Posted on 03/26/2009 12:17:26 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
As soon as this summer, shoplifters could pilfer $250 in merchandise and walk away with a fine. Same for those who buy or sell up to an ounce of marijuana or who fence stolen goods. Bad checks up to $125 would get similar treatment, as would credit fraud under $250.
A Senate bill that would dramatically change the criminal justice system -- reducing sentences, changing misdemeanors to petty misdemeanors, vastly increasing fees -- is under serious consideration as a means of dealing with the state's gaping $4.6 billion budget deficit and relieving pressure on an overburdened court system.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
why am I not shocked
this is a direct attack on the fabric of society. the left will ALWAYS go this route, exactly the same as they did in Europe.
crime would SKYROCKET if this passed.
all in the name of finding new ways to raise money for the coffers...
~~~~~~~ Thread Hijack Alert ~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for the interruption. But I just had a good one come accros my e-mail inbox. Had to post it.....
The Desk. The desk that President Obama signed the Stimulus Package is the same desk where President Clinton got his Package Stimulated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I now return you to the thread already in process.
just steal $249 of crap ... do it 10 times and pay the fine.
you’re still making a nice profit.
To Cut Costs, States Relax Prison Policies
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/25prisons.html
And they wonder why everyone is buying new guns and ammo.
Are these first-offender, no priors measures? Or to be general policy?
New guns and ammo not such a bad idea, really.
Depending too much on an elite police rather than on citizen concern has detrimental effects. Police are almost entirely for mop-up. They rarely catch crimes in time to stop them.
my understanding of it is that the theft falls under the prescribed dollar amount, number of times is irrelevant...it’s still a “non-crime” , IE-petty misdemeanor.
So why is it Minnesota who’s jumping on board this desperation measure? Why not California?
not sure...normally the dumbest ideas MN adopts originated from CA.
keep in mind, MN is near the bottom of the 50 states for incarceration rates and
near the top for parole rates...spending money on bike paths and light rail is far more important.
You could save a LOT of money on the other end of the crime scale, if you executed murderers and violent rapists, instead of salting them away for a lifetime of luxury at maybe $150,000 a year.
decriminalizing theft
you’d get a new style of shoplifting, where they don’t care about being caught, just grab-and-run
absolutely. but then of course it’s all about “caring”, not about the money....
“gaping $4.6 billion deficit”
here’s a thought: STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON’T HAVE
1. Do they get to keep the stuff?
2. How much is the fine?
Shoplifting could become profitable.
were it not for the unlimited appeals over 25 freakin years...
my rule(were I king):3 appeals, 5 years, whichever comes 1st.
Permit theft targets to sue for ten times their loss plus their legal costs. That’ll put a damper on these little robbers.
...the legislature in MN is run by Dims -not likely. I think T-Paw would veto this.
I like this poster’s thinking...
Institute a legal provider tax
Physicians in MN pay a 2% tax on their annual gross income to help fund state backed healthcare like MNCare. Why can’t the same be done to attorneys to help fund the legal system? Defense attorneys wouldn’t be able to make a living without the police officers, courts, and state prosecuting attorneys that we the taxpayers pay for. Why not let those that profit from the current legal system help pay for it. Plus, by making some crimes no longer criminal, defense attorneys stand to lose a lot of money, they would probably be more than happy to pay a percentage of their income to fund the legal system just like Doctors currently do for MNCare.
posted by mnfisherman on Mar 26, 09 at 1:17 pm |
(from star tribune website)
Mee Moua want to be a congresscritter?
We get ‘N’ number of appeals to capital crime convictions through an iterative process. When someone allowed N-1 appeals suddenly turns up almost obviously innocent, and it happens, say, a dozen times (DNA has been a big factor in this) then the courts tweak the caution factor up by one.
Sooner or later the virtually universal public mood will be, just stick them behind a few yards of concrete and throw away the key. Don’t bother us with all these precautions which don’t do a lot of good in the face of politically ambitious prosecutors. Texas will be the last to turn out the lights on the death chamber.
“I like this poster’s thinking....”
institute a tax on politicians, say 5% of annual gross income.
Use it to fund new politicians, say a general fund.
We can fund new politicians, why not let those that profit from current system,fund those that are up and coming.
That way we get the best and brightest funded by the worst and least intelligent.
Would solve the funding problem for those that can not get into politics anyy other way. /somewhat sarcastic
I saw this coming from a long way off. However, don’t despair, as the situation balances itself quickly.
That is, Americans are very jail and prison oriented for offenses. When someone is annoying, for many years the prevailing opinion has been to lock them up. However, this is a very expensive thing to do.
Instead of offenders getting free room and board, along with health care, the realization is that they are being rewarded for being criminals. The victims usually get nothing out of the deal, and the public gets fined a lot of money to pay for the criminals vacation.
So instead of putting them in jail or prison, except for violent crimes, why not sock it to them financially? Make *them* pay their victims and society for being annoying.
A lot of the people who are put in jail and prison have money and assets that can be taken from them, to pay back both their victims and society for their crimes.
The trick is to find the balance point. There are some perps that are just so downright obnoxious that everybody is willing to pay to put them in the jug. But a lot of them are just fools who need to be taught a lesson by taking away some of their money and stuff.
So from the public’s point of view, it can be a win-win. We don’t have to pay for most petty nuisances, but we still get the real dorks put away.
Too bad if the criminals don’t like it. Nobody cares what they think.
I’ve often wondered why DNA proof is good enough(as in cases you cited) to free people in a matter of weeks,but DNA evidence apparently is NOT good enough to execute people in a matter of YEARS.
Bring back the stocks. Put people in stocks for a set period of time per offense. If that doesn’t bring back some sense of morality, try hanging, then the guillotine.
Whatever it takes.
I’m only half kidding about the hanging and guillotine. Public executions of justice are not always a bad thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.