Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

eke out posted:

Seems like it would be difficult to me, local courts aren't exactly trying to stop people from paying them their pound of flesh.

I did some more looking and it's actually much more questionable than has been suggested whether court fees that're not part of a sentence are even included: the ACLU says they'll be suing if it's implemented like that, as the Amendment ONLY reads "upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation."

Depending on the average size of the fees, we're easily talking up to hundreds of millions of dollars of collective fees which the state and local governments for some reason aren't bothering collecting. That's a lot of foregone revenue that's hard to explain in terms of concerns for the rights and welfare of people convicted of crimes by all parties involved.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

eke out posted:

What I was discussing wasn't any "foregone revenue" out of the goodness of anyone's hearts, so I'm not sure why you're characterizing it like that. The literal text of the amendment limits it to court-ordered fees or restitution - ones that are "terms of [the] sentence" - which is meaningfully different than 'any court-related fees you might owe.' Again,

Sorry, I was looking at things in the context of where things were before the passage of the amendment where there was no incentive for anyone to let people convicted of felonies avoid paying every cent as soon as humanly possible. I think that the vast majority have had every relevant fee, restitution, penalty &mc. paid off long ago to the extent that anybody could force them. I don't know which ones would prevent them from voting in the future and you'd certainly know far better than me.

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

Old Kentucky Shark posted:

THE problem is that every county has to print their own individual ballots — or more often multiple versions for each county— for each election cycle, so there really is no such thing as a standardized ballot.

The State of Georgia did have a single team of full time ballot designers until recently and that's something makes sense and simplifies things.

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

There's a Danish reality TV show that just followed the US Ambassador to Denmark around. Apparently the Danes really liked the guy even if his main qualification was being a big fundraiser.

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

He wanted to demonstrate that he’s even stupider than Donald Jr. That’s all I’ve got.

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

It just feels like all of these bizarre schemes are probably sanctionable as well even if the exact circumstances have never happened before and likely won't ever happen again.

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

Sort of dragging this vaguely back towards the original topic, Butina was in solitary confinement at the time she flipped although other factors clearly played a role.

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

Kith posted:

yeah, nah

there's a long and varied history of hardcore anti-queer crusaders winding up doing super gay poo poo and the joke is focused on the statistical likelihood of them being hypocrites, not whatever gay joke you're desperately trying to see

The idea that all homophobes are secretly gay is also a way for straight people to deflect from all of their homophobia. It's like white people monomaniacally focusing on all the instances of some black person acting like an 'Uncle Tom' to avoid thinking about where they fit in the big scheme of things.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

1337JiveTurkey
Feb 17, 2005

Aesop Poprock posted:

So... they’re against rule by force but their book is based off of a book that specifically glorifies it?

Satanic Temple is against it, but Church of Satan is for it.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply