When a man can take the life of a promising young women,and have more people care about his right than that of the victims family.they haved suffered for 20 years.Now they have a chance to have justice work for them,and it failed them.So i ask who is the real criminals?As far as i am concerned i can only hope an inmate gets to him before the state lets him go.

I agree with you smoker. The injustice of our courts is becoming alarming and is the direct results of liberalism running amuck. If continued, people will start executing their own version of justice on the criminals. A breakdown of civil society will result and the country will regress to an almost tribalism like most of the third world.

Wrong most democrats feel as tough on crime as I do. I believe probably more wholeheartedly than anyone on tough sentences for heinous crimes. A minority of people you dub liberals ares soft on crime but the Fox spin in order to manipulate fools and control elections leads its viewers to believe that democcrats are soft on crime. I think most heinous criminals are either sociopaths or so damaged they are a threat to society and neither dems or repubs that are good citizens want these creatures running amuck in our society.

__________________
BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM

The nut judge from Vermont that let that child rapist go was a republican and then he was an independent. i do not think he represents either philosophy he is just a crazy person with no consciense that had authority to make a bad decision.

__________________
BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM

Personally, I think the problem is that both parties have something positive about their approach to crime but neither approach will work for everyone.

The Republican approach of "getting tough" is necessary for some criminals. It's a fact that some people have just become so bad by genetics or by damage from their upbringing or whatever that they aren't reformable. They need to be in jail and away from everyone else.

The Democratic "rehabilitation" approach will work for some criminals. Certainly not all, and probably not even a majority. Among repeat offenders, very few. But dollar for dollar, it's much, much cheaper. If you successfully rehabilitate someone, that means they turn into a productive citizen - making money for the country instead of sucking away 50k a year or whatever the cost to jail them is.

The problem is that if you only apply one of the approaches, you're setting up a bad system. Jailing all the repeat offenders is wasteful because some could be reformed. Trying to reform everyone is wasteful because some can't - and it's also dangerous if you just let people out of jail by mistake when they haven't really changed. We need to figure out a balance between the two sides if we really want to get the best results.

ididnotvote4him says to my remark, "Wrong most democrats feel as tough on crime as I do."

So where did I say anything about democrats? I said liberals. Evidently you associate yourself and democrats as liberal but not all democrates are liberal and some Republicans are liberal. This is why you have no credibility when quoting anyone. Everything coming from you is distorted in some way.

I do not feel that there are any measures to ensure the safety of our children other than putting sexual predetors away for at least 25 yrs...or give them no quarter. They cannot be rehabilitated...it is a proven fact.
Maybe we could use their labor to rebuild New Orleans.

There are definitely some people who can't be "cured" or rehabilitated. Sexual predators are a great example of that. Even if you chemically castrate them sometimes it doesn't work and they're back at it. Sometimes tough sentences are all that's going to protect society from them.

"I agree with you smoker. The injustice of our courts is becoming alarming and is the direct results of liberalism running amuck."

>>>Don't you have anything besides Rove/Hannity talking points?