Fair treatment at last.
-
Court for ex-military personnel[^] An easy option? No. A fair one? Yes.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
Court for ex-military personnel[^] An easy option? No. A fair one? Yes.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Yes, any former soldier who gets into trouble is obviously suffering from PTSD, so should be swaddled in cotton wool, forgiven his crimes, and given lots of money. Makes sense to me. Some of them might have had difficult childhoods, too, so extra allowances should be made.
If you don't want to be a soldier, don't join the ****in' army!
-
Court for ex-military personnel[^] An easy option? No. A fair one? Yes.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Why does it have to be a special court? A special court for anyone makes me feel queasy. Does that mean "normal" courts aren't fair? A "normal" judge can't take into account that drug dealer fought in the gulf war? Can't help but only punish? Don't get me wrong, I think the veterans deserve that help, I just think it's at the wrong point. I don't know if there enough veteran centers in L.A., but shouldn't these be supported to give them someone who understands their problems, a shelter in need, help them find a place to get off drugs, get a job, or yes, maybe a lawyer specialized to their typical cases? It's not about avoiding preferrential treatment - but it sounds like an attempt to fix problems of legal system by making it worse.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Why does it have to be a special court? A special court for anyone makes me feel queasy. Does that mean "normal" courts aren't fair? A "normal" judge can't take into account that drug dealer fought in the gulf war? Can't help but only punish? Don't get me wrong, I think the veterans deserve that help, I just think it's at the wrong point. I don't know if there enough veteran centers in L.A., but shouldn't these be supported to give them someone who understands their problems, a shelter in need, help them find a place to get off drugs, get a job, or yes, maybe a lawyer specialized to their typical cases? It's not about avoiding preferrential treatment - but it sounds like an attempt to fix problems of legal system by making it worse.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchypeterchen wrote:
Does that mean "normal" courts aren't fair?
Yes. Fairness implies justice. Courts do not seek justice, they seek the fulfillment of the letter of the law, and I can assure you that quite often, the law is extremely lacking.
If the post was helpful, please vote, eh! Current activities: Playing Star Craft II. Don't bother me, eh? Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
Yes, any former soldier who gets into trouble is obviously suffering from PTSD, so should be swaddled in cotton wool, forgiven his crimes, and given lots of money. Makes sense to me. Some of them might have had difficult childhoods, too, so extra allowances should be made.
If you don't want to be a soldier, don't join the ****in' army!
Agreed. I cannot shake the feeling that some people are just abusing "the system". It is like kitten who breaks a vase and looks at your with those big eyes. As if apologizing. And not as if it is you, who thinks that "it" is apologizing (-. Kitteh is just lucky to have those eyes...
Trust is a weakness.
-
Court for ex-military personnel[^] An easy option? No. A fair one? Yes.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
I believe the model is the drug courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_court If it actually reduces recidivism then it is doing what it should.
_____________________________ _____________________________ It is better to hack the code than to curse the darkness.
-
Agreed. I cannot shake the feeling that some people are just abusing "the system". It is like kitten who breaks a vase and looks at your with those big eyes. As if apologizing. And not as if it is you, who thinks that "it" is apologizing (-. Kitteh is just lucky to have those eyes...
Trust is a weakness.
Don't you realise how hard it is for Elaine to handle ornaments with those paws?
-
peterchen wrote:
Does that mean "normal" courts aren't fair?
Yes. Fairness implies justice. Courts do not seek justice, they seek the fulfillment of the letter of the law, and I can assure you that quite often, the law is extremely lacking.
If the post was helpful, please vote, eh! Current activities: Playing Star Craft II. Don't bother me, eh? Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
the law is extremely lacking
That's a can of worms to open up.. :cool: Of course, law isn't perfect. It's just a little step up from the sticks & stones debates. However, there's the "the law applies to everyone the same" principle, an important step ot of the dark ages. Western civilization put a strong weight on the letter of the law, to make it equal for all. Judges (in Germany) have great liberties, but if they deviate, they are usually overturned. "By the letter" is tradeoff with "by rule of the judge" - the first is supposed to guarantee a more predictable system, but might mean the judge has to punish someone against the intent of the maker of the law. A more subjective decision are barn doors to corruption, and make legal decisions much less predictable, which is supposed to be a problem in crime prevention. (The problem of the latter goes deeper, unpredictable law is a great instrument of fear). Yeah, principle, up there. Deviating from that doesn't look like a good idea.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Yes, any former soldier who gets into trouble is obviously suffering from PTSD, so should be swaddled in cotton wool, forgiven his crimes, and given lots of money. Makes sense to me. Some of them might have had difficult childhoods, too, so extra allowances should be made.
If you don't want to be a soldier, don't join the ****in' army!
There was a very good documentary about three weeks ago about soldiers diagnosed with severe PTSD beign sent straight back into combat and despite rules that they should receive treatment, when the returned to the US they were discharged and put back on the street without any support. We create killing machines with nervous breakdowns and set them loose amongst the sheep.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
I believe the model is the drug courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_court If it actually reduces recidivism then it is doing what it should.
