Liber logic is totally illogical

it's all true... factual... here's an excerpt:

 

If you read you post, you claimed that those that are arrested are a burden on the taxpayers. That same thing can be said about Prisons. Then you and Lee Atwater claimed that 70% of those in jails are not guilty of a crime. Of course the link that Atwater posted is a tainted liberal website. It claims that most of the not guilty are arrested for drug passion. It ignores that fact that drug passion is still illegal. They also seem to fail to notice that those having small amounts of drugs are ticked instead of being arrested. Those that are arrested have large quantities of drugs on them. They may not be charged with selling the drugs, but their amount is more then personal use. So, that liberal website in not very reliable.

Again, you have ignored my question. How does releasing criminals without bail, and illegals back on the street, makes the communities safer? If you can't answer that, then simply admit it.

Again, the same thing can be said about prisons. They are a burden on state and federal budgets. But you are missing an important part of the equation. Not all those release can not afford bail. After all, they only have to post 10% of the actual bail. The bail bondsman posts the rest. If they own property Home, car ect. They can use that as collateral. Those that can not afford the 10% of bail will have to remain in jail until their trial date. But if they did not want that, they should not have broken the law. As far as a burden on the taxpayers, I would ask what the burden on the citizens. Such as the 94 woman that was raped and killed. Or those that were killed on the shooting by an illegal that was released without bail. Or the man that robbed several banks, then was released without bail, and went back out and robbed another bank that same day. You don't think that these people did not cost the taxpayers. You think that the only burden is the cost of incarceration, but there is the cost of lives. Not to mention the cost of property damage, and the robberies. If you do not think that these cost taxpayers, then you prove my point. Liberals are illogical.

But you would allow criminals back on the street to murder, steal and prey on the very citizens that are the taxpayers. So again, how does releasing criminals and illegals make the communities safe? Either answer the question, or stop wasting my time.

 

You only think it is a crackpot claim because you can not answer the question. That is nothing but a pathetic response. If that is the best you can do, then why bother to respond. Answer the question, or begone!!!

 

Is that all local jails, or one particular jail. The graph proclaims itself the Prison Policy Initiative, but that graph shows only local jails. Not prisons. The ones that they call not convicted, have not had their day in court yet. Their incarceration is not indefinite. The question that I have of the graph is how many have been remanded by a judge because they pose a flight risk, or their crimes are so bad that they do not rate bail. You will notice on the graph above that 32% of those yet to be convicted are for violent crimes such are murder, rape, kidnapping and manslaughter. That is a total of 140,000, and to that 110,000 in property crimes that includes burglary, arson, grand larceny, car theft and stolen property. Another 113,000 for drug offenses. That includes trafficking, and possession. I know what you are going to say. Possession should not be a criminal offense. But, as I pointed out in another post, those that only have a small amount are only given tickets. So, those that are arrested have a larger amount. In other words, those that are incarcerated pending their trial deserve to be there. Just because a crime is non-violent does not mean that the criminal is not a flight risk, or does not pose a threat to the public.

Yet, like the rest of the liberals on this board, you have ignored my question. How does releasing criminals back onto the street make communities safer? Let's see if you can answer the question.

 

Where is that from? It reads like right-wing campaign material attacking Democrats.

 

email from a lifelong californian lawmaker...

if you want citations, look at california.gov to see what was passed last session...

 

No. Where is that clearly right-wing propaganda nonsense pulled from? It reads like something you might see on a Republican campaign website.

 

Have you had your head buried in the sand. New York has passed a law that does not allow judges to impose bail or remand for non-violent crimes. All the sanctuary cities/state does not allow the police to notify ICE when an illegal criminal is released from jail. This includes those that ICE has a detention warrant on. So, pay attention to the news. You might just learn that the left-wingers are not as logical as you might think. Not everything that makes liberals look bad is right-wing propaganda. Much of it is actually true. If you depend on the MSM, your not going to learn much. You should expand your sources. Include some independent media sources. I personally, read many liberal, conservative and independent websites. I know all sides to most arguments. I choose my stance for myself. I have noticed that a lot of what the liberals want us to believe is not explained how they came to their ideology. Much of their stances are designed to create division amongst the people. Divide and conqueror is the only way they can win.

This thread poses just one question that does not make sense. Such as how liberals can believe that taking guns from law abiding citizens will end gun violence. They believe that such laws will take guns from those that own them illegally. That just does not make any sense.

