Justice is blind, stupidity is just plain dumb

[fragger]

Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say you decide that you don't want to w@&k for a living, even in a country which has a very high standard of living, good wages and no shortage of opportunity, because instead you have perceived a way of getting rich much more quickly by importing a large amount of a harmful and highly addictive illicit drug - oh, say, heroin - from a country which is well-known for its draconian laws against this, like - oh, say, Indonesia - into a somewhat more lenient western country - oh, say, Australia - where you can peddle said drugs for millions and thus set yourself up for a life of flashy cars, luxury apartments and easy, nubile women without ever having to worry about working or paying taxes ever again. Let's say you don't care a whit for all the misery, suffering and death that your trafficking may cause, not just to those who are addicted to the drugs you traffic, but to all the decent, hard-working, tax-paying people who get mugged and assaulted and burgled by those who need to fund their addiction to the drugs you have imported. Let's say you don't care how many elderly retirees who have worked all their lives end up spending their declining years in hospital as a result of being beaten up in the street and crippled by your drug customers trying to raise funds for their next hit. Let's say you couldn't care less about the cost to the community in the forms of counselling, rehabilitation and community aid funding, nor for the added burden on the taxpayers for the upkeep of law enforcement, the medical profession and the judicial system to deal with the consequences of your trafficking.

Let's say you don't care about anything except for the wonderful, w@&k-free life you will enjoy once you've brought your drugs into the country and are living happily ever after off the proceeds of their sale, and let's say that you are well aware of what will happen to you if you fail in this enterprise, but you feel that the potential fortune is worth the deadly risk.

Now let's say it doesn't come off as planned. You get nabbed by the Indonesian authorities as you try to smuggle your drugs out of the country and end up in a stinking hellhole of an Indonesian prison for life - or death, whichever comes first. Then let's say that after ten years of living in hell, you are informed that all your avenues of appeal have been exhausted and that you are soon to be executed by firing squad.

Would you have the right to expect exoneration? If, while incarcerated, you applied yourself to the task of counselling both your fellow lifers and those who are facing imminent death and if you conducted yourself as a model prisoner, would you have a right to expect leniency? Even if the country of your birth had outlawed death sentencing decades before, would you have a right to expect clemency in a country where not only foreigners but locals who engage in the practice of drug trafficking are routinely sentenced to death under that country's laws?

This is the situation being faced by two Australians in Bali at present. They were the ringleaders of a group of nine people which was busted for trafficking ten years ago and immediately earned the media-tag of the "Bali Nine". Media coverage of this miserable mob has been on and off over the years, but it's now all over the news of late since the two intrepid captains of this ship of fools have finally been sentenced to a Bali bullet ballet.

Maybe I'm callous, but personally I don't believe that these two have any right to expect compassion from anybody, here or overseas. They claim to be repentant, they claim to be rehabilitated, and they have tried to assuage their punishment by claiming to have attempted to counsel and comfort others in the same predicament. They bleat on about how they have learned their lesson, and should the Indonesian authorities show them mercy they will prove what valuable assets to the community they can be. But the question is begged - would they have been so altruistic and compassionate if they had successfully trafficked their drugs? Would they have been so mindful of the plight of their fellow humans while they were cavorting with a pack of bikini-clad sun-dollies in some Gold Coast high-rise penthouse? Somehow, I think not.

As far as I'm concerned, they gambled and they lost. Everybody here knows what happens to drug smugglers in that part of the world. You can't get off a plane or step off a ship in that country without finding yourself face-to-face with a sternly-worded sign warning you of the penalties in store for you should you be stupid enough to attempt junk-trafficking there. These clowns evidently calculated that the potential profit was worth the risk, but it didn't come off. They have nobody, nobody at all, to blame but themselves. They wanted to live the high life by cashing in on other peoples' suffering, but instead their own actions have landed them in the very depths of squalor. They have written to the Indonesian Prime Minister to plead for mercy, and they have petitioned our Prime Minister to intervene on their behalf. They have lodged appeal after appeal for clemency. Apparently they want the whole world to weep for them and to help them swat aside the bullets that they themselves have attracted.

Well, anyone would be contrite when they're staring down a dozen muzzles.

I'm afraid I'm of a "stiff s#!t" mindset myself. They risked all, and they lost all. They cared nothing for all the lives they could have potentially ruined in their venal lust for quick and dirty dollars, so why should anybody care for theirs? All their after-the-fact altruism doesn't alter the fact they cared not one jot for all the misery, suffering and cost to the community that their actions would have caused had they been successful. They made their bed, and now they're about to contract a particularly extreme case of bedsores.

