No, we should be finding ways to reduce stupid laws so they won't be so over-worked. Everytime something happens enough people don't like, we get a new law and more prosecutions. Just yesterday, The Batavian's poll shows people want to prosecute animal abusers with a felony. I dislike stereotyping, but......How many of those who abuse or neglect animals does anyone think can afford a lawyer? Defense council is guaranteed by the constitution and in my opinion should always be. We all need the protection from total tyranny of a trial by jury. Justice is one of the very few proper functions of government. But the amount of things people are being prosecuted for is ridiculous.
To those that voted yes, I would respectfully ask you to respond with where the money would come from?
This state and nation are broke - possibly beyond repair - and yet people don't care as long as it one of their personal priorities. Everyone else be damned, this is important to me, so find the money.
If all of us could remain as objective as possible, our kids' kids' kids' kids would not be as burdened by our mindless spending.
If the public defenders office is currently understaffed or overworked, then additional funding is needed. With all due respect to Dave's references to stupid laws, and even considering there may be needless prosecutions based on them, I'd bet any excess burden on PDs is not due to stupid laws.
The Supreme Court has been very clear about ruling that a defendant is entitled to a good defense, and if a defendant is indigent the state must assist.
I believe in two things about our justice system: The people (aka the prosecution) should be competent and thorough, and the the defendant has an absolute right to a vigorous defense.
The fact that any person, regardless of income, has access to defense counsel is a legitimate use of taxpayer money. The government wastes so much money, but spending money on criminal defense is never a waste.
In our system of checks and balances, the ability to challenge the people's case is one of the ways in which all us our protected against false and possible malicious prosecution. It helps keep us free. We may not always like the outcome in some cases, but the same system that sometimes helps a defendant avoid the consequences of his or her criminal action also protects each and every one of us.
It's not in the best interest of any citizen to have a public defender's office that can't handle it's case load.
Dave, the primary problem with "too many laws" is most of the extra laws, the laws that makes our system so complex, are the enhancements.
Take DWI as just one example. We made it more complicated to no discernible benefit to society with Leandra's Law. A DWI arrest under Leandra's Law might make the defense of the suspect a little more complex, but there is still an arrest and still a defendant that must be represented. I'm not sure reducing stupid laws would greatly reduce the work load.
Depends on what you think is a stupid law, Howard and Tim. I'm not interested in a debate on which laws in particular or enhancements should go, I offer the entire catalog of that which one can be charged with as ridiculous. The entire system needs to be streamlined, along with every damn thing government spends our money on. It is a blanket statement. The under-funding of the public defenders is a symptom of government overreach and it's insatiable need for covering all bases. I repeat, the right to counsel is a guaranteed constitutional right by the 6th amendment and it should always be available. Therefor, that is the priority not all the complicated laws and complexities which have arisen along with the sheer quantity. If the public defenders can't keep up and can't provide adequate defenses, then the root cause needs to be addressed; and it surely is not that we are being taxed too little, or that there is nothing else to cut out.
I am puzzled, just what does the article have to do with Genesee County or New York State for that matter? The article referred to Missouri, not NY and to <strong>some </strong>other parts of the country, not here. While I know that PD offices here in our county have a pretty sizable workload, I heard no calls here of late for more dollars or staffing here. Missouri is 800 miles or so away. In fact the only mention I heard of a PD of late other than this poll, was a PD failed (Probably just a mistake) to challenge a summary in the Williams case. Even under the most staffed PD office things like that occasionally happen.
Don't get me wrong, the article is interesting, but as far as it applies to Genesee County, I am just not seeing it.
Never said it applied per se to Genesee County. Our polls frequently aren't related to Genesee County (there aren't enough local issues for a daily poll).
Overall, the PD's offices across ny are in shambles, over worked, understaffed, and
are on the short end of funding vs the prosecution.
If those voting against more funding would ever find themselves needing free legal
representation, they would then understand how bad things are.
Don't get me wrong, it is still better than nothing, but not by much.
I think the public defenders that we have are an exact example of ... you get what you pay for. They are civil servants that don't get paid as much as a hired attorney, and they don't care if they help their clients or not. Most of the public defenders that I have had a chance to watch in many of our courtrooms and they don't listen to their clients. They just go in, speak with the DA make a deal for the client and leaves it up to the client whether to take the deal or not. Not listening to their clients version of the incidence at all. For all they know, their client is innocent but they don't want to draw out any court procedures. They don't try to get away with not enough evidence. What if you have a citizen vs a police officer? The police always win.
