if you are a member ,you are guilty ,period.Automatic sentence,5 years.Repeat offense 10 years.
Answers:
Because there is a fine line between a "gang" and a "club", and which term your group is called is usually determined by how much money you make.
Besides, one of the cornerstones of our justice system is the principle that we don't hold anybody responsible for other people's actions unless they helped them commit their crime in some discernible way. Laws against associating with criminals in specific ways which support and assist their illegal acts such as "aiding and abetting", "conspiracy", "inciting violence", and being an "accomplice" to a crime already address this.
Yea that doesn't violate the constitution..
well, you have liberal whiners, and the ACLU who wouldnt like that idea much.
I personally feel that gang violence, drug abuse, and so forth is out of control, and that anyone who feels like stronger intervention is not required here obviously doesn't care about inner-city people.
I would definitley do harsh sentences for joining a gang that is on some official list of violent gangs. To me, these are terrorists who are destroying lives, disrupting the community, and bringing down our property values.
If I were a person living in the inner city I would be more afraid of a person in gang colors than a police officer, but some see law enforcement as the real threat.
My way of punishing and deterring violent gang membership would be to send them to do community service by day and sleep in a prison cell by night. They develop a strong work ethic, beautify the communities they helped damage, and are prevented from doing more gang violence, at least in the short term.
because if your in a gang your probabley gang banging and doing alot of things against the law but some people like to claim gangs and there not in it to so think of sending those inncent people to jail
I think that's against the constitution, and would set up a really bad precedent for making it illegal to be a member of all sorts of groups, such as the Junior League, or the Daughters of the Confederacy, or the Elk's Club, or the National Rifle Association, or the Human RIghts Campaign.
But if a gang is known to be violent, then I believe all legal measures should be taken to be rid of them and their guilty members serve extreme punishments.
What about this gang
Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham
In an alarming exposure of the acceleration and urgency of the American war party’s push towards catastrophic war with Iran, Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter terrorism officer, in an interview [1] on 24th July with Anti War Radio debunked the NeoCons’ repeated myth of Iran’s support for AlQaeda as a pretext for war. Whilst acknowledging Iran’s helpfulness in trying to establish security in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Giraldi spoke of the United States’ hypocritical and illegal support for terrorist separatists groups inside Iran, and various plans and scenarios which have been drawn up to destroy Iran’s military and economic infrastructure by massive bombardment, with the use of nuclear bombs a real and stated possibility.
Giraldi refuted the assumption that sharing hostilities towards the US, placed Iran and AlQaeda in the same camp and sharing similar agenda, arguing that Iran followed a very different agenda in its dealings with the US. He emphasised both the fact of Iranians’ helpfulness in Iraq, in terms of pushing for greater stability, and also their help and cooperation in Afghanistan, as well as the reality of the deep hostilities between Shiia Iran and Sunni extremism of AlQaeda. Giraldi recalled the major attack against the Iranian consulate general in Afghanistan by the Taliban, a close ally of AlQaeda, in which 11 Iranian diplomats were killed, and the regular AlQaeda violent attacks against Shiia population in Iraq, and concluded that a Shiia Iranian-AlQaeda alliance was not a plausible possibility.
He described the recent New York Sun’s allegation [2] that AlQaeda prisoners in Iran led terrorist operations inside Iraq under the advice of the Iranian government, as one of many propaganda pieces making a case for war. He said how in 2003, the Iranian government, through the Swiss embassy, had offered to hand over the six AlQaeda prisoners kept in Iran, which includes Osama Bin Laden’s son, in exchange for the US ceasing its support for the MEK, and how this offer was rejected by the US. He said of the MEK that it was sheltered and armed by Saddam against Iran, and now supported and armed by Pentagon against Iran.
Highlighting what he called American “ultimate hypocrisy”, Giraldi explained how the US government is supporting terrorist groups and ethnic division in Iran and charging the Iranians in Iraq for what the US was doing in Iran itself and with a lot more evidence. Giraldi talked of US’s support for Jundollah which he described as a Sunni Baluchi separatist group in eastern Iran that has launched deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran. He also spoke of US support for separatists amongst the Arab minority which is closer to the border with Iraq.
Giraldi repeated the alarm call he first made in his revelations in the American Conservative Magazine in 2005 that Dick Cheney, who has no authority under the constitution, had ordered the air force to draw up plans for air strike against Iran that even included the use of nuclear weapons. He said he thought there was a lot of evidence since then to suggest that nuclear weapons are still very much on the table and named Republican Senators such as McCain, Gilliani and Romney who had not “flinched at all” in the debate about the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran.
He spoke of various war scenarios cooked up by the war party. One scenario was of the automatic use of the nuclear weapons in order to reach and destroy the Iranian nuclear sites buried under ground. Another scenario was to use the nuclear threat if the “Iranians continue to fight back after we staged our attack”, the idea being “that’s what the nukes are for, our nukes that everybody knows that we in fact do have, is to tell them, listen, you are going to sit there and take it while we bomb you for a week or two and you are not going to fight back and if you do fight back then we will use nuclear weapons on you”, and he cited the example scenario of Iranians resisting by staging attack in the Strait of Hormouz or destabilising Afghanistan.
Setting out the horrifying context of the possibility of the US using nuclear strikes against Iran, under the pretext of destroying Iranian nuclear bombs which do not exist and Iran’s cooperation with AlQaeda, another propaganda fabrication, Giraldi drew attention to the recent warning to Iran and the threat of war issued by AlQaeda for Iran’s support for the Shiia government in Iraq, as well as AlQaeda’s constant horrific attacks inside Iraq targeting Shiia population and mosques.
