Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Some of you may have read this story from last year http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20101108/NEWS/101109802/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Basically Martin Joel Erzinger, a wealthy financial manager hit a bicyclist with his car, permanently crippling him, then left him for dead. The Judge dropped all felony charges because he's a financial manager and a felony may jeopardize his job and the money of his clients.

Now here's more of the same. http://www.dailycamera.com/broomfield-news/ci_18335019

Curtis Hilty, a rich Realtor drugged and raped his 20 year old babysitter resulting in two felony charges and a potential life sentence. The judge and his family felt that the sentencing laws were too vague for somebody that had made a "mistake", dropped the felony charges, and sentenced him to 30 days in the city jail and 20 years of probation.

This all reminds me of Clarence Burns, a rich wife beater who was sentenced to two years of evenings and weekends in jail for pumping six bullets into his wife's head.

So here's my question. In this age when the most retarded, laughable concepts such as nullification, social Darwinism, Segregation, Racism, McCarthyism etc. are being given new consideration, should wealthy people be given a pass for committing felonies since i could cause financial harm to a community?

If we let rich people commit crimes it would encourage them to live in America, which is good for the economy!

Should? No.

Are they? Yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should? No.

Are they? Yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should? No.

Are they? Yes.

This is the kind of socialist thinking that leads to gulags.

Interestingly enough in most communist countries you can replace "wealthy person" with "party member in good standing" and its pretty much the same deal.

China: kill in numbers that make Hitler look like a bleeding heart, have apologists in the US say "no no, they're all reformed now" for the sake of good trade relations.

yes

All three of those cases happened in my home state but then again, I could also point out that Paris Hilton isn't currently serving a 20 years for multiple counts of drug trafficking.

No they should NOT but money itself is above the law.

The only ones that are above the laws seem to be the most powerful rich people and actors and actess which is not right.Everyone no matter what they are should be punished.

Yes.

Well nobody *should* be, but people who are famous, good looking, rich, and female, get away with breaking the law all of the time. It's how it is.

In the MJ case, that kid came forward and said the dad wanted money.

Originally posted by King Kandy
China: kill in numbers that make Hitler look like a bleeding heart, have apologists in the US say "no no, they're all reformed now" for the sake of good trade relations.

Yeah, but they're mostly killing other Chinese, so it's ok.

No to the TC's question, but their access to resources that allow them to "bend" the rules more than the common man(and definitely more than the poor) is the real issue.

...IMO.

.....

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Some of you may have read this story from last year http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20101108/NEWS/101109802/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Basically Martin Joel Erzinger, a wealthy financial manager hit a bicyclist with his car, permanently crippling him, then left him for dead. The Judge dropped all felony charges because he's a financial manager and a felony may jeopardize his job and the money of his clients.

Now here's more of the same. http://www.dailycamera.com/broomfield-news/ci_18335019

Curtis Hilty, a rich Realtor drugged and raped his 20 year old babysitter resulting in two felony charges and a potential life sentence. The judge and his family felt that the sentencing laws were too vague for somebody that had made a "mistake", dropped the felony charges, and sentenced him to 30 days in the city jail and 20 years of probation.

This all reminds me of Clarence Burns, a rich wife beater who was sentenced to two years of evenings and weekends in jail for pumping six bullets into his wife's head.

So here's my question. In this age when the most retarded, laughable concepts such as nullification, social Darwinism, Segregation, Racism, McCarthyism etc. are being given new consideration, should wealthy people be given a pass for committing felonies since i could cause financial harm to a community?

It's not just wealthy people. One of my old lecturers was the scene of crime officer in a double murder where a royal marine shot and killed his wife and baby daughter with a shotgun to the head.

He was found guilty but admonished on the basis that he'd "suffered enough".

Idiotic sentencing can be applied to anyone.

The Wealthy are not above the law, Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith, were both charged with rape at the same time. The Millionaire Black Champion was found guilty. The wealthy white American royal was not. Who knows if either actually committed the act...

I definitely can see the logic in letting the rich investment dude off...HOWEVER...what they SHOULD have done was sent him to prison, anyway, and allowed him to conduct business completely from jail and all the money he made for himself would go to the state or some sort of emergency room/hospital.

I know that sounds crazy but if he really had tons of people's retirements tied into his business and it would have been detrimental for all of those people and their investments...I definitely would not want all of those people punished for one man's actions. In this day in age...it's a complete cop-out to use the excuse that he could not conduct business from prison. They could easily monitor all of his actions and only allow business related communications for his manslaughter sentence (which would last up to 8 years.) In fact, he may be more productful in prison.

I hold similar beliefs for really good doctors/EMS/nurses that save lives pretty much on a daily basis: they do far more good outside than behind bars. Maybe make them work for free and pay all of their wages to the victims' family?


I actually do not know what the best solution is but I can see how destroying the life of 2 people can actually destroy the lives of far more than those two people. "Punished" is not the way the system should work, anyway, Darth Jello, so I think you're off in your line of thinking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I definitely can see the logic in letting the rich investment dude off...HOWEVER...what they SHOULD have done was sent him to prison, anyway, and allowed him to conduct business completely from jail and all the money he made for himself would go to the state or some sort of emergency room/hospital.

I know that sounds crazy but if he really had tons of people's retirements tied into his business and it would have been detrimental for all of those people and their investments...I definitely would not want all of those people punished for one man's actions. In this day in age...it's a complete cop-out to use the excuse that he could not conduct business from prison. They could easily monitor all of his actions and only allow business related communications for his manslaughter sentence (which would last up to 8 years.) In fact, he may be more productful in prison.

I hold similar beliefs for really good doctors/EMS/nurses that save lives pretty much on a daily basis: they do far more good outside than behind bars. Maybe make them work for free and pay all of their wages to the victims' family?


I actually do not know what the best solution is but I can see how destroying the life of 2 people can actually destroy the lives of far more than those two people. "Punished" is not the way the system should work, anyway, Darth Jello, so I think you're off in your line of thinking.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Someone else could take over those financial accounts. To expect the same job performance from a man sent to prison is insane. The same would apply to a doctor forced to work "for free".

Same should apply to jury duty. Business owners are let off all the time because being on a jury could be detritmental to their business. I say tough shit. If I have to do it, they should too.

The same rules should apply to everyone on both sides of the legal system. Sadly I know it isn't that way and never will be.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Someone else could take over those financial accounts.

And do just as well with out skipping any beats? Highly unlikely especially if he was heavily involved with directly managing them.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
To expect the same job performance from a man sent to prison is insane. The same would apply to a doctor forced to work "for free".

Wrong - he'd be even more proficient at managing the accounts he had. Sure, maybe he couldn't take on any new clients, but he'd have far more time to invest in managing the accounts. What's insane is nothing being discussed.

And, there are literally thousands of doctors that work for free.



Just google search "volunteer doctor".



Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Same should apply to jury duty. Business owners are let off all the time because being on a jury could be detritmental to their business. I say tough shit. If I have to do it, they should too.

This is a different topic, entirely.

I say that if you cannot take off of work for Jury Duty, there's much easier ways to go about avoiding Jury Duty...like pretending to be a racist.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
The same rules should apply to everyone on both sides of the legal system. Sadly I know it isn't that way and never will be.

The premise of the thread assumes criminals should be punished, not reformed. The system should be setup to REFORM people, not punish them. This is where you and Darth Jello are approaching the topic completely wrong.

People should be equally "treated" and "reformed".

Originally posted by dadudemon
And do just as well with out skipping any beats? Highly unlikely especially if he was heavily involved with directly managing them.

Sorry, but it still doesn't excuse killing someone



And you arrived at this conclusion how exactly? If anything I'd think his incentive would be to manipulate accounts to his benifit for when he gets out. Happens all the time now with financial managers anyway who are not in prison. Having someone oversee him would negate the need for him to be involved anyway



I'm well aware of that, but they aren't forced to. They volunteer in fields or on cases where they want to help, not where some court has ordered them to







We both know the American prison system does not "reform" people. It would take a major change in the way we approach criminal justice, not to mention probably hundreds of billions of dollars, which we no longer have, to do that.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Sorry, but it still doesn't excuse killing someone

Sorry if you think serving time while managing the accounts, and forcing the profits to go to the family destroyed by the death, is somehow "excusing" killing someone.



Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
And you arrived at this conclusion how exactly? If anything I'd think his incentive would be to manipulate accounts to his benifit for when he gets out. Happens all the time now with financial managers anyway who are not in prison. Having someone oversee him would negate the need for him to be involved anyway

You'd be amazed at the ridiculous things the human mind can accomplish with no free time: immaculate record keeping is very high on the list.

When you can do nothing "extra" except manage your accounts, you'll probably do better than ever.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I'm well aware of that, but they aren't forced to. They volunteer in fields or on cases where they want to help, not where some court has ordered them to

Sure beats serving time in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison where they can't practice their medicine, though.

And why does this escapes you?

Side note - the doctor/nurse in question would be allowed to keep just enough money to live, of course.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
We both know the American prison system does not "reform" people. It would take a major change in the way we approach criminal justice, not to mention probably hundreds of billions of dollars, which we no longer have, to do that.

Rather tangential of you because this thread is not about how the system is run but what we think should be happening in the justice system.

I just don't think the wealthy (or anyone else for that matter) should get any breaks, regardless of what they might accomplish otherwise, it sends the wrong message (that the rich are above the law). I believe there should be an attempt to rehabilitate some criminals but it depends on their crime.....I think violent criminals should be removed from society and yes, punished...and I think killing someone makes one a violent criminal.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I just don't think the wealthy (or anyone else for that matter) should get any breaks, regardless of what they might accomplish otherwise, it sends the wrong message (that the rich are above the law). I believe there should be an attempt to rehabilitate some criminals but it depends on their crime.....I think violent criminals should be removed from society and yes, punished...and I think killing someone makes one a violent criminal.

Of course but don't you understand that in this time of Republican domination and Democratic apathy, laziness, and pathological obsession with being liked, every loony right wing idea must be reexamined and possibly considered legitimate?

Why should any rich people go to prison?
What's wrong with equal protection under the law?
Is phrenology, physiognomy, and eugenics really wrong?
Why should rich people pay taxes at all?
Did we fight on the right side of world war II?


Bleh.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why should any rich people go to prison?

Depends on how the prison system is setup, if they are guilty, and some other things.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What's wrong with equal protection under the law?

Equal protection and equal punishment under the law are two different things.

Equal protection would be a cop who enforces the law without regard to any demographic.

Equal punishment means that for the same exact crime, everyone gets the same exact time. Yes, it's meant to rhyme.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Is phrenology, physiognomy, and eugenics really wrong?

Phrenology is considered the building blocks of modern psychology and neuroscience but is quite obviously pseudo-science so, yeah, it's wrong. It's been proven, quite clearly, wrong. But so has a gigantic portion of Freud's work.

Physiognomy, in the modern uses, is not quite "quack" science as you imply. There is some truth in what we can tell about a person based on their face. In fact, sexology overlaps into physiognomy in that we really can tell which people may be more aggressive because the face screams to those around us about our hormones and pubescent development. So, no, this particular example does not work very well to make your point. It's not as quack as you think it is.

Eugenics is only used by those trying to fear-monger. There's actually nothing wrong with consensual genetic engineering. There's nothing wrong with wanting to create a better genetic future for our progeny, either. It's the way you go about doing that could be considered wrong. You know what would be awesome? Forced eugenics in the form of gene therapy. What do I mean? I mean doing something similar to crop dusting: immunizing everyone through gene therapy with a fly by. It's fully possible and we can ALMOST do something like that now. Imagine curing HIV and reversing AIDS for everyone affected in Africa? What about curing the entire world of it? How is that bad? It's eugenics, though. Of course, I'm using a more liberal definition of eugenics and not the Nazi version you are trying to use. Maybe it's because I think improving the human genome is the farthest thing away from "evil" that you can do. It's the way you go about improving it that makes it "bad" or "good."

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why should rich people pay taxes at all?

No one should pay income taxes, imo. So, no, rich people should not have to pay income taxes.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Did we fight on the right side of world war II?

First, you mention eugenics with the rhetorical goal of illustrating how bad it was as it specifically applied to Nazism and now you ask a rhetorical question about which was the correct side in WWII?

Sure, there were evils from all sides.

yes, but only if they are also a famous athlete and/or entertainer

keep warm, burn the rich.

teehee.

Not to get off the subject but the Amish don't pay any taxes and they are not rich folks but I wonder how they are getting away with it?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Not to get off the subject but the Amish don't pay any taxes and they are not rich folks but I wonder how they are getting away with it?

They do pay taxes, just not Social Security after they forced the IRS to back down on religious grounds.

Well, the semiannual Koch Brothers orgy for rich fascist plutocrats a few hundred miles away ended yesterday so those ridiculous rhetorical questions no longer need to be considered legit, at least not locally.

As for income tax, many of the loopholes and write-offs should be eliminated but the brackets should be kept as is other than raising the $250,000 bracket to 40%, adding a 70% bracket at $1 million, and a 140% bracket at $10 million. Also, capital gains should be legally considered income.

they have orgies for that now?

the rich keep getting cooler

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, but they're mostly killing other Chinese, so it's ok.
Absolutely. That's the only reason why Hitler is considered "the most evil person in history"; he killed white people. Russians may be white but they don't evoke the kind of cultural sympathy europeans do, so Stalin gets a pass.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Phrenology is considered the building blocks of modern psychology and neuroscience
lol, considered that by whom?

Originally posted by Robtard
Should? No.

Are they? Yes.

Bingo. Money buys you anything .

Originally posted by King Kandy
lol, considered that by whom?

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/f/phrenology.htm

http://thehistoryofpsychology.blogspot.com/2011/04/history-of-phrenology.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=iZwXnfYAo3oC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=phrenology+started+psychology&source=bl&ots=cAcSohgKMm&sig=ApctnAwh2prmkryA-XxMkORqzpg&hl=en&ei=ENEOTpCkNMLVgQfly7DODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=phrenology%20started%20psychology&f=false

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/historyofpsych.html

http://thehistoryofpsychology.blogspot.com/2010/11/phrenology-beginners-guide-part-2.html



lol, so like...I just linked you to the first page results. I should have used that "let me google that for you". 313

None of those sources say it was the building blocks, that would imply, in some way, that the concepts of psychology are based on phrenology. Not at all. The most those sources can say for it are that they both involve studying the brain. The actual discipline of phrenology made zero valid additions to psychology, let alone the kind of fundamental ideas that "building blocks" would be.

WE the people should put bars on the court houses

Originally posted by King Kandy
None of those sources say it was the building blocks, that would imply, in some way, that the concepts of psychology are based on phrenology. Not at all.

Dude.

WTF?

Are you trolling?

Could you use a bigger strawman?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The most those sources can say for it are that they both involve studying the brain. The actual discipline of phrenology made zero valid additions to psychology, let alone the kind of fundamental ideas that "building blocks" would be.

Phrenology didn't make additions to modern psychology, it was the precursor to modern psychology.

Phrenology is to psychology as alchemy is to chemistry. Phrenology is also the precursor to neuroscience.

Seriously, dude...this is like psychology 101. It's the things you cover in the first chapter: "The history of psychology."


Do you even know what it is?

Originally posted by inimalist
they have orgies for that now?

the rich keep getting cooler

Never heard of Bohemian Grove? Even Nixon called them "F@GGY"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude.

WTF?

Are you trolling?

Could you use a bigger strawman?



Phrenology didn't make additions to modern psychology, it was the precursor to modern psychology.

Phrenology is to psychology as alchemy is to chemistry. Phrenology is also the precursor to neuroscience.

Seriously, dude...this is like psychology 101. It's the things you cover in the first chapter: "The history of psychology."


Do you even know what it is?
It is almost exactly like alchemy is to chemistry: something that historically preceded it but is now totally superseded and worthless. definitely not a building block. You don't see chemists trying to turn lead into gold and you don't see psychologists feeling the contours on your head.



Phrenology is not a "basic element" of psychology; in fact, phrenology techniques are 100% useless to psychology. If you asked any psychologist how often they use phrenology, the answer would be zero. That's the furthest thing from a building block.

According to conservatives they should be.

When you are broke, you are a joke