of police is probably more negative than it needs to be because a lot of focus is ALREADY put on instances where cops demonstrate misconduct.  

You seem pretty emotionally attached to the issue. Obviously, how much attention to any issue is an eye of the beholder thing. Perhaps you should ignore it, seems like you don't think police misconduct is something that will affect you.

 

I work in the legal profession and police misconduct - testilying, racial profiling, excessive force, lack of proper training on most issues - are significant problems. People tend to ignore them b/c we want to trust the police and the people harmed by these actions are usually (but not always) people that the larger community can tolerate being the victim of that behavior. But real changes to how our communities are policed won't change without such behavior being questioned.

 

As to your question, "We need to unmask cops and report cops guilty of misconduct to the public?" Yes, we do. That's a no-brainer. If Officer Doe lies on the stand to try and convict someone that should follow him around the rest of his life. If Officer Smith sexually harasses a 15 year old girl in the back of his squad car and sends her sexually inappropriate photos, that should not be kept from the public.

[Bark's Lounge]

One of my family members was one of the first female patrol officers in her city. She retired early because of the sexism and racism that was systemic in the department... it really took a toll on her.

 

I also was a passenger in a vehicle with a driver who was a minority friend who was driving and we were pulled over for no good reason. They pulled him out of the car like he was wanted as a murderer. There was nothing illegal going on... no drugs, no weapons, no ill intent. It was infuriating.

 

A deceased friend of mine once said there is not much difference from a criminal and a cop... he was a troublemaker in his youth and I shrugged it off... but I now believe it to be true.

 

Certainly there are good police officers, but the Philando Castile murder haunts me and that MFin officer got acquitted for that MURDER. Throughout the country serious reforms need to be made in the hiring of police officers and getting rid of the ones who poison the well. Saying that, the Noor guy who killed the Australian should have the book thrown at him as should have happened to Yanez in the Castile murder.

[ewen21]

 

One of my family members was one of the first female patrol officers in her city. She retired early because of the sexism and racism that was systemic in the department... it really took a toll on her.

 

I also was a passenger in a vehicle with a driver who was a minority friend who was driving and we were pulled over for no good reason. They pulled him out of the car like he was wanted as a murderer. There was nothing illegal going on... no drugs, no weapons, no ill intent. It was infuriating.

 

A deceased friend of mine once said there is not much difference from a criminal and a cop... he was a troublemaker in his youth and I shrugged it off... but I now believe it to be true.

 

Certainly there are good police officers, but the Philando Castile murder haunts me and that MFin officer got acquitted for that MURDER. Throughout the country serious reforms need to be made in the hiring of police officers and getting rid of the ones who poison the well. Saying that, the Noor guy who killed the Australian should have the book thrown at him as should have happened to Yanez in the Castile murder.

.

 

The statement underlined. In another thread where immigration was discussed I was taken to task for referring to those who cross the border illegally as "illegals" and this went on for a couple of pages.  Even though, what I said was entirely true because literally thousands of asylum seekers are now detained at the border for illegal entry every week.  I can't say "illegals" without major blowback but you can characterize cops as criminals and be safe from blowback.  I find that kind of telling about the way the wind blows here.

 

[ewen21]

 

You seem pretty emotionally attached to the issue. Obviously, how much attention to any issue is an eye of the beholder thing. Perhaps you should ignore it, seems like you don't think police misconduct is something that will affect you.

 

I work in the legal profession and police misconduct - testilying, racial profiling, excessive force, lack of proper training on most issues - are significant problems. People tend to ignore them b/c we want to trust the police and the people harmed by these actions are usually (but not always) people that the larger community can tolerate being the victim of that behavior. But real changes to how our communities are policed won't change without such behavior being questioned.

 

As to your question, "We need to unmask cops and report cops guilty of misconduct to the public?" Yes, we do. That's a no-brainer. If Officer Doe lies on the stand to try and convict someone that should follow him around the rest of his life. If Officer Smith sexually harasses a 15 year old girl in the back of his squad car and sends her sexually inappropriate photos, that should not be kept from the public.

First of all, I apologize for my initial response  to you.  I had no idea what you did for a living and that made me think you (as an individual) sued the police on several occasions.  That was silly of me. I am actually a little embarrassed so....I apologize.

