3 ms·

For a variety of reasons, it's pretty common in many western countries for convicted first/second offenders even for pretty serious crimes to not serve much tim

For a variety of reasons, it's pretty common in many western countries for convicted first/second offenders even for pretty serious crimes to not serve much time. You see that in the UK for sex crimes for example, where offenses with "mitigating" cultural factors are punished extremely lightly. Which again is that country's choice, but it's not one that countries accepting their tourists are obligated to accept.

Arodex 10mo ago
Of course, amongst all the examples you could choose, you had to give a xenophobic example. There were no other example you could think of. You are seriously stating that the country who elected a sex offender (on top a being many other things like being a con man and an insurrectionist who tried to overturn a legitimate election and got away with it - hey, isn't that "offenses with "mitigating" cultural factors punished extremely lightly") should seriously screen foreign (very foreign) sex offenders who served their time.
- bpodgursky 10mo ago
  I picked the example of under-sentencing (and early release) which most people accept is the most clearly applicable. The fact that you know exactly what I'm talking about based on a very general statement about sex offense, is strong evidence you know it's true. In terms of rhetoric, you can argue that Donald Trump is bad for his alleged sex crimes, or you can argue that the US is wrong for vetting tourists, but you can't reasonably argue both at the same time, those contradict each other.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 10mo ago
    >you can argue that Donald Trump is bad for his alleged sex crimes Alleged? Convicted by a jury. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/breaking-down-the-verdict-as-jury-finds-trump-liable-for-sexual-assault-and-defamation https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/breaking-down-the-verdict-...
    - bpodgursky 10mo ago
      I was not really intending to lump civil trials into the discussion because of the lower evidential standard than criminal trials, but sure, I don't really care.
  - Arodex 10mo ago
    > is strong evidence you know it's true No, it is strong evidence that I can hear the very noisy xenophobic propaganda and whistle.
expedition32 10mo ago
A country has the full right to deny entry to anyone for whatever reason. We have had instances of that in the Netherlands with religious folks who wanted to give hate speech tours. The government just stops them at the airport customs control. It is ofcourse potentially a diplomatic shit storm.
- amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
  That's yet another can of worms. Supposedly the US isn't supposed to deny a visa because of speech that would be protected by the first amendment, but the current administration doesn't seem to be following that.
  - bpodgursky 10mo ago
    The US has no constitutional or legal obligation either way on this.

Arodex 10mo ago

Of course, amongst all the examples you could choose, you had to give a xenophobic example. There were no other example you could think of. You are seriously stating that the country who elected a sex offender (on top a being many other things like being a con man and an insurrectionist who tried to overturn a legitimate election and got away with it - hey, isn't that "offenses with "mitigating" cultural factors punished extremely lightly") should seriously screen foreign (very foreign) sex offenders who served their time.

bpodgursky 10mo ago
I picked the example of under-sentencing (and early release) which most people accept is the most clearly applicable. The fact that you know exactly what I'm talking about based on a very general statement about sex offense, is strong evidence you know it's true. In terms of rhetoric, you can argue that Donald Trump is bad for his alleged sex crimes, or you can argue that the US is wrong for vetting tourists, but you can't reasonably argue both at the same time, those contradict each other.
- ThePowerOfFuet 10mo ago
  >you can argue that Donald Trump is bad for his alleged sex crimes Alleged? Convicted by a jury. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/breaking-down-the-verdict-as-jury-finds-trump-liable-for-sexual-assault-and-defamation https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/breaking-down-the-verdict-...
  - bpodgursky 10mo ago
    I was not really intending to lump civil trials into the discussion because of the lower evidential standard than criminal trials, but sure, I don't really care.
- Arodex 10mo ago
  > is strong evidence you know it's true No, it is strong evidence that I can hear the very noisy xenophobic propaganda and whistle.

expedition32 10mo ago

A country has the full right to deny entry to anyone for whatever reason. We have had instances of that in the Netherlands with religious folks who wanted to give hate speech tours. The government just stops them at the airport customs control. It is ofcourse potentially a diplomatic shit storm.

amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
That's yet another can of worms. Supposedly the US isn't supposed to deny a visa because of speech that would be protected by the first amendment, but the current administration doesn't seem to be following that.
- bpodgursky 10mo ago
  The US has no constitutional or legal obligation either way on this.