Murdering unborn babies while allowing murders to live. Expecting this country to allow anyone that wants to come in. The question is whether the US can support the entire population of the entire world. There are not many that does not want to come to the US, and the liberal's open borders would allow them all to come into the US. Each one wants to turn this country into what they left behind. Our country prides itself of merging immigrants customs into our lifestyle. This makes our country stronger. But we also have to weed out the unwanted customs. Such as Hispanics love of **** fighting. Their love of bull fighting. Many of them have no morals, and a belief that they have the right ignore any laws. Take a look at groups like MS-13, the Yakuza, the Chinese mafia, and the Muslim terrorists. These groups are already here. They are already breaking our laws.

I have been to 26 countries. Most are dominated by law abiding people. But they all have their unlawful citizens. Many of which would make you cringe to see what they do on a daily basis. You open the border, and it will not be only the good citizens that will come in. The criminal elements will come in also. Our immigration system is designed to weed out the criminal elements. Allowing open borders would undermine our immigration system, and allow criminals and terrorist in.

 

I guess there are no liberals that can answer the question. Strange that they will defend a policy that they can not explain. As I said, liberal logic is illogical. It is so illogical that they can not even explain it, but they will defend it because the DNC tells them to.

 

Well I’d challenge all Trumper’s to apply the formal principles of reasoning to any Trump speech.

Apparently sense is not common these days and yes, Philosophy (Logic) should be a mandatory course in high school.

 

Look I am a very old FDR Dem in values and beliefs which also means I am a pragmatist . If a tried solution fails you try something else and to hell with using ideology based solutions if they fail as many will do.

When this old liberal looks at the modern liberal and their ideas about some things what I see is this . There is a problem with illegal immigration yet the modern liberal sees no problem unless you want to control your immigration.

Most of the modern left's ideas are about social issues .You never hear them talk much about the plight of struggling working people. Unless they can bring race into it.

 

Liberals exist in a parallel (but opposite) universe where up is down, down is up, good is bad, and bad is good.

Criminals running loose is just one of a thousand examples of how conservatives and liberals see the same situation differently.

 

Oh oh oh. I know the answer to this one!!!!

The correct answer is you're full of hatred and fear the browning of America..

 

The first question appears to be about the inequity of our bail system.

So first it’s your opinion that those charged in our system are criminals pending trial. Evidently you haven’t read our constitution.

Two, only those of means should qualify to be released pending trial. Some not all of the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ should be incarcerated until trial. Is this the equal justice we proclaim?

It’s a simple argument, is our bail system living up to our standards? If not, we should do something to correct the issue. Any ideas?

So to compound the issue from your POV we should determine what ‘criminals’ are released into the community by the size of their wallet because that makes us safer. Alrighty then.

A philosophy textbook (try googling ‘introduction to logic’) might help you out.

 

First off - someone who needs to post bail is not necessarily a criminal as they have yet to be convicted of a crime.

Second - when you tell me how Utilitarianism is valid justification for law - I will tell you how bail reform makes communities safer.

Utilitarianism looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective" - and has no regard for individual liberty.
Examples of such justification would be "if it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" - such as your argument.

The question to you is then - Is "if it saves one life" valid justification for law ?

 

The question was how the policy makes our communities safer. Again you, like all the liberals that have chimed in, have tried to change the question to something not stated.

Please, tell which SCOTUS ruling claimed that bail is Unconstitutional.

Have you researched the average bails, and the determining factors for bail? If not, here is a website that can provide you this information:

https://bailbondsnetwork.com/bail-amounts-how-much.html#9

As you will see, the greatest fines are given to those that pose the greatest risks to the community, or pose a flight risk. Many of the those that are being let go, would only have to post bail in the small amounts. If a suspect receives a bail of $500, they only have to post $50 of their own money. $1,000 requires $100. $2,500 requires mere $250. Even a $10,000 bail only requires a posting of $1,000. If the suspect is not a career criminal, I would bet a family member could post those amounts.

I have a son that is a career criminal. He might not think so, but there is no other description for him. He was arrested in the progress of sexually assaulting a underage girl. The girl's father stopped that assault, and my son took off. When the police caught him, he had an illegally obtained gun on him. Surprisingly the bail was only $500. He did not have the money to post bail, and we would not post it for him. His boss would also not post the bail. So, my son deservingly had to remain in jail until his trial date. It was just 20 days. He had one of those liberal activist judges. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail, and 2 years probation. This was in Tennessee. After he was released, he took off for California. He was caught and returned to the state. The same judge again gave him 6 months in jail, and another year of probation, but this time with an ankle monitor. He then took a trip to Michigan. Yes, his probation officer approved the trip. Upon arrival in Michigan, he cut off his ankle monitor and took off again. Just over a year later, he returned to Tennessee, and was arrested on a petty theft charge. The same judge gave him another year in prison, and then released him without bail. He was in Ohio, and got involved in a bar fight. The responding officer did an ID check on him, and learned that he was supposed to be registered as a sex offender. They told him that they would not arrest him, but they wanted him to report to the police station in the morning to get registered. Instead, he tried to flee across the border with Wisconsin. They caught him, and again he had an illegally obtained firearm. Now he is waiting trial again. Because it will be more then a year before his trial, we did attempt to bail him out. All it would have cost us is $100 (his bail was set a $1000). But given his history, no bail bondsman would post the bond. My son thinks it is totally unfair that he can not be bailed out, but his incarceration is the result of his own actions.

Or bail system is designed to protect our community, and to ensure suspects return for trial. If they are acquitted, then the money posted for bail, is returned to them. So, there is not inequality. I have yet to see any proof that 70% of those supposedly held without bail actually could not afford to post bail. What percentage of those that are remanded without bail?

Can you recommend a site that explains the liberal policy of avoidance? You know, where liberals avoid answering a question by pretending that the question is about something that is not stated.

 

You posted the question, and then change it with a claim that it is about "Utilitarianism". The question is not about the validity of the bail system. It is about the claim by liberals. such as Mayor Blasio and Governor Newsome, that the releasing of criminals makes our community safer.

As far as Utilitarianism is concerned, the ideology that the safety of the community at large is a lesser concern then a right of a suspect to go free. The bail system does not assume guilt or innocence. It merely ensures the suspected gets their day in court to establish their innocence or guilt. You see, without some incentive to show up, many will just miss (ignore) their court dates. There will be many that you claim has no means suddenly find the means to relocate to another state, and new fake identity. I know that liberals do not concern themselves with justice for the victims, but you do not need to create a system that insures that there will be none.

Now, let's see if you can answer the question that was actually asked.

 

You misunderstood something - the Utilitarianism comment had nothing to do with a question I posted. It had to do with your comments.

Your justification for law (in this case, law with respect to bail) - is that keeping this law it will make our community safer
or repealing would make the community less safe.

The above is a Utilitarian justification for law. Now that you know what you are arguing .. we can proceed.

I hope this answers the question you never asked.

 

You did not quote a comment. You quoted my question. Then instead of answering the question, you take off at a tangent. My question is how does releasing criminals, and illegal criminals, back into our communities make them more safe? You and your fellow liberals have not offered a single hint of an idea that explains that concept. Instead you want to debate the justification of the bail system, and whine about criminals that can not afford their bail.

The duty of every government is to protect their communities. The concept of that the government is being Utilitarian because they are requiring bail is...well...idiotic. Yes the safety of the community does make the majority happier, but it is still the responsibility of the government. We have already seen that criminals released without bail does go out and commits more crimes. Illegals that are released into the communities do go out and commit more crimes. So, how does this make the communities safer?

Please, limit your response to the question asked. If you want to debate the justification of the bail system, then start your own thread. That is not the purpose of this one.

 

I am no liberal and you are lost and confused.

1) I answered this question previously - someone who has not been convicted is not a criminal - so your question contains a fallacy.
2) You are trying to justify law on the basis of "making the community more safe"
3) you then go into name calling and gibberish speak - explain what concept ? Did you need me to further explain to you why claiming someone who has not been convicted of a crime should not be classified as a criminal ?

4) Of course I want to debate the justification for the bail system - that is what this debate is about - one that you brought up by trying to justify the bail system on the basis of "making the community more safe"

You are lost and confused - and then you double down on this confusion.

You obviously have not clue what Utilitarianism is - and do not understand the founding principles.

Making law on the basis of "making communities safe" is Utilitarian Justification for law - By Definition. What is idiotic is claiming that this is not Utilitarian justification for law.

Utilitarianism is a justification for law that looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective" or "what will make the collective more safe - reduce harm" - and this is exactly what you are arguing.

You get one thing correct - that protection from harm is the duty of Gov't. More specifically - the legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from direct harm - one person on another.

It is also the duty of Gov't to protect individual liberty. Utilitarian justification completely ignores this side of the equation - just as you have done.

The problem is that this justification for law allows for an end run around the founding principles by focusing only on "the collective" while ignoring rights of the individual.

