Saturday, March 28, 2009

Death Penalty

Yes. I am all for it. I believe that it keeps crime from happening. Actions deserve consequences. The U.S. is namby-pamby when it comes to punishing criminals. Wimps. But is really isn't the fault of most Americans. It is the fault of lawyers, street activists and the ACLU. Mostly the ACLU. I believe that many Americans, given the opportunity for a voice, want criminals punished and do not want to pay for them to languish away in cushy jails and prisons for decades on end at enormous cost to taxpayers. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is an exception. He gets it.

They get it here, in The Sandbox, too. No monkeying around. You did a crime. You are found guilty. You are punished. That is all. Two more beheadings yesterday. I do not necessarily agree with a lot of what happens in this country, but have said time and time again that the United States would be doing itself a favor if it learned by example how to deal with criminals.

What? Was that burger too overcooked, or something? An Asian restaurant worker was stabbed and killed in a dispute over a meal with a customer on Thursday. The alleged murder [alleged? he killed someone! he is not "alleged"], a 27-year-old customer [care to guess the nationality?] turned himself in to the police.

Interesting that a "dowry cap" can be set and established, but a minimum age for brides still cannot be agreed upon.

PCRC kind of sort of. A man was run over on Thursday. No information given about who ran him over and whether or not speed was a factor. Of course, in my humble opinion, had the car that ran him over been driving at a reasonable speed then the driver might have been able to stop in time to avoid running the man down.

Five Asians have been busted for making booze. Still nothing on the five, six or twenty-one "locals" who were busted at a small local airport with drugs that they were taking to friends only a short plane ride away at another small airport. Why is it that we've not read about it in the news, as yet?

This is just another one of "those stories" that makes you shake your head in bewilderment as to why and how it can happen. An Indian pharmacists is owed $19,390.34 by his employer. The pharmacist, fully identified by nationality AND name, "has been engaged in a legal battle with his employer for two years. ...The pharmacist has accused his employer of applying delaying tactics to deny him his rights." Ya think? Nah. That couldn't possibly happen. Hmmph. Apparently it is. The Court issued its verdict last June "asking" his employer to pay the compensation owed within a month. The Court asked? So much for what I said about the U.S. taking some lessons on its justice system from here, earlier. At least the courts in the U.S. don't "ask." They "order." Big difference. G'normous discrepancy in the judicial systems here with regard to criminal versus labor issues, though. And what would appear to be quite a bit of bias in favor of the employer, as well. Always. This case has been lingering in the Labor Court since August 2007. Part of the reason that it is still hanging around is because the sponsor, or employer, has not been "ordered" to appear for hearings. He was probably "asked" to appear. Guess he declined the invite. This unfortunate pharmacist and his family are going to be hanging out a while longer; the next hearing is scheduled for June 2010. The employer - who, of course, is NOT identified either by nationality OR name - has turned the table and accuses the pharmacist of wrongdoings... There is just as much unbiased, fair and balanced reporting done here as in the States.


  1. Laws (when allowed to, Shari’a seems not to allow it, at least to me) evolve. In re capital punishment, wealthier nations no longer hang ten-year-old children for stealimg half a loaf of bread. I suspect the key word there is "wealthier" - it cost money, a great deal of same, to jail people. But yes, I agree that it has a place, especially for murderers who would obviously commit the offence if ever released.

    As to the unfortunate case involving the pharmacist, believe me, it happens here too. I had the misfortune to be in court when a case of theft came up. The prosecution asked for a delay to gather more evidence. Sounds at least a bit reasonable, right? The judge was not so sure. Paraphrasing,

    "Origainally, you said $600 worth of tools had been stolen and you needed time to gather evidence. When you returned, you said that no, $600 in cash had been taken from a desk drawer, and you needed time to gather more evidence. At the next appearamce, it was tools again, and you needed time. Now you are saying defendant broke into a safe and stole money! What was stolen, when, and how, and by whom?"

    He granted another extension...

  2. I understand your points, John A. I really do. I worked in the legal system there for many, many, many years. Been in more than my share of courtrooms... The courts in the US, however, don't "ask" people [defendants, et al] to show up. They "order" them to appear. Sure, they can appear and ask for extension after extension - but they do have to appear. Here? Optional.

  3. I've recently been involved in a case in New Zealand. The "High Court" (equivalent to the US Supreme Court" asked the defendent to make a restitution... one year later it is still to occur, and doesn't look like happening because the defendent has more money to go back to appeal after appeal.

    It happens in first world countries too. (Assuming you count NZ as 1st world.)

  4. It is refreshing to see it happening worldwide, doctorpat. [/sarc off] What is happening to court systems? Can they be trusted, at all, anymore???


Site Meter