Thinking out loud
Caveat: Just thinking out loud, no claims of validity or data!
I noticed that the old radio and TV cop shows NEVER mention the words misdemeanor
Once or twice you'll hear the phrase penitentiary offense
, which is ambiguous. Why was this distinction skipped?
I don't have an answer, but I started thinking about the distinction ...
Before 1975 a lot of people had experience with misdemeanors. Most working-class people live on the 'shady side', where alcohol and unemployment lead to a certain amount of trouble. This is a permanent constant. Before 1975, trouble generally brought short sentences for cooldown or soberup time. A week of dry discipline can make a real difference.
After 1975, as globalism started to grind into American life, good and useful jobs got scarce. Trouble multiplied. The correct solution was to back off the globalizing. Of course we couldn't do that.
Instead, we started to move more offenses into the felony category, and started to eliminate flexible and short sentences. Judges and juries were NOT ALLOWED to distinguish between professional criminals and temporary lawbreakers. Common sense was illegal.
This approach was helpful for a while, because many judges had been skipping common sense in the other direction, giving short sentences and easy paroles to pros. The new strictness kept more of the pros inside.
Meanwhile, "privacy" laws and "inmate rights" movements grew. Lethal "privacy" laws made it impossible for judges and juries to count the crimes of a pro. When he was first caught under adult rules, he had already committed a dozen major crimes which officially didn't exist. So he was allowed to continue improving his skills.
The "rights" campaigners make it impossible to use common sense in selective enforcement. Laws against jaywalking and loitering formerly allowed cops to discipline crime-seeking behavior by known crime-seekers, while ignoring similar behavior by ordinary people. When normal natural discrimination is impossible, the cops have to catch EVERYONE regardless of known tendencies. Britain is taking this one step beyond, with loitering laws
that SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT known criminals. Can't punish existing criminals; have to create new criminals.
Net result: A lot of shady types who need occasional discipline have UNFAIRLY AND UNJUSTLY ended up as permanent inmates, and a lot of pros who should be permanent or executed are getting UNFAIRLY AND UNJUSTLY SHORT sentences.
Soros is taking advantage of this situation, trying to get inmates released into the custody of Sorosian NGOs where they can be weaponized for Sorosian ends. It's a classic racket. Globalism pushes people into trouble; laws written by globalists insure that the trouble puts non-pros in prison; globalists use the resentment at unjust punishment to create a private army.
We need to break all parts of this racket. Break out of globalism and restore local industries so working-class people can rebuild a normal culture (even if it's shady!). Break the rigidity of sentencing that turns momentary trouble into permanent crime. Eliminate the NGOs that trade release for loyalty.
Labels: Asked and sort of answered, Make or break