Prof. Abbas Edalat of CASMII said today: “Giraldi’s revelations is consistent with and confirms the emergence of a shift in the dynamics of the American foreign policy decision making away from dialogue and in favour of war. The reality of the shared strategic interests between Iran and the US in stabilising Iraq and the possibility and great benefits for both countries in reaching a rapprochement in their bilateral relationship, based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than threat and coercion, is persistently obscured and sabotaged by the fanatical warmongers of Cheney camp and the Israeli lobby, who are relentlessly pushing for war”.
It is incumbent upon the media and journalists to give active voice to informed and conscientious individuals like Giraldi who have well-established connections within the intelligence community and are warning the international community about the impending catastrophic war against Iran.
For more information please contact CASMII or visit http://www.campaigniran.org
Notes
[1] http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/07/24/p...
[2] http://www.nysun.com/article/58599...
they would first have to establish a definition for the word gang. if you make guilt by association legal then alot of people would be going to prison just because of the people they associate with. it seems like a good idea, but remember the road to perdition was paved with good intentions.
Yes, I agree with tougher laws on those who are indeed lawbreakers...but I DO NOT agree with this concept of guilt by association. Quite frankly, what you are suggesting borders on the same thing that the Nazis did to the Jewish people...and it is a very severe form of discrimination.
Moreover, it is a violation of 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Not to mention the Constitional provisions of due process, and an assumption of innocent until proven guilty!
Is it fair for a person to be punished for a crime they didn't commit? How would you like it if someone labeled YOU a gangmember just because you wore the "wrong" clothes or colors, had the "wrong friends or relatives" or had the "wrong" complexion or "wrong" ethnicty? "Wrong" as defined by the powers that be who may be biased themselves?
Should people be considered "guilty by association" because someone in your family was/is a gangmember but you've lived a clean, exemplary life?
Because they happen to be the innocent offspring of an alleged gangmenber?
What if you were a schoolteacher who had gangmembers in your classroom...that's an "association" of sorts?
What about a minister who may have gangmembers in their congregation...as there are many churches who work in inner city areas trying to end the problem with gangs?
What if you are the EMT tech or Doctor who treated a person who got shot during a drive-by shooting...who may or may not be a member of a gang.
What about the many people in the US, Canada and worldwide who made an ill informed choice, joined a gang, but saw the error of their ways, got out of the gang, and are now doing their best to start over clean?
Well, there are people like that...some of them ex-cons who have paid their debt to society! Yet if you had your way, you would continue to punish these people and anyone who walk within a mile of them over and over again, based on your own prejudices and irrational fears?
There are a lot of shades of gray in a so-called black and white world .
YAY! Every punk a@sed cop in the country gets to go to the pen, absolutely pass that amendment! Oh yeah, you thought that the Bloods %26 Crips were the only punk assed gangs oput there, huh? If it applies to the common man it must apply to the badged common a#s!!!
Sure if we put up a fence around california we might have enough room to jail them all
I agree with askthepizzaguy!!
There are communities that do exactly that. I'm not sure which ones they are, I'm sure you can look it up on Google. If a person is KNOWN to be a street gang member they are given particular investigative treatment by police. The sentence for any infraction of the law, drugs, guns, etc, is then compounded by this gang association. I'm all for it!
I'd like to think this question is not about social interaction but active gang membership. Period.
In Canada , we have a law regarding that already . A person can be charged AND convicted of "being a member of a criminal organization" .
We have all kids of strict laws regarding criminals , crime , the use of guns while perpetrating a crime , etc .
Yet Canada`s judicial system is a standing joke wordwide . Unfortunately , our justice system isn`t a joke if you live here ! The pathetic state of the travesty known as our "justice" system is due to the fact the people here have NO SAY in the appointment of judges at ANY level !
These "judges" are appointed by the government ... FOR LIFE ! They live in ivory towers , totally disconnected from reality . Many of them made extremely poor lawyers , but as a "favour" to them for supporting the government of the day , some of these idiots are appointed to the Supreme court ..... if you can believe that !
Canadian judges are convinced a sentence of a year or two for rape , murder , cop killings , child molestation and things of that nature will show criminals and gang members they mean business ! ..... ROFLMAO ! I swear it`s TRUE !!
So what`s the point of strict laws if they`re never going to be enforced or used in sentencing ?
This has been tried in the past and recently by many communities.
This is the most recent one.
http://www.thetandd.com/articles/2007/03...
There is also the "Rico act.
First, not all gangs are terrorists. All gangs are not even criminal -- even if some are.
Let's say all a gang ever does is petty theft (shoplifting) and minor vandalism (spraypainting buildings). Yes, these misdemeanors are criminal actions. But are you seriously saying they rise to the level of "terrorism" -- because if they do, then every criminal in the US would have to be considered a terrorist.
Someone already mentioned the Constitutional problems, since freedom of association is absolutely protected under the 1st Amendment. And yes, our govt has already got around that and has convicted people of felonies based solely on who they associate with -- without anyone actually having committed any other crime beyond mere association.
You want to punish people merely for social interaction -- talking to someone or being in their presence -- even if neither person has yet committed a crime, merely because someone ELSE has committed a crime.
Have we really gone so far down the road to fascism that you can be convicted and imprisoned just because you KNOW someone who knows someone ELSE who has committed a crime?
If we all played the "Guilty by association" game , 99% of our government would be in jail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment