Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00385)

Steve Stubbs wrote:
> I will not dispute what you are saying, but you failed to address the
> key issue. He only went to jail for life because he was poor.

No, he went to jail for life because he was a crook. 

> Robert Downey is not going to jail for life. 

True. But he did not do anything that he knew in advance would put him
into jail for life. 

> No movie star gets
> pinched for blowing so much coke up his nose that he completely wipes
> out his nasal membranes. 

Well, I oppose most drug laws; I believe that they are part of a
campaign to deny that there is a basic right of freedom of thought (hate
crime laws are another step in that direction). Besides, I like to
consider them to be evolution in action.

> G. Gordon Liddy ws in nine differet prisons and recently pronounced 
> himself unrepentant. He is not going to jail for life. 

No, but as a convicted felon, he has forfeited a number of rights. And
he served his time, and did not continue to commit crimes. 

> Winona Ryder is not going to jail at all. She thinks it
> is outrageous that she even had to appear in court, instead or
> playing around in her Porsche.

If she does it again, watch what happens.

> My favorite writer, Anatole France, put is best:
> 
> "The law forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg for pennies,
> sleep under bridges, and steal bread."

And there is no reason in the United States that anybody has to beg for
pennies, sleep under bridges, or steal bread, unless they are mentally
ill, or have a mental illness they brought upon themselves (such as drug
addiction). 

> Of course if one is rich there is no penalty for doing these things.
> There is hardly any way to get around this. The truth in it is self
> evident.

So, what do you suggest we do to the rich so that they are more
motivated to commit crimes?

> You probably don't believe Tawana Brawley's story or that OJ Simpson
> should have gone free either, do you? 

I don't believe Tawana Brawley's story. Not even Al Sharpton still
believes Tawana Brawley was telling the truth. 

As far as OJ Simpson, I believe that the initial search of his house,
and therefore all the evidence that resulted from it, was illegal, and
therefore he should have gone free. 

> You are stuck in the past,
> Bart. It is true that this might as well be Mississippi in 1949
> since so little has changed, 

Except a few little things like integration, black voting rights, and
affirmative action, just to name a few. 

Bart Lidofsky