bobevenson wrote: Who the fuck is the state, my friend, it's the government!
The state is everybody.
Dear God, please spare me from the absolute, unmitigated bullshit of this pathetic moron!
"In American English, the concepts of the state and the government may be used synonymously to refer to the person or group of people exercising authority over a politically organized territory." -Wikipedia
Obviously, in Australian English, people only have a vague understanding of government.
You have stumbled across a profound truth, Bob, albeit inadvertently. In America the notion of government is different from this notion in other parts of the world. In most parts of the world the role of government is to serve the interests of the people who elect it, but In America the role of government is to serve the interests of those who pay the way for their chosen representatives to be elected to it. This is of course the difference between living in a free country and an oligarchy.
bobevenson wrote:How fucking dense can you be? I'm talking about the millions of people who are eligible to be released on bail. ...
Pardon? you have millions of people who should be released on bail but aren't? What kind of country do you live in?
Let me simplify it for you. There are X number of people who are charged with a crime, but are qualified to be released on bail. I don't care if those people are millionaires or paupers, none of them should be required to post bail. Have I made myself clear? Crystal clear?
bobevenson wrote:
Let me simplify it for you. There are X number of people who are charged with a crime, but are qualified to be released on bail. I don't care if those people are millionaires or paupers, none of them should be required to post bail. Have I made myself clear? Crystal clear?
Sure, you think criminals should be allowed to keep committing crimes but then you are the Anti-Baptist, False Prophet for 'Satan' and the 'Beast' and wish to give our world to them, so no surprise there.
bobevenson wrote:
Let me simplify it for you. There are X number of people who are charged with a crime, but are qualified to be released on bail. I don't care if those people are millionaires or paupers, none of them should be required to post bail. Have I made myself clear? Crystal clear?
Sure, you think criminals should be allowed to keep committing crimes but then you are the Anti-Baptist, False Prophet for 'Satan' and the 'Beast' and wish to give our world to them, so no surprise there.
I'm talking about people eligible for bail. That being said, you simply cannot be as stupid as you appear, but I just can't come up with another explanation!
Please explain what crimes one could be guilty of and be eligible for release without bail and which charges would put one beyond such.
And you're saying that pleas should be removed and every case treated as a plea of not guilty?
First of all, I'm talking about crimes that people are charged with, not proven guilty of. I'm not addressing the standards currently being used to determine eligibility for bail, but I'm saying that all people eligible for bail should be released without bail. And yes, I'm saying the very concept of pleas should be eliminated. If somebody is charged with a crime, it is the responsibility of the government to prove guilt, no ifs, ands or buts.
So which crimes could one be charged with and not be eligible for release? None? I'd expect not considering one of your earlier replies. Murder? Rape? Child molestation? Kidnapping? Petty theft? Or would it have to be handled on a case by case basis? And which guidelines do you use to determine who does and does not get released?
BigWhit wrote:So which crimes could one be charged with and not be eligible for release? None? I'd expect not considering one of your earlier replies. Murder? Rape? Child molestation? Kidnapping? Petty theft? Or would it have to be handled on a case by case basis? And which guidelines do you use to determine who does and does not get released?
No, you miss my point, I am not addressing the standards of release, just that if the accused is eligible for release under bail, no bail should be required.
So the underlying philosophy would be that the accused are innocent until proven guilty and as such are still free citizens until they receive a guilty verdict so requiring bail monies for release is tantamount to extortion.
BigWhit wrote:So the underlying philosophy would be that the accused are innocent until proven guilty and as such are still free citizens until they receive a guilty verdict so requiring bail monies for release is tantamount to extortion.
No, it's not a question of guilt or innocence, or that requiring bail is extortion, it's just that requiring bail to insure the accused shows up for trial is improper.
