Should i allow my son to visit his father who is in Prison for life?

You said I told a lie

If we couldn't get a draft going during the Iraq/Afghanistan war,

the Iraq/Afghanistan wars

The guy is a felon.

There wasn't a draft during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

but we know nothing about this father. Has he ever spent time with the child? Paid child support? Babysat?

Three strikes and you're out. Human rights, US style
As Americans shrug off criticism of Camp X-Ray, thousands of their countrymen suffer cruel but all-too-usual punishment

Share 0
inShare0
Email

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
The Guardian, Saturday 26 January 2002 01.56 GMT

The scene is a battered old green and white bungalow in the heart of South Central, Los Angeles, which serves as the local Quakers' meeting house. There are around 20 people here, heads bowed and holding hands as one of their number, Carmen Ewell, asks the Lord for his help in the mighty task facing them.

That task involves changing one of the most controversial statutes in the US, the three strikes law, so the people now serving prison sentences of 25 years to life for offences including stealing four cookies, and possession of $10 worth of drugs will be able to return to their lives.

In a week that has been dominated in Europe by debate about the way al-Qaida suspects are being treated in Guantanamo Bay, in the US itself the public mood is utterly unflustered by such human rights issues. For this is the country that has jailed a higher percentage of its citizens than any other in the world. And this is the country that has embraced the three strikes law.

The law was introduced after the horrific murder of a 12-year-old girl called Polly Klaas in 1993. Her abductor and murderer, Richard Allen Davis, was a three-time offender who was on parole. In the wake of the outrage over the crime, Californians voted for an initiative which called for three-time felons to be jailed for a minimum of 25 years. The initiative became law, and now more than 30 states in the US have adopted their own versions of it.

Under three strikes, violent criminals like Davis have been locked up for life. But it has also been used to sweep thousands of homeless people, drug addicts and petty offenders off the streets and into jail with sentences that bear little relationship to the crime. Critics of the law claim it has created a Siberia of forgotten prisoners, mainly black and Latino, who are the victims of cruel and unusual punishment.

Gregory Taylor, for instance, was a homeless man who used to hang around outside St Joseph's church in Los Angeles and would often ask the priest for food. The priest was usually able to find him something over the nine or so years he knew him. Shortly after 4am one morning in 1997, Taylor decided he could not wait for the friendly priest and pried open the church's kitchen door. A security guard spotted him and the police were called. He is now serving 25 years to life because the break-in was his third felony. When he appealed unsuccessfully against his sentence last year, one of the dissenting judges said the case was "like something from Les Misérables".

READ ON AT,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/26/usa.duncancampbell

First y0u launch a personal attack and then claimed to know the reasons why he wish to see his son without any backing at all.

Bet that if it was the mother instead of the father you would not float the idea that she surely care more about seeing the father of the child then the child himself.

As far as him being a felon the question is so what as far as having a relationship with his child.

I know a nice couple where both ended up behind bars as felons due to lying to the banks about the state of their business inventory to get loans and then going bankrupt.

Should the woman sister not allowed the children to visit the father and the mother or is it only the father that in your eyes that do not care for his children?

I'm talking about a toddler of 3 who presumably never met his father. If he had met him, that's a different story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Controversial_results


Controversial results[edit]
Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punished, up until 2011, shoplifting and similar crimes involving under $400 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime had one prior conviction of any form of theft, including robbery or burglary and who had served time in jail or prison for that offense. (The law was changed in 2011 to require three prior theft related convictions before a petty theft could be charged as a felony.)
As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, previous convictions for robbery and attempted robbery, sentence later reduced to six years).[32]
In California, first and second strikes are counted by individual charges, rather than individual cases, so a defendant may have been charged and convicted of "first and second strikes", potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the passage of the law. Convictions from all 50 states and the federal courts at any point in the defendant's past, as well as juvenile offenses if the defendant was age 16 or older that would otherwise be sealed can be counted (although once a juvenile record is sealed, it cannot be "unsealed"; it does not exist any longer and there is no longer any record to be used as a prior conviction), regardless of the date of offense or conviction or whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain. It is up to the prosecutor's discretion how many charges to levy against a defendant for a single criminal event.[33]
Defendants already convicted of two or more "strike" charges arising from one single case potentially years in the past, even if the defendant was a juvenile over 16 at the time, can be and have been charged and convicted with a third strike for any felony or any offense that could be charged as a felony (including "felony petty theft" or possession of a controlled substance prior to Proposition 36 (see below)) and given 25 years to life. (In the California Supreme Court decision People vs. Garcia, 1999, the Court withdrew residential burglary from the juvenile strike list. For a juvenile residential burglary to count it must also be adjudicated in combination with another felony such as armed robbery, which is a strike.)
It is possible for a defendant to be charged and convicted with multiple "third strikes" (technically third, fourth etc. strikes) in a single case, or for multiple "third" strikes to arise from a single criminal act (or omission). As a result, a defendant may then be given two or more separate sentences that run consecutively,[34] which can make for a sentence of 50 ( or 75, 100, etc.) years to life ; 50 years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade (more information below).
In turn, as a result of all these factors, three-strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well.[35] Within California, criticism has come from organizations such as Families to Amend California's Three Strikes (FACTS).[36] On a practical level, the Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project is working to reverse life sentences imposed for non-violent, minor felonies. Enforcement of the provision differs from county to county in California. For instance, current Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley does not pursue third strike convictions against offenders whose felony is non-violent or non-serious in nature.
The judicial flexibility of the court system at the judge’s discretion has been increasingly limited with the passing of this bill. The judges now are forced to implement certain judicial action regardless of their beliefs on what that outcome of the trial should be.[37] This causes the natural protective safeguards insured to individuals has been more willingly disregarded in the court system. This became increasingly evident in the O.J. Simpson trial where debate occurred on whether to change the rules of jury to allow them to be able to permit a non-unanimous verdict in criminal trials. The cost implications behind the Three-Strikes Law have also come to be very controversial, especially in the area of education. The Three-Strikes Law has required more funding from the state, money that is progressively taking more funding away from education. This leads to a less well-educated population over time, which leads to further problems within the community. The funding for this law will mainly be taken away from college education, but also from other state services such as controlling environmental pollution and regulating insurance, all negatively impacting the future of the state.[38] In 2009, the reported annual cost of one average prisoner was around $25,900, while the reported cost of an elderly prisoner was around $ 9,000 a year with both cost rising with each progressing year.[39] This leads to the area of age in relation to this law, for although it is often overlooked it is a major factor in the overall effectiveness of the Three-Strike law policies. The longevity of the prison sentences of those convicted by the Three-Strikes law makes the prison population increasingly older aged individuals. The longer sentences causes increases in costs with not only the increased time in prison, but also because old age bring more need of medical care which the prisons have to pay. Also, crime may be considered to decrease as a person ages, placing many people in prison who may no longer need to be contained, leading to increased costs and less space for criminals who more desperately need to be locked up.[40] Overall the Three-Strikes law has not proven its effectiveness in the reduction of crime, but actually seems to prove the opposition. The Three-Strikes law had been associated with “10-12 percent more homicides in the short run and 23-29 percent in the long run.”[41]
Consequences

Cases[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Controversial_results

In 1992, Timothy L. Tyler was sentenced to life in prison for possession of 13 sheets of LSD, the third time he was found guilty. He was on a three year probation and had not previously served any jail time.
On November 4, 1995, Leandro Andrade stole five videotapes from a K-Mart store in Ontario, California. Two weeks later, he stole four videotapes from a different K-Mart store in Montclair, California. Andrade had been in and out of state and federal prisons since 1982, and at the time of these two crimes in 1995, had been convicted of petty theft, residential burglary, transportation of marijuana, and escaping from prison. As a result of these prior convictions, the prosecution charged Andrade with two counts of petty theft with a prior conviction, which under California law can either be a felony or a misdemeanor. Under California's three-strikes law, any felony can serve as the third "strike" and thereby expose the defendant to a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
Kevin Weber was sentenced to 25 years to life for the crime of burglary (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).[55] Prosecutors said the six-time parole violator broke into a restaurant to rob the safe after a busy Mother's Day holiday, but triggered the alarm system before he could do it. When Weber was arrested, his pockets were full of cookies he had taken from the restaurant.[56]
Gregory Taylor was serving a 25 years to life sentence for trying to break into a soup kitchen in 1997 when he was ordered to be released by Judge Peter Espinoza of California Superior Court in 2010.[57]
Santos Reyes in California committed a burglary as a juvenile with no jury trial (strike one); the second strike was a robbery which didn't involve injury to anybody; after ten years had passed without incident, Reyes was convicted of perjury for submitting a false application while under oath and, as a result of the three-strikes law, he was sentenced to 26 years to life.[58][59][60][61]
In 1996, Issac Ramirez stole a VCR, worth $199, from a Sears in Los Angeles, CA. Walking out of the store in daylight, he was promptly caught and arrested. Having previously been convicted of two previous shoplifting related robberies, this offense was Ramirez's third strike, and he was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life.[62] While in prison, Ramirez studied California state law, as well as Federal law, and filed multiple appeals to his sentence. Finally, in 2002, a Federal Court ruled in favor of his appeal, that his sentence was in violation of the Eighth Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and ordered Ramirez be set free.[63]
Lockyer v. Andrade: This is a particular case in which the Supreme Court upheld the use of three-strikes law in the case of sentencing a convict to fifty years to life in the case of two counts of petty theft. One article by Doyle Horn calls attention to the proportionality principal of the eighth amendment, arguing that three-strikes sentencing is excessive and disproportional to the crime committed.[64]

So I'm a liar because we differ in our thoughts of what was legal and what wasn't legal? That makes me a liar?

War on Afghanistan is Illegal

Posted in Mass Dissent - February 2011

By Thom Cincotta

Las Vegas Township Judge Jansen will soon decide whether activists who trespassed onto the Creech Air Force Base are not guilty because they acted out of necessity. The Creech 14 entered the base to protest its role in operating unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, over Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, which have killed hundreds of civilians. Judge Jansen allowed Ramsey Clark, retired Army Colonel Ann Wright, and long-time Guild member Bill Quigley to testify about the need to break the law to prevent future war crimes.1 Likewise, anti-war demonstrators represented by Guild attorney Larry Hildes in Tacoma, WA argued the necessity of using their bodies to block Stryker vehicles returning from Iraq to be repaired at Fort Lewis. There, Daniel Ellsberg testified on the protesters’ behalf.2

These cases demonstrate how Guild members can breathe life into international law to support the anti-war movement and deepen criticism for wars that steal resources from our communities and needlessly destroy lives. Public opinion in the U.S has turned against the war in Afghanistan, but we need to galvanize that opposition by continuing to educate and mobilize.

Though President Obama has frequently spoken of “renewing our commitment” to international law, he escalated military action in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan has been illegal from its inception, contrary to conventional wisdom that the horrific crimes of 9/11 and the Taliban’s “safe haven” for Al Qaeda justified full-scale war. America’s use of military force to punish, seize, kill, or dismantle Al Qaeda and the Taliban violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and key provisions of eleven international agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism.3 U.S. and NATO actions constitute war crimes pursuant to the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty establishing the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.4

The UN Charter prohibits the use and threatened use of any force in member states’ international relations; states must settle their disputes by peaceful means. It prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments. Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of forces against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law. Professor Francis Boyle reminds us,

Bush Jr. went to the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . . It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.5

Article 51 of the Charter, which defines member states’ right of self-defense, does not create any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force to repel anticipated armed attacks. Former Guild President Marjorie Cohn explains that Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the Charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after 9/11, and the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”6 President Bush stretched traditional notions of self-defense by assigning the Taliban regime responsibility based on “harboring” Osama bin Laden and his operation.

Not only was the war unjustified, but there is mounting factual evidence that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution,” says Canadian military veteran John McNamer. In a brief sent to members of Parliament, McNamer documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture.7 All national and international law forbid the killing of non-combatants. Total civilian deaths caused by U.S. led military actions are estimated at 8,991 to 28,583 direct and indirect deaths.8

“The Charter,” explains a treatise in International Law, “is based on the belief that international law should not be enforced by the commission of more crimes.” With every passing day, the U.S. commits more crimes in Afghanistan and the rationales for this war continue to crumble before reality.

Thom Cincotta is a researcher at Political Research Associates in Somerville and a member of the NLG Board of Directors.

http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal/