kamala Harris, as a da, locked people up and refused parole to keep them as slaves fighting fires.
mod says it’s misinfo (probably without fact checking) and removes the comment
update:
idk how I was doing mod abuse
YDI
Relevant:
In 2014, as overcrowding persisted, a three-judge panel in California ordered the state to make eligible for parole nonviolent prisoners with only two felonies that had served half their sentences. Harris’ lawyers argued early release would harm the prison’s labor program, which included its work program to help fight California’s wildfires. The judges rejected the argument.
Criticism against Harris resurfaced after her announcement for president last month brought heightened scrutiny. In 2014, Harris told BuzzFeed News she was “shocked” to learn about what her lawyers were arguing in court.
PTB. OPs comments are factually correct, even if they are too unpalatable for a liberal audience to accept. We have to assess politicians by their behaviour, not by their lies, and on that basis Kamala absolutely supports the US prison industrial complex aka slave labor. As do all establishment Democrats, who have helped foster this disgusting industry just as much as the Republicans have.
OPs rhetoric on this is actually very chill, considering.
Yeah OP is trying to be clowned on but all it shows is that the flat.world libs are upset at someone calling out bad people doing bad things.
Disputing the early release of prisoners is different than ‘locking people up’ and people in her office advocating against early release is something that can be attributed to her because she is ultimately reponsible, but is not the same as her refusing to let them be paroled.
What you said is that she put people into jail and forced them to fight fires, which is not what happened.
What you posted was literally misinformation. YDI.
Also, fuck Kamala Harris.
as a da, then as ag, she sent people to prison.
she kept them there specifically to exploit their labor.
what I posted was true.
She didn’t send people to prison. The judges did that. She just successfully argued that they should do it. What you posted was not true.
when a da runs for reelection, they do it on their conviction record. you’re splitting hairs
No, you are. A person who’s job it is to convince judges to put people in jail runs on their record of convincing the judges to do so is … unsurprising.
No, this is false. Her job was/is fundamentally to help ensure justice is administered, it is not to convince a judge (or a jury) to put people in jail.
Plenty of AGs have run on not enforcing specific unjust laws.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.
And yes Kamala was and continues to be a horrible human being. She never would have survived a primary for this reason.
We literally denied Nazis the defense of ‘I was just following orders’ for good reasons. Just because kamala’s actions were slightly less damning doesnt change the fact she made the personal choice to make those arguments in court.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.
No, you do. It is an adversarial system. Prosecuting attorneys… prosecute. Defense attorneys… defend. It is the jury that decides factual guilt or lack thereof, and the judges who sentence. ALL of these roles put the furtherance of justice as their #1 priority, or should at least.
If you want to argue she is responsible for some sort of prosecutorial misconduct, I will listen. To say she put people in prison without a guilty verdict and judge’s sentence gives her authority she doesn’t and shouldn’t have and to argue otherwise is a “fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system”.
Child, an AG has the power to decide which cases they decide to prosecute. They don’t need to prosecute any case they don’t want to. In fact you’ll often see AGs decline to prosecute cases. take a look at texas’ current asshole AG as a great example of this. Or the current DOJ over the next few years.
Kamala choose to prosecute those cases and choose to make the arguments that her department made. Trying to claim that just because part of the role of an AG is to make a case against defendents completely ignores the reality of how they choose which cases to prosecute in the first place.
To say she put people in prison without a guilty verdict and judge’s sentence gives her authority she doesn’t and shouldn’t have and to argue otherwise is a “fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system”.
Again you’re demonstrating your fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works quite blatantly here.
- She choose to prosecute people which non-violent drug use crimes. drugs for which the majority of americans can now access legally.
- Prosecutors often make sentencing recommendations too the judge.
When an AG declines to prosecute a case that defendant will not end up in jail. this is just a fact. I’m not arguing she has authority over the judges final determination, I’m saying she had the authority to pick and choose which cases and arguments the department she led made.
So yes, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system and you’re denying kamala had agency in the decisions her department made which is absolutely moronic.
this is splitting hairs
She sent them there for crimes
like truancy. she’s a fucking Nazi.
Stop diluting the word “Nazi.” All it does is water down the meaning and provide cover for the real Nazis.
Being an authoritarian does not make someone a Nazi.
no, thank you. I’m not going to distinguish between fascist or Nazi, either.
Then you’re literally just helping them by playing their game of co-opting terms with definite meanings.
Congratulations on helping Nazis. You are part of the problem.
I don’t know how you think calling a cop whose excuse is they’re just doing their job dilutes the term Nazi for you, but I’m most definitely not helping nazis
Ptb.
Also What’s with all the downvotes on this post?
The two dozen or so folk on Lemmy who are conditioned to view any criticism of the American Democratic Party as being a Trump supporting fascist.
PTB, everyone here defending the mods and Harris are foolish.
Libs gonna lib. Their primary concern is violently maintaining power so ofc they gonna support prosecutors, prisons, slave labor, etc.
Ah yes those notoriously violent liberals
Did you read the post?
I did indeed
Did you read the factually accurate examples of liberals being notoriously violent?
sen pai!
