Which one is your grandfather?
1 Like
Honestly, they should be forced to stay in prison despite the fact that Coronavirus is circulating. You committed a crime, you’re imprisoned. Just because a virus comes through doesn’t grant you a pardon. Oops! You done fucked up. Especially sex offenders regardless of low-risk or high-risk. Complete waste of skin. Let them suffer.
What about those just in jail waiting for a trial? Maybe they don’t have bail money. Should they be forced to stay, while presumed innocent?
Absolutely. They committed a crime, do the time.
They possibly committed a crime. Not everybody knows this, but one could end up in jail for long periods of time BEFORE they ever get a trial. Many court systems are back logged. Many people who are innocent don’t have the funds to pay bail. I guess I am of the opinion that one should not be forced to sit in jail often for multiple years because they don’t have money, and have not been shown to be guilty yet.
The implications of this type of criminal justice are grim. On example, piss off the government, and they keep you in jail for years, by setting the bail to high, and then not giving you a trial.
FYI they actually do this on purpose some times. There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have been there for almost 20 years, and have not been found guilty by trial.
You would think Mr. America J. Freedom would know about presumption of innocence.
Being told to wear a mask is his idea of a violation of rights and oppression but violating someone’s right to due process, to a speedy trial, habeas corpus and whatever else, gets a “fuck 'em” response.
Freedom my ass. It’s more a question of me, me, me.
4 Likes
IMO, these are serious issues with the US’ criminal justice system.
Another issue is I don’t believe most Americans are intelligent enough / knowledgeable enough that they should be on a jury. Many people don’t even understand that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They expect the defendant to be proven innocent, SMH.
2 Likes
They also don’t know they can judge the facts of the case as well as the law.
1 Like
I don’t have a problem with these folks being released. They haven’t gotten their Due Process yet.
1 Like
Lol you’re up in arms over having a mask while you grocery shop, but have no problem holding someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime?
That’s an incredibly bad take man.
1 Like
The trial determines whether they committed a crime, not the charge.
3 Likes
They sound the same to me.
By superiors do you mean qualified professionals with longtime contributions to basic and clinical research? I would listen to them, yes.
Most of the country is, I believe.
You stay inside? Anyone can still catch the risk of being sick and infecting immuno-compromised loved ones and relatives.
You must be a politician, wording things like that.
Most of the country is under loosely defined stay-home orders not under quarantine.
1 Like
Not really. My mother-in-law lives with her immuno-compromised mother (who stayed home). She goes out daily constantly ignoring stay-at-home orders. Despite her mother’s pleas, she interacts with her daily. Last I heard, the immuno-compromised mother was hospitalized due to contracting the virus.
I don’t think it’s fair for someone who stays home to be infected by people who don’t follow safety regulations.
Only around 10-12 states are under mandatory quarantine. However I wouldn’t say the orders were “loosely-defined”. Many of the states under isolation orders have clear instructions of how they would like these orders to be followed.
That sounds pretty stupid. Did her mom not have anywhere else to go?
First off, 666 is the number of the beast. This tells me two things: one, the so called journalist never heard of Iron Maiden. Two, The Washington Times has poor editing.
Any “news” article that quotes something and then tells you “what it means” is really telling you what they want you to believe it means.
This is from the actual bill:
(e) Federal privacy requirements.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality requirement, including the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–191; 110 Stat. 2033) and section 543 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd–2).
1 Like
It definitely is stupid. Also no, I assume she’s retired and settling in with my daughter-in-law. Whatever floats their boat.