Baltimatt

Op-Ed: Are judges really to blame for Baltimore violence?

60 posts in this topic

I'm not sure what the exact statistics are but I'm sure a major dilemma for judges is the overcrowding of jails in Maryland and their own hand in the problem.  If you're going to rely on incarceration in dealing with criminals and the population of those behind bars becomes overwhelming, doesn't that undermine the efficiency of law enforcement?  Maybe it's not so much judges side stepping responsibility for the problem but creating their own monster by sentencing people to jail time when they should be just getting probation. To many citizens, a crime is a crime and should be appropriately punished regardless of what it is but at some point, wouldn't it be more prudent to establish who should truly be behind bars and not on the streets?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BazookaJoe said:

I'm not sure what the exact statistics are but I'm sure a major dilemma for judges is the overcrowding of jails in Maryland and their own hand in the problem.  If you're going to rely on incarceration in dealing with criminals and the population of those behind bars becomes overwhelming, doesn't that undermine the efficiency of law enforcement?  Maybe it's not so much judges side stepping responsibility for the problem but creating their own monster by sentencing people to jail time when they should be just getting probation. To many citizens, a crime is a crime and should be appropriately punished regardless of what it is but at some point, wouldn't it be more prudent to establish who should truly be behind bars and not on the streets?  

Multiple time offenders should be kept in prison. Not these, 2 yr sentences with all but one day suspended ones. Don't know the whole stories given in court each time by these criminals but some judges are buying them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BazookaJoe said:

I'm not sure what the exact statistics are but I'm sure a major dilemma for judges is the overcrowding of jails in Maryland and their own hand in the problem.  If you're going to rely on incarceration in dealing with criminals and the population of those behind bars becomes overwhelming, doesn't that undermine the efficiency of law enforcement?  Maybe it's not so much judges side stepping responsibility for the problem but creating their own monster by sentencing people to jail time when they should be just getting probation. To many citizens, a crime is a crime and should be appropriately punished regardless of what it is but at some point, wouldn't it be more prudent to establish who should truly be behind bars and not on the streets?  

As I said.....there are a number of states that are closing their prisons due to a low occupancy rate. I am pretty sure they would be happy to accept those 'surplus' prisioners' if outsourced. 

Move them out....it is no longer overwhelming. 

But say they stay....I don't understand how having all the bad guys in jail will overwhelm law enforcement. Maybe it is the definition; I look at law enforcement as cops on the street. Now if you mean prision guards....then I get it. 

A crime is a crime for most citizens. However the NAACP, the ACLU etc etc. don't represent them. Please don't force me into going into detail....I am sure you know what I mean. 

So tax paying hard working citizens don't have the same 'voice' as low-life thugs do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP opposition, country?

" "Usually, I'm a guy who says you've got to have a minimum for these criminals," said Senate Minority Leader J.B. Jennings, a Baltimore County Republican. "If you've got some guy out in the country, and it's obvious that he was doing something on the farm, should he really get locked up for a year for that?"

If he was doing something on the farm, he wouldn't be arrested as the law doesn't cover private property.

If one is carrying in public illegally, i.e. no permit, it shouldn't make a difference whether in the country or the city. You want to carry in the country, get a permit or stay on private property with it.

 

But, I notice some City Council members are against it, and not R's, out of the "it punishes minorities disproportionately" routine. No, it would punish those carrying illegal guns disproportionately.

Edited by Saticon3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saticon3 said:

GOP opposition, country?

" "Usually, I'm a guy who says you've got to have a minimum for these criminals," said Senate Minority Leader J.B. Jennings, a Baltimore County Republican. "If you've got some guy out in the country, and it's obvious that he was doing something on the farm, should he really get locked up for a year for that?"

If he was doing something on the farm, he wouldn't be arrested as the law doesn't cover private property.

If one is carrying in public illegally, i.e. no permit, it shouldn't make a difference whether in the country or the city. You want to carry in the country, get a permit or stay on private property with it.

 

But, I notice some City Council members are against it, and not R's, out of the "it punishes minorities disproportionately" routine. No, it would punish those carrying illegal guns disproportionately.

I dunno about some of you but I sick to death of hearing that.

Here is the quick math: There are approximately 614,000 residents of BC of which only 27% are white.

That means that over 460,500 are minority and 63% are black only. Add in hybrids and you are up to around 75%.

The simple math is that libs & do-gooders fail to realize/accept is that is yah got a lotta of something odds are pretty good that the lotta somethings are BIG part of things. I.E. criminal activity. 

Duhhhhhhh.

