Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged crime

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Melissa Diaz-Aguilera

Juvenile Justice: Too young for Life in Prison? - 10 views

abcnews.go.com/...story

Politics News Juvenile Prison

shared by Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    I feel like you should be able to charge juveniles as adults. I think it would be absurd to just let kids away with committing crimes, especially the one this kid did. If an adult did something like this no one would even think twice about arresting them, why is it different in this case? I think that he needs to be put behind bars and he needs some sort of counseling because obviously something is not right with him. It might also help to know what kind of background the kid has, to see why he did it. There has to be a reason.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 30 Nov 12
     
    If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.
  • jacob whalen on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.
  • garrett lee on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it
  • jessicavaldez on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.
  • KImberlee Keller on 03 Dec 12
     
    I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.
  • mandyvorthmann on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.
  • Melissa Christensen on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.
  • joecarbis on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 04 Dec 12
     
    Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.
  • gabby valdez on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.
  • bvasquez13 on 04 Dec 12
     
    they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.
  • gharvey949 on 04 Dec 12
     
    I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.
  • jordan bywater on 04 Dec 12
     
    i say same charge for everyone no matter what
  • Emili Davis on 04 Dec 12
     
    if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.
  • Lydia Navarrette on 04 Dec 12
     
    if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age
  • Sidnie Lewis on 05 Dec 12
     
    I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 12
     
    Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.
  • Jared Holcomb on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.
  • blakewilladsen on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability
  • KImberlee Keller on 05 Dec 12
     
    You both make a good point, but when a kid gets charged with a felony, he obviously has done wrong. Sometimes you do bad things, but its not as bad compared to other things. Though when you get older, you can continue to do bad things, and the bad things can turn into crimes, etc. Sometimes charging teens as adults is the way to go, even if it doesn't seem fare. Maybe not fore life, but two years, or even one, wont do any harm.
  • Hyejin Park on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think if someone did crime, they should be punished no matter their age. so make them realize how bad it is.
Bryan Pregon

Nebraska outlaws the death penalty - CNNPolitics.com - 17 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15
     
    "Six states have abolished capital punishment since 2007 -- Nebraska is now the seventh."
  • ...17 more comments...
  • denniseram on 08 Sep 15
     
    I think it was a good idea to outlaw the death penalty, personally because I don't think that you should take someones life in punishment of someone else's. "An eye for an eye." There's always another way to deal with this, not greet it with death. If anything, I'd sentence him to jail for most of his life or his whole life in that matter. But the Government itself can also make a mistake and accuse the innocent of murder and then give them death as a punishment. They'd be in the wrong. Death is more drastic to me then spending a few years in jail, (thinking about it in a family way).
  • seanveazie on 08 Sep 15
     
    Keeping someone in jail for their whole life takes millions of dollars paid from the tax payers. If their crime was drastic enough then I am fully in support of the death penalty. Jail is basically a long term time out chamber for people to get clean and think about what they did. If you have already murdered, or raped, or abused someone a thirty year wag of the finger is not going to change their behavior.
  • tiaross on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty. Let's say there's a serial killer and he's already murdered a good amount of people. Would you really want that person to go on living his or her life after all the pain he caused for all of those families? I know I wouldn't.
  • amcintosh485 on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty because if someone has already done a good amount of harm to others and they have died because of it then the person who committed the crime deserves the same. Keeping them in prison is just a waste of money and giving them to much time. They deserve nothing less and being in prison isn't going to change their behavior.
  • bharold850 on 08 Sep 15
     
    As a very liberal person myself, and the death penalty is a conservative policy for crime, I am happy to see a state so close to home abolish this penalty. We have prisons and judges and laws for a reason that will punish those who do bad things. What are we accomplishing by killing someone publicly for killing others?
  • allisonwolff on 08 Sep 15
     
    I belive the death penalty is okay becasue you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get the death penalty and really in that case you almost kind of deserve it because of the pain you caused to multiple people.
  • kaylawalden on 08 Sep 15
     
    The death penalty is a tricky subject to talk about, most people are strictly for the death penalty, or strongly against it. However, in my opinion, I believe that everything has a consequence to a set of actions. Is it necessary to kill somebody though? I think everyone deserves a second chance especially if they know they are in the wrong and trying to change their lives around. The type of crime the person committed is the key. Let's say a person committed murder, would you say "an eye for an eye?" and kill them too through the death penalty? If you were to do this, aren't you doing the same thing that they committed? Overall, I think it was wise that Nebraska outlawed the death penalty.
  • gillyhyde on 08 Sep 15
     
    I don't believe in the death penalty, because by killing someone who killed someone else it's hypocritical. I think it's wrong to kill anyone, even if they killed someone else. The death penalty also put innocent lives at risk, someone could have been framed for the murder. The death penalty also costs a lot of money, people think that it's okay because they think that it saves the government from spending money but we are still spending a lot. There are a lot better ways to avoid the death penalty, and there a lot of mentally ill patients killed by the death penalty.
  • sophiataylor001 on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe that outlawing the death penalty is the right thing to do because you shouldn't fight fire with fire. It is wrong to show that killing, or any other act of the sort, is wrong by doing the same thing. It is also a good thing because there have been wrong accusations in the past, and the death penalty cannot be undone. If you argue for a just prosecution, they can live with the guilt of their crime in prison. If they felt no remorse then the person should get pyschiatric help to correct the situation. There is also data that says the death penality costs more than housing the prisoner because of the long appeal process.
  • katiepetersen005 on 08 Sep 15
     
    Spending jail time is to help you become a better person because you did something bad. Killing someone does not help them become better as a person.
  • kdamgaard on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty, if someone has committed a big enough crime.I don't think it should be outlawed becuase If someone has tortured and/or murdered multiple people than they should.
  • ryanlegg on 09 Sep 15
     
    Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious
  • Julia Gibler on 09 Sep 15
     
    I think it is good that states are starting to outlaw the death penalty. If someone kills someone why does it make it right for them to be killed even if its by the government. Today we see punishments like the electric chair as barbaric and years from now people will say the same thing about the death penalty.
  • austindueling1 on 11 Sep 15
     
    I think we should keep the death penalty why should we have people murder other people and live in prison the rest of their lives we should show them what the did to people i mean the deserve so i think we should keep the death penalty
  • jacobdizona on 11 Sep 15
     
    We should keep the death penalty because if you take a persons life or multiple peoples lives then yes the state should take yours. Only if it was on purpose, because you get in a car crash and kill someone from the impact that shouldn't really count because it wasn't intended. Also if someone gets life in prison they get everything pretty much handed to them and they don't to pay for it. For example Nikko Jenkins killed multiple people on multiple occasions and no justice happened for the family's who had to deal with the loss of a loved one because hes just going to prison for life.
  • casandrabristow on 11 Sep 15
     
    I think the death penalty is okay to have in every state. If you are willing to murder a person then you should be murdered yourself. The crime they commit should be used in the same way against them.
  • ryanlegg on 14 Sep 15
     
    but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.
  • chris563 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think its okay if the person that going into it haves killed like 40 people and they in joy doing it but if you just kill some one on accident then its not right just to give them the death penalty, instead they should just be locked up.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Bumped for discussion on Political Ideology.
ataylor074

Virginia move to abolish death penalty part of broader wave of change - CSMonitor.com - 27 views

www.csmonitor.com/...nalty.-What-s-behind-the-shift

shared by ataylor074 on 15 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • ataylor074 on 15 Mar 21
     
    Do you guys think the death penalty should still be around?
  • ...23 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 15 Mar 21
     
    It's hard to say because it's not right to take someone's life. I'm sure morality is a big part of why they're taking the death penalty away in Virginia. However, I've watch a lot of true crime shows to know that there are evil people in this world. Serial killers kill for fun and have no compassion for victims. It gets to the point where one wonders if they deserve their life because they've caused so much destruction. So, I guess, there's too many factors for me to have a set opinion.
  • tsilva588 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I do think that the death penalty still has its uses. Though it is still flawed the most recent method of lethal injection is still done incorrectly so I believe that once we find the most reasonable way it should be in play.
  • kredding147 on 15 Mar 21
     
    There are so many different factors that go into whether the death penalty is appropriate or not. Part of me thinks that if you do something horrible enough it's fair for people to want to take your life in exchange for what was taken from them. But part of me says that it's the coward's way out, that rotting in jail for the rest of their life is better than being able to just die and get away from it. You look back on cases like that of Jeffrey Dahmer and think "wow, why didn't he get the death penalty?", but he was beaten to death by fellow inmates later on in his sentence, so either way he was going to die. You look back at Ted Bundy and the horrific murders that he committed and you're glad he got the death penalty, right? A life for a life, it seems fair. There are just so many things that go into it and it's so personal and complicated for everyone.
  • nick_rice on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think that if somebody did something where they truly do deserve the death penalty then it should stick around for those terrible people who only harm society.
  • allisonwalker on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty shouldn't be a thing anymore. Even this woman who lost her father at a young age doesn't want her father's killer to receive the death penalty. She wants justice, however not in the form of the death penalty. It should no longer exist anyway, it's cruel and people should have to pay for their crimes.
  • peytongrenoble on 15 Mar 21
     
    I agree yet disagree with the death penalty. First, I would say that it would give certain families who are for it justice for loved ones that were lost or hurt. Second, I would say that it would prevent future crimes from occurring if that person only had received a life sentence. On the other hand, I would say it is an "easy out" and certain families could be against it for that reason. Additionally, if that person was wrongfully killed, that would be completely on the court system and no justice would be served, it would be a longer, more "drug-out" process.
  • samhovey on 15 Mar 21
     
    I agree with Allison. The killing of a perpetrator is not justice. The death penalty is outdated and should be abolished.
  • aidan093 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty should still be a thing but I think that they need to change what crimes fit the death penalty.
  • eballenger on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty should remain however I think it should only be if you killed another person on purpose or multiple people.
  • bklopp601 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think it shouldn't be abolished because there are still many criminals out there that have done several bad things and but I also think that the death penalty should change the crimes it's in.
  • sydneykolln on 17 Mar 21
     
    I understand that there are bad people in the world and that the death penalty is sometimes used on those people. However, I believe that the death penalty is not morally right. The methods that are used can be flawed and not always go right. In the end, it's difficult to pick sides because I can see both reasons as to why it should or should not be used.
  • milo_nordman on 17 Mar 21
     
    I agree with Sydney, I don't think the death penalty is morally right. Even though there are awful people in the world, killing them doesn't bring justice to the people they've hurt.
  • saraivargas on 22 Mar 21
     
    The death penalty I feel is an oxymoron on its own. How are you going to prevent killing by killing? It makes no sense. I feel if the crime was super severe, maybe the family of the family could come up with a punishment. I just don't think it should be allowed, especially if it is for a petty crime. We are the only developed nation in the world that still has the death penalty.
  • vperez191 on 22 Mar 21
     
    They should punish the people that do bad things instead of giving them the death penalty because death is not scary
  • zeaksorensen on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that the death penalty is a sort of necessity. If we don't have it, then murders and serial killers will be able to live, even though they contribute nothing to society.
  • arosas733 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that if someone committed a terrible crime such as murder or rape, the death penalty is reasonable. How can you let someone of that nature still live? I personally believe it would be giving them what they deserve, prevent it from happening again from that same person, and save jails money rather than basically giving them free food and shelter. Of course with major restrictions on why someone should get it, but I think it should most definitely still be around.
  • abbidominguez on 30 Mar 21
     
    I have mixed emotions about the death penalty. I know some families would consider the death penalty justice for those who have lost loved ones due to a murder or something of that sort. I also believe life in prison can have more of an effect on the person who committed the crime and they would have to think about what they did for the rest of their life knowing they will no longer have freedom. I don't really have a definite stance on the subject.
  • mcaamal on 30 Mar 21
     
    I dont agree with the death penalty. I dont think that they should have the power to take someones life away. And in some cases people used be given death penalty for things that they did not even do. I think that a life in prison is would be better because the wont be free they wont have a life anymore and they will die there. and in my opinion that is a good punishment.
  • lhunter952 on 12 Apr 21
     
    I think the death penalty should still be around. There are some extremely disgusting or disturbing things that people could do that deserve death. The only problem is that they need to be 100% sure the person is guilty so they don't kill someone for no reason.
  • samhovey on 12 Apr 21
     
    I believe that the accused should be able to decide between life in prison or death in these situations.
  • joeypo10 on 12 Apr 21
     
    I think the death penalty should still be around. Personally if I had one of my family members killed I would want the killer to have to suffer for life in prison rather than not having to face their consequences. The death penalty is just way of reassurance to make sure they wont do anything bad again.
  • tsilva588 on 12 Apr 21
     
    I believe that the death penalty has its uses in certain situations like on terrorists or mass killers. It's simple they killed many and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again and that's the cruel but necessary action. If someone that I cared about was gone because of someone id want my peace.
  • eballenger on 12 Apr 21
     
    I think they should have kept it for certain times where it was the best course of action.
  • samhovey on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that the accused should be able to choose between life in prison or the death penalty.
  • vperez191 on 19 Apr 21
     
    they should not have the death penalty anymore. If someone does something really bad, they should get life in prison because they will forever suffer.
Natalie Wilson

Victim's son: 'They ran him over because he was black' - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Natalie Wilson on 18 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • patrick boian on 23 Jan 13
     
    he turned the wheel to hit him so he ment to injure him so it was a hate crime
  • ...15 more comments...
  • mdollen288 on 24 Jan 13
     
    In the south it seems like, there are people who will threaten you if you say it's a hate crime when it was a supposed 'Accident'
  • Melissa Christensen on 24 Jan 13
     
    This story seems to belittle the idea of equality and shows that racism will continue and equality might never happen. Really sad
  • garrett lee on 25 Jan 13
     
    what is the world coming to
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 04 Feb 13
     
    I don't think this man was ran over because of his race. The article clearly states that the teens were under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. I think that the driver did not care what race the man was, he was going to be hit either way.
  • nelsontad on 06 Mar 13
     
    He might have been under the influence but he did say he turned the wheel on him so it would be consider he did it on purpose
  • Ericka Davis on 06 Mar 13
     
    This is so horrible!! They do it for entertainment and its just wrong. Some people need serious help and put in an institution..
  • Tori Caddell on 06 Mar 13
     
    Racism is not a joke, and for everyone living in a "free" country, I don't believe anyone really feels that way.
  • Carlos Villarreal on 06 Mar 13
     
    Who in there right mind would run over a person no matter what race he or she is?! Even though they were under the influence the driver still purposely hit the man.
  • courtney wilson on 06 Mar 13
     
    that just racist!!!! some people need serious help or be locked up in an insitution or something!!!!!
  • Morgan Ronfeldt on 06 Mar 13
     
    Personally, I don't think that racism has to do with this. I think that the person driving was the only one that can be held accountable for the crime, but they all should be held accountable for not doing something about it. I also don't feel it was necessarily a hate crime either. I feel that the driver just wanted to hit that person, no reason behind why. I think that they tried to make it seem like a racist hate crime to make the story more interesting or something. And if it truly was a hate crime, then that is a shame. I guess some people may not ever be able to accept others.
  • Amanda Ringberg on 06 Mar 13
     
    I don't understand why people would do something like that to and innocent person. makes my sick when people get the sick thought in their mind to do something like that.
  • Chris Lavy on 06 Mar 13
     
    I think this is absolutely terrible what those people did, and it's sad that people think because you're that race, and I'm this race, that I'm better than you just for that reason.
  • cbonar311 on 06 Mar 13
     
    That is really cruel and racism is not right
  • Ericka Davis on 08 Mar 13
     
    They didnt do it just for the fun of it. They run BLACK people over to keep themselves entertained. They said it plain and simple and admitted to it. Its just wrong on a whole nother level. I dont even understand what goes through some individuals minds and i dont think i want to understand.
  • Jamie Cash on 15 Mar 13
     
    The police are obviously not doing their jobs correctly. A black man was killed 3 years before this happened and they did nothing about that either. The FBI should step in and take these cases over, because these cops are hiding something. Even the mother said two of the kids were racist.
  • joshpowell on 15 Mar 13
     
    It's good to see that the teen is being charged with murder, but he should also be charged for the murder being a hate crime. And I'll never know why people can hate someone for the color of their skin.
  • Austin Parrott on 20 Mar 13
     
    it was a hate crime and an intention to hit the guy
brandonprice94

Decriminalization of Marijuana Drops Youth Crime Rates by a Stunning 20% in One Year - 2 views

sandiegofreepress.org/...tes-by-stunning-20-in-one-year

Government Politics News Marijuana Crime Rates

shared by brandonprice94 on 03 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Melissa Christensen on 04 Dec 12
     
    The idea of this is astounding. Decriminalization of marijuana dropped a large number of crimes even if in a small amount adds up. "Violent crime arrests fell by 16 percent; homicide arrests by 26 percent; rape arrests by 10 percent; and property-crime arrests by 16 percent. Nationwide, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, arrests of juveniles for all offenses decreased 11.1 percent in 2011 when compared with the 2010 number; arrests of adults declined 3.6 percent"-from the article
  • trentrisner on 05 Dec 12
     
    its still a wonder why the government says its still bad. there is over 2,500 uses for it. hemp clothes are more fire resistant than cotten
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

www.wowt.com/...e-Death-Penalty-182678981.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • joecarbis on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  • Natalie Wilson on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.
  • caseyyard on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  • garrett lee on 10 Dec 12
     
    i think we should have the death penalty
  • gharvey949 on 10 Dec 12
     
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  • Ryan Loye on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 10 Dec 12
     
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  • Molly Wyant on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  • blakewilladsen on 10 Dec 12
     
    It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population
  • jessicavaldez on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.
  • Melissa Christensen on 10 Dec 12
     
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  • aaron valdivia on 10 Dec 12
     
    Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Dec 12
     
    I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • joecarbis on 11 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  • Dylan Garner on 11 Dec 12
     
    Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.
  • bvasquez13 on 11 Dec 12
     
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  • gharvey949 on 11 Dec 12
     
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  • aaron valdivia on 11 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.
  • blakewilladsen on 11 Dec 12
     
    For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • jacob whalen on 12 Dec 12
     
    It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.
  • joecarbis on 13 Dec 12
     
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  • Dylan Garner on 13 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.
  • dalton burk on 13 Dec 12
     
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Dec 12
     
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    I am prison
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.
  • Dylan Garner on 18 Dec 12
     
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  • Emili Davis on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  • joecarbis on 19 Dec 12
     
    @Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  • Molly Wyant on 19 Dec 12
     
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
Madison Clark

Girl "Raped" at After Game Parties.. Should Boys be Charged? - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Madison Clark on 14 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Madison Clark on 14 Mar 13
     
    The eye witness admitted to sharing a bottle of vodka with the girl. If she allowed herself to get so sloppy drunk, especially at the age of 16, then how are people suppose to feel bad for her? I mean i'm not saying that getting "raped" is ever okay but I'm sure the boys were impaired as well and neither parties really knew what was going on. Another thing I would like to point out is, how does this girl just happen to show up at MULTIPLE parties with these guys?
  • ...13 more comments...
  • Kayla Beck on 14 Mar 13
     
    To me, the boys definitely should have to face the consequences of their actions, for taking advantage of a girl the way they did, but she had every intention to go to that party to drink. How do you not expect to be taken advantage of at a party when you're a drunk teenage girl? Going to the party in the first place was irresponsible and not safe on her part, because anyone will take advantage of a girl too drunk to say no. Her "friend" should have made sure she did not go to the house with those two boys anyway.
  • jalitz336 on 14 Mar 13
     
    The guys who did that should be charged, maybe 90 + but the girls "victim" should also be charged for drinking under age. The person who gave her the vodka should be charged for distributing to minors
  • cbonar311 on 14 Mar 13
     
    Those two guys should have to serve time in prison, rape is a serious crime. They were super cruel!!!
  • Alex Barrett on 15 Mar 13
     
    To me it seems like she is saying she was raped to help her image. She might not of wanted to do what she did when she was sober, but since she was drunk her mindset could have changed completely
  • madacyn on 15 Mar 13
     
    I think all three of them should be punished. They were all drinking way too much and did it to themselves. Although I do think the boys should be in more trouble than the girl because rape is worse than drinking.
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 13
     
    I feel that this case is a good reminder that there are "natural consequences" for our behavior. These are separate from the legal consequences that so many people argue over. I think that anyone should expect bad things to happen when they put themselves in these situations, but that doesn't mean they "deserve it". In my eyes the legal consequences are clear; anytime you have sex with a person who doesn't know what's happening, you are committing rape. Period.
  • jalitz336 on 15 Mar 13
     
    It was her fault that she was drinking, and if it was a "rape" at a party. Someone would have heard or saw i think she just did something she regretted and now shes saying that she got raped.
  • Nina Crochet on 15 Mar 13
     
    I think that it was partially her fault for putting herself in that situation, but if she shared a bottle of vodka and was that so drunk, than how does she actually know if she was raped? Plus she showed up at other parties with these boys when they all knew what would happen at each party when they drank. This is why there is an age limit to drinking, and minors should not drink.
  • Meghan Manifold on 18 Mar 13
  • jalitz336 on 19 Mar 13
     
    Multiple people should be charged for different crimes
  • melissamartinez on 20 Mar 13
     
    They should be punished. But the girl should also receive a punishment for she was drinking underage and she should have been conscious of how much she drank. None of them should really be considered "victims" in my opinion
  • courtney wilson on 20 Mar 13
     
    well my opinion is that the boy shouldnt be the only charged with a crime. Multiple people should be charged for different crimes.
  • amandacombs on 20 Mar 13
     
    Okay, here's my perspective on this. The girl obviously decided to party with them at multiple parties with them multiple times. if she chose to drink that much alcohol and get drunk to where she didn't know what was going on, then that's her own fault. But they boys also should not have taken advantage of the girl. But her choice had bad consequences.
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 13
     
    Even more people may end up being charged with this crime: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/03/18/steubenville-rape-investigation-isnt-finished
  • Tori Caddell on 22 Mar 13
     
    If the girl has party with the boys before, and probably then, got stupid drunk, then what would urge the oys to "take advantage" of her this time, as opposed to all the other times? It does not make sense. Plus, she is only sixteen, so it is more her fault that she even allowed herself to go to parties, knowing everything that could, or may happen.
natefisher

Trump Vows to Remove Millions Living in Country Illegally - 9 views

www.thenews.mx/...ns-living-in-country-illegally

shared by natefisher on 01 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • natefisher on 01 Sep 16
     
    PHOENIX - Seeking to end confusion over his aggressive but recently muddled language on immigration, Donald Trump vowed Wednesday to remove millions of people living in the country illegally if he becomes president, warning that failure to do so would jeopardize the "well-being of the American people."
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Tanner Morriss on 01 Sep 16
     
    I feel like Trump is like a cyber bully in the fact that when he isn't face to face with Nieto he will say whatever he wants. But when confronted he is mild mannered, unlike when he is on TV giving speeches.
  • emilbrath on 05 Sep 16
     
    What if foreigners need a place to stay, he can't just kick them out and accept no immigration, and avoid the question, "What about those who haven't committed crimes?" Well maybe if some foreigners have committed crimes, but not all of the crimes were that bad, and what if the immigrants are desperate, or need something, or again, a place.
  • william bach on 07 Sep 16
     
    Trump wants to remove millions of illegals, but like the passage says what would he do with the ones the haven't committed a crime? The ones that have done crime should be removed, but the ones that haven't should continue living here.
  • cvanhessche237 on 13 Sep 16
     
    Trump said in his own words that when he becomes president he wants to exile the millions of illegal immigrants from the US and that if this succeeds he would change the world completely. Any illegal immigrants that are arrested will be deported as well.
  • ravynanderson on 13 Sep 16
     
    Trump said "We agreed on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns and people across our border and to put the cartels out of business," not all Hispanics bring drugs, cash, and guns across the border. Some come to America to get away from their country because we have more freedom. Kicking all of them out just doesn't seem fair. Also making Mexico pay for the wall isn't fair either. If America wants the wall then they should pay for it. When you go shopping and you want a shirt you don't make your friend or the cashier pay for it.
  • kaylynnsmith on 13 Sep 16
     
    "We agreed on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns and people across our border and to put the cartels out of business," (Trump). He acts and speaks as if every single foreigner brings trouble when they come, and he's wrong. Yes, there are those that cause trouble with guns, drugs, and money- but not every single one of them. He wants to deport all of foreigners who have "overstayed" their visa, even if they have caused no trouble or harm whatsoever.
mya_doty

90-year-old Florida man charged for feeding homeless people - 28 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by mya_doty on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • mya_doty on 05 Nov 14
     
    (CNN) -- Arnold Abbott handed out four plates of food to homeless people in a South Florida park. Then police stopped the 90-year-old from serving up another bite. "An officer said, 'Drop that plate right now -- like I had a weapon,'" Abbott said.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • efigueroa871 on 05 Nov 14
     
    Whats wrong with that.
  • michaelaheilesen on 10 Nov 14
     
    I think that's awful and definitely shouldn't be against the law. Providing the homeless with a meal doesn't necessarily keep them on the street, rather them starving and not having any energy to even try to turn their lives around is.
  • jchristensen043 on 10 Nov 14
     
    Instead of it be against the law, they should be encouraging more people to feed them. If we just let them sit there and starve they will die, I would rather have homeless people living, then a bunch of dead bodies laying around the city. Maybe all they need to get the motivation to get up and get a job, is by other people showing that care about them, and want them to live a healthy a life.
  • amcclain946 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How could the government of Fort Lauderdale be so ignorant and selfish? Granted, some people are homeless because they've made bad decisions to get to that point but some are homeless because they honestly can't help it. Who knows? But I think it should be okay for people to feed the homeless. It should be comforting knowing that people have caring hearts and are willing to give the less-unfortunate people food. I hope the banning of giving food to the homeless never becomes illegal in the state of Iowa because I have given homeless people food countless of times and I will not stop.
  • fwyldes753 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't think it should be against the law, its just help. Just because someone fed one person doesn't mean everyones going to go and be homeless.
  • pkleppe761 on 04 Dec 14
     
    Reading this story upsets me because no one should be charged for feeding the homeless. That is the same as arresting and charging a man/woman for donating to charity. I do believe that some people are homeless because they got themselves there from their life decisions and choices, however others have no other way out. For example, a veteran could be very ill after coming back home and maybe having PTSD and feel helpless and lost. They do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Helping the homeless lets them know that someone cares and wants to help, and I feel this act of kindness might just be the motivation they need to get themselves together and fix their life. This helps them know they are not alone. Florida is ridiculous for charging that man. Instead of it being a bad thing, let us encourage it.
  • djones036 on 04 Dec 14
     
    People should be able to help whoever they please. I think the man shouldn't get in trouble because he is helping them by giving them meals. This could also help them save money and eventually buy/ rent a house in the future.
  • kschwindt on 04 Dec 14
     
    Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.
  • matuszeski on 04 Dec 14
     
    Feeding the homeless should not be a crime. It is helping someone in need which is what citizens of a community should be doing is helping people in need and getting the back on there feet.
  • kquinlan591 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't believe that Abott should be arrested just because he was doing a good deed. I understand the views of the policeman and how they're just doing their job but it's not fair to Abott that he was just trying to be a good person. There is no reason why he should be arrested and think it's crazy that people are getting upset for helping the homeless. They should just leave him alone because it doesn't affect their lives in a big way.
  • bllandon on 04 Dec 14
     
    I do think that feeding them food -may- keep them in that cycle. MAY. I highly doubt it does though, because those homeless people probably have nowhere else to go at this point. And how are they suppose to "break" the cycle if they have nowhere to go? No job? If Florida isn't letting these people feed homeless people, then how about THEY do something about it rather than just giving everyone fines and acting without thinking.
  • John Scheffler on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the city had made this a law in order to give the homeless an incentive to get a job. Which I personally believe is a terrible idea. No one likes living homeless, everyone needs a helping hand sometimes. I would think the officers of the city would have enough morals and ethics to not enforce this law. To be ignored and simply done away with in a few months. It's a sad day when helping becomes illegal.
  • jjohnson749 on 04 Dec 14
     
    i don't get why feeding the homeless is against the law, whats wrong with it? your helping a person maybe even saving their life.
  • malr2528 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the law against public food sharing is ridiculous. These kind of rules don't encourage the homeless to start getting back on their feet. Yes, they rely on the food given to them but all the law is doing is pushing the homeless out of Fort Lauderdale, to other areas. Rather then enforcing this new law they should come up with program that provide the homeless with job training and experience so they can really start off productively on their own.
  • ravenmaine on 04 Dec 14
     
    To put it lightly the banning of public food sharing is a stupid, stupid law. Credit, however, to Seiler for saying, "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive." He made a valid point, yes, but a homeless person is just the same as a person who owns four houses, they just don't have as much luxury. I think homeless shelters, or even what Arnold Abbot does, feeding the people in need on a beach, that's their luxury. How are you going to take away something like that, for most, it might keep them hopeful. It shouldn't be up to the law who we as people want to help.
  • justin988 on 04 Dec 14
     
    this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??
  • mhart079 on 04 Dec 14
     
    To me this is not just and feeding the homeless isn't against the law. My assumption is that the cop had hard feelings against the homeless guy and was enforcing illegally.
  • Erin Wolff on 05 Dec 14
     
    I don't think that this should be an actual law, what's the harm in feeding the poorest of the poor people? Cops are cracking down way too hard on the wrong "laws". There are criminals out there killing people, dealing drugs, stealing, and we're giving them jail time with possible probation, but feeding a homeless man is a serious crime? Think again.
  • brooklynschroede on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think this is ridiculous. We give our police too much power. Feeding the homeless is not a crime and it never should be. We have soup kitchens and things for them. How is it any different? The cops are pretty much taking away our rights and telling us not to be nice? Totally wrong.
  • tcomulada881 on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think Abbott has a right to feed the homeless. They don't have anything so we don't just want them to die in the street for starvation that's inhumane. They're just homeless people that are trying to eat the police should have their attention on things that are more important crimes. Besides feeding homeless people isn't a crime.
  • chrislindqvist on 05 Dec 14
     
    This sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • davyana on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't understand what is so wrong with feeding the homeless. I'd do the same exact thing if I could. Police officers are suppose to protect and that means everyone, even the homeless. If a police officer became homeless, losing his job, house, family, etc. I'm sure his friends and past co-workers would feed him too. So what makes him any different than the "random homeless guy on the street." ? I don't think Abbott should get charged.
  • justin988 on 09 Dec 14
     
    his sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • estuckey767 on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't see what is wrong with feeding the homeless. These people are at the lowest point in their lives and need all the help they can get and they fact that the city just want's to look the other way while these people suffer and hope that they go away is heartbreaking. People should help the homeless, help them get back on track and get their lives in order not treat them like a rat. There are actually criminals that get to go free and an old man who was helping the homeless gets put in jail? That's ridiculous.
  • deanaroth on 10 Dec 14
     
    There is nothing wrong with feeding those who don't have food. But I also believe at some point these people should have done something to prevent themselves from getting to the point that they can't afford food. Everybody gets a chance to try to find a place where they can support themselves. But I also believe it is wrong to prevent someone from trying to help them along, all they are trying to do is make their lives a little bit easier. There is no reason this man should be put in jail, he has done no wrong.
  • jordan fichter on 12 Dec 14
     
    I don't see anything wrong with giving to the homeless, but instead of giving an giving I would try and get them a job or help them
madi christensen

California and President Trump are going to war with each other - 16 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...e-going-to-war-with-each-other

shared by madi christensen on 07 Feb 17 - No Cached
  • madi christensen on 07 Feb 17
     
    President Trump had harsh words for one of his most fervent opponents during the pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly that aired Sunday. Not President Vladimir Putin, mind you, whose alleged unpleasant habit of murdering journalists met with a shrug from the president. No, Trump lashed out at the nation's largest state, California.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • kelsi836 on 07 Feb 17
     
    First he says that he is opposed to sanctuary cities, saying it breeds crime and goes on to say that "we have to well defend, we give tremendous amounts of money to California". But then when asked if that was his "weapon of choice" trump says, " I don't want to defend the state...If they're going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that." First he says this and then he says that, what IS his opinion here? Plus when he says that sanctuary cities breeds crime, but the FBI gives proof to show that it doesn't. Why can't he check his facts before he says something?
  • kim bagshaw on 07 Feb 17
     
    So Trump wants to pull money from California's school, which is ridiculous it will make the US dumber than it already is, we have lost our rank in education. This war doesn't even make logical sense, taking money will never solve the problem. It will cause more.
  • Mallori Wagoner on 07 Feb 17
     
    I think Trump sounds ignorant when he says that they breed more crime. Every city has crime and theres always going to be people that commit crimes no matter what
  • mwheeler21 on 07 Feb 17
     
    Trump is stubborn, because of everything he wants to change on his terms states will start to rebel. He needs to learn to negotiate with others wants or the whole country will rebel and then it will be out of control.
  • anonymous on 07 Feb 17
     
    There shouldn't be a war at all, i don't really see the point of why he is going to take California's money. Maybe he should cut down some of our military money. Take money from something that is a lot more wide ranged than California.
Kayla Beck

Teen who killed baby sentenced to 90 days - 5 views

www.hlntv.com/...-killed-baby-sentenced-90-days

shared by Kayla Beck on 05 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Kayla Beck on 05 Mar 13
     
    Admitting he killed his child should not lesson his sentence, nor get him off the hook for anything. He should serve just as long of a punishment as someone would get for manslaughter.
  • ...16 more comments...
  • Madison Clark on 05 Mar 13
     
    I agree with Kayla. Admitting to the murder does not change the fact that the little girl is dead.. So what, if I get mad at my baby sister, throw her down the stairs, and she dies, as long as its my first murder and I admit to it I wont get in that much trouble? Ridiculous.
  • Alivia Bascue on 06 Mar 13
     
    This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. Why did he get so little punishment for killing someone? No matter how old the victim is, or how unlikely the person is to commit this crime again, doesn't make the crime any less bad than it was. This man should have gotten much worse. The fact that he got away with this, with only a few punishments, sickens me.
  • Jesse Sayles on 08 Mar 13
     
    90 days isn't a long enough punishment for killing a baby, even if it was an accident.
  • Jamie Cash on 08 Mar 13
     
    He should be sentenced for longer or even for life. If I went out and killed someone they wouldn't let me free just because "I was scared to tell someone so I lied" and "It was an accident" Just because he admitted to murdering her that doesn't mean they should take away from the punishment.
  • madacyn on 08 Mar 13
     
    I agree with everyone. If you kill someone, no matter what your age is you should be punished for a lot longer than 90 days.
  • Carlos Villarreal on 08 Mar 13
     
    Admitting to his faults shouldn't of shortened his sentence. He had killed his kid, 90 days in prison is nothing to what he should have really gotten.
  • Tori Caddell on 08 Mar 13
     
    19 or not, he should have much more than 90 days. They are basically saying, that even if a 35 year old man killed his child, that its ok because the guy does not have a criminal background.... That is not how things should be.
  • sbecke2013 on 08 Mar 13
     
    I am in shock! He killed his daughter and got 90 days! I know people that did little crimes compared to that and got 15 years in prison! I cannot believe it. Who ever was the judge is literally crazy! They need to go back and put him on trial again, and sentence him for life!
  • shelby urich on 08 Mar 13
     
    He should be put in jail no matter what his criminal record is. He murdered someone and when he said he forcefully put her to bed then obviously he was intending to hurt her. That doesn't exactly sound like an accident.
  • trocha404 on 08 Mar 13
     
    this is so unreal how stupied it is 90 days really!!! i could go kill someone and get life right now it dosent matter how old u are if you kill someone u should get the full punishment the law will leet u get
  • Emmali Greenwalt on 14 Mar 13
     
    90 days is hardly a sentence, just because they think he isn't going to do it again doesn't mean he should get any less then an average person would get.
  • joshpowell on 14 Mar 13
     
    You kill a child you should be sent away for a long time. Do the crime do the time.
  • courtney wilson on 15 Mar 13
     
    who would kill a innocent child ,like really that messed up!!!
  • cbonar311 on 08 Apr 13
     
    WOW when and/or if someone were to kill an infant they should get more than 90 days. I completely disagree with this sentencing.
  • Jessi Gallagher on 13 Sep 13
     
    He should get longer than 90 days. Who kills a child
  • sarah smith on 16 Sep 13
     
    This is a cruel world ,why in the world do people have to kill others especially little ones?!
  • amber1996 on 16 Sep 13
     
    If your having problems put the baby in a safe place don't leave the house but just go to another room and cool down for a little bit.
  • ladasia on 17 Sep 13
     
    I understand but I don't. It was not on purpose, when we are angry our better judgement is clouded. I believe he could be forgiven and all, that's a really short sentence either way. Perhaps the family requested his sentence to be shorter to support the mother. ... I don't know. This
Bryan Pregon

Facebook vs Gang Crime - 2 views

www.cbsnews.com/...ty-to-fight-gang-related-crime

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 10 Oct 12
     
    "How authorities use online activity to fight gang-related crime"
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Hope Philbrick on 10 Oct 12
     
    I think the internet in general is such a great resource and If that means the authorities use it to crack down on suspects more power to them! If the suspect post about those illegal activities then its there own fault. I think what many people don't realize is even If you delete something of of Facebook It never really goes away Its on the internet for everyone to see for forever.
  • Michaela Koopmeiners on 10 Oct 12
     
    I agree with Hope on this, once it's posted, it's posted. Even if you delete it, its still there.
  • Holly Jensen on 16 Oct 12
     
    They know the risks if they post something. They know what they are putting out there and if they do they deserve it for at least not being sneaky.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 18 Oct 12
     
    The legality of this is interesting. I would assume that I do have some right to privacy upon getting online, but I also know that I am on something anyone can view at almost any time. So I would have to ask myself a few things if I were to determine the legality of this. 1. Is facebook public even if you have privacy settings? 2. Do privacy settings give you a right to privacy online 3. Is there an assumption of risk for posting anything online? This is interesting to me, I mean, I assume that I have a right to what I text a friend to be a private conversation between my friend and myself. I also know that every text I send, a copy is sent to be stored somewhere, somehow, and can be accessed by someone with legal authority.
  • Alex Snipes on 18 Oct 12
     
    Hope worded this perfectly, I couldn't have done better myself. People need to be more aware of how permanent and public the internet is. Think twice before posting online. Try to brainstorm all the possible consequences of what you are posting.
Bryan Pregon

