Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 09-25-2012 9:04 PM by victor88. 4,344 replies.
Page 69 of 109 (4345 items) « First ... < Previous 67 68 69 70 71 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 04-06-2008 5:46 PM In reply to

    G-Ma

    What am I going to do ? Continue to support this bill. Contact my Rep. and Granholm. What Are you going to do? Maybe get a life? HAHA
  • 04-06-2008 11:29 PM In reply to

    G-Ma

    Your sources say that not mine.
  • 04-07-2008 7:22 AM In reply to

    Thanks

    I got it.
  • 04-07-2008 9:24 AM In reply to

    I read it all........

    What I think is this bill is to old now and is not going anywhere.We need to contact our legislators and get them to write a new bill.
  • 04-07-2008 9:26 AM In reply to

    TRUTH?

    Maybe as to see it? You get funnier by the minute! HA!HA!HA!
  • 04-07-2008 9:56 AM In reply to

    Also

    Contact the legislator to get this bill re-writen. http://008.housedems.com/contact/
  • 04-07-2008 10:01 AM In reply to

    George Cushingberry

    LANSING, MI - State Representative George Cushingberry Jr. (D-Detroit) co-sponsors a bill that would allow a court order to completely remove a felony or up to two misdemeanor convictions for some offenses. The bill, which Mary Waters (D-Detroit) recently introduced, also would revise the time frame for when a person could file to have his or her offenses erased. Currently, Michigan law allows a person with only one criminal conviction to file to have that conviction erased. However, before he or she files, the offender must wait at least five years from the date of sentencing or the completion of his or her prison term, whichever is later. Under the bill, a person with a felony conviction would have to wait at least five years after completion of probation, parole or imprisonment, whichever was later. Those with a misdemeanor conviction would have to wait two years after finishing probation or a prison term, whichever comes later. "This bill gives people a second chance after they have been convicted of a crime," Cushingberry said. "Once a person does his or her time they are supposed to have paid their debt to society. However, society doesn't forgive or forget. Many employers will not hire an ex-offender and landlords won't rent them an apartment. This gives offenders a chance to move their lives in a positive direction." A conviction would not be erased if it's a felony that is punishable by life imprisonment, criminal sexual conduct in the second or third degree, assault with the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first, second or third degree and for traffic offenses. http://008.housedems.com/news/article/cushingberry-supports-bill-that-would-eliminate-criminal-record
  • 04-07-2008 10:41 AM In reply to

    G-Ma

    What is the HB number for the second chance? Why does HB 4262 need to be rewritten? Could you explain?
  • 04-07-2008 10:45 AM In reply to

    G-Ma

    Should we contact our rep. or Mr Cushingberry?
  • 04-07-2008 11:34 AM In reply to

    HB 4262

    These bills expire.This same bill has been up twice under different HB numbers and it is read and then sits in legislator as we need more people pushing it by contacting all you can think of to let them know that you support it.
  • 04-07-2008 11:37 AM In reply to

    Contacts

    Contact both
  • 04-07-2008 12:02 PM In reply to

    hmmm...

    A conviction would not be erased if it's a felony that is punishable by life imprisonment, criminal sexual conduct in the second or third degree, [hey, this is a NON-VIOLENT CRIME. why can't the sponsor of this bill see that NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALS DESERVE MORE CHANCES THAN JUST ONE?] assault with the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first, second or third degree and for traffic offenses. [also NON-VIOLENT CRIMES. wow, if this sponsor keeps going, we're never going to get enough NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALS released to save this state any money]
  • 04-07-2008 12:04 PM In reply to

    sorry g-ma.

    but the legislative report YOU QUOTED said it. not the department of justice. your source, not mine. mine says that releasing inmates will not save any money and the department of justice doesn't reccomend it under any circumstances.
  • 04-07-2008 12:06 PM In reply to

    that's easy, g-ma.

    it wasn't good law in the first place, so it has to be re-written so the legislators will vote for it. they obviously couldn't vote for it the way it was written.
  • 04-07-2008 12:08 PM In reply to

    SHUT UP!

    It is really a shame that this forum is not a moderated one. My belief is that this person who constantly posts the negative rhetoric actually works for michigan votes and just posts negative comments to both antagonize people and keep the conversation away from the real discussion that should be happening here. Don't let this double-spaced, upper cased, idiot deter us from genuinely discussing the pros and cons of this bill.
  • 04-07-2008 12:12 PM In reply to

    it's amazing that

    lifetime liberals, well known advocates of big government and maximum intrusion into people's lives would object to long prison terms when they don't object to taxing the people horrendously to have them pay for it. it must be tough in lansing when the 'tax and spend' group is hollering for smaller government.
  • 04-07-2008 12:17 PM In reply to

    3 strikes law

    This law in California has not slowed down the prison growth. Laws like these do nothing but increase the prison population for every little thing a person could do where a legislative body decides it is a crime. I even heard of one person who had 3 different mis-demeanors for things like not returning a video rental. I can't see sending a person to prison for the rest of their life for something so simple as that. Everyone seems to mix in all of the murderers with other types of crimes. Why does the MI PB keep letting out the CSC people. You should hear the types of stuff they are in for.
  • 04-07-2008 12:17 PM In reply to

    nobody HAS discussed

    the pros and cons of this bill. they only traipse around, skipping and dancing over the fact that this bill could let their loved ones out of prison. now, hundreds of questions have been asked to the 'i support this bill' side as to why they support it. they can't come up with an answer that they didn't 'cut and paste' from some 'set all criminals free now' website. releasing criminals is NOT good for mighigan.
  • 04-07-2008 12:19 PM In reply to

    the truth is, the

    parole board only paroles ten percent of sex offenders of all types, (that includes the tree-waterers) and paroles THIRTY percent of violent criminals. you should read what THEY are in for. this is according to the information the state of michigan provides the department of justice. try reading the facts for once.
  • 04-07-2008 12:21 PM In reply to

    Republicans

    Don't forget that a republican got us into this mess. Engler. Oh that's right everyone in today's society considers history as what just happened in the last 48 hours, not over 10 years ago. Engler and his republican cronies put us in this terribly expensive situation and all because he had his hand in the correctional cookie jar. If everyone posting on this forum is so sincere about research, do your's on Engler and his real ties to the MDOC. Ask yourself why was it so important to build new prisons, why did CMS get the contract is has that bilks our tax dollars to no end and gives us nothing back but dead inmates and lawsuits. Stop attacking each other! Unite against the government that is using our hard earned dollars to get what they want, not what our country needs.
  • 04-07-2008 12:46 PM In reply to

    let's see...

    engler built prisons. jennifer closes prisons. i see NOW why they support her so strongly... she's all for RELEASING INMATES.
  • 04-07-2008 12:53 PM In reply to

    of all the governors in

    michigan since becoming a state. two have been whigs. (a defunct political party) eighteen have been democrats. (a SOON TO BE defunct political party) and TWENTY SEVEN have been republican. it's amazing how the terms of the democrats directly coincides with the downturns of the state.
  • 04-07-2008 6:13 PM In reply to

    WOW!

    Thats the nicest and most honest answer you have given since you started visiting site.
  • 04-07-2008 8:13 PM In reply to

    it's the ONLY answer

    i've given. it's my first time posting.
  • 04-07-2008 8:29 PM In reply to

    let's have a vote on this

    now. i say we move PATRICK SELEPACK from 'life in prison' to DEATH ROW. he did admit to murdering willfully, didn't he? several times. FRY HIM.
  • 04-07-2008 9:20 PM In reply to

    G-Ma

    Yea it does, because they have to try and clean up the messes the republicians have created...
  • 04-07-2008 9:29 PM In reply to

    G-Ma

    Yea, Engler built prisons for mass incarceration and the cost to us went up,up,up. Granholm is trying to change this mass incarceration trend so our costs will go down, down, down.
  • 04-07-2008 9:37 PM In reply to

    G-Ma

    Sounds good. Will get right on that.
  • 04-07-2008 9:42 PM In reply to

    G-Ma

    You are getting funnier and funnier.HAHAHA
  • 04-07-2008 9:48 PM In reply to

    G-Ma

    You can not even spell Michigan?
  • 04-07-2008 9:54 PM In reply to

    G-MA

    YOU need to broaden your source base.
  • 04-08-2008 2:59 AM In reply to

    and our crime rate will

    go UP... UP... UP... funny how that works... and the measly twenty seven million you save will be squandered on extra police, more jails, and more prisons as the recidivism rate catches up with you. i just hope YOU aren't a victim of your own loved one's CHOICES... again.
  • 04-08-2008 2:59 AM In reply to

    nope. it's

    doing just fine. it has no political slant, no agenda, just the facts.
  • 04-08-2008 3:03 AM In reply to

    planning for defending

    ones self is perfectly legal. planning to take a life to defend your own is ethically and morally correct. YOU plan on letting criminals out to murder us. talk about premeditation... that's the difference between SELF DEFENSE and MURDER.
  • 04-08-2008 3:05 AM In reply to

    you should talk...

    g-ma. you should talk. there's lots of stuff YOU can't spell.
  • 04-08-2008 7:57 AM In reply to

    One vote!

    What happened to the girl that was with him?
  • 04-08-2008 7:59 AM In reply to

    Comment

    The comment was not meant for you. As you can see people can comment on each statement so thats how mine got under yours.
  • 04-08-2008 8:04 AM In reply to

    AGREE!!!

    I have been saying that for months!
  • 04-08-2008 11:49 AM In reply to

    G-Ma

    Your know perfectly well that is not what the plan is. It is to release non-violent, low-risk inmates and sickly and elderly inmates. I know you think we are all dumb and stupid. But sometimes you show your own self to be that way instead of us.
  • 04-08-2008 11:53 AM In reply to

    G-Ma

    But Michigan ? That's the main topic.
Page 69 of 109 (4345 items) « First ... < Previous 67 68 69 70 71 Next > ... Last »
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems