R: (sorry for overposting, but that is the last one today)
>
> how does one respond to a generalization like this?
--This was a criticism of your remark imputing certain belief to Justin - --pointying that your imputation may be factually incorrect.
what's the point if it may or may not, as you put it in your statement?
> personally, i value both. a wise man listens; a fool argues.
>
--Ditto. But arguing can also be a heuristic device to enhance one's --understanding.
listening is quicker. OK: i won't argue with you about it ;-)
> craziness. and if i understand correctly, not at all
> appealing to judges who are used to making the laws themselves.
--Yes, limiting judicial discretion was the intent. I would counter, --however, that it does not curb the prosecutorial discretion that is far --greater and more damaging than judicial discretion.
prosecutorial discretion -- discretion? -- is what it is because the judges and defense attorneys don't fight back. for several years in calif, the DAs have been busy getting judges who administered the law with relative equanimity transferred to traffic court and such. don't know what the defense attorneys and judges were doing while all this was going on. but their inability to confront and balance it out is indicative of one of several major problems in the judicial system.
--Prosecutors can --chose to file or not to file charges, as well what charges they file - --judges merely respond to those charges, and sentincing guidelines --further limit their discretion.
also, prosecutors pad charges. a person arrested on one felony count finds when he gets to court that he's up against three or four additional charges just to the DA can obtain an easier conviction, or a better plea bargain.
i think you have a good point. the inordinate amount of power given to prosecutors, many of whom are fresh out of law school with no experience in the "real" world, trying to make a reputation for themselves, is another indication of how lousy the criminal "justice" system is.
are attorneys still taught in law school that the purpose of the DA's office is to do justice? i've met few DAs interested in anything but convictions. never interested in justice. those who are, are usually overruled -- or put on the shit list -- by their supervisors in a hurry.
> actually, wojtek, i'd say your notion that we all go out and get our
> legislators to change the laws is a terribly simplistic view.
--Where did I express such a view?
as you stated: "If you don't like the law -- the rules the legislature adopts -- try to have them changed. This isn'! t rocket science. It's elementary democracy."
did i "misunderestimate" you?
> law -- into consideration. i don't see how current
> bankruptcy laws benefit
> anyone except lenders, at least not in California.
--Lenders? How? I know a lot of ordinary people who were able to --discharge their debt to hospitals and credit card companies, which is a --good thing.
do you practice in calif? check out the changes in bankruptcy law in calif that went into effect recently. people who are bankrupt still have to pay back their debts -- in full or in part -- over a long period. no more absolution from debt. this helps the corps, who used to eat the loss. now the poor have even less of a chance to get on their feet. and will be saddled with debt the rest of their lives.
however, corp bankruptcies are still sacred cows.
> i'm a strong believer in majorities. where this concept
> fails in the USA
> is in the fact the people are not educated and not informed about the
> society in which they live. for example, our mass media is one big
> propaganda agency promoting conservative points of view. as
> jefferson put
> it, paraphrasing, an informed electorate is the key to
> democracy. we don't
--Ah well, as they say in my old country - if the grandma had mustache she --would be the grandpa.
how can you tell? ;-)
--It would be very nice to have all that, indeed. --But I will not hold my breath to see that happen. Meanwhile, I am --pretty happy that the majority cannot have they way in legislating, say, --mandatory flag waving, or gay banishment - although they are getting --dangerously close to legislating "English only" laws (they succeeded in --CA, no?)
Wojtek
they tried. the bigots were out in full force. i believe something passed, and may be under court challenge. have to apologize for now knowing the details.
i agree with you about flag waving, gay banishing and so forth. one has to remember we live in a country whose entire national anthem is about the flag, not the country's principles, values, people, land, etc, until we get to the home of the brave and land of the free (which makes no sense in today's political climate). britannia rules the waves, german uber alles ... while the US makes a flag a religion.
it's interesting to attempt to conceive of the mentality of people who believe in limiting human freedoms as much as possible. rathern a misanthropic group. we've lost so many civil liberties since 9/11, that soon flag waving no longer will have to be mad mandatory.
i'm really sick and tired of looking at dirty, torn flags flying from the antenae of cars or window mounts. if that's patriotism, i'm the queen of england. and, well, everyone knows what our attorney general thinks about gays and other minorities. todays supreme court ruling regarding gays will have interesting repurcusions. we're a long way from doing what canada's just done in the area of gay marriages, sad to say.
R
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk