Limestone Clem

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Nov 24, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

  2. Anonymous Member

    Meanwhile, some poor fucker in AL is serving 14 years for a joint.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anonymous Member
  4. anonsoldier Member

    There's seriously something wrong in Alabama. It is named James Woodroof.
  5. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Judicial monopoly by "the government": it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
  6. Random guy Member

    So, an open, popular juridical process (aka lynch mob) is a better alternative? What about those cases where it turns out the supposed perpetrator was actually innocent? What if half the town want to lynch the guy, and his family (the other half of town) decides he's innocent, or at least not guilty enough to hang, and decides to confront the lynch mob with their own pitchforks? Don't you guys ever watch Westerns?

    You 'mericans have a serious problem with electing senile, corrupt, greedy and generally incompetent people as judges in some places, often with way to many connections in the local scene. In the real world judges apply for positions just like any other state employee, and anyone letting a man raping a 14 years off the hook is going to have to apply for a different job quite quickly. The above is not a problem with a juridical system per se, but with the US having some unfortunate idiosyncratics due to raging "we want no government" attitudes.
  7. anonsoldier Member

    What we need is more context to this judge: reasonings behind why he chose these sentences, Alabama law on mandatory minimums, and previous case histories for him on sentencing rapists can all help us better understand the situation. Sadly, the article is lacking and I've not yet turned up much.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Actually, a "justice market" is possible in theory and worked in history in the limited circumstances of the (real, not Hollywood) American "Old West" where it had a brief flicker of existence before the state established its monopoly there as everywhere else. A peaceful, cooperative free market is not as exciting as shoot-em-ups to watch in a movie, though, so it's not too surprising that Hollywood has opted to go with the gunplay. Who would watch a movie about people not attacking each other?
  9. Random guy Member

    We had it over here too for a few centuries, perhaps even a thousand years. If you are a reading man, check out some of the Icelandic sagas. It's quick reading, the Norse were masters of succinctness (e.g. "A man named Harald from the Isles then intervened, but was hit in the neck by Gunnar's axe so that the neck broke, and he is on no more concern to this saga").

    A primer:

    Lessons to be learned: When shopping for justice, the laws of the free market applies: You don't like the justice dealt to you/your brother/your relative/your patron/your client? You aren't bound by any decision as there is no overall authority, so go buy a better justice! With enough resources (or a large enough clan behind you), I'm sure you can find one that suits you just fine. Which justice is the more just one? You don't need a degree in law to see where this will end.

    I saw Ghandi (with a young Ben Kingsley) here the other night, smashing film.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. JohnnyRUClear Member

    No time to read all that ATM but I'll take a gander later on. Thanks for the post. Meantime, of course not every movie is filled with violence, and lots of good ones have none, but you're missing my point that it does provide an easy (and effective) way to entertain onscreen, so it is overrepresented there. Stories about tranquil situations are harder to sell in a movie format than those about turbulent ones. Thus we get a comment like "don't you guys ever watch Westerns?" as though that's the right way to understand what everyday life was actually like.
  11. Random guy Member

    You are no doubt right about the entertainment value of violence, and its prevalence in Hollywood. The Westerns I guess can be seen as an instructive series of "worst case" scenarios. No-one need an Hobbsian Leviathan as long as everyone obey the law. The need arise when people disrespect common order and break laws. A system that do not cater to those kinds of situations will eventually find themselves as casts in a "Ride in the Whirlwind"-like scenario.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Yes. I would love to see Lulzy comments about the child as a predator. This judge is smart enough to keep is mouth shut, but eventually he will have to explain this idiocy.
  13. Anonymous Member

    I suppose that her family could punish the guy, of course that means orphans get no justice whatsoever.
    Tribes have they own justice system and courts based on their culture. It's still by the " government" but a localized one.
  14. Anonymous Member
    Asking for a new trial. What a stupid idea from his lawyer. Hope he goes for it and there is another crack at this guy. He was found guilty by a jury not the judge that sentenced him.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins