NewScum will be the Dem candidate in 2024/2028

Seems to me a more responsible post would include the full article and not just some dude on Twitter who only screenshotted the headline.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/27/newsom-grants-clemency-to-26-including-man-who-stabbed-elderly-woman-to-death-1269447

sycasey said:

---

Seems to me a more responsible post would include the full article and not just some dude on Twitter who only screenshotted the headline.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/27/newsom-grants-clemency-to-26-including-man-who-stabbed-elderly-woman-to-death-1269447

---

There are no shades of gray in RWNJ World. Everything is binary.

The deep need to parse a commuting of a murderer is typical of apolgist LWNJs.

Of course there are details not captured in the tweet. This is a self-evident reality of all tweets. It's only brought up as an argument when you have an agenda without a compelling case.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging this was an unacceptable move. You guys are quick to point out less egregious errors in executive power...just not here.

GBear4Life said:

---

The deep need to parse a commuting of a murderer is typical of apolgist LWNJs.

Of course there are details not captured in the tweet. This is a self-evident reality of all tweets. It's only brought up as an argument when you have an agenda without a compelling case.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging this was an unacceptable move. You guys are quick to point out less egregious errors in executive power...just not here.

---

I don't understand. Why don't you want people to see all relevant information? All I did was provide it.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

The deep need to parse a commuting of a murderer is typical of apolgist LWNJs.

Of course there are details not captured in the tweet. This is a self-evident reality of all tweets. It's only brought up as an argument when you have an agenda without a compelling case.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging this was an unacceptable move. You guys are quick to point out less egregious errors in executive power...just not here.

---

I don't understand. Why don't you want people to see all relevant information? All I did was provide it.

---

Another strawman. People can read all the relevant articles. You defend the principle here. And I'm saying that's dangerous and a reason why Americans don't like the "far" left "progressives". They have blinders on on this issue and issues like this.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

The deep need to parse a commuting of a murderer is typical of apolgist LWNJs.

Of course there are details not captured in the tweet. This is a self-evident reality of all tweets. It's only brought up as an argument when you have an agenda without a compelling case.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging this was an unacceptable move. You guys are quick to point out less egregious errors in executive power...just not here.

---

I don't understand. Why don't you want people to see all relevant information? All I did was provide it.

---

Another strawman. People can read all the relevant articles. You defend the principle here. And I'm saying that's dangerous and a reason why Americans don't like the "far" left "progressives". They have blinders on on this issue and issues like this.

---

Seems to me the guy with blinders is the guy who omitted the relevant context, but okay.

sycasey said:

---

Seems to me a more responsible post would include the full article and not just some dude on Twitter who only screenshotted the headline.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/27/newsom-grants-clemency-to-26-including-man-who-stabbed-elderly-woman-to-death-1269447

---

These "rules" only apply to those on the right, no one here ever calls out those on the same team who do it much more often.

GBear4Life said:

---

NewScum will be the Dem candidate in 2024/2028

---

Shhhhh. Democrats don't want know about this.

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Seems to me a more responsible post would include the full article and not just some dude on Twitter who only screenshotted the headline.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/27/newsom-grants-clemency-to-26-including-man-who-stabbed-elderly-woman-to-death-1269447

---

These "rules" only apply to those on the right, no one here ever calls out those on the same team who do it much more often.

---

I will not complain if any conservative wants to include relevant context for a claim made by a liberal.

Caveat: It must be RELEVANT to the subject and ACTUALLY true information, not just another stupid Facebook meme.

Shrug.

He killed someone 26 years ago, and had been a model citizen while in jail. I say let him go, as I do believe people can change, 26 years is a long time, and I'd rather not pay to keep him locked up.

sycasey said:

---

Seems to me the guy with blinders is the guy who omitted the relevant context, but okay.

---

Spare me. You're obfuscating to avoid actually defending your indefensible position by framing this not about the issue but the OP attempting to "hide info", an absurd proposition in 2020 on a topic with dozens of articles.

golden sloth said:

---

Shrug.

He killed someone 26 years ago, and had been a model citizen while in jail. I say let him go, as I do believe people can change, 26 years is a long time, and I'd rather not pay to keep him locked up.

---

Cool, no life sentences if you're a good boy in prison! Hey general public, *****you, these murderers are alright in my book !

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Seems to me a more responsible post would include the full article and not just some dude on Twitter who only screenshotted the headline.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/27/newsom-grants-clemency-to-26-including-man-who-stabbed-elderly-woman-to-death-1269447

---

These "rules" only apply to those on the right, no one here ever calls out those on the same team who do it much more often.

---

This is Sycasey's thing -- obfuscate with a sanctimonious post attempting to steer conversation away from the outcome...full well knowing if the OP had done what he's advocating it wouldn't have changed a thing -- him and his ilk would still laughingly parse the credibility of either the source article or the facts -- hey, ithe OP is "irresponsible"

GBear4Life said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Shrug.

He killed someone 26 years ago, and had been a model citizen while in jail. I say let him go, as I do believe people can change, 26 years is a long time, and I'd rather not pay to keep him locked up.

---

Cool, no life sentences if you're a good boy in prison! Hey general public, *****you, these murderers are alright in my book !

---

As I said, 26 years is a long time, and I believe people can change and become better people. I'm not particularly afraid of this individual potentially living on my street.

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Seems to me a more responsible post would include the full article and not just some dude on Twitter who only screenshotted the headline.

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/27/newsom-grants-clemency-to-26-including-man-who-stabbed-elderly-woman-to-death-1269447

---

These "rules" only apply to those on the right, no one here ever calls out those on the same team who do it much more often.

---

I will not complain if any conservative wants to include relevant context for a claim made by a liberal.

Caveat: It must be RELEVANT to the subject and ACTUALLY true information, not just another stupid Facebook meme.

---

It goes both ways, but yeah, memes are fair game for ridicule for the most part.

golden sloth said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Shrug.

He killed someone 26 years ago, and had been a model citizen while in jail. I say let him go, as I do believe people can change, 26 years is a long time, and I'd rather not pay to keep him locked up.

---

Cool, no life sentences if you're a good boy in prison! Hey general public, *****you, these murderers are alright in my book !

---

As I said, 26 years is a long time, and I believe people can change and become better people. I'm not particularly afraid of this individual potentially living on my street.

---

It doesn't matter what you or I believe, what we KNOW is he has murdered. I would actually agree that the likelihood, still, of him reoffending is relatively "low" but we don't know, and it doesn't matter.

The primary interest is the public's -- public safety -- not on the individual's salvation WHEN that person has a demonstrable history of violence and was charged and convicted according to proper procedure.

Does this apply only to murder? Or do other felonies fall in this category? Like obstruction of justice? Or bribery? Extortion? Asking for a friend.

GBear4Life said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Shrug.

He killed someone 26 years ago, and had been a model citizen while in jail. I say let him go, as I do believe people can change, 26 years is a long time, and I'd rather not pay to keep him locked up.

---

Cool, no life sentences if you're a good boy in prison! Hey general public, *****you, these murderers are alright in my book !

---

As I said, 26 years is a long time, and I believe people can change and become better people. I'm not particularly afraid of this individual potentially living on my street.

---

It doesn't matter what you or I believe, what we KNOW is he has murdered. I would actually agree that the likelihood, still, of him reoffending is relatively "low" but we don't know, and it doesn't matter.

The primary interest is the public's -- public safety -- not on the individual's salvation WHEN that person has a demonstrable history of violence and was charged and convicted according to proper procedure.

---

I'm not worried that this 64 year old guy with a great behavioral record in prison (meaning no gang affiliations, etc.) is a threat to public safety.

I would also say that the level of threat is indeed relevant. Isn't this the key question in all of these policy debates? Balancing individual liberty versus public good? If the threat to public safety is low enough, why not err on the side of freedom?

Is your contention that anyone who ever committed a murder is irretrievable?

AunBear89 said:

---

Does this apply only to murder? Or do other felonies fall in this category? Like obstruction of justice? Or bribery? Extortion? Asking for a friend.

---

Uh, are you trying to equate violence with (serious) "white collar" crime?

Whatever the current punishment for any crime outside of drug use -- i.e. crimes that inherently involves victimizing others -- I can probably assure you that I think it's not enough.

I also think some mitigating factors matter in sentencing ... but that they are generally less applicable in the meting out of punishment for violent crimes.

sycasey said:

---

I'm not worried that this 64 year old guy with a great behavioral record in prison (meaning no gang affiliations, etc.) is a threat to public safety.

I would also say that the level of threat is indeed relevant. Isn't this the key question in all of these policy debates? Balancing individual liberty versus public good? If the threat to public safety is low enough, why not err on the side of freedom?

Is your contention that anyone who ever committed a murder is irretrievable?

---

What kind of logic is this?

I already addressed to AunBear that what you and I think doesn't matter -- what we know is this person has shown a propensity for violent crime. That is the FACT in play here. The public should not be asked to carry the burden of that risk, however small, given that FACT about somebody just because some of us really want to feel good about ourselves.

Your position is basically if a person is old, or shows good behavior (for how long?), there is justification for letting out extremely violent offenders (violent offenders show much much lower levels of rehabilitation than non-violent criminals). Your Honor, I object.

GBear4Life said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Does this apply only to murder? Or do other felonies fall in this category? Like obstruction of justice? Or bribery? Extortion? Asking for a friend.

---

Uh, are you trying to equate violence with (serious) "white collar" crime?

