Double-Jeopardy and harassment

Forums: Discrimination, Harassment, Double-Jeopardy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Trump was impeached . . . and acquitted.

Some people feel the senate trial was nothing more than a formality to acquit him and protect him from further persecution, which would violate the rule of double-jeopardy.

The question then is what laws could be employed to arrest people who fail to honor acquittals and nevertheless persecute people for having been indicted prior to acquittal.

This could be relevant not only for Trump but for anyone who has ever been indicted and found not-guilty, yet who is nevertheless discriminated in hiring and in other ways because they were indicted.

Do you think that people and businesses have the right to discriminate and/or slander/harass those who have been indicted and acquitted, or do you think something should be done to enforce the law that says people can't be tried twice for the same crime?

In short, do you think the people have the right to judge the accused outside of the legal procedures that are governed by the constitution?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,216 • Replies: 21

@livinglava,

look in the Constitution in your copious spare time. It will be made clear to you that "double jeopardy" in a Senate impeachment of the president does NOT apply. Its not a criminal trial.
In theory, were a president re-elected and a new Congress is seated, the House could file to impeach and the Senate would try as a political process,

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

look in the Constitution in your copious spare time. It will be made clear to you that "double jeopardy" in a Senate impeachment of the president does NOT apply. Its not a criminal trial.
In theory, were a president re-elected and a new Congress is seated, the House could file to impeach and the Senate would try as a political process,

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Even if it's not explicit, I don't see why the principle wouldn't apply. It's more than obvious that the Democrats have been using institutional methods to harass and obstruct Trump since before he even came into office.

I don't know why these people are so relentlessly and viciously anti-Republican, but I think it has something to do with their hate for religion, love of abortion, and hate for the war on drugs.

Nixon launched the war on drugs and he was harassed out of office. They want to bully the GOP into allowing the things that they use at the most fundamental level to regulate population and the economy, i.e. non-procreative sex and drugs. GOP presidents and others who will just sort of ignore abortion and drugs get a pass, but if they dare to stand with the people who are against them, watch out!

1 Reply

@livinglava,

youre arguing with yourself. Youre getting like max

1 Reply

Quote:

It's more than obvious that the Democrats have been using institutional methods to harass and obstruct Trump since before he even came into office.

That might have something to do with the fact that he's completely unfit to lead the country.

Quote:

I don't know why these people are so relentlessly and viciously anti-Republican...

That's plain to see.

Quote:

Nixon launched the war on drugs and he was harassed out of office.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that the first of these two events caused, or even had anything to do with, the second.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

youre arguing with yourself. Youre getting like max

Are we really getting that petty, Farmerman?

I am sorry I hurt your feelings on whatever thread pissed you off.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:

Nixon launched the war on drugs and he was harassed out of office.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that the first of these two events caused, or even had anything to do with, the second.

I think there's a deep spite and war against presidents who stand with those who are against drugs and abortion.

Trump is hated because the border wall thing threatens routes used for trafficking drugs and humans and he is hated because of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court, which triggers fears about the legality of abortion becoming destabilized.

Those aren't the only reasons he's hated, but generally he brings things into politics that are usually just ignored for the sake of keeping the peace, such as illegal drug imports and abortion.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Setanta has already pointed that out to him. He’s like a particularly dim witted child who keeps asking the same question hoping to get an answer they like.

Or the idiots on here who keep posting the same question with numerous sock puppets.

I don’t waste time on them. To paraphrase Marvin the paranoid android, it gives me a headache just trying to think down to their level.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Trump is hated because the border wall thing threatens routes used for trafficking drugs and humans...

So you think the Democratic Party supports human trafficking and (since the Nixon era) cross border drug smuggling? You have seriously misunderstood both the opposition to Trump's immigration policy and the government's anti-drug efforts over the last fifty years.

Democrats support a path to citizenship for migrants and for the illegal aliens already here, not human trafficking. The disgust with Trump is because he conflates the two for political purposes.

The importation of illegal narcotics occurs primarily through freight shipments into air and seaports but the largest sources are domestic. The Democratic Party didn't support the legalization of drugs in the Nixon era and doesn't support the recreational use of use narcotics now. The slow legalization of cannabis occurred because its criminalization came to be seen as irrational by Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Democrats support a path to citizenship for migrants and for the illegal aliens already here, not human trafficking. The disgust with Trump is because he conflates the two for political purposes.

Hear hear!

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Trump is hated because the border wall thing threatens routes used for trafficking drugs and humans...

So you think the Democratic Party supports human trafficking and (since the Nixon era) cross border drug smuggling? You have seriously misunderstood both the opposition to Trump's immigration policy and the government's anti-drug efforts over the last fifty years.

I think there are a lot of rich liberals who like recreational drug use and they would like it legalized ideally, but if it's not legalized, they will still go on using privately and there are people who want their (big) money badly enough to do all the horrible things like human trafficking etc.

Now I'm not saying there aren't any rich illegal drug consumers that are Republican, because there probably are, but generally the Republican party is not going to support legalization or oppose the war on drugs the way Democrats do (with varying rationalizations about treatment being more effective than criminalization, etc.). Nixon launched the war on drugs and was/is bitterly hated for doing so.

The people who enjoy recreational drug use (and those who make money serving them) don't want to stop what they're doing just because the government makes a policy to stop them. Look at all the atrocities you read about in Mexico having to do with cartels. It is a nasty business.

Quote:

Democrats support a path to citizenship for migrants and for the illegal aliens already here, not human trafficking,. The disgust with Trump is because he conflates the two for political purposes.

Obviously the principle of liberty should include liberty to migrate responsibly. Unfortunately, there are widespread abuses of liberty to exploit and abuse others (not just drug and human trafficking). Such abuses and exploitation occur both intranationally and internationally, but when they occur internationally, borders are a tool for intervention; one that would be much harder to implement intranationally by increasing interstate border control, for example.

But I will be the first to agree that when global peace and cooperation finally stabilizes without ulterior motives and covert conflict, strife, and exploitation; everyone will be able to sustainably migrate and work, get healthcare, etc. wherever they want. You'll be able to travel and stay anywhere in the world for as long as you want, and it will be easy to find paid employment without being a citizen, and it won't even matter whether you are the richest or poorest person on Earth, because no one will have any criminal intent whatsoever.

I know it sounds about as utopian as the hope that recreational drug use will go away on its own tomorrow, but wouldn't that be great too?

Quote:

The importation of illegal narcotics occurs primarily through freight shipments into air and seaports but the largest sources are domestic. The Democratic Party didn't support the legalization of drugs in the Nixon era and doesn't support the recreational use of use narcotics now. The slow legalization of cannabis occurred because its criminalization came to be seen as irrational by Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

You split hairs. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

You get sidetracked very easily.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

You get sidetracked very easily.

If you cared more about the OP than with ridiculing me, you'd just speak to the OP instead of talking about sidetracking.

It's really easy to be a leader. You just do what's right instead of reacting to what you deem wrong.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

If you cared more about the OP than with ridiculing me, you'd just speak to the OP instead of talking about sidetracking.

I could say the same thing to you.

Your premise is flawed and instead of admitting that and go on, you delve into a totally unrelated subject.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
If you cared more about the OP than with ridiculing me, you'd just speak to the OP instead of talking about sidetracking.

I could say the same thing to you.

Your premise is flawed and instead of admitting that and go on, you delve into a totally unrelated subject.

You're still reacting instead of being pro-active. Here, I'll lead because I can:

Do you think people who have been tried and acquitted for a crime should be spared further harassment/persecution, or do you think that if some people don't really believe they were innocent, they should still be allowed to discriminate against them, slander/harass them, etc.?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You mean the Brock Turner's of the world?

Yes. No going back after that.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

You mean the Brock Turner's of the world?

Yes. No going back after that.

You're cherry-picking examples. What about people who are released from prison and then discriminated after serving their time? Are you one of these people who supports more rights for ex-convicts or are you fine with discriminating them back into criminal gangs to keep them away from law-abiding citizens?

Bottom line: do you think people who have been arrested and/or convicted of crime should be able to return to regular life after either being acquitted or serving time, or do you think there should be prisons or other colony-type living situations to keep those people away from everyone else forever?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Nixon launched the war on drugs and was/is bitterly hated for doing so.

It's not as if drugs were socially accepted before Nixon, and believe me, there were plenty of other reasons to hate the guy. He wasn't hated for cracking down on low level drug smuggling but for the cynical way he used social issues to polarize the country. A lot like the current occupant of the White House.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

There are different types of crimes that need different types of punishment.

Surely you can agree someone convicted of killing a person is different from someone who evaded taxes. You haven't touched on rehabilitation, time served, resources available once released or registering with local authorities.

This isn't a cut and dry situation.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Nixon launched the war on drugs and was/is bitterly hated for doing so.

It's not as if drugs were socially accepted before Nixon, and believe me, there were plenty of other reasons to hate the guy. He wasn't hated for cracking down on low level drug smuggling but for the cynical way he used social issues to polarize the country. A lot like the current occupant of the White House.

Things like recreational drug use and prostitution and other sexual liberalism were always done in secret because they were (and still are) taboo to talk about openly.

So no one would have openly criticized Nixon for the war on drugs, except maybe really openly liberal proponents of legal drug use, who would've been considered a small minority. The vast majority of people who engage in such behaviors maintain a conservative public appearance to avoid being stigmatized.

Organized crime was hiring young kids to deliver and push drugs so they would take the risk of getting caught and not people higher up in the organization; so when the war on drugs started deterring young people from taking that risk, it would've made business more difficult and risky for others.

I've heard the criticism that the war on drugs was more of a war on poor minority youth, but if they would have just targeted the higher-ups, it would have been harder to find them and there would've been no deterrent for young people to just go serve another organization when the one they were in got busted, and that would mean that the same drugs would ultimately end up getting to the same buyers, but the middle-men would keep changing.

So as sad as it is that people have to go to jail to deter others from participating in the distribution of drugs, it's hard to imagine a more effective way of disrupting the supply-chain. Supposedly Duterte in the Philippines was encouraging assassinations without arrest/trial, and Amnesty International was up in arms about it; and of course it's terrible that the war on drugs would reach that point, but then if you look at how smart lawyers and logistics people get with working around police and criminal justice, it is no surprise when some people get fed up and just launch an all-out war.

It would be so much better to deal with drugs democratically and with liberty, but how many people do you think are going to give up their drug habit and/or drug business just because the government makes a law against it? It seems about as likely as gun owners giving up their guns to gun-control laws.

Anyway, I don't think Nixon could have chosen another path and I don't think the people whose toes he stepped on by doing so could have resisted retaliating against him politically. It was war.

0 Replies

Double-Jeopardy and harassment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know