Alabama death row inmate Vernon Madison gets reprieve - CNN - 5 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 26 Jan 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 26 Jan 18
     
    "Given Alabama's rejection of judicial override, the death sentence in this case constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates Mr. Madison's rights to a jury, fair and reliable sentencing and to due process and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Alabama law," they wrote in their petition."
  • kegner573 on 30 Jan 18
     
    I understand that Madison has become mentally ill and doesn't have memory of the crime he committed, but he still committed the crime and was sentenced to the death penalty at first. However, due to an Alabama law no longer allowing the death penalty I think life without parole would be a good alternative for him.
  • mborgaila831 on 30 Jan 18
     
    "Mr. Madison suffers from vascular dementia as a result of multiple serious strokes in the last several years, and no longer has a memory of the commission of the crime for which he is to be executed," How does this make the crimes he has committed go away?
Bryan Pregon

76% of Georgia Voters Think It Shouldn't Be a Crime to Give Voters Food and Water While... - 13 views

www.newsweek.com/-food-water-while-line-1579181

shared by Bryan Pregon on 27 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • saraivargas on 29 Mar 21
     
    This new bill is making it easier to cause voter suppression. Making it harder to request an absentee ballot and decreasing the number of ballot boxes will make it harder for people to vote, on top of waiting in a long line in the hot Georgian sun.
  • ...5 more comments...
  • ericschmidtberge on 30 Mar 21
     
    I don´t understand how giving food or water would be criminal. You think that voters would be encouraged to vote but apparently not. I can see how needing an ID to vote would be necessary but not allowing time to get a voting ballot makes no sense. I feel like the only people this will hurt are the politicians.
  • milo_nordman on 11 Apr 21
     
    This new bill is just making it harder for people to vote, it doesn't look like it will do any good.
  • gbrochu915 on 12 Apr 21
     
    this bill is and will going to make it harder for people to vote but i still dont understand how giving food and water would be criminal
  • nick_rice on 12 Apr 21
     
    I don't think giving people food or water while they wait in line to vote is a crime. It will just make people not want to vote and it won't help anything.
  • carsonschaa on 19 Apr 21
     
    This bill will make it harder for people to vote but I still don't understand how giving food and water would be criminal!!
  • noahsandbothe on 26 Apr 21
     
    I've looked into this bill a lot and at this point, it is Republican Lawmakers trying to get the more densely populated areas of Georiga to not be able to vote as easily. Typically the more heavily populated areas of any state are typically Democratic. So to me and many others, it's pretty easy to see they are trying to suppress Democrat Votes to make it so a Democrat will never win Georiga again.
  • eballenger on 26 Apr 21
     
    I dont understand how this is a crime as it's just helping people while they wait, and without food or water it could make people not want to vote.
gweiss164

Crime stopper eats to sop crime - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...-eats-paper-in-court.wplg.html

Government Politics news cnn economy congress protest bill election 99%

shared by gweiss164 on 19 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • gweiss164 on 19 Mar 14
     
    This makes me think of the many ways of Civil Disobedience
brenna_

5 craziest crimes of the week - 9 views

www.usatoday.com/...15499229

shared by brenna_ on 12 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • brenna_ on 12 Sep 14
     
    A most unfortunate butt-dial and an altercation about meatballs are among the weirdest crime stories of the week: 1. Guy butt-dials 911, gets busted for drugs: There's no need for phone-tapping when criminals call the police on themselves. That's what allegedly happened to Grant O'Connor, 25, when police say he butt-dialed 911 as he chatted about a dealer and doing drugs.
Eric Forbus

Whistleblower says crimes covered up at Miami VA hospital - 0 views

www.foxnews.com/...overed-up-at-miami-va-hospital

shared by Eric Forbus on 23 May 14 - No Cached
  • Eric Forbus on 23 May 14
     
    A VA police officer says administrators at the hospital in Miami where he works are covering up crimes occurring at the facility, including evidence of physical abuse of patients and drug dealing.
Bryan Pregon

SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes -... - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 17 Apr 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 17 Apr 18
     
    "The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some "crimes of violence," holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague."
lhunter952

Chicago Lawmaker Wants to ban Violent Video Games - 10 views

I see the viewpoint but I do not agree that video games make kids violent. If someone says a video game made them violent then there is obviously something else wrong with them if they see the fict...

Government news Bill

started by ndvorak on 26 Feb 21 7 follow-ups, last by lhunter952 on 22 Mar 21
Ericka Davis

Juvenile lockup rates are dropping in Florida - 0 views

www.wptv.com/...both-in-florida-and-nationwide

shared by Ericka Davis on 28 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Ericka Davis on 28 Feb 13
     
    Emphasis on keeping teens out of crimes and declining juvenile crime rates has made the juvenile lockup rates go down
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Carlos Villarreal on 28 Feb 13
     
    Lockup rates have not only dropped in Florida but, also nationwide. Juvenile lockup rates have gone up to about 55% in some places.
  • sbecke2013 on 28 Feb 13
     
    The dropping juvenile lockup rates are dropping in Florida. It is a good thing because that means people are staying out of trouble. Shows that teens are actually learning something from their mistakes, and hopefully growing up!
  • gageanotor on 28 Feb 13
     
    im glad the teens are getting there heads out there butts and starting to grow up
  • shelby urich on 28 Feb 13
     
    Maybe more states should take note from whatever Florida is doing because locking up teens for some of the smallest things like truency isn't going to fix anything but probably cause more problems.
  • Alivia Bascue on 28 Feb 13
     
    Hopefully the lockup rates will continue to go down, not just in Florida, but everywhere.
1 - 20 of 69 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page