Ohhhh and (I think you meant county not country...not picking) carrying on private property. I can guaraaaannnnntttttteeeeeee if I walked out with a holstered side arm on my fully paid for deed burned property here in good ol Gwynn Oak.... cops would be here faster than you can light a fart. 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Ohhhh and (I think you meant county not country...not picking) carrying on private property. I can guaraaaannnnntttttteeeeeee if I walked out with a holstered side arm on my fully paid for deed burned property here in good ol Gwynn Oak.... cops would be here faster than you can light a fart. 

You're right, but you would not be in violation of the law, but police do react like that to any "man with a gun call" I've had a discussion many times with colleagues and such--  not only that but the carrying laws only apply to handguns, it is perfectly legal even in MD to tote a shot gun or rifle around in public, but if you do it, well you know the routine,  surrounded by cops, " get on the ground" and all that then when you say I was just carrying it and you are found to be up to no nefarious purpose they will sheepishly let you go after realizing you were not committing a crime-- oh, I have actually seen and totally illegal and improper arrest in such a case before, later released with no charges, but hopefully most know.  A colleague of mine once got into a debate as to even handguns-- you get the man with gun call someone got a glimpse of a gun tucked in someone's waist, but concealed-- what is the right of the police to swarm on him put him down, search him and all that- how do they know he doesn't have a permit? They can't stop you driving your car if you've committed no offense or have some other reasonable suspicion, I mean if someone calls and says "there's a man driving a car!" they can't do a felony stop to make sure you have a driver's license, so why can they do that to check if you have a handgun permit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2017 at 10:40 AM, PeanutG said:

Ok.  I thought that it was.  Didn't it take the gun crimes cases that are being suspended in the city and make it go to federal court instead?  When did it go away and why?

Project Exile was initially started to remove violent gun offenders off of the streets. It started in Richmond in the late 90's. The thought was that if a person was caught with a gun and got arrested, they would immediately bypass state prosecution and go straight through a federal indictment. However, national state lib tards (like that clown Dorsey) decided that was "cruel and unusual" and decided to modify the way violent gun offenders were treated. Now, the Feds have implemented certain guidelines which must be met before they take a case federally. 

Edited by AugusteDupin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Saticon3 said:

You're right, but you would not be in violation of the law, but police do react like that to any "man with a gun call" I've had a discussion many times with colleagues and such--  not only that but the carrying laws only apply to handguns, it is perfectly legal even in MD to tote a shot gun or rifle around in public, but if you do it, well you know the routine,  surrounded by cops, " get on the ground" and all that then when you say I was just carrying it and you are found to be up to no nefarious purpose they will sheepishly let you go after realizing you were not committing a crime-- oh, I have actually seen and totally illegal and improper arrest in such a case before, later released with no charges, but hopefully most know.  A colleague of mine once got into a debate as to even handguns-- you get the man with gun call someone got a glimpse of a gun tucked in someone's waist, but concealed-- what is the right of the police to swarm on him put him down, search him and all that- how do they know he doesn't have a permit? They can't stop you driving your car if you've committed no offense or have some other reasonable suspicion, I mean if someone calls and says "there's a man driving a car!" they can't do a felony stop to make sure you have a driver's license, so why can they do that to check if you have a handgun permit?

Oh tell me about it. About 5 - 10 years back, I was home early one afternoon from work and I hear a noise coming from my neighbors shed. I look out from my top floor window and there are two guys whom I have never seen rummaging around in the neighbors shed. So I get my .38 S&W and from the top floor....gun showing....I ask..... Ahhhhh what you guys doing? Talk about deer in headlights.

Well they say the owner said for them to come over and get these things. I say OK. Have him call me.

Ohhh he did.....and the cops.....didn't call me first to say Yah they are OK....called the cops first...they were at my door....then he calls me to harangue me for trying to protect his property. The cops were cool... as I explained the situation.

Needless to say....my ahhhhh neighbors house could be burning down and I wouldn't call 911.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AugusteDupin said:

Project Exile was initially started to remove violent gun offenders off of the streets. It started in Richmond in the late 90's. The thought was that if a person was caught with a gun and got arrested, they would immediately bypass state prosecution and go straight through a federal indictment. However, national state lib tards (like that clown Dorsey) decided that was "cruel and unusual" and decided to modify the way violent gun offenders were treated. Now, the Feds have implemented certain guidelines which must be met before they take a case federally. 

It was also shown as matt posted earlier that it's effectiveness came into question. But let's ignore that and blame liberals <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

It was also shown as matt posted earlier that it's effectiveness came into question. But let's ignore that and blame liberals <_<

Since your "quick search couldn't find anything on it", you should be the last person to be commenting the effectiveness of anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AugusteDupin said:

Since your "quick search couldn't find anything on it", you should be the last person to be commenting the effectiveness of anything. 

Matt's quick search validates my statement. Or are you invalidating his link because I didn't find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Matt's quick search validates my statement. Or are you invalidating his link because I didn't find it?

This isn't about Matt, this about you commenting on your presumption of what's being stated to which you yourself admit can't find anything on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AugusteDupin said:

This isn't about Matt, this about you commenting on your presumption of what's being stated to which you yourself admit can't find anything on. 

I commented on the fact that someone else who's not partisan found another reason other than liberals for the discontinuation of the policy. So answer the question. Does my not finding the link invalidate what he found? Or are you going to continue trolling and make it all about me and your obsession with me? I think I know the answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmore_ken said:

I commented on the fact that someone else who's not partisan found another reason other than liberals for the discontinuation of the policy. So answer the question. Does my not finding the link invalidate what he found? Or are you going to continue trolling and make it all about me and your obsession with me? I think I know the answer. 

Lol. You think I have an obsession with you? I bet you love the sound of your own voice, don't you? I love how you loosely throw the term "trolling" when someone calls you out on your BS. I never disagreed with Matt or the link he provided. Had I disagreed, my reply would have been to Matt. My post was directed at you and you alone. I'm commenting on your presumption of what was posted when you admit that you couldn't find anything on it. Like I've told you in other threads, don't comment on things you don't know about especially when you admit to not knowing anything because you can't "find anything on it". Making statements based on assumptions is not going to help you win a discussion or debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may appear that judges need to impose harsher penalties.  I am opposed to mandatory sentencing when it tie the hands of judges in situations where such a prescribed sentence is inappropriate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, microg said:

While it may appear that judges need to impose harsher penalties.  I am opposed to mandatory sentencing when it tie the hands of judges in situations where such a prescribed sentence is inappropriate. 

You're part of the problem. Using a gun in the commision of a crime should have a serious consequence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that strict sentencing disproportionately affects Black communities is a load of crap.

Each criminal case should stand or fall on its own (or lack of its own) merits.

Any contrary argument is nothing more than a "but...but...Hillary" remix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EL-FLIPPO said:

The argument that strict sentencing disproportionately affects Black communities is a load of crap.

Each criminal case should stand or fall on its own (or lack of its own) merits.

Any contrary argument is nothing more than a "but...but...Hillary" remix.

I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

So you've chosen to troll instead of answering the question. Big surprise <_<

I answered your question, you decided to put your tail between your legs. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AugusteDupin said:

Lol. You think I have an obsession with you? I bet you love the sound of your own voice, don't you? I love how you loosely throw the term "trolling" when someone calls you out on your BS. I never disagreed with Matt or the link he provided. Had I disagreed, my reply would have been to Matt. My post was directed at you and you alone. I'm commenting on your presumption of what was posted when you admit that you couldn't find anything on it. Like I've told you in other threads, don't comment on things you don't know about especially when you admit to not knowing anything because you can't "find anything on it". Making statements based on assumptions is not going to help you win a discussion or debate. 

WOW.....PEOPLE ACTUALLY 'WIN' DEBATES OR DISCUSSIONS HERE??????:lol:

Last I looked.... I hold the record for concessions and apologies with about 5.

Next nearest is Zero.

To paraphrase McArthur; Old threads are not won or lost......they simply fade away. :lol:

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

WOW.....PEOPLE ACTUALLY 'WIN' DEBATES OR DISCUSSIONS HERE??????:lol:

Last I looked.... I hold the record for concessions and apologies with about 5.

Next nearest is Zero.

To paraphrase McArthur; Old threads are not won or lost......they simply fade away. :lol:

Some folks on here are just lonely and want to be heard. Instead of engaging in open and mature dialogue, they want to come up with their own conclusions as to how they believe something should be. When they get called out on their allusions, they want to retreat and start name calling like they're back in elementary school. You're right though Guido2, I dont even know why I bother entertaining infantile and callow posters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AugusteDupin said:

Some folks on here are just lonely and want to be heard. Instead of engaging in open and mature dialogue, they want to come up with their own conclusions as to how they believe something should be. When they get called out on their allusions, they want to retreat and start name calling like they're back in elementary school. You're right though Guido2, I dont even know why I bother entertaining infantile and callow posters. 

Thanks for the reply. So it is not just me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Guido2 said:

Thanks for the reply. So it is not just me.

 

No, not at all. It's clearly evident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now