I would like nothing more than to have a system where the ACCUSED is innocent til proven guilty?
Laura, unfortunately the pd 's office is so under funded, it's not even fair.
For a real good understanding of how pathetic a public defender defense is in NYS,
read the Spangenburg Report, and the Kaye Commission Report.
The results speak for themselves.
Plea deals are the easy out, cheap for both legal sides, and the taxpayers.
As far as innocent until proven guilty, around here , some seem to think the court of public opinion should bear weight.
There is a procedure in place for a citizen to accuse a police officer of wrongdoing.
It has a few more hoops than lodging a charge against a citizen, but its there.
Hey vote down, why don't you grow a pair and post a comment? Probably won't because he/she doesn't have a valid point, and or no facts to back up their down vote.
Can't stomach cowards, or maybe there are a couple of illiterates that can't do anything more than point and click up or down.
At any rate, they can't dispute facts, so keep hiding, no balls.
I actually agree with Frank on the down voting. Requiring actual names eliminates trolling. Anonymous up/downs are quick but if you took the time to read the post, decide that you either liked it or didn't, take an extra few seconds and state your case.
I challenge the premise that a thumbs up or down = cowardice. If I or anyone else makes a statement publicly on this site, then you should expect approval or disapproval. If you are so thin-skinned or insecure in your positions that you want to challenge anyone who disagrees, then maybe you ought to keep your thoughts to yourself. This is a public venue and is therefor subject to public scrutiny. Deal with it. Not everyone feels the need to spout their viewpoints, like some of us. Trying to force everybody to fit into your homogenous mold of how they should behave is basically bullying.
I'm a frequent up or down voter without leaving a comment. Not everything warrants a stated, worded rebuttal. One or two down votes on a post is random variation. Getting bent out of shape over one or two down votes is rather wasted energy. But if a person's post is getting several down votes, that speaks volumes without a word being written. However, in those cases, usually some other commenter has written a response that pretty much sums up what's wrong with the post. I know there have been many times where I've voted up or down but didn't leave a comment because somebody else pretty much said what I would have said.
I'm not against the feature and these are just my opinions. I look at the concept like this, an up vote is like a cheer. Cheers are universal signs of agreement, support, or encouragement. The down vote is like a boo or hiss. As such there is a greater onus on down votes. Sometimes I truly believe a post is getting down votes because it was misunderstood or required clarification. Someone stepping up and challenging it or asking for clarification allows for more debate and better understanding. Some are just patently offensive and yes, down votes speak for themselves. I don't think it's about being thin-skinned, I think it's about the old adage, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. I was also taught that when you have something to say, don't send an anonymous messages, sign your name and stand behind what you say. Old fashioned maybe, but it's often times difficult to adapt old social mores to new technology. Just my opinion, so if you down vote this, my day won't change.
Jeff an up or down vote is just that. You agree or disagree. The adage of not having anything nice to say doesn't apply because you aren't saying anything but thumbs down. Its not cowardice as Frank points out nor is it illiteracy. Its just a vote of negative over positive.
All the other descriptions of it are just interpretations of the recipient. If you dont want down votes then dont speak. Thats all.
My viewpoint is that sown votes aggravate because they show a negative response that can't be argued or discussed. No one likes absolutes at all....
Kyle, that's why I stated that it was just my opinion and those are my interpretations. I think some debates go on too long, like this one perhaps, and some end way too early. But that's the digital age, we are busy people and we don't always have the time to discuss things. Maybe that's part of our problem as a society, our time is so compacted we just click and go.
There are posters who have stated their POV many times. Some have real or perceived problems with local law enforcement, the justice system, or local governments. After years of reading the same complaints, it does little good to voice an opposing opinion in the hopes of having a discussion.
The assumption that the post isn't read may be valid in some cases. I was amused to see a 'no' vote when I posted a simple thank you one day. That person didn't object to the content - but is letting me know that anything I post is offensive to him/her. So turns the world on this site.
Bea, that is another great point. I have seen that happen on numerous occasions where a completely benign post gets down voted and I think you nailed it that some people down vote simply by reading the name of the poster.
Which I believe explains Frank's situation. I have to admit, I find his rantings mildly amusing. But he never should have exposed his kryptonite, his need to be liked.