Anyway, I'm not callous. I have all the compassion in the world for those who warrant it. I just don't believe that these two warrant any.

But what gets me is that there are people here who are full of lamentation for these dumb idiots. Some local two-bit rock band is even trying to mount a benefit concert for them - probably because their arrest has resulted in a drug availability setback for two-bit rock bands.

The people I genuinely feel sorry for in this are the traffickers' parents. They are the real victims in this whole sorry tale.

[Binnatics]

They have written to the Indonesian Prime Minister to plead for mercy, and they have petitioned our Prime Minister to intervene on their behalf. They have lodged appeal after appeal for clemency. Apparently they want the whole world to weep for them and to help them swat aside the bullets that they themselves have attracted.

If they had indeed learned from their mistake and were truly repentant, they wouldn't attract that much attention for their sorrow. They would humbly bend their heads in silence and not expect any clemency.

Above actions show they haven't learnt s#!t and still gamble for the highest possible trophy. Well, they have nothing to loose after all, which is probably not really motivating them into modesty, but still...

I agree with you Fragger, we shouldn't worry for those. And their parents are probably best served with a quick ending to this media hype, which won't do them any good at all I suppose.

[mandru]

Their selfishness self centered nature has not been rolled back one bit.  Thinking only of themselves they set their feet on a path to harm others and now expect the very people they intended to harm to rescue them.

They say cream rises to the top but I've noted that scum rises even faster.  Bali is actually doing Australia a favor skimming off some of that scum.  If all evidence is in for these guys and determined incontrovertible Bali is doing no one a favor by delaying carrying out the sentencing this long.  There is no advantage to putting off extracting an infected rotten tooth.

If you make the conscious decision to trample the laws of two countries and throw yourself into a cobra pit don't cry "Oh, poor me!" expecting intercession from your own government who's first concern has to be the public safety of the citizens you were attempting to injure or to be able to negotiate with the cobras when things don't go as anticipated.

When you step over an international border the laws vary and by taking that step you must accept the consequences of your actions.  It no longer matters what your country of origin is or its laws, punishments and customs.

[Art Blade]

No matter where you look, everywhere you'll find laws. They define what is not right and what will happen in case of violation. The penalty usually counterbalances the violation. There is a lower end (considered a misdemeanour) and something like a pinnacle (considered a serious crime). Death penalties have been abolished in many countries but not everywhere. Laws are local, not global. So if you violate the law, you've got to face the consequences according to local law and ignorance is no excuse. If you're stupid enough to violate the law and even more stupid to get caught and convicted, you've got to live with (or die because of) the judgement rendered.

OK, let's just legalise drugs (remember alcohol and prohibition and again legalisation) so that no crimes are being caused producing, buying and selling. Prohibition doesn't extinguish a demand but it does stimulate related crime.

Money spent on fighting related crime could instead be spent on information and education.

[PZ]

In the USA I do not call the system "justice system"  I call it the "legal system" where criminals can shed themselves of crime because of the letter of the law.

Just this morning I watched a documentary about a criminal who murdered his wife, contracted two fools to dispose of the body, and then because one of the fools was foolish enough to extort the murderer, was murdered himself.

All the evidence was there - the murder weapon, the murderer posing as an old woman to shed himself of guilt, dismembered body parts floating in Galveston bay traced back to the murderer, the tools found in his apartment, etc.

At trial he claimed self defense and a Texas jury acquitted him.  He spent no time in jail even though three people very close to him had been murdered (what is the chance of that)

There is really no "justice" there is only the letter of the law, which evidently does nothing but protect the criminal.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the criminal.  As far as I am concerned, they deserve the worst punishment that life can deliver.

[Binnatics]

OK, let's just legalise drugs (remember alcohol and prohibition and again legalisation) so that no crimes are being caused producing, buying and selling. Prohibition doesn't extinguish a demand but it does stimulate related crime.

Money spent on fighting related crime could instead be spent on information and education.

:bow

[PZ]

Money spent on fighting related crime could instead be spent on information and education.

The problem is that there is no fixing stupid.  There is a reason these idiots drop out of school in the 7th grade

Worst part is that these morons have the same voting right.

In my opinion, a person should need to pass an intelligence test before they are awarded the right to vote

[mandru]

I see an inherent problem with the concept of eliminating a crimes by making them legal.  There has to be lines drawn somewhere and once you start erasing a line in one place then there those criminals involved in other illegal activities who will lobby to demand the same be done for their particular penchants.

