Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> > by myself, in 1986, because after avoiding further arrest and conviction for one year, my record
>> > was wiped clean,
>>
>> Which means it wouldn't appear on your public record. Doesn't mean it
>> disappears from the face of the earth.

> And how would the average person know I was a criminal, because other than

What would the average person care that you had a shoplifting bust as a
kid?

And this still doesn't support your "if you disagree with me, you've
never been a victim" nonsense.

>> Lessee, DNA testing for all convictions, more uniform sentencing
>> guidelines, decriminalization of certain drugs, etc.

> Good. Would you care to attempt to describe these improvements for a few hundred posts,

Why would I want to do that?

> people do to me 

Actually, all you ever come up with is a magic wand that makes people
"know" whether someone's guilty or not.

> For example, what do you mean about DNA testing?

Hadn't thought it was a difficult concept, and it was explained earlier.

> That DNA evidence would be required for a conviction?

Nope.

> Do you expect that DNA evidence would always be available?

Why would DNA evidence be available in all crimes?

> What of cases in which there was no DNA
> evidence, such as an old unsolved case, or in an appeal?

Wow; tough question. How 'bout "don't use it"?

>> >You seem not to recognize the problem above, even when I tell you I myself,

>> Just because you tell me yourself does mean what you tell us is
>> important.

> Better law enforcement or legal system are not important?

Sorry, please respond to the statements I make; do not change them to
suit your immediate needs.

> What should we be posting about? The economy and jobs? International security?

Sorry, I have no idea why you fabricate things and then use my posts to
respond to them.

>> > Why doesn't the government also keep EVERYONE'S DNA on computer file

>> Yeah, you'd think they'd've watched the X-Files more.

> Why not convince me why it's not a good idea instead.

Oh, I dunno, privacy issues, etc.

Means nothing to you, of course.

>> > That is not justice. (You might call it "life".)
>>
>> It isn't necessarily fair.

> What should be done for such people even the legal system can recognize have not

Give them more money?

Again, not a major change to "the system", just a tweak.

>> Again, they discuss things with you;

> No, they put forth their claims about why my ideas don't work, as do you.

Sorry, no, many have put forth ideas, and you simply ignore them.

>> you simply ignore what they say.

> Because they simply refuse to agree my ideas can work,

Ah, well, then it MUST be their fault.

> They even disagree with measures already in practice which I agree with, such as traffic
> light cameras at intersections or traffic radar and cameras on highways.

Actually, I've heard you claim you want cameras covering ALL of the
earth.

>> When pressed, you come up with bizarre statements about how you will
>> punish criminals only, but never a clear statement on how you'll
>> distinguish the innocent from the guilty.

> How can I be any more clear than to propose people be monitored practically everywhere at all times,
> even to have monitoring and tracking devices implanted in their bodies?

Because that's impossible? As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum?

Mike