Michigan Votes Forum

you were doing SO WELL at making the libs think you were a conservative, then you spoiled it at the last minute. nice try though.

is the ultimate conservative

Who in the hell voted for this jerk?

explain yourself :-)

life is to yank the chains of the good people of michigan, you should have gotten into politics sooner. who knows, you may be better at it than jennie. till then, if you have nothing of substance to add, keep quiet. children should be seen and not heard.

some of your own advice, kidkin

THAT ADVICE? I'm adding to the discussion, not proving raw stupidity, as you are doing.

in life IS to yank the chains of the good people of michigan. congratulations. you have a job that pays nothing, and does nothing productive for mankind. have fun.

it's hard to tell that you're adding anything to the "conversation" other than static your theme song is "O Troll-o Mio" you should get a life

under a tin-foil hat. do you have a point pertaining to this discussion other than the one on top of your head? obviously not.

that YOU are NOT adding anything to this discussion. "oh-troll-o-mio"... how original. i guess we have "social promotion" to thank for your early release from michigan schools.

I am all for this very sensible legislation. I do not spend my time baiting people who do share my viewpoint.

I am all for this very sensible legislation. Michigan's record in sentencing juveniles to life in prison without possibility of parole is shamefully draconian. I do not spend my time baiting people who do NOT share my viewpoint.

When this idea first gained some public notice back in late 2005, more than 300 people sitting in Michigan prisons were serving mandatory life sentences without possibility of parole for crimes they committed between the ages of 14 and 17. A Detroit Free Press editorial at the time succinctly and correctly concluded that, “To be sure, punishment is appropriate for young people who commit crimes. But the maximum adult penalty of life without parole, which forever locks out a second chance, is unreasonable and unwarranted for anyone too young to exercise adult rights and responsibilities.” The editorial also noted, succinctly and accurately that: * “State legislators ought to change this unjust and unforgiving system, which ignores the longstanding role of maturity and competence in assessing legal culpability.” * Legislation enacted to eliminate the LWOP sentence for juveniles and provide for parole consideration of those juveniles who already have received such sentences would NOT automatically lead to release of anyone from prison. “It would simply allow the parole board to look at a case and decide whether the offender is a good candidate for parole.” Bottom line is that the law today does not provide for adequate discretion in handling certain types of cases that involve juveniles. Such discretion must be restored if we are to call it a “justice system,”

you expect a legislature to use it's discretion to repeal life in prison sentences for juveniles when it's already used it's discretion to IMPOSE life in prison sentences for juveniles? how about getting juveniles to quit committing the crimes that land them in prison for life? or is that not an option?

a liberal can excuse any criminal for committing any crime.

That's all you ever do.

bitch, that's all YOU ever do. what have YOU added to the discussion? since you are obviously question phobic, i'll answer that one for you. NOTHING.

:-)

there are considered to be two major philosophical approaches to treating juvenile offenders, conservative and liberal. What do you think are the positives and negatives of each? And What do you think should be the dominant one? Why?

the liberal approach is to forgive and forget. the "up side" of that is that the juvenile learns that he can get away with crime. the conservative approach is to lock the kid up, have him do community service, and pay restitution. the 'up side' of this is that they learn that there are CONSEQUENCES for their actions, and that they will be held RESPONSIBLE.

what you call the 'liberal approach' to juvenile crime is just that, to be 'liberal' with those that commit juvenile crime, sometimes releasing them to their parents (who are also liberal with them) with promises all around that this will never happen again. only it DOES happen again. and again. and again. the juvenile offender learns that his parents, who refused to discipline him when he was younger, now CANNOT discipline him AT ALL. thus it is left up to the state to discipline him. liberal parents who do not discipline their children (like those who call parents who spank 'child abusers') very often find their children in juvenile detention facilities, and just as often, take drastic measures (taking another mortgage on the house) to get them released. this teaches junior the juvenile that 1. he can do no wrong. 2. his parents will always forgive him, then forget he did it. 3. when he does it again, they will do ANYTHING to get him 'out of trouble', because trouble causes stress, and stress doesn't make you FEEL GOOD. these are the same people who blame society for their little darling's legal problems. the liberal approach hasn't worked, yet they keep on trying in the vain hope that one day, something different will happen.

Someone posted: >there are considered to be two major philosophical approaches to treating juvenile offenders, conservative and liberal.< Actually, and what most people know is that you’ve left out the third approach, called “middle of the road.” It rationally melds the best features of both extremes into a system that allows us to deal with individual cases as individual cases. >What do you think are the positives and negatives of each? And What do you think should be the dominant one? Why?< These are good question, except they assume an either-or answer. A system that is purely punitive is not especially desireable, nor is one that behaves as if every offender is merely “ill” and needs “treatment.” Without going into detail, it is fair to say that both approaches have merit and shortcomings, but the best approach combines important elements of each, structured so the system can deal with individuals. In the long run that serves the best interests of everyone concerned, and especially the public.

like individuals' a benefit to the public? how about we "TREAT CRIMINALS LIKE CRIMINALS"? juvenile offenders feel no remorse for what they do, nor do they feel responsibility. it has been kept from them, they have been sheilded from it. the way to deter juvenile crime is NOT to lessen the punishment for the crime, it is to make it more strict, more harsh. with juvenile offenders committing the same crimes as their older bretheren, the "magic age" rule has come under increasing scrutiny. it is not, in this age of juvenile murderers, a good idea to allow juvenile offenders to "get away with murder".

This bill does not take into account the victim(s), the victim's family, or potential victim(s). Punishment ought to fit the crime.

Maybe a liberal can excuse anyone that commits a crime, but they also excuse ignorant trolls such as yourself. Yes, this is the troll that is on Michgan Votes for the past year or so. Do not feed the fire folks, because for someone who believes all criminals should pay regardless of the truth of the crime, this troll will shoot flames back at you with the most nonretardant material possible.

you are PROVEN WRONG, and it happens quite often, you complain about the "troll"? why not just GIVE YOUR FACTS? oh, yeah... you don't have any, just emotion. well, good luck with that.