A suspended prison sentence makes too much sense. Gotta teach this nerd a lesson.

It’s like if you lost your job because you were convicted of a crime. That’s not additional sentencing, that’s just a consequence of your actions.

The difference there is the state is doing both things for the same crime, and employment is a conditional agreement.

Without any information, this is just idle conspiracy theorising.

Blindly trusting that the government would do the right thing requires a severe lack of understanding of history.

It’s not even about politicians, since from the sound of it this came from regular govt officials, not elected politicians.

Elected officials are the ones who hold regular govt officials accountable.

Due process means the law was fairly applied and their rights were respected.

Additional sentencing was added, a parent or parents went to jail and their kids were taken from them.

that would be the default assumption.

Trusting the government to do the right thing is a poor idea. Politicians will only do the “right” thing if it helps them out.

I agree with you there. The kids are not under a gag order though. Is there any other article or source that indicates a different situation from the one described here?

That usually starts trickling out much later, look at how long it took for the truth to come out about troubled youth camps.

Source? It’s an official govt program being run by a judge.

I’ll know this may sound strange but just because it’s a government program does not mean due process is followed. Loss of custody was not part of sentencing, these are additional conditions applied after sentencing.

Worse than grooming the kids to be crime lords? It’s a closely scrutinised program, and nobody’s calling shenanigans on the implementation, not even the kids being interviewed.

The interviews published were hand selected, the articles are very biased. I’ll sumerize a different way, only 3 of the 100 kids taken from their parents did not speak poorly about their experience.

I am not seeing a reason that it would be a definite failure.

One of the foster centers is the Catholic church. Nothing mixes better than Catholic priests and children.

Did you miss my big, big disclaimer? “excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent”.

Only in a perfect scenario would there be no abuse, so it’s nonsensical to ignore it. The reality is how bad will the abuse have to be before this program is deemed a failure.

Given that the parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence?

There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody. If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.

The mafia have been managing it for generations, so that option obviously doesn’t work.

Italy needs to get serious on imprisonment for career criminals, they don’t.

We’ve had this discussion many times, though from the opposite side. School and education is for teaching kids facts and about the world, but they do not (nor should they) have the capacity to be substitute parents. And that’s for neglectful parents, much less parents who are actively teaching the kids negative values.

It’s not morality to teach kids about all the options they can choose to earn a living.

All in all, excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent, I’m not sure why this is such a bad thing.

It astounding that you can’t think of why government kidnapping is a bad thing. They have no right to take kids from homes because they want to “tame the savages”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schools

There’s a wealth of options inbetween nothing and kidnapping children. Education is probably the best, showing kids they have better options will do wonders. Another option is to imprison mafia members, it’s much more difficult to influence children from prison.

There have been multiple Supreme Court cases regarding the scope presidential immunity.

Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) Spalding v. Vilas (1896) Barr v. Matteo (1959) Chippewa Tribe v. Carlucci (1973) National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon (1974) Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) Clinton v. Jones (1994)

Exactly it was the lower courts opnion that presidential immunity never applied. SCOTUS simply said there are instances when it does. The lower courts will make determinations on specific instances and if challenged those specific instances can reviewed by SCOTUS.

2021 set that precedent, that was Max’s signature move. Brake late to get ahead on the inside, go wide, and push your opponent off the track.

FDRs policies did not get the U.S. economy turned around it was the war. The economy did not improve in FDRs first 8 years unemployment was between 15-20% then pearl harbor, the draft, and a huge increase in military spending, happened and unemployment dropped to 5%.

Guilty by association is a common logical fallacy, it doesn’t matter how you try to narrow down.

I though the only distinction was for medical vehicles and military vehicles. There is a whole class of vehicles called Technical which is pretty much a pickup with a heavy machine gun mounted to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

Is your argument that having any view similar to a white supremists or Nazi that makes you a white supremists or Nazi?

Could easily make it 20 1st and 2nd are in with bye all 3rd and top 2 4th play each other. The down side group play will be meaningless.

I’m not debating whether taking down the statue was right or not. My point of contention is that when Trump said very fine people there is no indication he was calling nazis and white supremists very fine people.

It looks like your little example blew up in your face.

I don’t consider everyone that attended BLM protests rioters, do you?

So some of the people there protesting the teardown were fine people?

I’m glad to see you’re afraid to debate me.