24-Year-Old Gets 3 Life Terms in Prison for Witnessing a Drug Deal: The Ugly Truth of Mandatory Drug Sentencing

Quote from darkfrog : Maybe I can get to the bottom of this. For what purpose do you suppose we classify certain crimes as violent and non-violent? IOW, what goal do you want to accomplish by proposing this change? The thing that I'm not getting, and I want you to understand my position and please consider it carefully, is that in order to say a particular crime has the potential to be violent assumes events and things that never occurred. You have to fundamentally change the actual facts in order to claim something would be violent. Why is this better than just calling 'em like it is?

This is not true. You just need to "assume" the potential of violence.


Your first questions was a good one. I always assumed the purpose for FBI classifications were:


- to then report crime statistics.
- to use said statistics in policy making
- ...

Quote from darkfrog : World English Dictionary violent (ˈvaɪələnt) — adj 1. marked or caused by great physical force or violence: a violent stab 2. (of a person) tending to the use of violence, esp in order to injure or intimidate others 3. marked by intensity of any kind: a violent clash of colours 4. characterized by an undue use of force; severe; harsh Definition of VIOLENT 1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack> 2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b : extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors> 3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death> 4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult> b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates> The definition of violent crime suggests that violence is a behavior by persons, against persons or property that intentionally threatens, attempts, or actually inflicts physical harm. The seriousness of the injuries to the victim(s), whether or not guns or other weapons were used and/or whether or not the alleged perpetrator has a criminal record will alter the crime's seriousness.http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/violent-crimes/ One last comment. Intent means a lot in law, for good reasons. Your proposal eliminates the need to provide evidence of intent, which is a huge problem for you. Remember, we are trying to determine WHO among us in our population is violent. Violence caused by an accident is not considered a violent crime unless there was neglect or doing something unlawful. Smeg may know better on this but I don't think that a true non-negligent accidental death bring on any charges? Of course trying to find such a beast may be difficult as most of these cases are caused by someone doing something stupid at some point making them responsible.

I agree that a person who employs threats of violence has a potential, even perhaps the likelihood, of committing violence.


But I do not think you demonstrated that threat of violence is (the same as) violence.

Re intent and law: my proposal was not necessarily about the law. It was about mere classification of crimes.

Quote from TRNT : The reason for basing severity of crimes on potential of harm is the same as basing it on threat of harm.

That makes no sense. Someone who is actively threatening to do harm has demonstrated a significant, even substantial, potential for harm. You seek to lower the standard to anyone who might be capable of doing harm, even if s/he has demonstrated no intent of doing so.

To say the reasonings are the same is to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your "proposal".

Quote : Were you really not able to figure this out for yourself even after I have repeatedly mentioned it in response to your endless nonsensical questions?

Merely because one repeats nonsense over & over does not mean others can magically discern logic & reasoning from such nonsense.

Quote from TRNT : I agree that a person who employs threats of violence has a potential, even perhaps the likelihood, of committing violence. But I do not think you demonstrated that threat of violence is (the same as) violence.

The threat of violence causes fear & intimidation of the victims. A mere potential for violence that never actually materializes causes no such fear or intimidation.

Quote : Re intent and law: my proposal was not necessarily about the law. It was about mere classification of crimes.

Are you suggesting the latter has nothing to do with the former?

Quote from TRNT : This is not true. You just need to "assume" the potential of violence.

Of course it's true. We have demonstrated the truth. The example of the two similar burglaries pointed out many of the assumptions. For example, we have to assume that someone would have come home and interrupt the thief, even when that did not occur. We have to assume the thief was ready, willing and able to be violent when confronted, which is a huge point considering we are trying to determine who is a violent criminal or not. In order to classify a crime violent, you are saying that this individual is violent offender, yet it is not necessarily true in fact, only in a fictionalized account of the crime.

Quote : Your first questions was a good one. I always assumed the purpose for FBI classifications were: - to then report crime statistics. - to use said statistics in policy making - ...

First of all, the FBI compiles statistics but I do no believe they created the classification. The classification is self-evident and we make the policies because as I explained before, we have a higher tolerance for criminals that are non-violent. Maybe we think they are more susceptible to rehabilitation or not, but we accept that people that commit crimes against people, i.e. violent offenders, are people we want to keep in prison longer if we were to compare them to people hat only commit crimes against property, all other things being equal. Your method is so arbitrary, based not on what the perpetrator did or even might do, but what he possibly could do given DIFFERENT circumstances.

I have a bag of weed, a friend wants an eighth, I sell it to him. In your world, my drug dealing makes me a violent offender although I never would hurt anyone that did not threaten my life first. There was absolutely nothing violent or potentially violent about this situation that I can see. Your way is ridiculous and spurious and everyone here has been able to see that except you.

Quote from darkfrog : Of course it's true. We have demonstrated the truth. The example of the two similar burglaries pointed out many of the assumptions. For example, we have to assume that someone would have come home and interrupt the thief, even when that did not occur. We have to assume the thief was ready, willing and able to be violent when confronted, which is a huge point considering we are trying to determine who is a violent criminal or not. In order to classify a crime violent, you are saying that this individual is violent offender, yet it is not necessarily true in fact, only in a fictionalized account of the crime.

I totally disagree.

Not "would have" but "likely." Not "was" but "likely."

Quote from smegalicious : The threat of violence causes fear & intimidation of the victims. A mere potential for violence that never actually materializes causes no such fear or intimidation.

1. You come home while your house is being burglarized. You poop your pants.

2. You come home shortly after your house is burglarized. You pout your pants.

Quote from smegalicious : Are you suggesting the latter has nothing to do with the former?

I am not claiming that it does. I am especially not claming that it has "nothing" to do with it.

Quote from TRNT : I totally disagree. Not "would have" but "likely." Not "was" but "likely."

And upon what basis, other than your unsubstantiated personal opinions, do you base such assumptions?

Is it logical to make such assumptions based primarily - if not solely - on such unsubstantiated personal opinions?

Quote from TRNT : 1. You come home while your house is being burglarized. You poop your pants. 2. You come home shortly after your house is burglarized. You pout your pants.

Attempting to mind read again?

Why would I be scared if I come home to an empty, yet burgled, house? I would be pissed off, but I would not piss my pants.

Quote : I am not claiming that it does. I am especially not claming that it has "nothing" to do with it.

Then you concede that the "mere" re-classification of crimes necessarily involves changing the laws as they currently stand?

Quote from smegalicious : And upon what basis, other than your unsubstantiated personal opinions, do you base such assumptions? Is it logical to make such assumptions based primarily - if not solely - on such unsubstantiated personal opinions?

You want me to tell you the basis for the "assumption" that if there is a potential for violence then it is likely tht there would be violence? Next you are gonna ask me why I assume water is wet.

Quote from smegalicious : Attempting to mind read again? Why would I be scared if I come home to an empty, yet burgled, house? I would be pissed off, but I would not piss my pants.

Then you should talk to people who have been burglarized. Some would not enter the house for the fear that burglars might still be there. Some would not stay in the house alone for fear that they be invaded again.

Quote from smegalicious : Why would I be scared if I come home to an empty, yet burgled, house? I would be pissed off, but I would not piss my pants. Then you concede that the "mere" re-classification of crimes necessarily involves changing the laws as they currently stand?

No.

My only conclusion is that you are under the delusion that such stupid tactics actually work. How pathetic!