Who do you want deciding for your communities what crime is worse than another?  I can tell you right now it won't be one of us and they won't have our interests or well being at heart.  Those choices will likely be ceased up by big time players who have rallied their lust for power-over-others into high positions of authority.

Every time a line is removed it will end up devaluing each of our citizenships and base line worth as a human and an individual.  I personally value others and really dislike the thought of any of us being used as bargaining chips for power brokers.

Here in the U.S. we fought a huge battle through the 60's, 70's and 80's to stop objectifying people as in, the sex object, the wage slave or just a house wife.  See the person not the job they do.  It all but tosses me into a rage every time a high ranking public official speaks on television.  There's always a screen full of human wallpaper plastered up behind them smiling and clapping at the appropriate times.  Why would any clear thinking individual feel that a politician powerful enough to turn living breathing humans into a mere back drop can be trusted to make decisions that will improve the rights of individuals.

I would hate to see a point reached through the erosion of western civil decency where children between the ages 10 and 14 who by being repeatedly sexually molested have the option to leave their homes, divorce their families and enter into state sanctioned prostitution so that they can be paid for their newly learned talents and the brothels they are placed in have school and monitored housing for them so that in the future they will be able to be mainstreamed back into society.

There are already those arguing to do just that.

[Art Blade]

I see an inherent problem with the concept of eliminating a crimes by making them legal.

The subject wasn't about a concept of eliminating crimes by making them legal. We're not saying that it should be OK and legal to just kill someone. We're talking about drugs, the prohibition of which leading to problems that are worse than the assumed dangers related to taking them. Because they are illegal, crimes (that are not related to violating anti-drug laws but different ones such as killing people) are being committed. Those crimes are the problem, not the drugs. The question is, how can we prevent those crimes.

A drug in itself is simply not a crime. If it isn't, then neither is producing, selling, transporting, buying and consuming it. A drug is nothing but a chemical substance that changes one's perception. Like alcohol which isn't a crime. Or nicotine which isn't a crime, either. Both are a massive economical and therefore financial factor. Both can be abused and lead to health issues up to death.

Fear consequences of abuse? Spend some money on information and education. So who draws the line between one substance and another making one a highly profitable enterprise even for the government (tax income) while the other turns into a crime? The government, elected by the people for the people. They should help people to help themselves, which means education and information so they know the risks. If they still want to take the risk, it is their freedom to do so. By the way, not a single substance on this planet is lethal or a risk to your health. It is a matter of how much you take until it becomes lethal.

People who take in too much aren't criminals. If someone drinks until they drop unconscious, they're still not criminals. Not even if they had two packs of cigarettes along with the booze. Those people may have a psychological problem which may also lead to or have been cause by a social problem. Then the source of those problems should be identified and dealt with. Which will likely lead to education and information again.

Drugs, the extinction of which the government, particularly in the US, spends unbelievable amounts of money on (estimated 1 trillion dollars in the US since 1971 after Nixon declared the war on drugs) are not the problem. They are perhaps a way of dealing with problems the government doesn't offer enough information and education about to deal with. The problem is that the government invented a law that has turned out not to solve the problem but to create new and bigger ones, the consequences of which causing half of the capacity of US prisons to be taken away by people who violated that law.

Instead of reconsidering, they prefer to stick to that law because reconsidering and abolishing that law that makes drugs illegal would mean to admit that they were wrong and the government just cannot be wrong. So everyone has to pay for maintaining something that if it was a company would have gone bankrupt because a company can't create laws that keeps it alive and can't take tax money to support itself.

If you want to read something on that subject, why not start here: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/

[Binnatics]

Well said.

We are living in a free, liberal and capitalistic country. We praise the freedom we share and we assume that the natural behaviour of supply and demand will lead to a healthy society with equality and justice. The government has the task to control the acting of all individuals just enough to make sure that our shared rights and values aren't violated by anyone. The best tools the government has to control is to motivate (question, educate, confront) people in the right direction without withdrawing their freedom.
Just taking away the supply and ignoring the demand for a certain product will lead to an enormous unbalance in the whole system. People searching for satisfaction for their needs, especially when it comes to addictive substances, will do anything to restore that balance. That's where the government loses control, forcing large groups of people into the obscurity. The only way to regain control is to use force, which will lead to said unbalance again. The next thing you know, people find other ways to restore it.
Don't try to block a river; it will find another path. Try to dam it instead, and control the flow and direction. Then the river won't destroy your homes and the dam will produce energy. I see that as a proper comparison to the drugs problem. Above all we have to aim for cooperation. Denial and force aren't going to help there.
Of course the government has to act when people cross the lines we agreed to be the limit. But the limits should be dynamic and shared values to which everyone relates. When there's disagreement amongst large groups of people about said limits, it's time to argue with that group, not hammer them down.
That's how I'd like to see a government act.

[mandru]

If you want to read something on that subject, why not start here: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/

While CNN is available on my TV service package I've never tuned into them. I've gone as far as omit that channel from my personal viewing list.  I see them as a highly visible mouthpiece of the corruption of decency.

In my opinion they will spin the facts and lie even if the truth is more acceptable and easier to remember for future re-tellings.  They will hop back and forth across the truth (never actually touching it) like a ditch depending on the political point they are trying to make

While I as a conservative libertarian am not against the decriminalization of drugs I am concerned about the legal precedence that would establish and the undesirable doors it would open in the future.

[Art Blade]

I see. I don't believe that what would follow a legalisation of drugs would be easy to cope with. Like, alcohol and related violence including treatment of victims and having to send in the police to stop violence, or alcohol and related medical treatments as well as therapy, nicotine and related cancer treatment..  but I do believe that it would be a lot easier than what is currently going on.

However, the "war on drugs" has been going on without changing anything and there is no victory to be achieved yet it is so expensive and the crimes and lives lost in the process are reason enough to try a different policy.

[Binnatics]

There IS a change in the world on drugs. Especially the South American countries are tired of the fight against drug cartels because they don't have the power to win that war, and all the money spent on it is causing their economical and educational progress to drop back. There's quite a few countries retreating from the war on drugs out of necessity, while others remain struggling. I do believe the tide is turning bit by bit.  :)

[Art Blade]

 :)

[mandru]

The fact that something is being sold in high volume with out their ability to tax it and the loss of those proceeds is a huge motivating factor behind most politician's change of view on the legalization process.  Not to make things better for the population or the World but to create more government jobs so that they can staff those openings with the friends and relatives of people they owe political favors to.

I'm not against taxes.

But I am of the frame of mind that not one extra penny should be added to the Govt's. coffers to piss away the way they are with a huge amount of the revenues they are already receiving until they have proven that they have cleaned out the corruption and waste and can be trusted with pennies before allowing them access to extra dollars.

[fragger]

I've been away for a day or so. Crikey, I didn't realise what sort of a debate this would turn into...

There is one problem with the possible legalization of drugs. Unless the drugs are made to be very cheaply available, or if the government itself supplies them to those who want them free of charge, innocent people are still going to be beaten up, robbed and mugged by addicts looking for funds to fuel their habit. If the cost of drugs doesn't come down, people will still suffer, with easy targets like the elderly and the infirm copping the brunt of it.

If hard drugs are legalized, who then will handle the manufacturing and supplying? Do we leave it to those who are already in the drug trade, effectively saying, "You've contributed to the demise of society and wrecked innumerable lives - now you can do it legally, no hard feelings, but you now have to conform to these regulations..."? Do we hand it over to private companies? How much will they then charge for their product? Or do we let the government handle it? Who will then foot the bill for that? The taxpayers, many of whom have the sense to stay away from hard drugs? And will the government simply give the drugs away to those who want them, free of charge? No, they'll charge, or they'll make the taxpayers cough up for it. Sorry, but I don't want to pay for other peoples' addictions. I'm already paying enough taxes for things I don't use or need.

Regulatory bodies and such are all very well, but as long as the drugs continue to cost money, junkies will still have to pay for them, and since many of them don't have terribly high incomes (if any), they'll have to raise the money by committing crimes.

I have had an apartment burgled by junkies in the past. They were caught and I got some of my stuff back, but my most valuable possessions went up their arms. When I saw them in court, they had not one shred of regret or contrition. I could have beaten the crap out of them if I could have gotten at them. If hard drugs were legal back then but still cost the same, those two lowlife deadbeats still would have trashed my flat, stolen my property and made life difficult for me. And they wouldn't have been any more considerate about it.

Education is important, and should be encouraged, but aren't we already pretty much educated? Everybody already knows that hard drugs can be highly addictive, everybody already knows they can destroy lives. If people are still stupid enough to get into them, then they deserve all the suffering they bring upon themselves. If they suffered by themselves, then that's of their own making. But when others suffer because of them, then they deserve to get their butts kicked, and kicked bloody hard. If they can get themselves off the stuff, great - then they are deserving of support and counseling and should be welcomed back into productive society, if they are sincere about making the effort.

Incidentally, one of my very good friends in the past was an ex-junkie, though I met him after he'd already kicked the habit. What finally drove him to make the effort to kick his habit was when he was arrested for possession and was facing a prison term. So that was one former junkie I know of who was actually gotten off drugs by the application of law.

There is no easy solution to this problem. Maybe the authorities cannot win the war on drugs, but joining forces with the enemy isn't going to solve anything either. As long as there are people, and as long as there are drugs, there will be addicts. And as long as addicts have to raise money to pay for their addictions, innocent people will suffer, whether the drugs are legally permissible or not.

Drug problems will never be solved until the root cause is addressed - a sense of dissatisfaction with one's life. People who are happy and content with their lives feel no need for drugs. Since society itself breeds dissatisfaction - economic hardship or a sense that one will never be free of debt, poor job prospects for those whose parents couldn't afford to give them a decent education, bombardment by sensationalist media focussing on everything that's wrong with the world, obsessiveness with how one should look and what body shape one should have, awareness and resentment of the haves when one is a have-not, etc. etc. etc. - things won't change until society itself changes. How can it change for the better? How can we restructure society so that everybody in it becomes happy and content, and feels no need for narcotic escapism? You tell me. But as long as there is a demand, there will always be an eager - and often utterly callous - supplier. You want to cripple the drug cartels? Don't use.

I don't believe that legalization is the answer. Fixing all of society's ills is the answer, however in the world that may be achieved. Remove the need and desire for drugs altogether, and you remove the problem.

[Binnatics]

Drugs is so damn expensive because of the risk the suppliers run getting caught. It's just a plant. Producing cocaine isn't expensive, nor is it to purify opium. Prices in a legal system could probably be compared to a pack of coffee or tobacco.
I don't think it's wise to go selling drugs in every drugstore or supermarket. Russia is a good example of a legal drugs economy not working. There's no other country with such an amount of alcoholics. But I bet there's no good education in Russia motivating their people into drinking less. The contrary; recently they lowered vodka prices to please the grumbling people suffering from the economical sanctions against Russia.

In Holland we've been experimenting with supplying known addicts with a daily portion of heroine. They don't have to rob for their funding anymore. This takes away a large portion of the demand for the dealers. And reduces the cost to society because stealing and burgling isn't necessary anymore.
In the mean time, it's important that we keep educating our youngsters. The dealers do the same. They lie about their stuff, and they do it with success. It's not true that people are educated enough already. Who would start a habit that brings only death and misery? They definitely think that the pros are worth the risk, and someone tells them not to think of the risks. And what about sex slavery? How is it possible that loverboys talk young girls into prostitution 'voluntarily'? It's social pressure and exclusion doing its dirty w@&k in the suburbs. If we want to get a grip on all these poor, soon-to-be-drug-criminal youngsters we will have to move in and make contact with them; educate them and show them alternatives.

I've been working with all types of drug addicts for years now and what I've learnt is that being a drug addict completely erases all humanity in someone. Junky-behaviour is the most egocentric, antisocial and destructive way of living you can imagine. Junkies will indeed sell their own mother for another fix. They are rotten to the bone, and scientific research has proven that only 2% of all junkies will ever lay off their habit. The rest of them will go on until their death. Trying to stop these from getting their drugs is simply naive. They will get it, one way or another.
The only way to stop this illness of society is prevention.

Legalization isn't that black-and-white all together. There's hundreds of drugs and one drug is worse than the other. Marihuana for example is known to be pretty harmless. Of course, some people develop a psychosis after using it, but scientific research points at the fact that these people already have a latent schizophrenia which comes to full potential through smoking. Something else might cause the same.
Self medication is a well known reason for people to start using drugs. They don't have good faith in doctors and psychiatrists and rather trust the guy on the corner. If they have the option of a drugstore they may be motivated not to start using dangerous species like heroine or crack and accept advice towards more acceptable uppers or downers.
Plus, we can control the quality of the product if we sell it ourselves. We can assure it's straight and not mixed with whatever poisonous crab there may be put in it on the streets.

In Holland we have less drug-related crime and suffering than in our surrounding countries and I do believe that is due to the fact that we legalized the somewhat mild drugs like marihuana, magic mushrooms and some partydrugs. Well, in fact we didn't legalize it, be we tolerate it. The last few years though, some hardliner right wing politicians tend to draw back our progressive politics of the recent past and we are losing grip on our dropouts and losers.

