politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Well, last month is a good example of a recent one:
She was accused of murder after losing her pregnancy. SC woman now tells her story
"At that point, she said, she didn’t know she was being criminally investigated. Yet three months after her loss, Marsh was charged with murder/homicide by child abuse, law enforcement records show. She spent 22 days at the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center, where she was initially held without bond, facing 20 years to life in prison."
This is the group you are defending. Are you astonished now?
She got charged because she left the baby in the toilet, and even then they almost saved it. She was ultimately cleared of blame, but this story is nowhere near being representative of normal miscarriage. My cousin had a late term miscarriage, my mom had late miscarriage with twins, and two of my sister in laws did as well. None of those cases came even close to being treated as anything other than regular, normal (but sad) miscarriage. They had small funerals and buried or cremated the babies in each of those cases.
Get out of here with that "they almost saved it" bull. A full term pregnancy is 40 weeks. She was at 20 weeks as cited in the article. The most premature infant to survive by Guinness World Records for premature for survival of a premature birth is 21 weeks and 1 day. source
I'm sorry your family members experienced those miscarriages. They have no fault in those events. It is just biology at work. However I have to ask, are your family members black and residents of a southern state that has a long history of disproportionately charging people of color with crimes that they let white people off for? If you're looking for another statistic to back up that statement, of the 44 people put to death by the state of South Carolina since capital punishment was enshrined in law 59% were white, while 39% were black (with 2% Native American), yet blacks make up only 25% of the population of South Carolina. The most recent person put to death by South Carolina was FOUR DAYS AGO...and yes, he was black.
That may be so, but you can't just get rid of laws because they could be used unjustly. All laws could be used unjustly.
You absolutely can, and should.
Law is supposed to be a mechanism to provide justice. If the outcome of a law is injustice, it fails fundamentally at what law is supposed to do and should be discarded. That doesn't mean a just version of the law couldn't be crafted, but if we, as a society, let unjust laws stand, then just laws will never be crafted. So yes, get rid of unjust laws.
Unjust laws can and should be eliminated, but people using laws unjustly cannot. Speeding is a crime, but it is not perfectly enforced. Cops let family members go more often, good looking people, people they identify with, etc. Speeding is a just law that is not always enforced in a just way. This is always the case.
Your example ignores the consequences to those accused and convicted which negates the value of using it as your argument.
The worst someone will suffer from indiscriminate speed ticket enforcement will be a sub $500 fee.
The worst someone will suffer from indiscriminate "illegal miscarriage" enforcement is prison, loss of livelihood, with the knock-on effect of death of the accused from trying to avoid being charged with the unjust law.
There's a drastic difference between those two examples, and trying to use the same brush to paint them the same is counterproductive, wouldn't you agree?
Ok how about murder? Guy murders someone by hitting them when he is drunk. Rich guy with a good lawyer and connections in the community gets community service, but the poor, black man with a pot possession misdemeanor when he was 15 gets life in prison.
Now you're citing two laws instead of one with selective enforcement which is what we were talking about.
Murder is one law. Someone convicted of murder isn't getting community service. Someone could have murdered someone and been charged with a lesser crime for whatever reason, but then they'd be getting community service for whatever that lesser charge was, not murder. So the law for murder in your example isn't flawed.
Pot possession is a different law, and I don't know any state in the union that will give you 15 years in prison for one. A quick google search says 180 days in jail is the max for most misdemeanors and I found one reference that says that in 24 states the max is 1 year in jail (still not prison).
Your examples are getting farther from relevance not closer. I think we've reached the end of productive conversation with one another on this topic so I'll bow out. Thank you for talking with me up to now. Have a great day!
You completely missed my point, let me clarify my example. Two guys got drunk and killed someone while they were driving. One of them was a rich guy with connections, the other was a poor black guy with a criminal record. The rich guy gets a very light sentence and the black guy gets a much more serious charge. In this example the laws were selectively, subjectively, enforced.
This can happen with any law, with every law. I can come up with different examples all day. Every law, and all laws can be selectively enforced.