Posted on 05/24/2016 10:54:51 AM PDT by John Semmens
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker is seeking a redefinition of "violent crimes." As a co-sponsor of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (SRCA), Booker is urging "a candid conversation about how we determine whether crimes are violent or not."
"For too long a racist mindset has dominated how we look at crime," Booker charged. "In white society stabbing or shooting someone is considered abnormal and violent. This unfairly stigmatizes Black culture. Sentencing a minority offender based on white standards disproportionately impacts a vibrant segment of society."
Booker urged that "we recognize the longer term history of racial oppression in this country and factor that into how we think about modern society. For hundreds of years Blacks were owned by whites and were brutally abused. This inculcated a predisposition to look to violence and brutality as normal tools for securing obedience and exploiting others. Is it any wonder that this would have negative repercussions today?"
The Senator recommended that "we cut the brothers some slack if the victim of his so-called violent act is a descendant of a former oppressor. This would be a kind of non-monetary reparation for crimes committed against his ancestors—a sort of social justice self-defense that ought to mitigate the punishment meted out to the brothers for taking unauthorized independent steps to right earlier wrongs."
Both Democratic presidential contenders called Booker's thinking "innovative" and "long overdue." Sen. Bernie Sanders pronounced himself "an admirer of street justice that moves us closer to the redistribution of society's wealth and privileges." Hillary Clinton promised "it will be an approach that my Attorney General will take in all cases that come under federal purview and will guide my selections of future Supreme Court appointees."
In related news, California's decriminalization of shoplifting has been followed by a 100% increase in the practice. Gov. Jerry Brown professed not to be bothered by the phenomenon, cautioning that "we not jump to the conclusion that these guerrilla transfers of ownership are necessarily unjust. If we were to use need as our scale, it is by no means clear that shoplifting doesn't result in a more equitable distribution of wealth."
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,207864.0.html
OR
https://azconservative.org/2016/05/21/aclu-bemoans-courts-pro-choice-decision/
Satire today, headline tomorrow....
Put on the muckboots, and grab a big shovel!
“we not jump to the conclusion that these guerrilla transfers of ownership are necessarily unjust. If we were to use need as our scale, it is by no means clear that shoplifting doesn’t result in a more equitable distribution of wealth.”
Gov. Moonbeam has spoken, and thou shalt honor his wisdom...
GRRR!
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
This statement also covers the victims. Go back to school senator, and learn something about the law before you suggest changing it.
red
I’m pretty sure that went out the window when we adopted “protected classes” of citizens.
“justice involved” individuals
Problem is that when you are working with people that don’t care and are doing something illegal, when you allow them more leeway, they will take it. Violence will double with this thought process. And even if you do prosecute some of them, you’ve already trained them they have a far better chance of getting away with the acts. And they will salivate like Ivan Pavlov’s dogs. (Right before they bite!)
red
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.