Law struck down...

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by DC_DEEP, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    There is hope, I guess. Read the entire article (it's not too long) to get an idea of how twisted some laws are, and what needs to be done to fix them.

    Kansas Court makes punishments more equitable

    What is really striking is the disparity that existed on the books - same crime, punishable by 17 years in prison if it involved same-sex, 14 months if it involved opposite-sex.
     
  2. dlcs

    dlcs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Sector ZZ9, Plural Z Alpha
    Wow.

    Moral outrage strikes again.
    Thumbs up to Kansas for taking a stand. :yourock:
     
  3. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Uh huh. It's a bit of a surprise, coming from Kansas. What also amazes me is that anyone would think that given nearly identical circumstances, the fact that both were the same gender would justify a sentence of 204 months as opposed to 14 months. And also amazed that they just kinda shrug and say "oopsie, too bad about that extra 48 months you served." Nothing to compensate him for the wrongful imprisonment, or to punish those responsible for the unwarranted extra time.
     
  4. GottaBigOne

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,020
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    New York
    This article points out something deeper, a collectivist evil.

    "...while conservatives bitterly complained that the court intruded on the Legislature's authority to make the laws."

    The Right has been complaining a lot about "activist judges" recently seemingly only when those judges don't agree with their ideologies. They don't seem to understand the role that the judiciary plays in our government or the role that the bill of rights and constitution plays.

    We are not a democracy, in the purest sense at least. When the founding fathers devised our system of government they realized the problem of having an unnaccountable majority rule. The "people" can not make into law anything they want. A mojority can not vote into slavery a minority. Although the syetem they originally came up with was flawed because of some compromises made by the slave owners, one can see their real intention behind the bill of rights. The first ten ammendments weren't even actually originally supposed to be in the constitution, hence the term "ammendment." They realized that without certain protection for individuals then an inevitable suppression of the minority would occur; an individual is the smallest minority. they realized that individual liberty was most in need of protection, protection against the majority. Since we collectively elect our leaders, since we are a government by the people for the people then the government represents us collectively, it does not represent any one person and can not act in the interests of any one person, it acts in the interests of groups of people. Protection then, from the government, is protection against groups of people. This is why the judiciary is not elected, and why the supreme court is a life-time appointment. It keeps groups of people away from the constitution and instead leaves it in the care of individuals, yes a small "group" of individuals, but they are only group in order to keep each other in check as to avoid an actual "activist judge". There is no right of the legislature, whcih is a representative of the people to make any law it chooses. The bill of rights, and the judiciary are there to make sure of that.
     
  5. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Don't be shocked; the first time the Right pissed and moaned about 'activist judges', it was also in Kansas. Brown
     
  6. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Absolutely right. Funny how if a court rules in favor of broad protections, they are "activist", and if they rule in favor of limiting personal freedoms, they are "prudent and balanced."

    Funny, one of the most important amendments is not even in the Bill of Rights... it didn't make it into the Constitution until Amendment 14 - equal protection. It still just blows my mind that the original sentencing ignored this equal protection clause... as does the DOMA, and a long list of others.
     
  7. steve319

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I can't see how that disparity could have been justified at all. Glad to see this happening.

    (Of course, I'm one who leans toward a more rehabilitative approach to prison sentences but also a stiffer time penalty for any type of sex offender.)

    It's a tiny glimmer of hope anyway, particularly coming from a state that used to be so well known for its progressive thinking.

    (Anyone read What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America?)
     
  8. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    All the more reason never to let the right frame any debate.

    SG
     
  9. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
Draft saved Draft deleted