My hope is that this ‘making an example’ shit, which was mis-applied here, might actually be used against shit-holes like Lindsay or Amy Winehouse.
Highly unlikely, but this Snipes case is the first I’ve seen a celebrity actually get treated worse because of their celebrity status, so maybe.
Nobody should be “made an example of”
All that means is giving someone an unfair punishment based on who they are rather than what they did. That’s complete bullshit even if the people in question are dumb sluts.
[/quote]
I think you slightly misinterpreted.
What I mean is that I’m sick of celebrities getting away with countless run-ins with the law. So, taking some of those dumb slut celebrities, and actually enforcing a prison sentence upon them, instead of giving them 200 hours of community service for their 19th DUI, would be ‘making an example’ of them to show that celebrities will no longer get preferential treatment.
Again, I don’t think this will happen, as California law enforcement in particular seems to have a vested interest in keeping celebrities OUT of trouble.
I know there are different levels of prison, but I would think it would be a more humane idea to house non-violent offenders completely in their own prison. Is this the case? Are you they kept completely separate? I hope so. I wouldn’t like to think that someone on tax evasion or someone who wrote bad checks was being held with murderers or gang bangers.
Nonsense. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. It’s like saying I wasn’t aware I can’t go 100 mph down the highway, or that I can’t turn right on red at that intersection. It’s simply not a defense.
[/quote]
Where did I say he was using Ignorance as a defence? I said If you can prove that if is your beleif that taxes are unconstitutional you can avoid jail time but you still have to pay your back taxes. That is fact
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I know there are different levels of prison, but I would think it would be a more humane idea to house non-violent offenders completely in their own prison. Is this the case? Are you they kept completely separate? I hope so. I wouldn’t like to think that someone on tax evasion or someone who wrote bad checks was being held with murderers or gang bangers.[/quote]
What about community service? Is it worth it to take a productive, non-violent citizen and house them somewhere where they cannot be productive while charging innocent people to house him?
He could pay back the cocksuckers what he “owes” and then serve the rest of his punishment by working in a soup kitchen or something. He doesn’t need to become a burden on innocent tax payers for three friggin’ years.
C. Availability of Alternative Sentences
There is, perhaps, one point on which both parties can agree: that the sentence
imposed on Snipes, who is a prominent public figure, could promote the public good.
The United States submits that the public good would be best served by the imposition
of a substantial prison sentence, as such a sentence could instantaneously improve tax
compliance on a national scale. The defense likely will urge the Court to impose public
or community service as an alternative to a prison sentence.
However, any request for
leniency based upon Snipes’ offering to perform public or community service in lieu of
imprisonment (such as, for example, “speaking to teenagers about the value of hard
work and education” or contributing to a nonprofit “which educates teenage males about
teenage pregnancy”) should be rejected.
See Glenn Henderson, Snipes’ Debt To
Society Still Unpaid After Motorcycle Ride on I-95, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 24, 1995, at
1B, available at 1995 WLNR 1533663.20 Snipes repeatedly acted on his strong anti-tax
views, even after he was indicted. Snipes is no role model, and public or community
service would be a particularly inappropriate basis upon which to grant leniency to him.
Whatever benefit might be derived from such an alternative sentence would be more
than offset by the harm to tax administration caused by the public perception that
Snipes had gotten off with a slap on the wrist because of his celebrity.
[quote]Cat Nip wrote:
I have no problem with someone refusing to pay taxes if:
They never drive on a public road
They never walk on a public sidewalk
They don’t use public water
I have a feeling Wesley Snipes was not living off the land in a self-sustaining environment…[/quote]
The federal government doesn’t provide most of the things you mentioned and he wasn’t paying federal taxes. Anyway, the issue here is whether or not you can do that to Blade, and the answer is a resounding “hell no.”
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Cat Nip wrote:
I have no problem with someone refusing to pay taxes if:
They never drive on a public road
They never walk on a public sidewalk
They don’t use public water
I have a feeling Wesley Snipes was not living off the land in a self-sustaining environment…
The federal government doesn’t provide most of the things you mentioned and he wasn’t paying federal taxes. Anyway, the issue here is whether or not you can do that to Blade, and the answer is a resounding “hell no.”[/quote]
He also wasn’t paying his state taxes or his corporate taxes either.
[quote]kelleyb wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Cat Nip wrote:
I have no problem with someone refusing to pay taxes if:
They never drive on a public road
They never walk on a public sidewalk
They don’t use public water
I have a feeling Wesley Snipes was not living off the land in a self-sustaining environment…
The federal government doesn’t provide most of the things you mentioned and he wasn’t paying federal taxes. Anyway, the issue here is whether or not you can do that to Blade, and the answer is a resounding “hell no.”
He also wasn’t paying his state taxes or his corporate taxes either.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Cat Nip wrote:
I have no problem with someone refusing to pay taxes if:
They never drive on a public road
They never walk on a public sidewalk
They don’t use public water
I have a feeling Wesley Snipes was not living off the land in a self-sustaining environment…
The federal government doesn’t provide most of the things you mentioned and he wasn’t paying federal taxes. Anyway, the issue here is whether or not you can do that to Blade, and the answer is a resounding “hell no.”[/quote]
But he was enjoying all the freedoms established by the Federal Government and protected with federal funds.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Last time I checked the feds don’t protect us from vampires.
And Blade does.
We should give HIM fucking taxes.[/quote]
lol.
The theory that he should be punished more because of who he is and as a deterrent for others is complete bullshit. He should be punished exactly the same as someone in his position. It is no different than being punished “more” because of who his father is, or if he was a politician, or a priest, or a famous athlete.
As if being a celebrity makes him “more guilty”. Why? Because of some misguided influence he may or may not have?
Exactly what sliver of the American demographic are going to be deterred? Male, black rich celebrities who don’t pay millions in taxes? Yeah that’s a group that we really need to keep an eye on, they’re running rampant.
[quote]medevac wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Last time I checked the feds don’t protect us from vampires.
And Blade does.
We should give HIM fucking taxes.
lol.
The theory that he should be punished more because of who he is and as a deterrent for others is complete bullshit. He should be punished exactly the same as someone in his position. It is no different than being punished “more” because of who his father is, or if he was a politician, or a priest, or a famous athlete.
As if being a celebrity makes him “more guilty”. Why? Because of some misguided influence he may or may not have?
Exactly what sliver of the American demographic are going to be deterred? Male, black rich celebrities who don’t pay millions in taxes? Yeah that’s a group that we really need to keep an eye on, they’re running rampant.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
medevac wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Last time I checked the feds don’t protect us from vampires.
And Blade does.
We should give HIM fucking taxes.
lol.
The theory that he should be punished more because of who he is and as a deterrent for others is complete bullshit. He should be punished exactly the same as someone in his position. It is no different than being punished “more” because of who his father is, or if he was a politician, or a priest, or a famous athlete.
As if being a celebrity makes him “more guilty”. Why? Because of some misguided influence he may or may not have?
Exactly what sliver of the American demographic are going to be deterred? Male, black rich celebrities who don’t pay millions in taxes? Yeah that’s a group that we really need to keep an eye on, they’re running rampant.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We all benefit from certain government services.
And we all are punished by certain services – of which we have no control.[/quote]
Yea, but you and I don’t get the maximum sentence because of who we are. Why should Blade? As medivac pointed out, the logic that he should be punished worse is nonsense.