Why did Kucinich support trying 13 year olds as adults?

[killbotfactory]

And throwing them in with the adult population?

http://archive.aclu.org/vote-guide/69.html
http://archive.aclu.org/vote-guide/H118.html

H.R. 3 Juvenile Justice

Introduced by Representative Bill McCollum, this bill offers a host of so-called "tough on crime" provisions regarding underage offenders, such as trying children as young as 13 in adult courts and then jailing them with adult criminal offenders in adult prisons.

Why would a progressive support this bill?

[CalebHayes]

1. He also supports making "flag burning" illegal

Whats up with that?

[Terwilliger]

2. dunno, but if I had to eliminate people who do things I disagree with...

there'd be nobody left

[killbotfactory]

3. Yeah, I don't get it...

Along with his record of voting against abortion rights...

It's like he's a social conservative posing as a liberal.

Wonder what he would think of a 13 year old burning a flag?

[CalebHayes]

4. LOL

Well I have never burned a flag and I don't think I ever will.

[Sean Reynolds]

11. A 13 year old that burned the flag and aborted a fetus!

Sorry, I had to! ;-) I love DK so I wont harp on him too hard.

But I can't explain this.

[TLM]

116. And what if they did it at an abortion clinic?

Seems Kucinich may not be the super progressive some of his supporters calim he is.


Funny considering how much hate they spew at Dean for not beign a real liberal...though he never claimed to be a liberal like kucinich does.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. His vote to ban flag desecration (not just burning, but

desecration, a word opening up an entirely new realm of abuse for flags) is rooted in his old-fashioned patriotism. Americans used to be brought up to love and believe in their country and its government, particularly those of us born just after WW II. Our fathers, uncles, cousins had served in WW II. We always started our school day by praying, listening to a Bible reading, and pledging allegiance to the flag.

In the Viet Nam war era, things changed, with people questioning our country's foreign policy in a way that hadn't been done before. A few people burned flags in protest against the war. Others wore flags on their butts (sewed them on the seat of their jeans.) Others, like me, like Dennis, saw misuse of our flag (and it is OUR flag, after all) as disrespectful -- and divisive.
Why wave a red cloth at a bull? If you want people to agree with your thinking, you need to get them to listen to you, and it's hard to do that if you piss them off. And why disrespect a symbol of your own country? You can disagree with government policies without attacking the flag. After all, flag etiquette allows us to fly the flag upside down, as a symbol of distress. (It's also proper to burn an old flag, but that wasn't why or how flag burning as a form of protest occurred.)

Dennis has a strong feeling about the flag as a symbol of the best of what the United States can be. It also symbolizes those who have fought and died to win and keep our freedom. It's a piece of cloth, sure, but it has a history and a meaning. People always have symbols; they fulfill some sort of human need. We throw all our symbols and customs away at our own peril. Maintaining our history and our pride is what the good part of conservatism is about: conserving. "Liberating" ourselves from patriotism, religion, tradition leaves us free in the sense of "Freedom's just another word, For nothing left to lose."

We're Americans and we should be glad to see our flag, be glad to sing patriotic songs, even though we want to improve our country and make it more like Jefferson and the other founders intended it to be.

[edzontar]

28. Nice attempt at a defence of this reactionary position...

If wearing a flag on your butt is desecration, are we going to go after the Dallas Cheerleaders? Ban the film, "Myra Breckinridge", or the movie "Dick", about the teens and Watergate?

Free speech is tested when you find the message most repugnant--not when it is safe and acceptable.

I would never burn a flag as part of a protest, for the reasons you mention.

But if someone else decides to, it is their RIGHT--if I think it is stupid or ineffective, SO BE IT.

Flag-burning legislation is reactionary and represents RW pandering at its worst.

I though more of Dennis.

[diamondsoul]

33. Judging from recent statements,

I believe he's reconsidering the flag-desecration position.

“The context of that vote came from a time when America was not at war and wasn’t conducting aggressive warfare. Now the meaning of the flag has been changed, and the flag is being promoted by an administration in such a way as to imply aggression. I think Americans have to be free to express their opinions. I mean the flag does stand for our nation, but I regret that our nation is standing for war today.” –Dennis Kucinich

And for the record, I've been nagging the poor man for months to get him to come out with his current position and reasoning. If I weren't certain he doesn't even know who I am, I might be inclined to think he's avoiding me over it!

You said: "Free speech is tested when you find the message most repugnant--not when it is safe and acceptable."

Which is an interesting statement, but as with all things, not universally applicable. I must admit to being a moral relativist because I've yet to find any case of any kind of "absolute" for any topic. Exceptions always exist. Free speech that incites abuse (whether verbal or physical) of anyone creates a conundrum that sometimes has to be addressed.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. great, let me know when he takes back his morally repugnant vote on the

legislation calling for trying 13 year olds as adults.

[redqueen]

46. You shouldn't have to wait long

He doesn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the ethical position, unlike some other candidates. :)

[maha]

34. This is called "rationalization"

Kucinich's greatest flaw is that he is, at heart, an authoritarian who believes he knows what's best for everyone else, and the hell with what they think.

[sujan]

37. good thing is,

He is a terrible campaigner.

[Mairead]

56. Check your facts.

[GreenArrow]

60. insert name here

Dean's greatest flaw...authoritarian
Lieberman's greatest flaw...authoritarian
Bush's greatest flaw...authoritarian
Clark's greatest flaw...authoritarian

and so on... politicians in general tend to be authoritarian types, and so far as it goes, DK is on the low end of the scale. I see your criticism reflected more accurately in Howard doctor knows best Dean or Joe Lieberman.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

94. Kucinich may not be pure, but he's electable! Don't you want to win?

We want to win remember? People are mad about outsourcing, unemployment, corporate crime, and endless war and terrorism. Dennis has the prescription we need to win and fix our problems - and he'll get some of it at Canadian prices too!

I probably disagree with 4.9% of Kucinich's votes - he's more of a centrist than I am I suppose, but I can live with that!

[UrsulaFandango]

119. Kucinich can win

Dean is a wild man, I've never trusted him. Dennis Kucinich on the other hand is an honest person with track record that validates his integrity and decency. I for one would love to have a president who fights the establishment to create a Department of Peace.

I believe Kucinich could win if the media didn't keep suppressing his message. All they highlight is Dean, Kerry, Liberman and General Clark, losers all.

[lcordero]

5. as a friend of mine told me

"would you like to have a 13 year old pointing a gun in your face?"
"would you like it if he/she gets off and does it to somebody else again?"

[killbotfactory]

6. Answers:

No, but they're not exactly old enough to know the full consequences of their actions.

No, but that doesn't mean I want them to be tried as adults and thrown in with the adult population where they'd most likely be sexually assaulted or worse.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. is your friend a republican?