Whatever the current punishment for any crime outside of drug use -- i.e. crimes that inherently involves victimizing others -- I can probably assure you that I think it's not enough.

I also think some mitigating factors matter in sentencing ... but that they are generally less applicable in the meting out of punishment for violent crimes.

---

So, when the preponderance of evidence indicates that someone has clearly committed serious white collar crimes, and the institution responsible for adjudicating the case decides to ignore the evidence and thus the crimes, that must really get your goat, huh?

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not worried that this 64 year old guy with a great behavioral record in prison (meaning no gang affiliations, etc.) is a threat to public safety.

I would also say that the level of threat is indeed relevant. Isn't this the key question in all of these policy debates? Balancing individual liberty versus public good? If the threat to public safety is low enough, why not err on the side of freedom?

Is your contention that anyone who ever committed a murder is irretrievable?

---

What kind of logic is this?

---

It was your logic! You said public safety should override all. I said that I don't think this guy is much of a threat to public safety anymore.

Objection overruled.

AunBear89 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Does this apply only to murder? Or do other felonies fall in this category? Like obstruction of justice? Or bribery? Extortion? Asking for a friend.

---

Uh, are you trying to equate violence with (serious) "white collar" crime?

Whatever the current punishment for any crime outside of drug use -- i.e. crimes that inherently involves victimizing others -- I can probably assure you that I think it's not enough.

I also think some mitigating factors matter in sentencing ... but that they are generally less applicable in the meting out of punishment for violent crimes.

---

So, when the preponderance of evidence indicates that someone has clearly committed serious white collar crimes, and the institution responsible for adjudicating the case decides to ignore the evidence and thus the crimes, that must really get your goat, huh?

---

Not as much as violence, but yes it pisses me off. Injustice pisses me off. I also think Greed is evil, but greed that doesn't victimize anybody (like the McDonald's monopoly thieves) scores lower on my pissed off meter than say, for example, then say Valient Pharmaceuticals

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not worried that this 64 year old guy with a great behavioral record in prison (meaning no gang affiliations, etc.) is a threat to public safety.

I would also say that the level of threat is indeed relevant. Isn't this the key question in all of these policy debates? Balancing individual liberty versus public good? If the threat to public safety is low enough, why not err on the side of freedom?

Is your contention that anyone who ever committed a murder is irretrievable?

---

What kind of logic is this?

---

It was your logic! You said public safety should override all. I said that I don't think this guy is much of a threat to public safety anymore.

Objection overruled.

---

But that assumption is not based on unfounded forecasts - the only thing we know for fact is he committed a violent crime. Based on that fact, you die, in prison. The idea that good behavior mitigates any previous sentencing from the justice system for violent criminals is absurd, IMO

Who would commute this scumbag, raise your hand.

And, as an executive, under what circumstances could you justify commuting a murderer sentenced (dutifully) to life in prison?

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not worried that this 64 year old guy with a great behavioral record in prison (meaning no gang affiliations, etc.) is a threat to public safety.

I would also say that the level of threat is indeed relevant. Isn't this the key question in all of these policy debates? Balancing individual liberty versus public good? If the threat to public safety is low enough, why not err on the side of freedom?

Is your contention that anyone who ever committed a murder is irretrievable?

---

What kind of logic is this?

---

It was your logic! You said public safety should override all. I said that I don't think this guy is much of a threat to public safety anymore.

Objection overruled.

---

But that assumption is not based on unfounded forecasts - the only thing we know for fact is he committed a violent crime. Based on that fact, you die, in prison. The idea that good behavior mitigates any previous sentencing from the justice system for violent criminals is absurd, IMO

---

I consider it absurd that one violent crime means you just throw away the key on someone and whatever else they do with their life after that is meaningless. I think the bar should be very high for such a person to potentially have their sentence mitigated after the fact, but this all-or-nothing attitude of yours I believe is also actively harmful to society. If there is absolutely no path to rehabilitation then that does not encourage convicts to behave well while incarcerated.

So I think that is the source of our impasse. Any room for compromise on your end?

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not worried that this 64 year old guy with a great behavioral record in prison (meaning no gang affiliations, etc.) is a threat to public safety.

I would also say that the level of threat is indeed relevant. Isn't this the key question in all of these policy debates? Balancing individual liberty versus public good? If the threat to public safety is low enough, why not err on the side of freedom?

Is your contention that anyone who ever committed a murder is irretrievable?

---

What kind of logic is this?

---

It was your logic! You said public safety should override all. I said that I don't think this guy is much of a threat to public safety anymore.

Objection overruled.

---

But that assumption is not based on unfounded forecasts - the only thing we know for fact is he committed a violent crime. Based on that fact, you die, in prison. The idea that good behavior mitigates any previous sentencing from the justice system for violent criminals is absurd, IMO

---

I consider it absurd that one violent crime means you just throw away the key on someone and whatever else they do with their life after that is meaningless. I think the bar should be very high for such a person to potentially have their sentence mitigated after the fact, but this all-or-nothing attitude of yours I believe is also actively harmful to society. If there is absolutely no path to rehabilitation then that does not encourage convicts to behave well while incarcerated.

So I think that is the source of our impasse. Any room for compromise on your end?

---

You're willing to vouch for the redemption of a know violent criminal over the general public.

So...what are these "very high" set bars for commuting sentences on murderers. You basically agree with me but said there are exceptions. So what are the reasonable circumstances for these exceptions.

The exception I would make are like the ones in Con-Air, a terrible but good Nicholas Cage movie. But then again, I have an issue with the original sentencing there. Nothing was known after the fact that supported his cause to be freed.

At the risk of pushing us further apart, I think in some cases the threat of violent crime -- say, armed robbery and a hostage scenario (think OJ Vegas) -- should get life sentences without parole, particularly if they have a long rap sheet.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'm not worried that this 64 year old guy with a great behavioral record in prison (meaning no gang affiliations, etc.) is a threat to public safety.

I would also say that the level of threat is indeed relevant. Isn't this the key question in all of these policy debates? Balancing individual liberty versus public good? If the threat to public safety is low enough, why not err on the side of freedom?

Is your contention that anyone who ever committed a murder is irretrievable?

---

What kind of logic is this?

---

It was your logic! You said public safety should override all. I said that I don't think this guy is much of a threat to public safety anymore.

Objection overruled.

---

But that assumption is not based on unfounded forecasts - the only thing we know for fact is he committed a violent crime. Based on that fact, you die, in prison. The idea that good behavior mitigates any previous sentencing from the justice system for violent criminals is absurd, IMO

---

I consider it absurd that one violent crime means you just throw away the key on someone and whatever else they do with their life after that is meaningless. I think the bar should be very high for such a person to potentially have their sentence mitigated after the fact, but this all-or-nothing attitude of yours I believe is also actively harmful to society. If there is absolutely no path to rehabilitation then that does not encourage convicts to behave well while incarcerated.

So I think that is the source of our impasse. Any room for compromise on your end?

---

The problem is the first guy Newsom commutes that commits another violent crime, you get Megan;'s law, the return to no limits three strikes, etc. and Newsom gets to see the guy in thousands of negative ads. But in most places, life is not life. there is probation after many years served. Newsom probably should have dumped the decisions on to parole boards with directions to reduce the jail population size due to COVID.

As I mentioned multiple times, GB4L always feels insecure and tries too hard to stay relevant. Starting this thread is no different.

The way things are going if he kills another elderly person he's doing her a big favor.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Newsom probably should have dumped the decisions on to parole boards with directions to reduce the jail population size due to COVID.

---

I believe that's basically what he did for this guy. Despite what the clipped Twitter headline might have you believe, the guy is not free already. Newsom's action allows him to request parole when he otherwise would not have been able to.

GBear4Life said:

---

At the risk of pushing us further apart, I think in some cases the threat of violent crime -- say, armed robbery and a hostage scenario (think OJ Vegas) -- should get life sentences without parole, particularly if they have a long rap sheet.

---

I have no issue with criminals who have "long rap sheets" being put away for good. People who offend multiple times are demonstrating they have no desire to rehabilitate.

AFAIK this guy doesn't have a long rap sheet. It's one crime. A particularly violent and egregious one, yes, but still it's one crime.

So I think that given: a long time (multiple decades) already served, very good behavior in prison, and a short rap sheet, yes, that is a pretty high bar and a reasonable case can be made for that person's release, even if they did commit a murder.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

At the risk of pushing us further apart, I think in some cases the threat of violent crime -- say, armed robbery and a hostage scenario (think OJ Vegas) -- should get life sentences without parole, particularly if they have a long rap sheet.

---

I have no issue with criminals who have "long rap sheets" being put away for good. People who offend multiple times are demonstrating they have no desire to rehabilitate.

AFAIK this guy doesn't have a long rap sheet. It's one crime. A particularly violent and egregious one, yes, but still it's one crime.

So I think that given: a long time (multiple decades) already served, very good behavior in prison, and a short rap sheet, yes, that is a pretty high bar and a reasonable case can be made for that person's release, even if they did commit a murder.

---

Dude, but that one crime is murder... there was no doubt in the case....if you are capable of committing murder, bye bye, it's a pity there isn't a hell for ya to go to, but the public isn't going to carry the burden of a select few's misplaced and misguided compassion

Your last paragraph is just mind numbing. Yeah, who cares about the vicitms and the community at large. Why ? He impressed you with good behavior.

BearChemist said:

---

As I mentioned multiple times, GB4L always feels insecure and tries too hard to stay relevant. Starting this thread is no different.

---

Yeah, murderers being commuted, who cares!