I'll give you something more to chew on; in our drugstores we currently sell a whole selection of drugs to the people. Large medicine companies make money on large groups of people being addicted to pills such as oxazepam, diazepam, dexamphetamine and lots of other so called painkillers, tranquilizers and insomnia-solutions. These pills don't cure a thing. All they do is cover the symptoms of something and making the user dependent - read - addicted.
Well, at least they lie doggo :)

At last, I think it's better to pay tax to the government than to pay danger-fees to the drug-lords.  ;)

[Art Blade]

indeed.  :)

I was thinking about this: if you criminalise drugs, you can't control anything any more because they all take a dive and go underground and hide in the shades. If it's legal, you make them visible and can control what to do with it.

[mandru]

Hmm... the insert quote function isn't working right now but Binn said: 

"...being a drug addict completely erases all humanity in someone. Junky-behaviour is the most egocentric, antisocial and destructive way of living you can imagine."

My drug of choice was alcohol after finding it was the easiest to self administer maintaining some level of self control and agree completely with at least that much of Binn's last post.  The only thing that motivated me to avoid most criminal behavior to be able to keep myself in booze was the abject terror of finding myself in a situation where I couldn't put my wallet in my pocket, grab my jacket and walk out the door.

I was not a social drinker.  I almost always drank alone.  Even booze being perfectly legal brought me to a point where I'd lost everything I couldn't carry away in a paper grocery bag.  Even sober (which was in some ways worse than being drunk) my disease of self centeredness left me balanced on the lip of a precipice with rage on one hand and depression on the other.

My personal recovery now for almost 25 years from that state of mind and body I can only call miraculous and continue to make myself available to others who are suffering as I did.

My drug was legal and taxed by the fed and state (they were the Drug Lords) and even in the face of a profusion of education on the subject it did not at that time vary the course of my decisions.

There are no simple answers.  Maybe there are no answers at all.

It looks like we will need to agree to disagree.

[fragger]

Just to take a break from the debate for a moment: I love that we can have different viewpoints and opinions, but can discuss them here without flaming each other out :-X Obviously we don't all agree on this, but we respect each others' points of view.

Perhaps the reason we can't all fully agree is because of what mandru said: maybe there are no answers. Or no answers that will fix all problems related to this.

But good on you guys, for demonstrating your maturity and civility. I'm happy and proud to count you among my friends :) :) :)

[Art Blade]

Yes, indeed.  :-X :)

And, with a grain of salt:

:-))


:-D

[PZ]

I think I know one thing on which we can all agree: you can't fix stupid  :-()

[Binnatics]

There are no simple answers.  Maybe there are no answers at all.

It looks like we will need to agree to disagree.

This is something I fully agree with :-X :)

And with the following replies of you all.

About the stupid; "Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children." 
A part of Samuel Jacksons quote from Ezekiel 25 17. I'm not religious, but I will never forget these words. Spoken btw in a movie so full of drugs exaltation you wouldn't believe your own eyes sometimes 8)

[fragger]

I think I know one thing on which we can all agree: you can't fix stupid  :-()

No, you certainly can't fix it, but you have to wonder how those so afflicted manage to get into the positions they hold.

So there was this guy in the joint here doing a stint for multiple offenses - drug dealing (meth), illegal use of a firearm and aggravated assault. He'd been done for serious crimes before but being the recidivist ratbag that he was it evidently hadn't induced him to change his ways.

Well, despite being in the slammer, he'd arranged to get married to some gullible airhead and had spent $6,000 in advance on the wedding (?). Seeing as how he wasn't exactly in a position to walk down the aisle he asked if he could have time out from prison to attend his nuptials, even though he currently had further outstanding serious offenses waiting to be heard in court and had a habit of skipping bail - he'd already done so three times.

The judge granted his request.

So he was allowed out of jail to get married (I thought those little pink Chance cards were only valid in Monolpoly, but apparently you can play them in the real world). Two days later, while his new bride was in the shower, he did a runner and is now at large. He is described as being highly dangerous and the authorities have cautioned that if seen he should not be approached.

And the judge thought that he was such a sterling chap. Gee, how disappointing. Who would have thought?

I would posit that when the stupid was handed out, that judge went back for seconds and followed it up with a plate of flaming idiot for dessert ????

[Art Blade]

 ??? :D :'(