Can't say I think much of your friends Point of View.

[lcordero]

15. nope

Almost everyday, I see children skipping out on school and going out to the park to smoke dope or do some other bullshit.
What kept me in line during my time growing up was my mom made it very very clear that if I got out of line, out of control, or embarassed her she would take a baseball bat to me no matter what the law says and that she would gladly go to jail for it then let ANYBODY tell her how to raise a child. For all of the spankings and beatings, I am grateful that she did it because:

1. I'm not dead.
2. I'm not in jail.
3. I'm not on drugs.

Hell, my cousin can't even get her 16 year old to go to school. If I was in my cousin's shoes, I would turn the 16 year old over to the state at the drop of a hat.

[edzontar]

26. Your views on these issues make the Che avatar seem a little odd...

But then, I just found out that Kucinich has some very reactionary views on criminal and social justice issues...which is disturbing, since i thought he actually WAS a liberal.

Guess he is just another "phoney," like his supporters here call Dean every hour, on the hour.

[maha]

31. Kucinich is NOT a liberal.

He's progressive on some issues, but he's no liberal. There IS a difference.

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.12.21_arch.html#1072533439615

[last1standing]

70. I'm not dead, in jail, or on drugs.

And it's not because I was beaten as a child. Most children are able to grow into adults without the benefit of permanent scars to guide them through their formative years.

Dennis Kucinich is a good congressman but he does have some very conservative social views that would not play well in the GE. I think of him like I do the operating system Linux. Both are great for their purpose, but neither would be able to hold up under the scrutiny that the frontrunner gets without major work.

[Zomby Woof]

7. I bet you have never worked with 13 year olds

I have, and they damn well know there are consequences. But if you think trying them as adults gets them thrown in the same facilities, think again.

Fallacies galore.

Talk about desperate reaching. Thought Dean supporters were above this...?

[killbotfactory]

8. Then we should let them drive and vote...

And be eligable for the draft...

This bill would allow throwing them into the adult population.

[CalebHayes]

9. THANK YOU

[diamondsoul]

35. Kucinich also considers

allowing teens to vote at 16 a good idea. As Mairead has pointed out, there isn't enough information provided to make an informed proposal about his reasoning for the votes.

If I read the entire text of both bills I could probably explain it, however I haven't gotten that far yet.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. Wow

You have no idea how the mind of a 13 year old works. Please don't tell me you teach or do social work.

[dsc]

16. Two things

One, I have worked with 13 year olds and still do on many days. They do not understand the full consequences of their actions in the way an adult does. They think and live in the moment not long term. As with any generalization there are some who don't fit it but the vast majority of 13 year olds are massively more impulsive and less able to consider consequences than older teens or adults are.

Two, that bill does allow juveniles to be housed at the same facilities as adults. It does require them to be segregated but in practice that isn't always done. But in poor or rural jurisdictions they are often in the same jail as adult offenders. They would be in my county to site one example. Though I don't know of any recent case around here in which a 13 year old was tried as an adult.

[edzontar]

27. Frank Zappa would never support a flag-burning amendment

He was a patriotic guy, but was a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights and free speech, ideas which Dennis, at least according to the information provided, feels the need to AMEND.

This is disturbing stuff, IMHO.

[Zomby Woof]

36. I vehemently disagreed with DK on that

I posted at great length when it occurred about how wrong that vote was. Unlike Dean supporters, I am willing to admit when my candidate is wrong, in no uncertain terms. I didn't try to spin it away like the Dean supporters do.

But I'll add Zappa wouldn't like Dean any more than I do. Why? Because he could spot a GOP-wannabe huckster a million miles away, and that is, quite simply, what Dean is.

As for the arguments above that 13 year olds should be allowed to vote and drive because they may, in some circumstances, be tried as adults is absurd. A common fallacy on DU - strawmen. A 13 year old knows that murder is wrong. Should they be incarcerated as adults? No. But tried? Yes - DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, which if you knew anything about the bill in question, took in account. But you don't know, because Dean is god, and all other candidates are wrong, so damn the facts.

But voting or driving? They shouldn't do that based on reasons having NOTHING to do with knowing that murder is of the extreme consequence. Apples and oranges is too trite of a cliché, but fitting for a trite construction as put forth in here.

[edzontar]

69. Well THAT's good--but here's the thing....

I DON"T agree with Dean on everything, any more than you do with Kucinich.

Given that fact--what is the damn difference?

Dean is pro-choice, for example, Kucinish is historically antichoice.

I don't hate Dennis because of this-i just disagree with him.

Dean is anti-gun control, historically.

I disagree with him on this.

Would I vote for Dennis if he was the nominee?

Yes.

I am supporting Dean because he has run the best campaign, and is good ENOUGH on the issues when compared to his closest competitiors.

Dennis, I fear, is not going to get the nom--for a variety of reasons, not all of them good ones.

Bu Dean is no Republican...any more that Kucinich is for supporting a raft of very conservative social policies.

[Cocoa]

10. I don't like that bill or that vote

and I agree it's not my idea of progressive legislation.

But the practice of going back and finding a given candidate's worst vote from years ago -- when was this anyway? -- is questionable.

[hellhathnofury]

17. Before 2000 at least based on some of the folks voting.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. I can't believe DK supported this

I am sure there is more to the story.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. With nothing more to go on than the paragraph from the ACLU

describing the bill, who knows? I do know that bills get a lot of different measures tacked onto them and that it is apparently rare to have a bill without some good and some bad to it.

Perhaps the ACLU's synopsis of the bill is not telling the entire story. When you have only one "such as" example provided, what is left unsaid? What other examples are there? And is the example given a bit misleading? It doesn't say under what circumstances these 13 year-olds might be tried as adults.

Perhaps the bill specifies, for example, that "children as young as 13" charged with murder be tried in adult courts.

It seems unlikely that it was intended to target 13 year-old shoplifters.

What DO we do with "children" under 17 or 18 who commit murder? Or rape? Or assault and battery? Manslaughter?

Clearly, a 13 year-old who kills, rapes, assaults is neither "normal" nor typical. No one wants to put them in with hardened criminals in an adult prison, but putting them in a juvie home is putting treatment for violent crimes on the same level with treatment for shoplifting.

I'm progressive but think there are some people who have to be put away from society because they have no respect for customs and mores, let alone for laws. And, unfortunately, some of them are, by chronological age, children.

The bottom line answer, though, is that Kucinich would have to be asked why he voted for the bill.

[ShimokitaJer]

48. Are you suggesting the ACLU is being unfair in criticizing this bill?

The ACLU has worked long and hard to preserve our civil liberties, and I for one am not willing to smear them in a tortured attempt to explain my candidate's vote, particularly when you are merely speculating about the contents of the bill. Yes, I'm sure Kucinich has a reason for voting as he did, and I'm willing to wait to hear it before I condemn him on it. But don't start implying that the ACLU is out of line without evidence simply because your candidate didn't vote the way you expected.

I hate to break it to you, but if the fight is Kucinich vs. the ACLU, I'm pretty sure I know which side most liberals are going to trust.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corporatewhore]

20. have no clue and another question why would a progressive

like dean support a group like aipac that supports jailing and using torture on thirteen year olds in palestine (beccuase they are a-rabs and must be guilty of course)
I think that this was wrong for kucinich and dean have no idea why they do
just for record i dont think dk is my ideal cannidate i wish he was more radical

[Mairead]

22. I don't know why -- I don't have enough information

But Dingel and Kaptur also voted for it, fwiw.

This vote appears to have taken place during DK's first term in the House. If I had to ascribe a reason without having more information, I'd say he was representing his conservative constituency.

On the face of it I don't like it at all, but I'm aware that a large fraction of people already have all the ethical understanding at 13 and 14 that they're ever going to get (see Lawrence Kohlberg's ethical-development model). They're not going to have any better grasp of ethics or any better self-control at 40 than they do at 13. They've finished their ethical development. Sad but true. They're the ones who, if they obey laws, do so because it's the law and they don't want to suffer for breaking it (I've seen that unreflective attitude at DU more than once; it always surprises and dismays me). So while we might see them as physical children, they've either--depending on how we want to view them--already reached their adult ethical growth, and it makes sense to treat them as adults, or they're never going to reach an adult ethical stage and we should still be treating them as ethical children when they're 40.

[corporatewhore]

23. I totally disagree with you

You talk as if the criminal injustice system works lets see how many times are we picked up just becuase we have darker skin or are poorer.You are forgetting it is becuase they are physical children that they are placed in seperate prisons physically they are smaller and weaker.I also think that if we had half way decent counseling better school system we would avoid alot of adolescent crime.I cant imangine thirteen year olds who are in the wrong place in the wrong time (ive been in some of those situations) being scared for life because they were sent to an adult prison.

[Mairead]

25. I don't blame you -- I didn't try to do a complete dissertation

I agree that the 'criminal justice' system is dreadful and vicious. It creates criminals out of whole cloth and provides damn' little justice.

Yes, a lot of 13-y.o.s should never even see a court --they should be dealt with communally in a non-judicial process, and that actually happens, though mostly for the wealthy.

But there are also 13-y.o.s who commit vicious crimes, and who will never be more ethical than they are at that point. They can't be reformed except in a sort of dog-training way because there isn't anything to work with. Should they be treated as adults? Good question. The flip side is: should the physical adults who have the ethical maturity of a 13-y.o. be treated as adults? Should physical age trump developmental level? That's how we get executions of MR people. Is that a good idea?

My point was that I don't have enough information to know why Kucinich voted for that, or even what it really means. I couldn't find a summary of the law, so I don't know whether the basenoter was reporting it accurately. As DB asked: what's it really all about? Did DK vote for a law that would lock up 13-y.o. shoplifters with adult armed robbers? Almost certainly not. So what did he, Kaptur, and Dingel really vote for?

[MuseRider]

24. I would like to know

why he voted like this. I do not agree with him 100% but he still fits me the best. It would be a good question to put to him, I would really like the answer. The one thing I do know for certain, if you asked him about it he would admit it and tell you the reason why and you would absolutely be able to find somewhere where he explained his vote the same way he would tell you now.

[edzontar]

29. Kick! I'd like to learn more about this....

I am confused and upset by this revelation.

[LWolf]

32. The best way would be to ask Dennis himself.

http://www.kucinich.us/contact.php

[Zomby Woof]

38. exactly!

He would not spin it away or flip flop like Dean. You can still disagree with DK, but on principle, not because he was opportunistic.

[CivilRightsNow]

30. Well,

I could care less about the flag thing. I dont even want to own an american flag, much less burn or desecrate one. That is my form of protest, not giving any value to it at all.

As for the kids in the slammer.. that isnt how it works, 13 year old kids dont go to prison with bubba the 300 lb murderer. I do support harsh sentences for violent crimes, I dont care who perpetrates them.

Its way more telling to me that Kucinich would very likely vote on changing the drug laws and getting nonviolent offenders out of the prisions, where they do not belong.

[Patriot_Spear]

39. Jesus, what a dispicable thing to do.. DENNIS KUCINICH did this?

Christ, what kind of monster advocates this kind of evil?

[diamondsoul]

40. Did you read the text of the legislation somewhere?

And if so, could you link it?

If not, can I ask what makes you so certain the legislation contained anything evil? For instance, I'm quite certain he'd never vote in favor of legislation with language allowing for the execution of children. (Bush signed it into law in Texas, grinning for the cameras while he signed.)

[Patriot_Spear]

41. I read the ACLU link providied: I find this concept digusting.

Didn't you? Kucinich voted for it in both cases.

Perhaps this element of the bill wasn't made clear to him.

[CivilRightsNow]

47. Blah.. you people make me chuckle

On the ACLU site, I find it amazing they only over 6 things spanning several years.

The Juvenile Justice bill was from 1997, the 105th Congress

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h3ih.txt.pdf

from an endorsement by Abercrombie -H.R.3 provides incentives for states to emulate this new approach. The grant program in H.R.3 would be authorized at $500 million for three years. States must meet certain requirements if they are to obtain money from grants authorized by H.R.3 - e.g. they must try violent juvenile felons as young as 15 as adults; they must treat juvenile records like adult records; and they must permit parent-accountability orders. States which meet all the criteria could use the money for various initiatives such as establishing and maintaining accountability-based programs that work with juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement agencies, or which are designed, in cooperation with law enforcement officials, to protect students and school personnel from drugs, gangs, and youth violence.
--------


So it's one of those tough love things that democrats have been doing for a long as time, increasingly since the Clinton administration. It's okay with you folks to up Manditory mins on non violent offenses, decimating families, but its not okay to support a program that will create more funding for preventative programs?

Maybe someone would like to inform the ACLU of the Violence Against Women bill he cosponsered.. Or is that not enough civil liberty invoking for the ACLU, anymore?

What biased hogwash.


I guess none of you even cared to think about the fact that this bill should have been regulated by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which was revisited that year and broken into several bills.

Blah. humbug.

[Patriot_Spear]

50. 'you people'? Children housed with Adult prisoners? Despicable.

Just my view. You don't have to agree.

[diamondsoul]

75. From the text of the bill you found in PDF-

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h3ih.txt.pdf

The text of the bill is extremely specific. It states that a juvenile accused of committing a crime after having reached age 14 may be tried as an adult under the following conditions-

If the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jusrisdictions of the United States for which the penalty is not greater than 6 months imprisonment(this specification does not supply an age limit so could be applied to juveniles younger than 14- disturbing, most assuredly but not something I would drop Kucinich over)

If the juvenile requests in writing under advice of counsel to be tried as an adult.

If the offense allegedly comitted by the juvenile would constitute a serious violent felony or a felony as described by the Controlled Substances Act, if same offense were comitted by an adult.

Further stipulation- none of the above shall apply if the Attorney General certifies that the best interests of the public are served by prosecuting the juvenile as a juvenile. (not bloody likely under Ashcroft, but then he wasn't the AG when the bill was voted on)

Stipulations for those aged 13 or older-

This one only applies with the approval of the AG or Deputy Assistant AG, and ONLY if the offense would be a felony under Federal law if comitted by an adult. (again, Kucinich isn't clairvoyant and couldn't have known what a vile creature would be the next AG.)

Still further stipulation on confinement after conviction-

"The Attorney General shall not cause any juvenile less than 19 years of age adjuducated delinquent under section 5032(a) to be placed or retained in an adult jail or correctional facility in which the juvenile has regular contact with adults incarcerated because they have comitted a crime or are awaiting trial, except for placement in a community based facility."

Once again I point out, Congressman Kucinich was elected on the premise he would vote according to the wishes of the constituents he swore to Represent in the House of Representatives.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. God, what a disgusting disappointment

I was kind of pissed at his flag burning voted. I figured he was trying to score some points with the ditto heads on a fairly meaningless issue. But this vote is morally repugnant to me. As someone who spends a good deal of time with troubled middle school age kids, I can not even begin to understand how a so called liberal could support this bill.
We are alone among industrial nations in our sick need to seek revenge even among the young and incompetent. To add to the problem laws enacted under this legislation will continue to be used more against the poor and minority members. This is still a racist society.
I could not be more disgusted or disappointed at this moment. I did not click on the links until now because I didn't really want to know I suppose. Now I know and now I feel no regret that Kucinich is doing as poorly as he is in the primaries.

[diamondsoul]

54. Cheswick, have you found some

evidence of this vote? See downthread where I posted the results of a search on HR 3 through Thomas. It doesn't appear to exist on public record, nor does the text of the bill.

Second point that should be taken into consideration- Congressman Kucinich is a Representative. It is entirely possible that he cast a vote based on the expressed wishes of his constituents which is precisely what he's supposed to do.

[Mairead]

58. "now I feel no regret that Kucinich is doing as poorly as he is"

oh please! you had no regret before, either.

[redqueen]

43. Very good question

I'd like to hear what Kucinich has to say about it.

As for the flag, I don't think it should be desecrated either, but I'm one of the apparently very few liberals on this board who thinks that some limits are sane and necessary.

But back to the point, this is completely out of character for Kucinich, so these slurs about him (e.g. how he's an 'authoritarian') don't really mean jack s$#t. :D

[redqueen]

45. It's funny watching other candidates' supporters get so worked up

While their guys support:

the use of depleted uranium
the cutting of social programs to help the poor and elderly so the rich won't have to be taxed any higher
the selling off of public energy companies to private interests
the furthering of the 'drug war'
the continued criminalization of medical marijuana

Is this rational? Acting so 'disgusted' or whatever about a vote from three years ago, which while abhorrent, obviously didn't even happen... at the same time they are trying to elect a president who will do much worse in the future?

Is it just me? Or is this really strange?

[CivilRightsNow]

49. Heh..

I especially like the supporters of the guy who helped kill hundreds if not thousands of children through military campaigns that are calling this an atrocity.

It's not you, it's really strange.

The thing is, nobody's record is spotless and if you want me to give any credance to that whole.. Clark has magically become a democrat after speaking at a republican fundraiser less then 2 years ago.. How one can sit here and say that they can catch a guy on less then a handful of the HUNDREDS of bills he has voted on is simply mind boggling.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. funny, not at all

You may not understand this, but not trying children as adults is a basic core belief of mine. In relation to that locking up pot smokers seems trivial.

[redqueen]

62. Yeah, choose that stance, and minimize it while you're at it!

This is really, really sad.

See, it's not just about 'locking up pot smokers'. You have all this over-the-top empathy for 13 year olds who are in no danger (did the bill pass? please), but you apparently couldn't possibly care less about cancer patients starving. And they are starving and in misery. Now. Not in 'fantasyland' where the 13 year olds are going to prison with adults, but here and now, in the real world. Right now.

And now, let's move on to more substantial matters, such as the use of depleted uranium. Once again, this is a problem that doesn't exist in fantasyland, but here and now. Clark says it's no problem. A-OK. Go for it.

Another one from here and now - again, this is not fantasyland, this is a problem for poor families NOW. Welfare reform, which was a great favor the 'big dog' did for us (with the help of his republican friends and centrist dems in congress), has resulted in malnourished children showing up in free clinics. Dean says cutting social programs is a good thing. And trust me, if he is the next pres, we will see much more draconian cuts than what we saw under clinton.

I can't even bear to go on... this is just too irritating.

But I hope you see my point.

Complaints against other candidates = they won't solve problems we have NOW.

Complaints against Kucinich = he supported a bill around 4 or 7 years ago (?!) which would have made things worse - which might actually be a problem if it had actually happened. :eyes:

You do the math.

[tinanator]

114. that is funny

if you have a sense of irony, I guess?

[Mairead]

63. Really strange? Nah, really opportunistic.

Their candidate's been getting such a drubbing on his status-quo policies and record that they're ready to seize with both hands and their teeth any chance for payback.

We still (or at least I still) don't know what the hell this bill amounted to, and I'm sure from the way these guys are viewing-with-alarm and wrapping themselves in the flag that they don't either. But it's probably their only chance and so they're rushing in intemperately, lest the whole thing evaporate before they get to exploit it!

[redqueen]

64. Yep prolly

But I tell ya, it reeeeeeally frosts me.

When the centrist policies that have succeeded under people like Dean and Clark (and due to the inverted coattails of centrists like clinton) have resulted in more homeless families, less help for the poor, etc., etc., etc... I really can't view such illogical demagoguery as anything other than complete, 100%, unadulterated horse manure.

[diamondsoul]

Thomas Legislative Library

results for bill status HR 3

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:1:./temp/~bd4fPj:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d108query.html|

STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
***NONE***


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE(S):
***NONE***


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED BILL DETAILS:
***NONE***



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSOR(S):
***NONE***


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
***NONE***

The text of the bill isn't even available because it hasn't been recieved yet from the Government Printing Office. Care to try again to smear a decent man with a blatant falsehood? Clearly the ACLU has made a mistake somewhere down the line since the legislation appears to be in complete limbo, and since the text isn't even available, I must assume people are just willing to believe the worst of a man who has proven to embody the best of humanity. How very sad.

[dsc]

53. Wrong House Bill 3

Next time you decide to call people names you might wish to do accurate research. The bill Kucinich voted for is from the 1990's not this year.

[diamondsoul]

55. Ok this is wierd-

Your post says response to "Original Message" but appears beneath mine! I thought you were talking to me until I looked again!

[dsc]

61. I was your research is dead wrong

and you did call people names. It is odd that the response is mislabeled. But the original poster and the ACLU are correct, though the ACLU isn't reporting every aspect of the bill, and you are incorrect.

[diamondsoul]

Care to point out where I caled anyone any name? n/t

[dsc]

80. here

Care to try again to smear a decent man with a blatant falsehood? That would make the person a smear artist.

[diamondsoul]

81. Uh, no, that would make the person

reaching for something to make an opponent look bad. If I intended to call him a "smear artist" I would have done so. Vast difference between discussing a single action versus a pattern of behavior. Get a grip.:eyes:

[dsc]

86. tell that to the people who make the rules

Call a post a lie and see what happens. That is the very same principle.

[diamondsoul]

92. No it isn't.

I never said the original poster was responsible for the "blatant falsehood". I pointed out that the contention IS a blatant falsehood. Propagation of a false statement in ignorance is not the same as lying.

Dennis Kucinich did NOT support incarcerating 13yr old convicts with adult convicts, evidence has since been provided to support that statement. It is entirely possible, indeed likely that the original poster found the same result from a search that I initially did and therefore wouldn't have known the original contentions were false. That doesn't change my view of it as blatantly false, considering that Kucinich has a platform that loosens penalties against non-violent offenders and those convicted on drug possession charges, and has from the very start of his campaign.

[diamondsoul]

76. dupe yet again. grrr! n/t

[diamondsoul]

52. dupe n/t

[MuseRider]

57. I guess we need to find out

why, if he did vote for this. I am sure if you are concerned you can get the information by writing to him through his congressional web site. It is hard to agree or disagree when you do not know what the reason for the vote was. I do know this, if you ask he will tell you exactly why he voted the way he did. I guarantee he will not try to change it or weasel out of it. Once you have his reasons then it is fair to debate it. He is not perfect, only close (LOL).

[CWebster]

59. and here we thought he was such a good little Catholic boy...

Perhaps a poor boy who stole a loaf of bread for his starving family, sick mother, suffering from post-partum depression, out of work father, living in a car in the industrial wasteland of Cleveland... A poor boy with no money, no means of good legal support. Well hey, at least he has a better chance as a white boy...

[Mairead]

65. A little light on the subject, perhaps

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address what I am seeing as an increasing number of ads and op-ed pieces that mischaracterize H.R. 3, the juvenile crime bill, which passed this body back in May and which is being deliberated in one version or another in the other body right now.

A number of op-eds have said lately things that just are not so. One of the myths is that H.R. 3 mandates that children as young as 13 must be prosecuted as adults and requires States to do the same. That is absolutely false. The juvenile crime bill, H.R. 3, that we passed includes a modest expansion of Federal law which already provides for discretionary prosecution of 13-year-olds. H.R. 3 does not require States to do the same.

Discretionary authority for Federal prosecution of 13-year-old juvenile offenders as adults for the most serious of crimes is nothing new. It became law in the 1994 crime bill through an amendment offered by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, a Democrat. Moreover, H.R. 3 does not require States to have this same standard. H.R. 3 provides incentive grants to States to provide prosecuters the option of prosecuting as adults those juveniles who are 15 and older and who have committed murder, rape, or assault with a firearm.

Most States already provide for this option. We wanted to make certain, if they were going to get Federal moneys to improve their juvenile justice systems, that all States did this, and it would not make sense for States to not prosecute murderers and rapists who are 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds, especially if they are repeat violent offenders, as adults, because if they do not prosecute them as adults and they did it as juveniles, they will be back on the streets when they do reach the age of adulthood.

The second myth that we are hearing a lot about is that H.R. 3 allows youths as young as 13 to be confined in adult jails and prisons. This also is absolutely false. Nothing in H.R. 3 authorizes or even encourages housing of juveniles with adults. In fact, H.R. 3 prohibits such housing in the Federal system and does nothing to change current laws and regulations affecting State housing policies.

Current Federal law explicitly prohibits housing juveniles with adults in the Federal juvenile justice system. The standard has long been codified in Federal law. It is unchanged by H.R. 3. It is one that prohibits any regular contact between juveniles and adult criminals during any stage of the justice process, pretrial, presentencing, or postsentencing.


---------------------

I can't find the actual text of the bill. If someone else can, please post it. Someone is obviously lying. Is it McCollum? He seems pretty definite, here, so it should be easy to impeach him with the actual text of the bill if we can find it. But perhaps he's telling the truth (stranger things have happened). We need to know what the reality is.

[redqueen]

68. Figures

So, let's see the ethics brigade come in and dress down Mosely-Braun with the same 'disgust' and overblown rhetoric.

[CWebster]

73. "A modest expansion", so he says among his gobbledy-gook

As the daughter of a child psychologist who spent his career helping disturbed children in impoverished circumstances, I can not begin to tell you how even the suggestion of this sickens me.

[Mairead]

78. It sounds like a modest expansion to me

It reduces the age from 14 to 13 for trial as an adult, but makes it an option in the case of the 13yo and only applies to such crimes as would require the 14yo to be tried as an adult: murder, rape, and firearm assault. Any other crime, and the 13yo would certainly be tried as a juvie and the 14yo might be tried as a juvie.

[CWebster]

85. this is acceptible to you?

I am stunned. Maybe we could put them to hard labor while spouting out the horrors of child labor...

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[CivilRightsNow]

89. Maybe we could reform the whole system, eh?

... The bill did nothing truly new.

That is what nobody seems to be getting.

But outrage looks so good on most of you ;)

[Mairead]

106. Well, in what way is it NOT 'a modest expansion' then?

It shifts the possibility of trial as an adult downward by one year, conditionally. And remember that we're not talking about someone who plays hookey from school, here. We're talking about someone charged with murder, rape, or deliberately shooting someone. No other offences are included.

Trying someone as an adult sounds like kick-a-puppy, but it's actually a mixed deal. One can get a much bigger penalty, but the rules of evidence are also much more restrictive. If its a terrible tragedy to subject a 13yo to possible trial as an adult, then whom should we try as an adult, and what are the criteria that are so uniquely compelling? What do you do with the 12yo psychopath? The 30yo with a 3rd grade education and dull wits? The 17yo from the wealthy suburb with a big-time lawyer and all sorts of 'community support'?

Focusing on physical age as though it's the only rational determinant of treatment seems ethically simplistic at best, to me. Few people can reliably distinguish a 13yo from a 14yo on sight or even after questioning. The CJ system reflects all the worst racism and classism in our society, but let's not pretend we're talking about hauling into adult court a little kid in his footed jammies, clutching his teddy bear with his thumb in his mouth.

[TexasSissy]

66. The bill doesn't seem to be pro-jail minors with adults

Someone else in this thread quoted this 1997 bill. Nowhere does it say that the 13 year old is jailed with adults.

There have, I believe, been other pre-adult youths tried as adults, and they were jailed after conviction separately from adults. They usu. go to juvenile center until they reach age of majority, at which time they transfer to adult facility.

[bread_and_roses]

67. These positions are reprehensible

Freedom of speach is freedom of speach.
Adolescents are not adults.

And DK still has a better record and better positions than the other candidates.

It's an imperfect world.

[goobergunch]

71. ***Legislative Information for H.R. 3 (105th Congress)***

Title: To combat violent youth crime and increase accountability for juvenile criminal offenses.
Sponsor: Rep McCollum, Bill (introduced 1/7/1997) Cosponsors: 5

Rep Barr, Bob - 1/7/1997
Rep Bryant, Ed - 1/7/1997
Rep Canady, Charles T. - 1/7/1997
Rep Christensen, Jon - 2/4/1997
Rep Coble, Howard - 1/7/1997

Related Bills: H.RES.143, S.10
Latest Major Action: 5/8/1997 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

House Report 105-86 (Judiciary)

Vote on Passage: Vote No. 118

           AYES NOES PRES NV 
REPUBLICAN  209    9       8 
DEMOCRATIC   77  122       7 
INDEPENDENT        1     
TOTALS      286  132      15

Bill Text
Full Status Info

[Mairead]

77. Thanks, Goober, that's just what we needed

Okay, I didn't read it exhaustively, but in a brief skim it looked to me as though McCollum's summary is (gasp!) factual (though spun vigorously). I didn't understand (and am sure I wouldn't like) all the drugs-war stuff, but the rest of it seems to deal with teenagers who're charged with having committed major crimes of violence.

I saw nothing to support the basenoter's charges. I believe there's less here than meets the eye.

[CivilRightsNow]

83. I posted that earlier ;)

I also mentioned that if you really notice that in the 105 legislature the "Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974" was reviewed and retooled, repackaged and so on.. in several Bills.

Everyone always seems to take these things out of context, but if we do look at them with other juvenile related acts that the ambiguities get cleared up.

This is nothing new.

[Mairead]

107. So you did, sorry for not giving credit!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

72. How can such an evil man exist?

He is the WORST I TELL YOU!!

Screw Kucinich!

From now on I want...
I want to keep the peace inducing Pentagon budget.
I want to keep the joyous beautiful war against drugs.
I want to keep the wonderful terrorist stopping Patriot Act.
I want to keep the job saving, worker protecting NAFTA.

Just to name a few!

I am glad I have seen the light. Man Kucinich is evil, and what a wussy he is, he won't even lie about other people. He is evil and wimpy and I do not agree with him at all!


TWL

[killbotfactory]

74. Here's a letter written about the bill from the ACLU

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l050697a.html

More info
http://www.aacap.org/legislation/105-28.htm

http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/05_19_97/documents/House_Passes_Juvenile_Justice_Bill__Local_Law_Enforcement_Block_Grant_In_Doubt_052097.html

[Mairead]

79. The ACLU, uncharacteristically, seem to have got the wrong end of the stck

Read the bill.

[diamondsoul]

82. Isn't it stunning?

A group of people who are extraordinarily adept at excusing their candidates *mistakes* can't seem to accept that any other group or person could possibly make one.

[Desertrose]

88. doesn't the bill state "VIOLENT juvenile offenders"?

Found this in reference to the bill....


THE HONORABLE NEIL ABERCROMBIE
FIRST DISTRICT OF HAWAII
May 8, 1997
H.R.3


Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R.3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. This highly focused bill deals with violent juvenile offenders on the federal level. H.R.3 addresses the issue of incarcerating violent juvenile offenders at the federal level by lowering the age at which a judge may waive a violent juvenile offender into adult court; treats juvenile records the same as adult records; and increases accountability for juveniles adjudicated delinquent and their parents. The measure also encourages placing juveniles younger than 16 in a suitable juvenile facility prior to disposition or sentencing. For juveniles 16 and older, it provides for their detention in a suitable place designated by the Attorney General. This by no means requires that juvenile offenders on the federal level be housed with adults. In addition, H.R.3 provides that every juvenile detained prior to disposition or sentencing shall be provided with reasonable safety and security.

H.R.3 provides incentives for states to emulate this new approach. The grant program in H.R.3 would be authorized at $500 million for three years. States must meet certain requirements if they are to obtain money from grants authorized by H.R.3 - e.g. they must try violent juvenile felons as young as 15 as adults; they must treat juvenile records like adult records; and they must permit parent-accountability orders. States which meet all the criteria could use the money for various initiatives such as establishing and maintaining accountability-based programs that work with juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement agencies, or which are designed, in cooperation with law enforcement officials, to protect students and school personnel from drugs, gangs, and youth violence.

Although I support H.R.3, I realize it does not address the issue of non-violent offenders on the state and federal level, nor does it provide prevention and rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders. These issues should be addressed when Congress re-authorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. That is the appropriate time and the correct venue to aid our communities in developing programs to help youth stay away from crime, gangs, drugs and guns. Juvenile justice officials in Hawaii have asked for help in funding prevention programs, substance abuse programs, support programs for children who have little or no family life, and programs that would give state court judges an alternative program to deal with certain juvenile offenders instead of sending them to correctional facilities. I am sure my colleagues have heard similar requests from juvenile justice officials in their districts.

Sending children to jail and throwing away the key while ignoring prevention and rehabilitation programs will not effectively reduce juvenile crime or be cost-effective. A 1996 study by the RAND corporation found that early intervention and prevention programs are, indeed, cost-effective solutions for reducing the juvenile crime rate. The study indicates that prevention programs which focus on early intervention in the lives of children who are at greatest risk of eventual delinquent behavior are effective in reducing arrest and rearrest rates.

We need to send a message to juveniles: if you commit a violent offense you will be punished accordingly. However, at the same time we must continue our attempt to reach kids, to get them involved in their communities, and to prevent them from taking part in dangerous activities in the first place. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R.3 and to strongly support a debate occurring this year on re-authorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.

________________

It is very hard to know what else was done to JJDPact of 74 since the HR 3 passed. Often there is something tacked on somewhere that causes a vote to seem out of character. I don't have the time to red through the entire bill...and I don't knw if that is the case this time or not.
But as many above have said- if you ask Dennis about this vote he willdamn well tell you exactly why he voted the way he did....besides...wasn't this awhile ago?

Peace
DR

[killbotfactory]

99. I have a problem with trying violent 13 year olds as adults...

It goes against my sense of morality.

So does forcing young women to give birth by denying them the right to an abortion. Which Kucinich used to support.

[Desertrose]

101. "used to" support....and

I wonder what the % of violent crimes 13 year olds commit?
Too high a % I'm sure....but again...what types of crimes are we talking about here? I think its a shame we aren't doing more to stop kids from being in a postion of committing these crimes.

I can't say I am in favor of his vote but would be willing to hear his words on why he voted the way he did before I judged him on it.

This whole thing about juvenile offenders is so complicated and I don't think a vote on a single bill is a clear cut thing...again, not enough information for me to make a "judgement" on this, but knowing Dennis and how he feels on things...this again may be one of the things he has changed his thinking on since 97-the world was a very different place then.

Call it what you will, but it is, as you stated, not uncommon to change ones thinking over the years. However, I have found that DK is not concerned with political expediency and I don't feel I can honestly say that about Dean.

I know you feel you are only defending your candidate by digging stuff up on Dennis...but I think the more we know about the candidates the better...we may not always like it but I'd rather get the whole picture....wouldn't you?

Peace
DR

[diamondsoul]

103. DR is right. Thank You, Killbot.

Seriously, thank you for bringing up an important issue for discussion. If I came across as being a jerk to you, you have my sincere apology.

My opinion is that, in this instance, the ACLU is misrepresenting Kucinich's position. Whether it is deliberate is beyond my knowledge or even my concern. I believe it's a mistake of one sort or another. Even so, if you implicitly trust the ACLU as a source, that does not imply you are a liar or deliberately twisting facts. It means you trusted a source which may or may not have been entirely accurate.

I can respect your positions, but please do let us know if they change if your daughter is raped at gunpoint by a 13 yr old sexual predator. I don't agree with you about 13 yr olds not being tried as adults as a generalized statement. I will absolutely agree that 13 is entirely TOO soon to give up hope on an individual's chances of reforming. IOW, George W. Bush made me see white flashes when he signed the law in Texas authorizing the sentencing to death for 13 yr old children.

We cannot escape the fact that there are 13 yr olds who have been conditioned to be absolutely predatory. The question is what do we do about that? IMO? Elect a man who will do everything in his power to change the way our children are raised, to change the way people respond to difficulty and conflict, to make that 13 yr olds chances much better in life so they don't wind up in front of a court at all. You can't cure cancer by cutting out the growth. That makes it grow faster if you miss anything, and where violent crime is concerned, YOU WILL MISS something. The cancer keeps growing. Early detection, early treatment of cancer and of violence.

[Mairead]

112. So how would you do it, then?

Put the killers and rapists through the same process that's designed to handle petty and 'status' crimes -- runaways, shoplifters, habitual truants, underage drinkers, the sexually active, and the disobedient?

[killbotfactory]

84. Doesn't this parts back up the ACLU?

b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a juvenile shall be prosecuted as an adult--

`(A) if the juvenile has requested in writing upon advice of counsel to be prosecuted as an adult; or

`(B) if the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act after the juvenile attains the age of 14 years which if committed by an adult would be a serious violent felony or a serious drug offense described in section 3559(c) of this title, or a conspiracy or attempt to commit that felony or offense, which is punishable under section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846), or section 1013 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 963).

`(c)(1) A juvenile may also be prosecuted as an adultif the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act after the juvenile has attained the age of 13 years which if committed by a juvenile after the juvenile attained the age of 14 years would require that the juvenile be prosecuted as an adult under subsection (b), upon approval of the Attorney General.

`(4) A juvenile may also be prosecuted as an adult if the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act which is not described in subsection (b)(1)(B) after the juvenile has attained the age of 14 years and which if committed by an adult would be--

`(A) a crime of violence (as defined in section 3156(a)(4)) that is a felony;

`(B) an offense described in section 844 (d), (k), or (l), or subsection (a)(6), (b), (g), (h), (j), (k), or (l) of section 924;

`(C) a violation of section 922(o) that is an offense under section 924(a)(2);

`(D) a violation of section 5861 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is an offense under section 5871 of such Code (26 U.S.C. 5871);

`(E) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (D); or

`(F) an offense described in section 401 or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 848) or a conspiracy or attempt to commit that offense which is punishable under section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846), or an offense punishable under section 409 or 419 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 849, 860), or an offense described in section 1002, 1003, 1005, or 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 955, or 959), or a conspiracy or attempt to commit that offense which is punishable under section 1013 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 963).

[diamondsoul]

87. No, it supports one of two

claims made by both the seeder post and the ACLU. The rext of the bill provided upthread discounts the second claim.

[edzontar]

90. So-could someone tie this up?

1. Did DK support a bill for trying 13-year olds as adults.

(seems to be YES)

2. Did DK support a bill that would imprison 13-year olds with adult defenders?

(unclear to me at this point)

3. Did DK support bills to ban Flag-Burning and "Desecration?"

Almost certainly YES.

Looks bad to me even if only 1 and 3 are true.

Can someone help me get this clear?

[diamondsoul]

91. Sure-

1. Yes, under very specific conditions. Clarified by listed specs in post #75

2. No, clarified by a direct quote from the text of the bill in post #75

3. At one time, appears to be reconsidering due to current threats against civil liberties. That doesn't excuse the previous vote in favor of it, but it does prove that the man isn't "inflexible" as some have claimed on numerous occasions.

[edzontar]

93. Thank you.

I hate to say this, but 1 and 3 are bad enough.

Does this refelct some sort of cultural or social consevatism on Kucinich's part?

I know he is anti-choice, for example....

How can progressive supporters overlook that last bit?

[corporatewhore]

96. what about dean supporting the torture andway worse imprisonment

of kids in palestine (oh wait they must be guilty becuase they are a-rabs) by proxy by supporting the hawkish views of aipac

[killbotfactory]

97. Wanting a palestinian state is Hawkish?

Wanting to treat both sides with respect is AIPACish?

[corporatewhore]

98. he is quoted as saying my views are w/aipac not

americans for peace www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

[killbotfactory]

100. He also says he wants a palestinian state..

And was chastised heavily for saying we need to treat both sides evenhandedly.

[diamondsoul]

105. I agree the nonsense about

being "evenhanded" was stupid. I m ay have to go back and re-read his position on I/P to go any further than that.

My reasoning is that I never knew Sharon used that word myself, so why would I expect anyone else to have paid that much attention to him?!

[diamondsoul]

102. He isn't anti-choice anymore.

Listen, here's the thing, only you can decide who you trust enough to take on their word.

For me I trust Dennis Kucinich because I have never seen any proof he's ever knowingly been anything less than honest. He admits his previous position on abortion and he explains his change in positions freely and openly. He's doing the same with the flag desecration vote.

This may sound corny or hokey to some, and that's fine, but I "get" Dennis Kucinich. I AM Dennis Kucinich only younger and female! LOL He's been tightlipped about some issues because he's considering his past positions. He doesn't want to come out with a positon just to have to retract it later. He wants to have done all the considering he thinks is necessary to develop a position he can take firmly, and without backtracking. That's what he did with the PL-PC conversion, and what he's doing with the flag-desecration amendment.

WRT crime, you have to keep in mind how his other positions impact current or past legislation. I don't bust Dean's chops over stuff he said 3-5-10 years ago because it doesn't matter. What matters is has he shown any support for the stand he professes to hold today? Sometimes he has, and sometimes he hasn't, and I think that's true of all of them with the exception of Kucinich (in my own personal view of course). Kucinich has shown support for everything we Pro-choicers have been saying is necessary to reduce the occurance of abortions even while he voted against abortion as an option.

He wants to stop incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders. He wants to end the drug war. A number of us are offering him valid reasons not to favor more gun control. People here at DU have offered up good reasons he shouldn't oppose stem cell research. The thing about Kucinich is he CARES what WE think. We may not convince him right off the bat, but that doesn't mean he can't ever be convinced. I'm not so certain the other choices are acutally open to hearing the voices of the people.

Did you read the statements he made on the House Floor regarding HR 3? Mairead posted them under the title "A Little Light on the Subject Perhaps?" Read those with an open mind and open heart and tell me he wasn't being a good man and trying to represent the best interests of the people.

[LWolf]

104. Because he is not anti choice.

As a matter of fact, he is the only candidate to make Roe v Wade a litmus test for judges.

The flag burning thing...I don't agree with it. It's one of the 2 votes I've been able to find that I don't agree with. Of course, I have to admit that I did not go back to every single vote since his first term in the house, as the author of this thread seems to have done. That's ok; if Dean supporters are anxious to attack and want to sift through Kucinich's record, please do. I welcome new information.

As for the 13-year-old thing, no one, including the author of the thread, has provided the text of the bill as evidence to back up the claims. And a statement refuting the claims have been produced.

If you need a reason to cut down Dennis, and are looking desperately for something to support that action, this might be the time to whip up a frenzy of horror. If you are interested in the truth, you might be searching out the text of the bill. Or asking Dennis. I have sent a question to the campaign, by the way, and will share whatever response I get. And I will withhold judgement until I get a response and see the text of the bill. At this point, it is unsubstantiated.

I've said this before on DU. I've found 2 things I didn't agree with Dennis on. I didn't expect to find another human being I would agree with 100%. Dennis is the closest, by several laps, than any other political candidate I've ever been able to choose. That's one reason why I support him.

[Mairead]

109. Sure

1. Your phrasing is too general. He voted for possibly treating a very small subset of 13yo offenders as adults, namely some of those who are charged with murder, rape, or firearm assault. And the keyword is 'possibly'--trial as an adult is not mandatory for those 13yos.

2. No. 13yos would not be imprisoned with adult offenders.

3. Desecration, yes, burning, no. Burning is the only legitimate way to destroy a flag, so a bill against burning would be self-contradictory.

[corporatewhore]

95. I was thinking about a recent stabbing in a highschool

in austin where a freshman or sophmore boy stabbed his ex girlfriend several times and killing her because she broke up with him
I would consider trying the boy as an adult

[dsc]

108. freshmen are often 14 or 15

which is a little different. And it is the incarceration that is the problem.

[redqueen]

110. Disturbing...

It's very disturbing, and borders on baffling, to see such feigned outrage and disgust by supporters of other candidates, while their preferred Pres supports:

- the use of depleted uranium
- the cutting of social programs to help the poor and elderly so the rich won't have to be taxed any higher
- the selling off of public energy companies to private interests
- the furthering of the 'drug war'
- the continued criminalization of medical marijuana
- the continued fooling of America by claiming that WTO & NAFTA can be 'reformed' (hint: it's been a decade! hello!)
- the continued race to the bottom, globally, which betrays not only workers here in the US, but people (families) all over the world

Is this rational? That these people would act so 'disgusted' or whatever about a vote from six years ago, which while abhorrent at first glance, obviously most don't even understand?!

And this, at the same time they are trying to elect a president who will do much worse in the future?

Is it just me? Or is this really strange?

Actually it's just really, really sad.

These people have all this fake, over-the-top empathy for 13 year olds, but apparently couldn't possibly care less about cancer patients starving. And they are starving and in misery.

And they're also seemingly OK with the continued use of depleted uranium.

Welfare reform, which was a great favor the 'big dog' did for us (with the help of his republican friends and centrist dems in congress), has resulted in malnourished children showing up in free clinics. Dean says cutting social programs is a good thing. And trust me, if he is the next pres, we will see much more draconian cuts than what we saw under clinton.

I can't even bear to go on... it's just too damned sad.

But I think most will see my point.

Complaints against other candidates are that they won't bother to solve serious problems we have NOW.

These complaints against Kucinich? That he supported a bill six years ago which while seeming to be very bad, was not really all that different from what was already law.

You do the math.

[corporatewhore]

111. not to mention the lack of care for the

thirteen year old palestinians who are jailed and tortured

[Mairead]

113. Well-summarised, DS!

It really does stink of faux outrage, doesn't it.

[mzmolly]

117. I think your missing the point as well as mish-mashing political views

into one candiate.

[mzmolly]

115. I read this recently, and was very surprised. I don't think Dennis has

been scrutinized as much as the others because of his polling status?

I personally find it very remarkable gthat he defines himself as the only true progressive in this race :crazy:

His record is not as nearly progressive as his rhetoric.

[Terwilliger]

118. dunno, but then I look at Dean and say "was there a question"?

Do you think Dean would be against this policy?

[jsw_81]

120. This is surprising

Especially when you consider that most Kucinich supporters are 13 years old. ;)

[diamondsoul]

121. Try again.

I'm 35 and I have a range of age-groups of volunteers working with me to nominate Kucinich, thanks.

[ErasureAcer]

122. where do you draw the line?

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18...

whatever...people should be held accountable for their actions.

13 isn't too bad.

it is my belief anyone who kills someone else should be locked up in jail for 20 to life.

That includes juveniles.