 

 

On the other hand, I cannot agree with the underlined.  No way in the world you can convince me people ignore corruption or "systemic bias" in law enforcement.  Tell that to Darren Wilson.  He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, lost his job (and any chance of returning to law enforcement) and now lives in isolation.  The whole thing was a false narrative and it gave way to a movement where athletes and entertainers used "hands up don't shoot" as a rallying cry and gave birth to a militant anti-police movement. Police are falsely accused for things all the time.  Michael Bennett wrote a Twitter manifesto about he was arrested for simply being black and then the video came out. Kaepernick talked about "bodies in the streets and cops on paid leave" and that give birth to a movement where NFL players kneeled during the national anthem to "bring attention to police violence".  That has been part of the ethos in sports for the last several years and it has not been a fair discussion because we cannot have an actual discussion about black crime and black on black violence.  We shouldn't talk about one without talking about the other, in my opinion.

 

Over and over again, I hear from people who have beefs with law enforcement and there are clear cut examples of BS in those accusations.  I am not saying that about you, but I am saying I am tired of hearing this stuff we "need to have more attention" on this.  What does that even mean?  There has been an over-emphasis on this stuff since Ferguson, in my opinion.  This does not mean I don't think it exists or that police should have 100% immunity like Mr. Brooks suggested.  It's just I am not sure what a sweeping campaign to bring examples of police misconduct to the general public through the media is going to accomplish.  Maybe you can enlighten me?

 

I also cannot agree with the last part underlined.  If a young woman is sexually harassed by a LEO then the family and the girl ought to dictate whether or not this is something that goes public (through the media).  In the hypothetical example you present that goes straight to the public for immediate consumption. I don't agree with that at all.  Now the girl has gain notoriety as a victim.    When I said "unmask cops" that was in response to the USA Today article that came out yesterday which I posted:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

 

Just so we are clear on what I mean about "unmasked" I am talking about circulated in the media.  Victims have the right privacy and haphazard reporting has in some cases falsely accused law enforcement.  I think what you do is important, but when you "more light on the subject" you are going to have to clarify that statement.  You have not to this point.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

First of all, I apologize for my initial response  to you.  I had no idea what you did for a living and that made me think you (as an individual) sued the police on several occasions.  That was silly of me. I am actually a little embarrassed so....I apologize.

 

 

On the other hand, I cannot agree with the underlined.  No way in the world you can convince me people ignore corruption or "systemic bias" in law enforcement.  Tell that to Darren Wilson.  He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, lost his job (and any chance of returning to law enforcement) and now lives in isolation.  The whole thing was a false narrative and it gave way to a movement where athletes and entertainers used "hands up don't shoot" as a rallying cry and gave birth to a militant anti-police movement. Police are falsely accused for things all the time.  Michael Bennett wrote a Twitter manifesto about he was arrested for simply being black and then the video came out. Kaepernick talked about "bodies in the streets and cops on paid leave" and that give birth to a movement where NFL players kneeled during the national anthem to "bring attention to police violence".  That has been part of the ethos in sports for the last several years and it has not been a fair discussion because we cannot have an actual discussion about black crime and black on black violence.  We shouldn't talk about one without talking about the other, in my opinion.

 

Over and over again, I hear from people who have beefs with law enforcement and there are clear cut examples of BS in those accusations.  I am not saying that about you, but I am saying I am tired of hearing this stuff we "need to have more attention" on this.  What does that even mean?  There has been an over-emphasis on this stuff since Ferguson, in my opinion.  This does not mean I don't think it exists or that police should have 100% immunity like Mr. Brooks suggested.  It's just I am not sure what a sweeping campaign to bring examples of police misconduct to the general public through the media is going to accomplish.  Maybe you can enlighten me?

 

I also cannot agree with the last part underlined.  If a young woman is sexually harassed by a LEO then the family and the girl ought to dictate whether or not this is something that goes public (through the media).  In the hypothetical example you present that goes straight to the public for immediate consumption. I don't agree with that at all.  Now the girl has gain notoriety as a victim.    When I said "unmask cops" that was in response to the USA Today article that came out yesterday which I posted:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

 

Just so we are clear on what I mean about "unmasked" I am talking about circulated in the media.  Victims have the right privacy and haphazard reporting has in some cases falsely accused law enforcement.  I think what you do is important, but when you "more light on the subject" you are going to have to clarify that statement.  You have not to this point.

You're conflating public consumption of police misconduct with holding them accountable.  Transparency is so that organizations like the ACLU and the victims of police misconduct can hold them accountable, not to air a police officer's dirty laundry on facebook.  (Again it's not about whether you or I know about it; it's about whether some one in a position to hold the officer accountable knows about it, so we can get justice for the victim and make sure the officer doesn't continue such misconduct). 

 

If police officer commits crimes (and is caught) he has no right to privacy, just like any person who commits a crime.  Of course, it is more egregious when an officer commits a crime because they are in a position of public trust.  

[ewen21]

 

You're conflating public consumption of police misconduct with holding them accountable.  

I think you were looking for the opportunity to use the world "conflating".  LOL.

 

Back off a second and let gunnathor clarify what he means by "shed more light on" this issue.  Let him define what he said.  It reads as if it includes more media reporting on this and he hasn't spoken on whether or not this falls under the "shed more light" statement he made.

 

 

[ewen21]

How else do we know there is evidence more is done without reporting on it getting published for public consumption? If you are calling for some kind of reform to address this issue should people be able to understand what's happening?

 

Not sure how you can wNt more light shed on the issue, but not want greater media coverage. Maybe SABR has that answer

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think you were looking for the opportunity to use the world "conflating".  LOL.

 

Back off a second and let gunnathor clarify what he means by "shed more light on" this issue.  Let him define what he said.  It reads as if it includes more media reporting on this and he hasn't spoken on whether or not this falls under the "shed more light" statement he made.

He liked my post.  You are arguing against a straw man.    (And you really got stop it with the telling other people how to post thing.)

[Mr. Brooks]

First of all, I apologize for my initial response to you. I had no idea what you did for a living and that made me think you (as an individual) sued the police on several occasions. That was silly of me. I am actually a little embarrassed so....I apologize.

 

 

On the other hand, I cannot agree with the underlined. No way in the world you can convince me people ignore corruption or "systemic bias" in law enforcement. Tell that to Darren Wilson. He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, lost his job (and any chance of returning to law enforcement) and now lives in isolation. The whole thing was a false narrative and it gave way to a movement where athletes and entertainers used "hands up don't shoot" as a rallying cry and gave birth to a militant anti-police movement. Police are falsely accused for things all the time. Michael Bennett wrote a Twitter manifesto about he was arrested for simply being black and then the video came out. Kaepernick talked about "bodies in the streets and cops on paid leave" and that give birth to a movement where NFL players kneeled during the national anthem to "bring attention to police violence". That has been part of the ethos in sports for the last several years and it has not been a fair discussion because we cannot have an actual discussion about black crime and black on black violence. We shouldn't talk about one without talking about the other, in my opinion.

 

Over and over again, I hear from people who have beefs with law enforcement and there are clear cut examples of BS in those accusations. I am not saying that about you, but I am saying I am tired of hearing this stuff we "need to have more attention" on this. What does that even mean? There has been an over-emphasis on this stuff since Ferguson, in my opinion. This does not mean I don't think it exists or that police should have 100% immunity like Mr. Brooks suggested. It's just I am not sure what a sweeping campaign to bring examples of police misconduct to the general public through the media is going to accomplish. Maybe you can enlighten me?

 

I also cannot agree with the last part underlined. If a young woman is sexually harassed by a LEO then the family and the girl ought to dictate whether or not this is something that goes public (through the media). In the hypothetical example you present that goes straight to the public for immediate consumption. I don't agree with that at all. Now the girl has gain notoriety as a victim. When I said "unmask cops" that was in response to the USA Today article that came out yesterday which I posted:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

 

Just so we are clear on what I mean about "unmasked" I am talking about circulated in the media. Victims have the right privacy and haphazard reporting has in some cases falsely accused law enforcement. I think what you do is important, but when you "more light on the subject" you are going to have to clarify that statement. You have not to this point.

I'm on record in this forum saying that BLM lost their credibility when the started protesting shootings that were clearly justified.

So you won't see me defending that movement.

But, just because that movement has coopted a legitimate issue, and made a mockery of it, doesn't mean we should overcompensate by not shining a light on the legitimate police misconduct that does happen.

 

And, it's not just police shootings. The average citizen doesn't realize the outrageous scam that is being perpetrated by many police organizations that is called asset forfeiture. That is an issue that started with legitimate purpose, but has since gotten out of control. It's rarely reported on because it's not as sensational as police shootings.

 

Another issue is cops who have falsified reports and warrants and testimony, systematically, to close cases.

I'm not saying it happens all the time, but a few bad cops can destroy a lot of lives over their career by doing that.

These are one of the toughest to uncover, because nobody in the system wants to risk every conviction that cop has ever worked, by investigating the few (or many) that he or she cheated on.

 

Then you have questionable interrogation tactics. Sometimes cops try so hard to "win", that they lose sight of seeking the truth. We know this happens, because thanks to DNA, we've been able to reverse false confessions.

These aren't necessarily bad cops. Sometimes even good cops get caught up in trying to win, instead of finding the truth. If we shine a light on these interrogation tactics, it doesn't have to be to demonize the cops involved, it can be to say look, here is where even good intentioned cops can destroy someone's life. Let's train them to interrogate for the truth, rather than to interrogate for a confession at all odds, as is often done now.

 

I just don't think shining a light on LEGITIMATE misconduct can ever be a bad thing. If you want to push back against specific cases that are pushed unfairly, I'll be right there with you. I have before in these forums, and I have family members who are police officers.

[ewen21]

 

 

I just don't think shining a light on LEGITIMATE misconduct can ever be a bad thing. If you want to push back against specific cases that are pushed unfairly, I'll be right there with you. I have before in these forums, and I have family members who are police officers.

I can respect that, but I have asked for clarification on what "shine a light on it" actually entails and have yet to get an answer.  

 

 

 

 

 

[ewen21]

 

He liked my post.  You are arguing against a straw man.    (And you really got stop it with the telling other people how to post thing.)

 

I bet you don't even see the irony in that parenthetical thought.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I bet you don't even see the irony in that parenthetical thought.

I'm also not tolerant of intolerance. Sue me.

 

(And the alternative is what, you get to tell people how to post, and then call us all hypocrites when we call you out?)

[TheLeviathan]

 

I can respect that, but I have asked for clarification on what "shine a light on it" actually entails and have yet to get an answer.  

 

I've read at least three answers to this.  Perhaps you should re-read the posts with a genuine effort to hear an answer.

 

You can still disagree, but you have very clearly been answered.  

[ewen21]

Wrong Leviathan. Gunnathor didn't specifically answer whether or not it involved more coverage in the media.

[biggentleben]

 

Wrong Leviathan. Gunnathor didn't specifically answer whether or not it involved more coverage in the media.

 

[gunnarthor]

From the USA Today article I posted -

"Officers have beaten members of the public, planted evidence and used their badges to harass women. They have lied, stolen, dealt drugs, driven drunk and abused their spouses.

Despite their role as public servants, the men and women who swear an oath to keep communities safe can generally avoid public scrutiny for their misdeeds.

The records of their misconduct are filed away, rarely seen by anyone outside their departments. Police unions and their political allies have worked to put special protections in place ensuring some records are shielded from public view, or even destroyed."

 

The number of officers USA Today found was 85,000. That's despite many departments hiding and destroying records of misconduct. For one example, I know the lawyers in this case highlighted by the video below. Had they not filed a lawsuit, nothing would have happened. As it was, the Department refused to discipline any of the officers involved in this matter. Public education of police misconduct is obviously needed and efforts by USA Today and others to cover such incidents is welcome news. I will say that the article is making it's way around several of my legal listserves with great acclaim.

 

Warning, the video below contains strong language and an unprovoked attack on a motorist.

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

In this case, I'd like to see a Bernie supporter denounce his call for extending a voting privilege to incarcerated felons amongst this anti-police rhetoric. If a Bernie supporter speaks negatively about the police AND doubles down on his voting policy it says A LOT. Just as it would if a Trump supporter weighing in on a race issue gets asked about Charlottesville.

