Arkansas Governor pardons his son for drug conviction

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arkansas-governor-pardons-son-2003-drug-conviction/story?id=26876262

"The pardon stems from Kyle Beebe's 2003 conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a class C felony. He was given three years supervised probation and fines at the time, when his father was serving as the state's attorney general,"

Should he be pardoned or should he be considered a thug that shouldn't be?

The son has gone through the proper process for the pardon. Why not?

"A spokesman for the Arkansas Parole Board told KATV: "I can tell you that [Kyle] Beebe did not receive any special treatment by the board while his application was under consideration."

Usually, whenever the subject of someone using dope comes up, the label "thug" follows. So I wonder if others perceive him as a thug that should not be pardoned.
And, if this man, who was young and dumb (according to his parents) when he got busted can be pardoned, shouldn't all other nonviolent drug offenders be pardoned?

I simply read the article. I'm not stating anything about a "thug" and why would I. I don't think labels are fair.

I also hate to see a crime committed, while young and lacking brains, to taint a person's whole life. If someone has paid the price, wipe the slate clean.

Does anything use their brain around here except to punch the race button?

Rise above people and come up with some discussion that doesn't land right back where you hope it does. I think questions or items to consider are put out with an expected reaction. If that reaction does not show immediately then someone steps in to accuse another of racism.

Yeah!!

Race plays no role in our criminal justice system.

Everybody knows that!

[sarc]

A decade ago.

I agree that all non-violent drug offenders below mass scale organized crime should be pardoned. It's a stigma.

SheWrites wrote:Does anything use their brain around here except to punch the race button?

Rise above people and come up with some discussion that doesn't land right back where you hope it does. I think questions or items to consider are put out with an expected reaction.  If that reaction does not show immediately then someone steps in to accuse another of racism.

Ideally, race would not be an issue in the criminal justice system, but it is. I don't think many people deny that.

I also think most people would agree with this pardon. His father describes him as young and dumb. Do you agree with that? Would that description apply to a lot of young nonviolent drug offenders? If you do agree with the pardon, is it then ok to pardon all those under the same circumstances? If not, why not? I think those are fair questions.

nadalfan wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Does anything use their brain around here except to punch the race button?

Rise above people and come up with some discussion that doesn't land right back where you hope it does. I think questions or items to consider are put out with an expected reaction.  If that reaction does not show immediately then someone steps in to accuse another of racism.

Ideally, race would not be an issue in the criminal justice system, but it is.  I don't think many people deny that.
 
I also think most people would agree with this pardon.  His father describes him as young and dumb.  Do you agree with that?  Would that description apply to a lot of young nonviolent drug offenders?  If you do agree with the pardon, is it then ok to pardon all those under the same circumstances?  If not, why not?  I think those are fair questions.

First impression as I read the title was that the post would be a discussion on NEPOTISM. Daddy gets the son out of trouble because of his position. I looked past that, read the article, saw the comment from the Parole Board. Appears to me things were handled, by their statement, by the rules.

Yes, I do feel nonviolent drug offenders are young and dumb. And I do not see race in that sentence because I did not see race as an issue as I read this article. When I make a broad brush statement it is not intended for one type of person but it has to be all....we the people.

Among the rights denied to the governor's son because of the drug conviction, are the right to vote.

Consider -- while one kid who got caught selling marijuana and goes to prison and carries the stigma of a convicted felon, a few states away the grass is openly sold by State-sanctioned private businesses.

Why don't we legalize drugs and end at least one of our many, senseless, unwinnable wars?

This last midterm election produced results on the legalization of pot that show that both the majority of voting republicans and democrats are all for it.

Reality.


Screw Amerika Inc.! -- Corporate control of our government thru campaign financing.

And it all started with the fascist collusion of hearst's huge corporate interests and fdr's progressive govt prohibition.

SheWrites wrote:

nadalfan wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Does anything use their brain around here except to punch the race button?

Rise above people and come up with some discussion that doesn't land right back where you hope it does. I think questions or items to consider are put out with an expected reaction.  If that reaction does not show immediately then someone steps in to accuse another of racism.

Ideally, race would not be an issue in the criminal justice system, but it is.  I don't think many people deny that.
 
I also think most people would agree with this pardon.  His father describes him as young and dumb.  Do you agree with that?  Would that description apply to a lot of young nonviolent drug offenders?  If you do agree with the pardon, is it then ok to pardon all those under the same circumstances?  If not, why not?  I think those are fair questions.

First impression as I read the title was that the post would be a discussion on NEPOTISM.  Daddy gets the son out of trouble because of his position.  I looked past that, read the article, saw the comment from the Parole Board.  Appears to me things were handled, by their statement, by the rules.

Yes, I do feel nonviolent drug offenders are young and dumb.  And I do not see race in that sentence because I did not see race as an issue as I read this article.  When I make a broad brush statement it is not intended for one type of person but it has to be all....we the people.  

When I used "you", I was using it in a general sense, not you specifically.

I guess one could make the argument about nepotism, but like you stated everything was handled by the rules. In addition, as stated in the article, this governor has pardoned about 700 people, so it's hard to make that argument.
Obviously, there was no mention of race in the article. I used the article because the father described his son as young and dumb and deserving of a pardon. That characterization is something not afforded to other users by people on this forum. People on this forum have been very unforgiving of young people who have used drugs.
I agree with you, what applies to one, SHOULD apply to ALL others.

Of course....self defense.

The discussion was pointed to drug related charges - non violent.

No brains or bullets involved.