It is one thing to make a bad argument - it is another to not understand what it is you are arguing.

 

I guess you'll have to ask Bill Barr and Mitch McConnell why they released our criminal President* without demanding bail.

I have no idea what "illegal criminals" are but sounds bad. You'd have to post a link of somebody wanting to do that or I can't comment. Only criminal anybody wanted released was the aforementioned.

 

If you walk like a duck, or talks like a duck. You are probably a duck.

1. No you didn't. You keep trying to justify bail reform, but that is not what I am asking. I want to see liberals justify the statement that releasing criminals without bail makes the communities safer.

"Any reform that means locking fewer people up inevitably inspires a punitive backlash and concerns about public safety. But the bail reform law may actually make New York safer."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/new-york-bail-reform.html

“California communities have to be made safe,” Allen said, “It makes absolutely no sense to shelter people who are in our state illegally and committing crimes with taxpayer dollars.”
https://www.breitbart.com/local/201...y-be-priority-when-im-governor-of-california/
You are lost and confused - and then you double down on this confusion.

2. I am not justifying anything. I am asking Liberals to justify these systems. I am not asking you, or liberals to justify bail reform. Only how the cities/states safer by bail reform of releasing illegals that have committed crimes.

3. With bail reform, how do you ensure that suspects will show up for trials, or not flee the state? How can you justify those that have been released without bail that have gone on to commit more crimes?

https://defconnews.com/2020/01/20/man-robs-four-banks-is-caught-and-released-robs-two-more/
https://www.illegalaliencrimereport...-went-on-deadly-shooting-spree-in-california/

There are many more stories like these.

4. You seem to be confused. I have many times said that I am not asking you and liberals to justify bail reform. I am only asking how can bail reform make cities safer. You insist on changing the subject. Further, I am the one that started this thread. So, I am the one that determines what this topic is about. If you can not answer the question, then why bother posting. You also conviently ignore the second question. Sanctuary cities/states are releasing illegal that have been convicted of a crime. The laws prohibits law enforcement from notifying ICE of the release of these criminals. Even for those that have ICE detention warrants. Federal law requires criminals that has been convicted a crime to be deported. Yet, sanctuary cities/states ignore the federal law. Governors Brown and Newsom have claimed that this policy makes the state safer.

Go back and read my response to your Utilitarian claim. I specifically stated that a Utilitarian claim is about making the community at large happier. I do not buy into the whole tyranny of the majority. This country is based on majority rule. The majority is the one that makes laws, and the sets moral ideology. I do admit that there are times that the majority is wrong in some cases. These ideologies usually are changed over time. Same sex marriages is one example where the majority was wrong, but it has been changed by the majority.

The rights of the community to be safer, and to ensure that suspects return for their trials or flee the states. I have to ask, what about the rights of the victims? You realize that releasing suspects are free to intimidate witnesses, or commit more crimes. Such as the released illegal that raped a 94 year old after being released without bail. The illegal in Washington state that had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman. Then after being released without bail went back and tried to assault the same woman again. Or the illegal in San Francisco that was released from prison without being deported. He went to the San Francisco pier where someone had left a gun under a bench. He then took the gun, and randomly shot and killed a young woman that was walking with her father. Again, there are many more of these type of events.

"It is one thing to make a bad argument - it is another to not understand what it is you are arguing. [/QUOTE]

Again, I am not arguing anything. I am asking a questing.

 

I am sorry. I thought that you could understand a term that has been used to explain people that are in this country illegally and have committed crimes. Have you had your head buried in the sand? Here is a link that explains the sanctuary policy of releasing criminals that have ICE detention warrants without notifying ICE.

https://onenewsnow.com/politics-gov...ls-released-by-sanctuary-cities-repeat-crimes

 

You are projecting your flaws on to others. You are the one who has no respect for individual liberty and wants to use utilitarian arguments as justification for law. Liberals love utilitarian justification for law - which makes you a duck.

I have done no such thing - I simply pointed out the flaw in your justification for maintaining the current law - is a utilitarian justification for law.

The onus is on the party wanting to make the law to justify that law. "keep communities safer" justification is utilitarian.

You are the one who is confused - It is you that needs to justify maintaining the current law - and you want to do so on the basis "keeping cities safer" which is a utilitarian justification.

Asking silly questions does not change the fact that you are making a Utilitarian justification for law.

 

Thats false. Deporting illegals increases opportunity for actual American citizens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/u-s-unemployment-rate-falls-50-year-low/