Bea makes a very good point. I've little interest in arguing any more with the anti-law enforcement crowd, unless there is something real specific address. Those posts always get a down vote from me, but I've nothing to say because I've said it before.
Hey folks, I like to debate, I don't give a damn who likes or dislikes me or what I post.
I did my homework, I can back up what I said.
By calling out the down voters, I was hoping to nudge them into a comment.
I'm not going to rehash the whole public defender thing, but if you disagree, read the reports, they speak volumes.It has nothing to do with my own feelings about the justice system, rather, a report that I found very disturbing as it pertains to indigent defense in NY State.
Jeff, you hit the nail on the head.
Bud, there is no kryptonite, stop watching tv. I don't need to be liked, I just need to be loved, and that's where my family comes in.
Howard, hope your anti law enforcement comment wasn't directed at me, The only
anti I am is anti people getting screwed.I never thought that was wrong.
I have yet to read a post that can factually dispute my post, and all you naysayers know it, otherwise I would have read it by now.
Dave, my post was in response to another post, a post by one person. There was nothing to approve or disapprove, it was a statement of fact about a serious problem, Those weren't thoughts dave, they are facts. If anyone feels bullied or threatened, please accept my sincere apologies as that was not my intent.
That looks like a supremely boring play.
You give me far too much credit for cleverness.
Nietzsche gives me a headache.
But I suppose I do figuratively lead with my horn too often. LOL
No, we should be finding ways
No, we should be finding ways to reduce stupid laws so they won't be so over-worked. Everytime something happens enough people don't like, we get a new law and more prosecutions. Just yesterday, The Batavian's poll shows people want to prosecute animal abusers with a felony. I dislike stereotyping, but......How many of those who abuse or neglect animals does anyone think can afford a lawyer? Defense council is guaranteed by the constitution and in my opinion should always be. We all need the protection from total tyranny of a trial by jury. Justice is one of the very few proper functions of government. But the amount of things people are being prosecuted for is ridiculous.
To those that voted yes, I
To those that voted yes, I would respectfully ask you to respond with where the money would come from?
This state and nation are broke - possibly beyond repair - and yet people don't care as long as it one of their personal priorities. Everyone else be damned, this is important to me, so find the money.
If all of us could remain as objective as possible, our kids' kids' kids' kids would not be as burdened by our mindless spending.
If the public defenders
If the public defenders office is currently understaffed or overworked, then additional funding is needed. With all due respect to Dave's references to stupid laws, and even considering there may be needless prosecutions based on them, I'd bet any excess burden on PDs is not due to stupid laws.
The Supreme Court has been very clear about ruling that a defendant is entitled to a good defense, and if a defendant is indigent the state must assist.
I believe in two things about
I believe in two things about our justice system: The people (aka the prosecution) should be competent and thorough, and the the defendant has an absolute right to a vigorous defense.
The fact that any person, regardless of income, has access to defense counsel is a legitimate use of taxpayer money. The government wastes so much money, but spending money on criminal defense is never a waste.
In our system of checks and balances, the ability to challenge the people's case is one of the ways in which all us our protected against false and possible malicious prosecution. It helps keep us free. We may not always like the outcome in some cases, but the same system that sometimes helps a defendant avoid the consequences of his or her criminal action also protects each and every one of us.
It's not in the best interest of any citizen to have a public defender's office that can't handle it's case load.
Dave, the primary problem with "too many laws" is most of the extra laws, the laws that makes our system so complex, are the enhancements.
Take DWI as just one example. We made it more complicated to no discernible benefit to society with Leandra's Law. A DWI arrest under Leandra's Law might make the defense of the suspect a little more complex, but there is still an arrest and still a defendant that must be represented. I'm not sure reducing stupid laws would greatly reduce the work load.
Depends on what you think is
Depends on what you think is a stupid law, Howard and Tim. I'm not interested in a debate on which laws in particular or enhancements should go, I offer the entire catalog of that which one can be charged with as ridiculous. The entire system needs to be streamlined, along with every damn thing government spends our money on. It is a blanket statement. The under-funding of the public defenders is a symptom of government overreach and it's insatiable need for covering all bases. I repeat, the right to counsel is a guaranteed constitutional right by the 6th amendment and it should always be available. Therefor, that is the priority not all the complicated laws and complexities which have arisen along with the sheer quantity. If the public defenders can't keep up and can't provide adequate defenses, then the root cause needs to be addressed; and it surely is not that we are being taxed too little, or that there is nothing else to cut out.
