With 6 days to go until the national elections here in the U.S., I figured I would maybe pose some constitutional ethics questions here to figure out key issues aside from the ones mentioned in the media on a daily basis. No doubt Queen and Zero will think that this is my attempt at sounding intelligent or something along those lines, but that's cool. Since I work a job that usually is just boredom from sitting around until a problem occurs, I have quite a bit of time to read. Reading gets me thinking (sometimes too much).

Anyways, the first topic (I'll try and add more as I think of them) for debate is the following:

Does the First Amendment's 'Freedom of the Press' clause interfere with the Sixth Amendment's 'Right to a fair trial' clause? More specifically, does the media filming and televising cases (on what used to be CourtTV, but is now TruTV for instance) often prejudice a potential jury pool, thus denying a defendant the right to a fair trial? Let's take for example perhaps the most prominent case of somewhat recent memory; the O.J. Simpson case. Did the constant media coverage of every stage of the game aid in the acquittal of Simpson? Did it have any effect on the jury?

Which wins out? Free-press or right to a fair trial?

Also, to take it one step further...I'm sure most of you are familiar with a 'gag order' (no not in teh pr0nz) but for those who are not, it is basically an order from a judge that no details of the case are to be discussed under any circumstances. With that having been said, if someone (could be a juror, a court officer, heck even just an on-looker) leaks information to the media, and the media reports this information even though the case is under a gag order, and the judge finds out of course because he reads the newspaper and/or watches the news, is it right that the judge subpoenas the reporter and demands he knows the source of the information? Who would also be in the right if the reporter refused to disclose his source sighting confidentiality of sources under the freedom of the press clause and as a result, the judge held him in contempt and jailed him indefinitely? A popular instance of this just happened a few years ago with the whole Valerie Plame/CIA Agent ordeal.

What are your opinions and why?

A little supplemental reading:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/sheppard.html

^^the court room has always been a public hearing and the public has been allowed to view the proceedings in a criminal case as long as they fit in the gallery and mind their manners.

The TVs are just a modern way for us to sit in the Gallery. There will always be people out there that do not follow OJs every move.

A tainted jury pool would only happen due to poor Jury selection.

I'll bet you Dollars to Donuts I could easily find someone out there that (today)
A. Has no clue why the World Series is suspended much less who is playing in it
B. Has no clue who Barry or McCain are and will need to be reminded that the election is Tuesday

Interesting topic, what is up with this?

Just was reading and looked like something worthy of debate on TFL.

A tainted jury pool happens almost all the time. You are always going to have one person who doesn't see eye to eye with the prosecution or the defense. I can definitely deal with a tainted jury pool (jury pools are also known as the venire). I agree with you that through the selection process (also known as the voir dire) from this pool, that bad apples should be weeded out. Unfortunately, a lot of times it doesn't happen. People will always have prejudice, unfortunately(with the exception of Henry Fonda...that's a joke referencing 12 angry men by the way). I regrettably hold it to be true that pragmatism in jurisprudence has gone out the window. But should prejudice be potentially exacerbated by the media?

^^Well, when Chris Mathews and Dan Rather try to inject themselves into the story then you've got what you are describing.

It's funny, at High School football games you see all types of refs. Some are just there to call the game....other show up and figure a way to "interject" themselves into the game somehow.

I mention High School Football because these guys are total novices and very transparent the guys on tv with College an pros, they've been able to hone their skills and hide it much better or the bad ones are weeded out.

Football.....Media??? WTF? Understand, both are supposed to be subjective observers that oversee the event. Once they get into "Making" the news over just reporting what they saw, then you have the issues you are describing.

Nightly news is now "Entertainment Tonight" material

Ratings. That's all the media really cares about.

So with that having been said, do you want the "fair and balanced media" reporting on a criminal case stating their interpretation? Undoubtedly, it has some effect on public view of the case. We've mentioned jury prejudice already, but what about the media coverage prejudicing other facets? Take for instance the judge, or the prosecutor; if they know that the media (possibly) has encouraged the public to be 'out for blood' so to speak, then will they (judge+prosecutor) be more inclined to seek and give harsher penalties than are normally given? We get back to the 'fair' part of the trial at these levels as well.

^^Now you are getting into "context".

So think about the egregious crimes committed by "Joe Nobody" with a rap sheet as long as your arm who gets off on Probation after the 13th similar conviction for the same crime.

It happens, probably more than we care to admit.

So you have equal yet opposite ends of the spectrum issues.

It is not perfect, but until Tom Cruise invents that hologram thingy majig.....what do we do?

^^Now you are getting into "context".

So think about the egregious crimes committed by "Joe Nobody" with a rap sheet as long as your arm who gets off on Probation after the 13th similar conviction for the same crime.

It happens, probably more than we care to admit.

So you have equal yet opposite ends of the spectrum issues.

It is not perfect, but until Tom Cruise invents that hologram thingy majig.....what do we do?

I see your point. Criminals do get off the hook easy much more so than being unjustly charged or receiving too much punishment. You won't hear an argument from me on that. However, strictly speaking from a constitutional basis, no rights of the accused are denied or diminished through a light sentence. Rights of the public normally are, however. Is it a greater injustice for the system to fail in the benefit of the accused criminal or against them?

Would you want inadmissible evidence (assume your attorney filed a motion to suppress and it was granted ) such as a history of marijuana sales being published in the newspaper when you are on trial for DWAI? Any juror can go and pick up a copy of this newspaper (unless sequestered) and find out about it; even though it has been deemed to not be allowed in court. How would you personally feel about this?

If I were a Defense attorney??

for one The Jury would have been instructed not to read newspapers.

Then I would make a motion for a mistrial

If you were the accused.

well screwed...but that is only from the point of the accused...who wants every advantage they can get

True, but is everyone who is accused guilty? There are tons of over-zealous Micheal Nifong type prosecutors out there who rush to judgment in hopes of aiding their career. On the books, the accused have a presumption of innocence, however that is rarely the case in action. Should this prejudice of initial guilt be further encouraged by the media? I'm just curious if both the first and sixth amendments can co-exist in justice.

well yeah. but typically when there is info that is suppressed that info is not usually something that will exonerate the accused, rather the converse.

True. Should the media be allowed to report about suppressed evidence though or should the court's suppression extend to the media?

Bump. Here's the one for today:

Your thoughts on the Insanity Defense?

Supplementary reading:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/ralph/summary.html

Overview:

the trial of ralph tortorici
The story of Ralph Tortorici's struggles with mental illness, the fateful day he took a classroom full of students hostage, and his tortuous path through the criminal justice system.

On Dec. 14, 1994, 26-year-old psychology student Ralph Tortorici walked into an ancient Greek history class on the campus of the State University of New York (SUNY) in Albany. Hidden under his clothes, he had a hunting knife and a high-powered rifle. As the doors closed behind him, he announced that he was taking the class hostage.

"He ordered everyone to stand up and get on one side of the classroom," testified Robert Urban, one of the hostages. "The professor ... was told to leave the classroom and get members of the press and congressional representatives." Tortorici said that he had a computer chip in his brain and that he wanted to see the president. He told the hostages that if they all cooperated, no one would get hurt.

He used a fire hose to tie the doors to the room shut. Another hostage testified that he fired his rifle to prove to the negotiators -- who were communicating with Tortorici over the P.A. system -- that he was serious. When negotiations failed, 19-year-old sophomore Jason McEnaney rushed Tortorici. As McEnaney wrested the rifle away, it discharged. McEnaney was seriously injured, shot in the leg and the groin. As the other students subdued Tortorici, police swarmed the room. When Tortorici was arrested, he repeatedly said, simply, "I did what I had to do."

At Albany Medical Center, where Tortorici was treated for a knife injury he sustained during the struggle with the students, he tested positive for cocaine. Released into police custody, he was taken to the Albany County jail and charged with multiple counts of kidnapping, aggravated assault, and attempted murder. His lawyer entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

: A Well-Documented History of Mental Illness

Matthew Tortorici, Ralph's brother, said Tortorici had suffered from delusions for many years prior to the incident at SUNY-Albany. "He lived with it at all times," said Matthew. "He had both this functional rational life, and his what was really going on behind the scenes. ... He would sit and watch TV and he'd say, 'You don't see that on the TV? Look at the TV. You don't see that?'" According to Matthew, Ralph's delusions fed an elaborate conspiracy theory. Tortorici told both Matthew and his father, Robert Tortorici, that he suspected that the police were "out to get him." "He would say that the police got to his bosses and [his bosses] started giving him a hard time," said Robert. Ralph even kept a list of all of those he suspected of being involved in the conspiracy. At times, said Matthew, Ralph even believed that Matthew and their parents were in on the conspiracy.

Tortorici had been born with a defective urethra, and had undergone a series of operations to correct it. As his delusions intensified, he became convinced that during the last of these operations, the government had placed a tracking device in his body. In August 1992, when Tortorici was 24 years old, he went to the University Health Center at SUNY-Albany and complained that a microchip had been implanted in his penis. A psychiatrist at the health center immediately referred Tortorici to the Capital District Psychiatric Center (CDPC). His evaluation reads:

"24-year-old male presents with a fixed delusion accompanied by suspiciousness. After eight years of dealing with this experience privately, he comes to attention. Because of increased stress in his life, he believes more conspiracy activity is taking place and, so, out of desperation he seeks to expose the conspiracy. He appears willing to discuss the possibility that his belief is psychological in origin, but would be more likely to consider this after an X-ray rules out a foreign body."

The delusions didn't abate. Just four months later, Tortorici went to the police barracks in a nearby town. "He believed [the police] had implanted some type of tracking device into his teeth, and he believed he removed one of those," testified New York State Trooper Drew McDonald at Tortorici's trial. "He felt that they had gone too far this time, and they had implanted a tracking device in the tip of his penis." Tortorici was taken to CDPC again, and his evaluation echoed some of the findings in the report from his earlier visit:

"Patient explained to the trooper that he had been the victim of a long-term surveillance by someone who had a surgical team place a listening device into his penis. Patient states that he had initially been under open surveillance and had agitated those in charge of the listening by making fun of them and they had to switch to the implant."

Tortorici also turned to drugs. "With his paranoia there was an extreme depression, plus that fearfulness and anxiety," said Robert of Tortorici's drug dependency. "And I think he escaped. He used the drug to escape all the ramifications of the paranoia." In February 1994, Tortorici's mother called the Albany County Medical Center, concerned that her son was suicidal. "He started doing drugs again at that point and he locked himself in the bathroom and was smoking crack," explained Matthew. After an evaluation, Tortorici was diagnosed with cocaine intoxication, suicidal ideation, and depression.

Just 10 months later, Tortorici took the SUNY students hostage. He did it, he claimed, because the government had put a microchip in his brain. "He wanted to get some attention," said Matthew. "He wanted this government experimentation or whatever it was to stop."

: Read testimony from Tortorici's trial on his history of mental illness.

: TORTORICI'S COMPETENCY

Because of Tortorici's obvious mental health problems, the preliminary issue before the court was whether he was competent to stand trial. Under New York state law, a defendant must possess the ability to assist in his defense and to understand the nature of the charges against him.

A court-ordered psychiatric evaluation concluded that Tortorici wasn't competent. He was given a diagnosis of "delusional disorder." A second evaluation determined that Tortorici "suffered from a serious mental illness" and was "very, very paranoid, consistent with schizophrenic paranoid type." He was committed to Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center.

Detailed medical records from Mid-Hudson reveal that Torotici refused all medication during his stay at the facility. The Mid-Hudson staff noted daily that he was delusional, aggressive, and that he spent much of the time there on "assaultive behavior" watch. On several occasions, he was placed in a strait jacket.

Then, on March 3, 1995, the director of the facility noted that Tortorici was "no longer an incapacitated person." Three days after this notification, a psychiatrist described Tortorici as "calm, collected, cooperative to the hospital's rules and regulations." His speech was normal, the doctor wrote, and he no longer had delusional beliefs.

But on the very same day, a nurse wrote that she observed Tortorici "responding to hallucinations." Subsequent notes indicated that Tortorici frequently talked to himself, and that his behavior had been disruptive.

There were no further notes from doctors or nurses until late-March 1995, when a psychiatrist at Mid-Hudson decided that Tortorici met the requirements for competency. The doctor wrote that "the patient showed steady improvement in all areas in a rather short time. For the most part, the patient has come to realize that his belief that the government ... had implanted a microchip in his brain ... is a delusion. However, at times he shows some residual doubt."

The threshold for determining competency is so low that it is a rarity for a defendant to be deemed unable to stand trial. Prosecutor Cheryl Coleman recalled, "Somebody once described 'competent' as knowing the difference between a judge and a grapefruit. I think [Ralph] knew that. Was he competent to help his counsel? Of course he wasn't. So in the spirit of competence, was he competent? No. Did he fit the legal definition of competency? Yes, probably."

Continued...

: THE PEOPLE'S CASE

With Tortorici now ready to stand trial, prosecutors Cindy Preiser and Cheryl Coleman began preparing to present their case. Coleman, who had successfully prosecuted several cases in which the insanity defense had been invoked, was asked to take the lead in developing a rebuttal to the psychiatric defense.

"The first thing that you screen in your mind is, is there a possibility that we can make the jury think that this guy's faking?" said Coleman. But Tortorici's well-documented history of mental illness eliminated that as a feasible trial tactic.

"There was no way that you could portray it either ethically or in reality as a situation where someone had concocted [mental illness] for trial," said Coleman. "He had a history of reporting it from the year before. It wasn't something that got made up at the last minute."

The defense, meanwhile, was busy lining up a series of psychiatrists who would eventually testify that Tortorici was not responsible for his actions: that he was, in effect, insane at the time of the incident.

At first, Coleman wasn't overly concerned. "Most people, first of all, have a bias against [the insanity defense]," she said. "The common person thinks anybody who's got it together enough to commit a crime can face the punishment for it." Plus, she was confident she would find a psychiatric expert to testify for the prosecution. She spent more than six months searching for a psychiatrist who was willing to cooperate, however.

"No mental health professional wanted to be involved having his or her name attached to someone who was part of the prosecution of Ralph Tortorici," said Coleman. "They believed, first of all, that he was not responsible. ... A few of them expressed to me that they thought they would lose respect in their profession if they [testified for the prosecution]."

Worried about their chances without an expert psychiatric witness, Coleman and Preiser met with Chief Assistant District Attorney Lawrence Wiest to try to get approval to plea the case out and have Tortorici sent to a secure psychiatric facility rather than to prison. Though numerous psychiatric evaluations had determined that Tortorici was suffering from a serious mental illness, Wiest refused to authorize a plea agreement. He wanted to leave the decision in this high-profile case to a jury. "[For] the vast majority of defendants that are determined by two or three psychiatrists or psychologists to be not responsible, we'll concur on those diagnoses and we will entertain a plea of not responsible," said Wiest. "There are those cases, however, where we would much prefer a jury to make that decision. This was one of those cases."

: DR. SIEGEL'S LETTER

With the district attorney's decision to move forward, the trial proceeded. Two days into jury selection, Coleman finally found a psychiatrist from another county, Dr. Lawrence Siegel, who agreed to meet with Tortorici to evaluate whether he was responsible for his actions at the time of incident. With Coleman, Preiser, and defense attorney Peter Lynch present, Siegel examined Tortorici.

"That night we actually walked out to the parking lot together and I think he just shook his head all the way out. And he goes, basically, 'Wow,'" said Lynch. "I think he was overwhelmed by Ralph. I think he was very much aware that Ralph was acutely psychotic that night."

In a nine-page letter to Coleman, Siegel wrote that "Tortorici is currently exhibiting signs and symptoms of acute psychosis. ... An opinion concerning his mental state at the time of the alleged offense is deferred until such time as he can be examined while in a competent state."

Siegel recommended to Coleman that the trial be postponed. She brought the matter to Judge Rosen's attention, and then presented Siegel's letter to the court. Judge Rosen ruled that the trial would move forward. "The bottom line was I felt, based on my own personal observation and communication with Ralph Tortorici, that he met the standard of competency to stand trial under New York State law," Rosen later recalled. Neither the prosecution nor the defense issued any objections to Judge Rosen's ruling. "In speaking with Ralph, the decision was made to elect to continue," said Lynch. "Ralph was very clear. He wanted to continue with the trial. He directed me to continue with the trial."

: COURT PROCEEDINGS BEGIN

Ralph Tortorici's trial began on Jan. 3, 1996. A week earlier, he had announced that he was electing to waive his right to be present in the courtroom during the trial. For a defendant charged with a major felony to absent himself from the proceedings is almost unheard of. After Judge Rosen discussed the matter with Tortorici and determined to his satisfaction that Tortorici's waiver was "knowing and voluntary," however, he ruled that Tortorici could indeed absent himself from the courtroom.

According to Coleman, it was a crucial ruling. "He wasn't there and the jury never got to see him," said Coleman. "Instead, all the focus was on the victims of the crime." When the trial began, Tortorici was in a holding cell in the basement of the courthouse.

Jason McEnaney, the student who was shot in the leg and groin when he struggled to get the gun from Tortorici, was one of the first witnesses to testify. "Jason was an incredible witness," said Coleman. "He was one of those rare people that let you see the inside of him when he talked. A lot of us cried when he testified." One juror, in fact, fainted during McEnaney's testimony.

Defense attorney Lynch called a number of witnesses who had seen Ralph over the years and could testify to his consistent complaints about the microchips he believed the government had placed in his body. Lynch also called four psychiatric experts who testified that Tortorici was legally insane at the time of the crime. It was, in this case, the defense's burden to prove that Tortorici was not responsible for his actions.

Coleman's job was to discredit the defense's psychiatric witnesses. "Basically [it was] like a burn and destroy kind of mission," said Coleman. "Kind of like bowling for psychiatrists; try to see how many psychiatrists we could knock down."

: THE VERDICT

After eight days of testimony and 31 witnesses, the case was handed to the jury on Jan. 13, 1996. By law, Judge Rosen was not permitted to tell the jury what would happen to Tortorici if they found him not responsible. The jury would never know that in all likelihood Tortorici would spend as much time locked up in a secure mental hospital as he would in prison.

In just over an hour, the jury found Tortorici guilty on 11 counts of kidnapping and aggravated assault.

To the jurors, there was little debate. "As it turned out, there really weren't any major issues," said Norm LaMarche, one of the jurors. "I don't remember in deliberations [if] we even tried to rate the value of the testimony of the expert witnesses." LaMarche contends that the evidence that Tortorici knew and understood the consequences of his actions was overwhelming. "If he had just grabbed a gun and run into a McDonald's, it would have been a different situation," said LaMarche. "The fact that there was so much planning weighed heavily on us."

: THE SENTENCE

A month later, in February 1996, Tortorici returned to the courthouse to be sentenced. Before Judge Rosen imposed his sentence, he allowed Tortorici to speak. He gave a rambling, nonsensical statement. "I am descended from the Roman Empire," Tortorici said. "I have Roman Empire genes in me for many, many thousands of years. ... You see that the Jews hate the Roman Empire because under the Roman Empire they faced a lot of persecution."

Judge Rosen eventually had him removed from the courtroom. He sentenced Tortorici to 20 to 47 years in prison, the maximum punishment allowed under the law. Tortorici was sent to the Sullivan Correctional Facility, a maximum security penitentiary, where he was placed in the mental health unit in his own cell.

An appeal was filed, arguing that Judge Rosen had improperly failed to act on Dr. Siegel's assessment. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, turned it down in April 1998, ruling that Judge Rosen had acted appropriately. The next January, Tortorici's case was again appealed to a higher court, the State Court of Appeals. That court also ruled in February 1999 that Judge Rosen had monitored Tortorici's mental state and had acted properly.

Then, in May 1999, Tortorici's appellate attorney filed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision over whether the nation's highest court would take up Tortorici's case had been expected in October 1999.

: THE ILLNESS PREVAILS

In July 1996, just months after he was sentenced, Tortorici tried to kill himself by hanging from a bedsheet in his cell. He survived the suicide attempt and spent the next three years being shuttled between prison and short stays at a psychiatric facility. "Every six, seven months or eight months, they seemed to be shifting him back and forth." said Robert Tortorici, Ralph's father.

After his longest stint -- a whole year -- at the Central New York Psychiatric Center, Tortorici seemed to be improving. "There were no more delusions and no more speaking to people that weren't there." said his father. "He seemed to be as normal as I've ever seen him in years."

Tortorici was again returned to prison. The family was told he was doing well at Sullivan Correctional Facility. In fact, he wasn't. On Aug. 10, 1999, Tortorici was found dead, hanging from a bedsheet in his cell.

"I think our judicial system, our corrections system, took someone who victimized others and had to be taken out of society and they actually went too far and they made him a victim of their own system," said Robert Tortorici. "Justice was not served in this case.

Further continued:

Though unapologetic about his role in the trial, Judge Rosen nonetheless recognizes that the system failed Tortorici. "It would seem to me that a paranoid schizophrenic who commits a horrendous act should not wind up committing suicide in a regular prison with a regular prison population, all alone, with no treatment and with no help," said Rosen. "That's where the system failed him and that's where he was victimized by it."

Coleman, meanwhile, is less circumspect about where to place the blame. "When it happened, I felt responsible for his death and I thought of his parents and I thought of his family and I thought how he didn't have to die," said Coleman. "And I remember thinking that there was something wrong with what we did. ... I felt really ashamed."

So what's everyone think?

True. Should the media be allowed to report about suppressed evidence though or should the court's suppression extend to the media?
If the media gets the info, the courts cannot require them to not print it. They can request it and the media often cooperates (as in cases where an ongoing investigation is occuring) But the media is under no obligation to suppress info of an ongoing trial.

I see. But should they (the journalist or reporter) face contempt of court charges and indefinite jailing for refusing to reveal their source?

So what's everyone think?
I know that you are supposed to study that case....I assume you are supposed to study that case..........

Guess what? What I think is...the system is messed up because of what Carter did on allowing people with mental disorders out of the prison system and allowing the Mental Health system to be weakened such that no one can be incarcerated (one flew over the cuckoos nest) for being mental.

This has lead to many of these cases and now we have to hem and haw and scratch our beards.

Once a person is discovered as "mental" that person is a ticking time bomb. Something awful will happen eventually.

Who was that Houston mother that killed her 6 children? She had a long history of Mental Illness...........Andrea Yates (thanks google).

Faced with the burden of proving that, at the time of the deaths, Yates was suffering from a mental disease that prevented her from understanding the difference between right and wrong, defense lawyer George Parnham pointed to Yates' well-documented history of depression and suicidal tendencies.

Her medical records showed that following the birth of her fourth child, Luke, in 1999, she attempted suicide twice and reported hearing voices and having visions.

Her treating physicians, one of whom testified that she was one of the five sickest patients he had seen in his career, diagnosed her with postpartum depression and put her on a regimen of prescription drugs and continued therapy.

In spite of warnings from her doctors that her condition would worsen with the birth of another child, Yates gave birth to daughter Mary in November 2000. Four months later, Yates' father died, an event which precipitated a decline in her condition, according to testimony by her doctors.

The Experts [Doctors] knew of her mental illness yet they were powerless to do anything about it.

We all know that NO ONE takes their medication regularly......yet we send mental patients off on there own and expect them to regularly take meds. Isn't that whole sentence and oxymoron?? Like "government intelligence" Or "jumbo Fries"?

Like anything in this world, you need "context" in which to make rational decisions. When you have all the deciding factors plugged in, you sometimes conclude that the way we do things isn't perfect, but under the circumstances it is the best we can do with what we have to work with.

That is why wisdom comes with age. While young, you may have a very high I.Q....but without experience I. Q. can not get you to the desired results.

So I am confused, you believe they should be incarcerated in mental hospitals?

well, when they are one of the top five Mental patients a Doctor has ever seen.....Yes

Mark David Chapman.....the man that Killed John Lennon

In 1977 he attempted suicide by gassing himself inside his car, but the vacuum cleaner hose melted in the exhaust pipe and he was discovered. He was hospitalized for mental illness. On his release, the hospital hired him part-time.

Well known fact that He suffered from Mental Illness.

True. He has been in a mental institution a long ass time, but it's safer for him and a better environment for someone with a mental illness than prison, right? What about the fact that some of the ones who use the insanity defense get out several years later when they are "cured" or when they are at least deemed somewhat able to be a member of society?

Re-open the semi incarcerating mental institutions

Higher taxes.

Crime...or fighting of Crime takes money.

Mental Patients are time bombs.

Crime "prevention" is a practice our country has moved away from in the past 50 years....

In 1994 I think it was, under Mario Cuomo, New York State let all the crazies out of the looney bins. Now ya got people walking the streets in the suburbs and even some rural towns around me talking to themselves. It was all to save the taxpayers some money. In 1995 and 1996, they noticed that the crime rate in the state more than tripled. This same governor said that the state lottery system would be used to supplement education so people's property taxes would go down. That never fucking happened. None of the money from the New York State lotttery goes to education. I think all that shit goes to the mafia (and I also think Cuomo was tied to the fucking mafia).

A Very very small amount of people commit 85% of the crimes.........

Mentally Ill make up a large percentage of criminals as they cannot determine the difference between right and wrong.

So should we kill all the mentally ill?

no no, Just once a problem is Identified, we should not continue to ignore it. All is not well when we stick our head in the sand and "Hope" for the best.

So what's a resolution?

You're giving kinda vague answers IMO. Kind of like a liberal on Bill O'Reilly.

lol this should be good

Why don't you participate Mr. 1337? Too retarded of a conversation for you?

No, just not one that I find particularily interesting.

Well then let's debate on penis glitter and bread fucking. :D

Let's talk about what your sig should be after you lose our bet.

You actually think Obama is going to win that much, huh? Polls had Carter over Reagen by a lot too. We all know how that turned out...

Your sig will be awesome when I am done with it though.

may the best n1gger win

Gyea son.