Does this make any sense to anyone?

[ban basketball]

Why the religious bash?!? UGLY made no reference to Jesus!!

Why would I bash religion, but more importantly, how in the world did you get it from my statement that I "bashed religion?!"

My religion (Lutherans), the Catholic church, as well as nearly every Christian denomination would frown upon the scenario that I posed, right? That's why I SARCASTICALLY (hint, hint) stated that Jesus would have done the same.

As I always say, "Who's illegal in Jesus' eyes?" What a heathen I am, eh?

I would also invite you to do a search on here for my other views regarding religion and Christianity, if you're still confused. I suspect that you'll be a bit surprised.

[UGLY]

Ban your entire response seemed to be sarcastic. But if it wasnt and you do believe that the law should be applied equally and that the mother should be sent away then I have no issue with your stance. If you are willing to take the hardline stance on every case this deals with then I support your position, I dont agree with it but I support it.

FYI, I wouldnt seperate the mother and child, I would just send them both back to there country of origin. (thats a discussion for another thread)

[pm01]

Ban your entire response seemed to be sarcastic. But if it wasnt and you do believe that the law should be applied equally and that the mother should be sent away then I have no issue with your stance. If you are willing to take the hardline stance on every case this deals with then I support your position, I dont agree with it but I support it.

FYI, I wouldnt seperate the mother and child, I would just send them both back to there country of origin. (thats a discussion for another thread)

If he truly believes, and it's difficult to believe, that equal and fair means every person convicted of the same crime should rcv the exact same sentence, then one only needs a cursory familararity with the legal system to see he is wrong and judges dont agree with him. He injected himself into the thread and hijacked it. It is more likely he's dancing.

[UGLY]

PM we are on the same page, I actually am a little taken back that BAn would take the side he has, I would have thought he would have gone the other way.

[ban basketball]

If he truly believes, and it's difficult to believe, that equal and fair means every person convicted of the same crime should rcv the exact same sentence, then one only needs a cursory familararity with the legal system to see he is wrong and judges dont agree with him. He injected himself into the thread and hijacked it. It is more likely he's dancing.

Don't misrepresent what I've been saying. I'm only talking about THIS case ("equal and fair means every person convicted of the same crime"), and, as I've said 2,021 times before in the two scenarios that I posed, we are talking about repeat offenders, who also don't have a rap sheet of prior charges and/or convictions. If that is the case, why should one be handed a lesser sentence simply because she works and has good grades, while the other who doesn't work and does poorly in school gets a harsher sentence? AGAIN, this assumes that they have no prior convictions, and alltheir legal problems have been in this one case. No judge could ever justify to me why one should get a better sentence than another.

Now, in regard to "cursory familiarity with the legal system" and "judges do not agree with me," why did this judge agree with me, counselor? Could it be that I have a little more than a "cursory familiarity" with the edurcation system, and that we may not have all of the information about this student, aside from the emotional story printed in a paper to anger the misinformed? Seems to me that I must understand something, as that is why the judge agreed with me, right, counselor?

Finally, did you also inject yourself into the thread? Have you also stated your opinions on this issue? So, is it fair for me to then say that you have hijacked the thread? It must be...hijacker!

LOL!!!!!

[ban basketball]

PM we are on the same page, I actually am a little taken back that BAn would take the side he has, I would have thought he would have gone the other way.

I've really only made one point this entire thread, and it goes back to my initial question of if people would be as outraged by the student who wasn't as "upstanding" as her. I take the stance that I take because I don't think that anyone should get an easier break in the system just because they are perceived by a newspaper article to be "upstanding," while the "troubled kid" wouldn't be afforded the same break.

"Upstanding" isn't a reason to give an easy sentence to a repeat offender, in my view.

[UGLY]

Its not only the fact that she is upstanding, you also have to take into account that she is applying herself the best that she can giving her circumstances that are beyond her control, as opposed to someone just being lazy. Its like speeding, if a police officer pulls someone over who is speeding to get his dying mother to the hospital, the officer or judge would take into account the circumstances for which the person was speeding, as opposed to someone who was just speeding to speed would get a harsher punishment.

What you are doing is important but often times it is not as important as why you are doing it. What is the cause of your actions? Are those causes withing your control? Did you have the ability to change your actions? What were the consequences of changing your actions? These are just some questions that need to be asked when considering what punishment is fair and whether or not a pesron shares the same liability as another for the same crime.

[pm01]

Ugly, I agree we are the same page; however ban refuses to join us on that page.

He stubbornly clings to vague terms like "upstanding" which is relative and a value statement, as well as "treated the same" without ever defining what they mean. All while we've given specific examples/scenarios to illustrate our position. It seems apparent he either doesn't understand how the judicial system operates or he's too proud to merely agree with us and others.

[WhippetGrappler]

Why would I bash religion, but more importantly, how in the world did you get it from my statement that I "bashed religion?!"

My religion (Lutherans), the Catholic church, as well as nearly every Christian denomination would frown upon the scenario that I posed, right? That's why I SARCASTICALLY (hint, hint) stated that Jesus would have done the same.

As I always say, "Who's illegal in Jesus' eyes?" What a heathen I am, eh?

I would also invite you to do a search on here for my other views regarding religion and Christianity, if you're still confused. I suspect that you'll be a bit surprised.

I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were pointing at. I just did not see the correlation of bringing Jesus into the conversation when He had not been brought up or Christianity had not been brought up. Out of the blue comment.

I have seen other posts where folks who disagree with UGLY's stance on religion put him down for it. I defend all people's views even when they do not match my own. Each person is entitled to their opinion.

Too many times when people discuss things it escalates to into name calling and bashing someone. I do not understand why folks cannot be civil when having discussions.

Again, if I misinterpreted, I am sorry.

Back to Topic!! Killing someone is a crime. Yet self-defense is a circumstance that gets you off for killing someone. Should the one who kills in self-defense be punished?!? With your example, they should be punished also correct??