I am puzzled, just what does
I am puzzled, just what does the article have to do with Genesee County or New York State for that matter? The article referred to Missouri, not NY and to <strong>some </strong>other parts of the country, not here. While I know that PD offices here in our county have a pretty sizable workload, I heard no calls here of late for more dollars or staffing here. Missouri is 800 miles or so away. In fact the only mention I heard of a PD of late other than this poll, was a PD failed (Probably just a mistake) to challenge a summary in the Williams case. Even under the most staffed PD office things like that occasionally happen.
Don't get me wrong, the article is interesting, but as far as it applies to Genesee County, I am just not seeing it.
Never said it applied per se
Never said it applied per se to Genesee County. Our polls frequently aren't related to Genesee County (there aren't enough local issues for a daily poll).
Overall, the PD's offices
Overall, the PD's offices across ny are in shambles, over worked, understaffed, and
are on the short end of funding vs the prosecution.
If those voting against more funding would ever find themselves needing free legal
representation, they would then understand how bad things are.
Don't get me wrong, it is still better than nothing, but not by much.
I think the public defenders
I think the public defenders that we have are an exact example of ... you get what you pay for. They are civil servants that don't get paid as much as a hired attorney, and they don't care if they help their clients or not. Most of the public defenders that I have had a chance to watch in many of our courtrooms and they don't listen to their clients. They just go in, speak with the DA make a deal for the client and leaves it up to the client whether to take the deal or not. Not listening to their clients version of the incidence at all. For all they know, their client is innocent but they don't want to draw out any court procedures. They don't try to get away with not enough evidence. What if you have a citizen vs a police officer? The police always win.
I would like nothing more than to have a system where the ACCUSED is innocent til proven guilty?
Laura, unfortunately the pd
Laura, unfortunately the pd 's office is so under funded, it's not even fair.
For a real good understanding of how pathetic a public defender defense is in NYS,
read the Spangenburg Report, and the Kaye Commission Report.
The results speak for themselves.
Plea deals are the easy out, cheap for both legal sides, and the taxpayers.
As far as innocent until proven guilty, around here , some seem to think the court of public opinion should bear weight.
There is a procedure in place for a citizen to accuse a police officer of wrongdoing.
It has a few more hoops than lodging a charge against a citizen, but its there.
Hey vote down, why don't you
Hey vote down, why don't you grow a pair and post a comment? Probably won't because he/she doesn't have a valid point, and or no facts to back up their down vote.
Can't stomach cowards, or
Can't stomach cowards, or maybe there are a couple of illiterates that can't do anything more than point and click up or down.
At any rate, they can't dispute facts, so keep hiding, no balls.
Sometimes a down vote is all
Sometimes a down vote is all that needs to be said. It speaks for itself.
I actually agree with Frank
I actually agree with Frank on the down voting. Requiring actual names eliminates trolling. Anonymous up/downs are quick but if you took the time to read the post, decide that you either liked it or didn't, take an extra few seconds and state your case.
I challenge the premise that
I challenge the premise that a thumbs up or down = cowardice. If I or anyone else makes a statement publicly on this site, then you should expect approval or disapproval. If you are so thin-skinned or insecure in your positions that you want to challenge anyone who disagrees, then maybe you ought to keep your thoughts to yourself. This is a public venue and is therefor subject to public scrutiny. Deal with it. Not everyone feels the need to spout their viewpoints, like some of us. Trying to force everybody to fit into your homogenous mold of how they should behave is basically bullying.
I'm a frequent up or down
I'm a frequent up or down voter without leaving a comment. Not everything warrants a stated, worded rebuttal. One or two down votes on a post is random variation. Getting bent out of shape over one or two down votes is rather wasted energy. But if a person's post is getting several down votes, that speaks volumes without a word being written. However, in those cases, usually some other commenter has written a response that pretty much sums up what's wrong with the post. I know there have been many times where I've voted up or down but didn't leave a comment because somebody else pretty much said what I would have said.