In a nation where we have FAR AND AWAY the highest incarceration rate, why shouldn't the incarcerated get a vote?

 

Honest question and I expect a legitimate answer. I'm torn on the issue but it seems to me that if we have such a high percentage of people in the prison system - far higher than anyone else - that maybe their votes might actually be important. Sure, they f-ed up, there's no denying that, but obviously something we're all doing is leading them to be incarcerated in ridiculous numbers. Maybe we should listen to them for a minute and voting is a good way to let them send their message.

 

Where I'm actually torn is that repeat rapists, murderers, and those lot don't deserve a vote... but that's not our prison system. Our system is chock full of petty drug offenders, repeat petty offenders, and loads of people who are the backbone of an incarceration system that leads the world in sheer numbers.

[Mr. Brooks]

In a nation where we have FAR AND AWAY the highest incarceration rate, why shouldn't the incarcerated get a vote?

 

Honest question and I expect a legitimate answer. I'm torn on the issue but it seems to me that if we have such a high percentage of people in the prison system - far higher than anyone else - that maybe their votes might actually be important. Sure, they f-ed up, there's no denying that, but obviously something we're all doing is leading them to be incarcerated in ridiculous numbers. Maybe we should listen to them for a minute and voting is a good way to let them send their message.

 

Where I'm actually torn is that repeat rapists, murderers, and those lot don't deserve a vote... but that's not our prison system. Our system is chock full of petty drug offenders, repeat petty offenders, and loads of people who are the backbone of an incarceration system that leads the world in sheer numbers.

You aren't torn then.

Suggesting that non violent prisoners get a vote isn't new or controversial.

The controversy is that Bernie thinks that all prisoners, specifically including the worst of the worst, should get a vote.

 

I love Bernie, but he's 100% wrong here. Some crimes are heinous enough to lose that right forever.

[ewen21]

 

In a nation where we have FAR AND AWAY the highest incarceration rate, why shouldn't the incarcerated get a vote?

 

Honest question and I expect a legitimate answer. I'm torn on the issue but it seems to me that if we have such a high percentage of people in the prison system - far higher than anyone else - that maybe their votes might actually be important. Sure, they f-ed up, there's no denying that, but obviously something we're all doing is leading them to be incarcerated in ridiculous numbers. Maybe we should listen to them for a minute and voting is a good way to let them send their message.

 

Where I'm actually torn is that repeat rapists, murderers, and those lot don't deserve a vote... but that's not our prison system. Our system is chock full of petty drug offenders, repeat petty offenders, and loads of people who are the backbone of an incarceration system that leads the world in sheer numbers.

I am not sure why Sanders went down this road.  Is it because he is such a champion for human rights he has to show everyone how extreme he is about proving it?  I honestly don't know.

 

Prisoners shouldn't vote is because serving time equals losing rights. When they get out they can vote if they want.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I am not sure why Sanders went down this road.  Is it because he is such a champion for human rights he has to show everyone how extreme he is about proving it?  I honestly don't know.

 

Prisoners shouldn't vote is because serving time equals losing rights. When they get out they can vote if they want.

Agree.

 

I’m not sure if he’s campaigning on this, or not, or if the media is blowing it up into something it isn’t. I don’t remember him saying anything in the Fox town hall about it. But this issue will kill his campaign. If he wants to be president he’s better off dropping the issue altogether than trying to make the distinction between unfair policing, violent or non-violent, etc.

[ewen21]

Agree.

 

I’m not sure if he’s campaigning on this, or not, or if the media is blowing it up into something it isn’t. I don’t remember him saying anything in the Fox town hall about it. But this issue will kill his campaign. If he wants to be president he’s better off dropping the issue altogether than trying to make the distinction between unfair policing, violent or non-violent, etc.

It's such a tiny little side issue but it is an illustration about extreme and radical he is. I have no use for Bernie Sanders. We need to demand better

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It's such a tiny little side issue but it is an illustration about extreme and radical he is. I have no use for Bernie Sanders. We need to demand better

I actually don’t see this as a tiny issue. I also don’t see most of his policies as radical. But as a threat to the status quo in Washington, oh yes I think he is radical. If that’s what you meant.