4 ms·
Really not getting the impression that Ortiz was a good soul trappend in a bad system. To the contrary, she seems to be the embodiment of the bad system. To the
by alexqgb 14y ago
Really not getting the impression that Ortiz was a good soul trappend in a bad system. To the contrary, she seems to be the embodiment of the bad system. To the good souls who are actually trapped alongside her, she's a prime example of the problem they're facing, in that monsters like her are what gets promoted, leaving people who are better than her no choices beyond going along quietly or exiting altogether. I mean, just consider her deputy. When people talk about the bad driving out the good, this is what they mean.
- jessaustin 14y agoKeep in mind that all federal prosecutors are 100% committed to putting (especially poor and minority) citizens in prison for years for the victimless crimes of drug possession and distribution. This practice has destroyed hundreds of communities and millions of lives. There are no good apples in this barrel. Every federal prosecutor should get some portion of the punishments they're so eager to mete out.
- drakeandrews 14y agoSo I take it you have signed affidavits from every federal prosecutor to that effect? And proof that drug possession and distribution are always entirely victimless. The fact is that I generally support decriminalisation, and that I acknowledge the fact that prosecution tends to treat those of lesser socioeconomic standing (such as the poor and those belonging to minorities) badly. But blanket statements generally don't help. Especially those calling for the blanket punishment of a wide ranging group of people whom are most likely doing that which they feel is right (never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to ignorance). Edit: Accidentally a word (The fact that -> The fact is that)
- jessaustin 14y ago...blanket statements generally don't help.
- drakeandrews 14y agoOkay, so sue me. How would you have phrased that sentence?
- jessaustin 14y agoHahaha. I don't agree with the sentiments you've expressed, so I have no eloquence to contribute on their behalf. While the rejoinder you offer to what you term a blanket statement is a series of blanket statements, that is but the first layer of silliness here. The invocation of Hanlon's Razor on behalf of federal prosecutors is if anything more incoherent than the amusing snippet I quoted. Does a prosecutor live today who could utter that maxim with a straight face? The burdens you would impose (affidavits? proof... of a tautology?) function to obfuscate rather than illuminate. If you desire mellifluity I suggest you take a deep look into your soul.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]