Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by pissedoffsol, May 12, 2005.
how can you define a word if you use in the definition sooooo wtf is a gang crime?? A gang crime is a crime involving gangs who commit a gang crime.
I'm all for harsher punishments but I don't think thats going to stop gang crimes or the establishment of gangs in general.
I think the best idea is to get the people willing to participate in gangs off the street, but thats going to cost quite a bit. Its whether or not the public is willing to accomodate those costs to help insure that theres less crime...or we can go on our merry way and oppose the bill if we don't have many gang related problems in our area.
They defined what the definition of a gang was to be interpreted as a group of three or more people, so when they went on to describe a 'gang crime' one can automatically assume that they mean a crime thats committed by three or more people.
This isn't grammar school, Congress can use complex sentences and define a word and then go onto define another word based upon the previous definition, in one sentence.
Personally, I'm all for getting kids off the streets but nobody seems to see that we need to push the responsibility back where it belongs - the parents.
...but TV can raise our children...
but you can also argue that this is a very generalized definition that can be misused to lock away "less desireables" for long stretches...
lets say you and 2 friends are out hanging out...
fair enough, then one of them litters... or spray paints on the back of a stop sign, and then your other friend sees some dude that hit on his girl and gets in a fight with him... bam, 20 years hard time in federal prison for a group of three or more, committing 2 crimes, one of which is violent...
Alright, thats fine...you don't agree with their definition of a gang, you're entitled to your opinion.
I was laughing at sean because he was stating that they couldn't define a word, while using that word in the definition. My point was they defined the word and then went onto use that definition to define another term. Basically its an issue of semantics and grammar, but they did it correctly.
they defined what gangs are by saying they commit gang crimes...
but failed to give a definition of gang crimes...
Which is why TV must protect children from dangerous nipples.
No, you said it yourself...they defined gangs as peoples of three or more.
Thus they defined gang crimes by inferring that they are crimes committed by gangs which are defined as three or more people.
They didn't define gangs by saying they commit gang crimes. They defined what gang crimes are by defining what is viewed as a gang. Basically the last clause of the sentence is left upon for interpretation so if there are three random dbag guys that commit 3 crimes, one or more being violent so that they can put the screws to those three guys as if they were a 10,000 member strong gang. Don't be an asshole and break the law and you and your friends having nothing to worry about.
Tyrants throughout history have used that same excuse.
Parents all over the country will be trying to put the bullies that beat up their nerdy son into prison for life, and that's just the first exploit off the top of my head.
Read the consequences, they're not all for life.
And if that bully and two of his friends fit into the category of committing three crimes, one of which can be deemed violent why should they not suffer the same consequences as others?
If three guys are picking on one guy because he's "nerdy" and they do something that terrible to the kid that the prosecutors sees fit to prosecute them as a gang, why should they be any different than a "regular" gang?
I'll say this, I'm sure there's loopholes in this legislation just as there is in every other piece of legislation. If its left up to interpretation than anything can happen.
are you challenged?
do you not see the diffrence between 3 friends hanging out getting into mischief, and ORGANIZED GANG CRIME????
Sir, you should never bring to the table a point about intelligence. You may not think it or believe it, but unless you're in a very small percentage of peoples then in terms of intelligence I'll walk circles around you. You think I'm an ignorant person when in fact I can usually see all angles of the argument.
Read, reread, and read again. I've stated it two or three times now and you all seem to forget what you read five seconds previous.
To be elligible for the punishment you must meet two requirements outlined in the original post; 1) Be a group of 3 people or greater and 2) Commit three felony crimes, one of which must be deemed violent and must be committed as a group or three or more, i.e. a "gang"
"Convictions for other gang crime -- defined as violent crimes and other felonies committed to further the activities of a street gang -- would result in a minimum prison term of at least 10 years."
This isn't you stole a pack of gum, this is three felonies one of which being violent. You don't think if you committed three felonies one of which violent which obviously resulted in pain and suffering being inflicted. At the very least the gang must have hurt one person, but more realistically even if only one person was physically hurt there were other reprocussions to everyone that the victim belonged to. Criminals don't just hurt the victims in crimes but they hurt the entire group they associate with, its basic psychology. Take a look at the Cross Model and the stages of life, specifically the pre-encounter, the encounter, and then the state of immergence that occurs as a result of the encounter.
So i pose the question are you challenged?
I wanna play
What does having been in a gang have to do with understanding the legislation that they put forth?
Did I even elude to have been in a gang or knowing it all about a gang?
I simply said that if three people commit three felonies, one of which is deemed violent, what is the difference if they are punished the same as a larger gang? They're still being bullies, they're still using numbers, whats the difference. I was more explaining the legislation and how it can be benificial then harping about my incrediblely vast knowledge about gangs //sarcasm.
I will now reward you with your cookie because you have been in a gang and know what its like to be in a gang, even though that has zero to do with the punishment of such activities.
***As for an IQ test I haven't taken one willingly, I mean other than the the IQ tests that were slipped into the standarized testing as a child.
The problem with this legislation is that jail time/capital punishment/etc is not very effective in stopping crime, so adding more to the tax payers burden by stiffening penalties really is only to the benefit of those who are involved with the prison system (guards, suppliers, etc). It is similar to how people will advocate the death penalty because they think that it stops murder. If that were true, then we would expect the state with the highest rate of capital punishment to have the lowest murder rate, right? Im afraid Texas is far from the lowest. Same logic applies here; gang members (in the traditional sense or by the new definition) are not going to sit and contemplate the reprocussions of their actions before engaging in crimes, and no additional penalties will change that fact.
Separate names with a comma.