Obvious. I totally agree. And jails are the masters’ finest mean of control. I assume we all agree “street crime” is the for the most of it the result of social and economical oppressions; it’s in the best interest of the ones in charge, almost always coming from the most priviledged sections of the population and/or living in a relationship of inter-dependence with such elites, to lock the poor in jail. By doing so, they not only put people in prison but also put social unrest behind bars. When you’re a politician and you wanna keep your throne, either you choose to pretend to deal with the roots of social unrest _namely, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few_ ,either you choose to get rid of this social unrest and its physical incarnation, namely, the poor.

http://www.ursulakle...doSenkiResponse.html

Federal judges are appointed, right. State judges - the context of McFayden’s argument.. are elected. In order for something to be a federal crime, the crime has to fall under a few categories (it has to concern a constitutional question, or if someone committed a crime against a federal officer, etc) - so federal courts are of limited jurisdiction and try much fewer cases. Actually, there’s a small percentage of states that allow governor’s to appoint judges - i think like one or two states.

Yeah, I totally want to read into the legislation some time.

I’m sorry if my writing is a bit convoluted, I have a hard time articulating what I want to say. Gotta work on that. :)

also, it’s not only the police who are corrupt. it’s policy makers and legislation officials (i.e. politicians) who create these absurd laws and policies, which police forces implement.

i think the system is not only geared to oppress the poor, it was built on the bakcs of the poor, and made to protect the rich and powerful. sure, you can extend rights and freedoms to more and more people, but in the end, this shitstem fundamentally requires oppression.

In the US MOST of the time it works like this: You have an elected official (a governor) get a list of nominees for judgeship - lawyers give half the names- to ensure the judge is well-known and competent, and the other half are from non-lawyers.

The politics come in when judges come up for retention elections - people decide whether or not to keep him.

Other times, judges are directly elected from the people. At all times judges have a political check by the people. But to be honest, people don’t/can’t follow the thousands of court cases that flow through the docket - and will most likely not waste time on judicial politics. Retention elections only matter on contentious issues.

You’re right, Tom - the police are the most fundamental part of criminal law..and, statistics grant the generalization that the judge trusts the police over a suspect in terms of the validity of exigent circumstances, 4th, and 5th amendment rights. So in a way, the system can be geared to attack the poor if only one part of the system, the police, are corrupt.

My professor who clerked for a judge in New York told us a story about how police were coming to criminal courts on a daily basis and saying suspects “dropped” drugs..allowing them to claim exigent circumstances and bypass the 4th amendment of unreasonable search and seizures. In reality, they were probably just going around the neighborhood and patting people down for no tangible reason. This was happening *every day*.

meanwhile, quebec is now a nation! apparently, we beat the native people to it! yay canada!

Not everything in life has to be serious people.Spread the word.

Do the G7 folks ever vote for local politicians?