I'm not against the feature
I'm not against the feature and these are just my opinions. I look at the concept like this, an up vote is like a cheer. Cheers are universal signs of agreement, support, or encouragement. The down vote is like a boo or hiss. As such there is a greater onus on down votes. Sometimes I truly believe a post is getting down votes because it was misunderstood or required clarification. Someone stepping up and challenging it or asking for clarification allows for more debate and better understanding. Some are just patently offensive and yes, down votes speak for themselves. I don't think it's about being thin-skinned, I think it's about the old adage, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. I was also taught that when you have something to say, don't send an anonymous messages, sign your name and stand behind what you say. Old fashioned maybe, but it's often times difficult to adapt old social mores to new technology. Just my opinion, so if you down vote this, my day won't change.
Jeff an up or down vote is
Jeff an up or down vote is just that. You agree or disagree. The adage of not having anything nice to say doesn't apply because you aren't saying anything but thumbs down. Its not cowardice as Frank points out nor is it illiteracy. Its just a vote of negative over positive.
All the other descriptions of it are just interpretations of the recipient. If you dont want down votes then dont speak. Thats all.
My viewpoint is that sown votes aggravate because they show a negative response that can't be argued or discussed. No one likes absolutes at all....
Kyle, that's why I stated
Kyle, that's why I stated that it was just my opinion and those are my interpretations. I think some debates go on too long, like this one perhaps, and some end way too early. But that's the digital age, we are busy people and we don't always have the time to discuss things. Maybe that's part of our problem as a society, our time is so compacted we just click and go.
Kyle: "No one likes absolutes
Kyle: "No one likes absolutes at all..." Oxymoron of the day, good job :>)
LOL Dave......anytime
LOL Dave......anytime :P
There are posters who have
There are posters who have stated their POV many times. Some have real or perceived problems with local law enforcement, the justice system, or local governments. After years of reading the same complaints, it does little good to voice an opposing opinion in the hopes of having a discussion.
The assumption that the post isn't read may be valid in some cases. I was amused to see a 'no' vote when I posted a simple thank you one day. That person didn't object to the content - but is letting me know that anything I post is offensive to him/her. So turns the world on this site.
Dave, well said.
Dave, well said.
Bea, that is another great
Bea, that is another great point. I have seen that happen on numerous occasions where a completely benign post gets down voted and I think you nailed it that some people down vote simply by reading the name of the poster.
Which I believe explains
Which I believe explains Frank's situation. I have to admit, I find his rantings mildly amusing. But he never should have exposed his kryptonite, his need to be liked.
Bea makes a very good point.
Bea makes a very good point. I've little interest in arguing any more with the anti-law enforcement crowd, unless there is something real specific address. Those posts always get a down vote from me, but I've nothing to say because I've said it before.
Hey folks, I like to debate,
Hey folks, I like to debate, I don't give a damn who likes or dislikes me or what I post.
I did my homework, I can back up what I said.
By calling out the down voters, I was hoping to nudge them into a comment.
I'm not going to rehash the whole public defender thing, but if you disagree, read the reports, they speak volumes.It has nothing to do with my own feelings about the justice system, rather, a report that I found very disturbing as it pertains to indigent defense in NY State.
Jeff, you hit the nail on the head.
Bud, there is no kryptonite, stop watching tv. I don't need to be liked, I just need to be loved, and that's where my family comes in.
Howard, hope your anti law enforcement comment wasn't directed at me, The only
anti I am is anti people getting screwed.I never thought that was wrong.
I have yet to read a post that can factually dispute my post, and all you naysayers know it, otherwise I would have read it by now.
It was directed at nobody in
It was directed at nobody in particular.
Dave, my post was in response
Dave, my post was in response to another post, a post by one person. There was nothing to approve or disapprove, it was a statement of fact about a serious problem, Those weren't thoughts dave, they are facts. If anyone feels bullied or threatened, please accept my sincere apologies as that was not my intent.
I think the skin condition is on you Dave.
I got a hide as thick as a
I got a hide as thick as a rhinoceros, Frankie boy. I am smart and good looking as a rhino as well.
Uh Dave? I think what you
Uh Dave? I think what you described is a skin condition.... Rhinoceritis extremis.
just sayin bud ...
lmao
lmao
That looks like a supremely
That looks like a supremely boring play.
You give me far too much credit for cleverness.
Nietzsche gives me a headache.
But I suppose I do figuratively lead with my horn too often. LOL
All done beating this horse,
All done beating this horse, the level of ignorance has risen beyond flood stage.
lol
lol