But changing this law means that the punishment won’t always fit the crime. Perhaps you can’t change sexist judges, but what about sexist or racist prosecutors? They’re the ones who will decide the sentence now by whatever charge they choose—and they do get to choose, and can allow a defendant to plea down if he’s…

How about not making knee jerk reaction laws that limits a judge’s ability to use discretion during sentencing. Ya know something that California has had a horrible, well documented track record with. These overreaction laws usually come with severe problems that no one, at the time, stopped to consider

No, they’re opposed to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which are disproportionately used to incarcerate people of color.

And holds your hand because you can’t cross the street by yourself.

A couple months ago when this first came up, I heard on NPR a congressman (I don’t remember who) who was asked about the possibility that this could come back on us if other countries decide to do away with our immunity, as well. He said that our government doesn’t engage in terroristic illegal behavior, which is…

Unfortunately, that’s how the law works. You can hold people accountable for crimes or make them subject to stature of limitations that didn’t exist at the time the crime was committed.

And we will not hear anything else about this law for 10 years. Hopefully by then it will be irrelevant. Hopefully by then victims will come forward faster.

This does nothing to convict rapists. The longer a person waits to come forward the harder it will be to get a conviction.

Statutes of limitations don’t usually stay on the books because the crimes effects ended but because the ways that time effects the ability of the trial to be successful (for the prosecution) and fair for the defense (finding people to back up an alibi is hard after years).

I think the actual effect of this is going to be much less noticeable than people think. It’s difficult to get a conviction (or to avoid getting the case dismissed) when you’ve got 10-year-old non-DNA evidence. Memories get worse and witnesses become unavailable to testify. That’s one of the big reasons why…

Reminder that Melissa Joan Hart usually votes republican so we really didn’t lose anything with her protest vote except to take a vote away from the orange cheeto.

But he was claiming the DNC, a privately run non-governmental entity, was rigged. Not the FEC.

No, I don’t think people should attack her relentlessly, but I do think there is room to discuss both her faults and her plusses. If having an honest discussion about the pros & cons of a candidate costs them the election then the problem is the candidate, not the discussion.

I’m one of the millions who will vote for Hillary to prevent a Trump Presidency, but if being on the “freaking wagon” means not pointing out her faults than I am happily not on your sycophantic wagon.

Not once in their comment did state that she was worse than Trump. Trump was not even mentioned, disagreeing with Hillary does not mean that you are supporting Trump or think that she would be worse than him.

she’s definitely flaunting it all over, which yeah it’s her choice but yeesh I am not a fan of her behavior.

I think you’re going to get some hate because “leave the girl alone! It’s her decision and her body!” but I agree and I can see your logic thread even if you can’t

You could begin with your purge of Bradgelina by not taking the time to comment about them on an article featuring them.

No, it’s a valid statement when so many people perceive any and all criticisms of Israeli policy as anti-Semitism.

So the meeting with Hillary went better? Good? Not as newsworthy?