_____________________________ _____________________________ It is better to hack the code than to curse the darkness.
And often the army have broken their own rules by not treating diagnosed cases when they come back - there was a very good documnetary a few weeks ago and it showed soliders who suffered from all kinds of disorders and they were given one drug for each symptom. There was one ex-soldier who had been given six different drugs, four of which were for short periods and he was on them for nine months. Then when he returned to the US after a failed attempt to kill himself (gun jammed) he was thrown onto the streets despite army regs. about mandatory treatment.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
Why does it have to be a special court? A special court for anyone makes me feel queasy. Does that mean "normal" courts aren't fair? A "normal" judge can't take into account that drug dealer fought in the gulf war? Can't help but only punish? Don't get me wrong, I think the veterans deserve that help, I just think it's at the wrong point. I don't know if there enough veteran centers in L.A., but shouldn't these be supported to give them someone who understands their problems, a shelter in need, help them find a place to get off drugs, get a job, or yes, maybe a lawyer specialized to their typical cases? It's not about avoiding preferrential treatment - but it sounds like an attempt to fix problems of legal system by making it worse.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
the law is extremely lacking
That's a can of worms to open up.. :cool: Of course, law isn't perfect. It's just a little step up from the sticks & stones debates. However, there's the "the law applies to everyone the same" principle, an important step ot of the dark ages. Western civilization put a strong weight on the letter of the law, to make it equal for all. Judges (in Germany) have great liberties, but if they deviate, they are usually overturned. "By the letter" is tradeoff with "by rule of the judge" - the first is supposed to guarantee a more predictable system, but might mean the judge has to punish someone against the intent of the maker of the law. A more subjective decision are barn doors to corruption, and make legal decisions much less predictable, which is supposed to be a problem in crime prevention. (The problem of the latter goes deeper, unpredictable law is a great instrument of fear). Yeah, principle, up there. Deviating from that doesn't look like a good idea.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
peterchen wrote:
but shouldn't these be supported
Yes, and just like body armour they were ignored until it was too late.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
:thumbsup:
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
the law is extremely lacking
That's a can of worms to open up.. :cool: Of course, law isn't perfect. It's just a little step up from the sticks & stones debates. However, there's the "the law applies to everyone the same" principle, an important step ot of the dark ages. Western civilization put a strong weight on the letter of the law, to make it equal for all. Judges (in Germany) have great liberties, but if they deviate, they are usually overturned. "By the letter" is tradeoff with "by rule of the judge" - the first is supposed to guarantee a more predictable system, but might mean the judge has to punish someone against the intent of the maker of the law. A more subjective decision are barn doors to corruption, and make legal decisions much less predictable, which is supposed to be a problem in crime prevention. (The problem of the latter goes deeper, unpredictable law is a great instrument of fear). Yeah, principle, up there. Deviating from that doesn't look like a good idea.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
And often the army have broken their own rules by not treating diagnosed cases when they come back - there was a very good documnetary a few weeks ago and it showed soliders who suffered from all kinds of disorders and they were given one drug for each symptom. There was one ex-soldier who had been given six different drugs, four of which were for short periods and he was on them for nine months. Then when he returned to the US after a failed attempt to kill himself (gun jammed) he was thrown onto the streets despite army regs. about mandatory treatment.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
There was a very good documentary about three weeks ago about soldiers diagnosed with severe PTSD beign sent straight back into combat and despite rules that they should receive treatment, when the returned to the US they were discharged and put back on the street without any support. We create killing machines with nervous breakdowns and set them loose amongst the sheep.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
So because some army doctor or whatever broke a rule, the entire justice system should jump through hoops, and gateways should be left open to allow anyone who was in the army to commit crimes and walk away without facing the consequences of their actions. Right. Just because "There was a very good documentary" on TV does not mean that it is the most important thing in the world, or that everyone who was in the army should get preferential treatment from the courts.
Preferential treatment is reserver for the rich and for movie stars! Get it right!
-
If you read the article it's more a point that the judge is ex-military and has a good undertanding of the background to the issues, a matter of specialist knowledge and experience.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Why then not an ex-banker to judge Ackermann, an ex-manager to judge Jeffrey Skilling? As I understand, anything that's not a federal offense is in the jurisdication of the state / county / city - so technically, L.A. could say "veterans walk free, no matter what"? I agree that a court "run" by an ex-military would work exceptionally well on an ex-military defendant who fell through the holes, more than in most other professions. Still, if this court ends up with significantly different rulings than "normal" ones, something's wrong.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
And often the army have broken their own rules by not treating diagnosed cases when they come back - there was a very good documnetary a few weeks ago and it showed soliders who suffered from all kinds of disorders and they were given one drug for each symptom. There was one ex-soldier who had been given six different drugs, four of which were for short periods and he was on them for nine months. Then when he returned to the US after a failed attempt to kill himself (gun jammed) he was thrown onto the streets despite army regs. about mandatory treatment.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
I hate it when orgs break their own rules like that. When the corporate culture supports that kind of BS it tends to be pernicious (in the insidious sense of the word). I don't believe the whole mass of the Army is bad, though. I think its like any large group. And a documentary like that would and should show the worst cases. Hopefully they did.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
I hate it when orgs break their own rules like that. When the corporate culture supports that kind of BS it tends to be pernicious (in the insidious sense of the word). I don't believe the whole mass of the Army is bad, though. I think its like any large group. And a documentary like that would and should show the worst cases. Hopefully they did.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
Sadly it did. The officer representing the US Army kept giving the prepared answers in order to defend the indefensible kept it up until near the end of the programme. Then he stopped talking and tears ran down his face because he couldn't continue with the lies someone else had ordered him to give.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]