Author Topic: The Case of the Loaded Finger, or... (Read 1478 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #30 on:** July 29, 2006, 01:33:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I would vote against a law that gave a first time offender 7 years minimum sentance for slapping a woman on the butt.

There is no such law. Rather, there are terms like "sexual assault". The definition of sexual assault could be a large number of things, only a portion of which fall into the "sexual assault" category by most rational people.

You cannot make hard sentancing structures and expect them to be just. That's just not possible. It's why the system was developed the way it was. Unfortunately, that is deteriorating. The problem is not, nor has ever been that we were sentancing people too lightly. Nobody sits and does 2 years vs 4 years math when deciding if they should rape someone. The problem comes with the complete failure to consider the impacts and consequences... not with them being too light.

First, we start off with minimum speeding ticket fines, then we justify the increase of the fines based on how fast traffic is going, then we justify the doubling of the fines based on costruction, then justify the doubling of the fines again based on safety cooridoors, then justify the doubling of the fine yet again based on the proximity of a school. None of which has any impact (as far as I can see) on traffic. The thing that I have seen have the greatest impact on traffic was the simple enforcement of laws. The presence of police officers on the highways. It wasn't that the fines were sufficient... not even remotely. It was the lack of enforcement.

With assault crimes, it's a different story. The most abusive people I knew would be abusive no matter what the consequences. There was something broken there. But, every time they started a fight with someone, both people ended up in jail. I could clearly see one person starting it and driving the fight through... but the law doesn't. Now someone has an assault charge just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and didn't run fast enough.

Then we move on to rape. The "raping children" argument get's thrown out there and everyone nods it's a horrible thing and votes for minimum sentancing for rapists. So, now, when an 18 year old boy has sex with a 17 year old girl and she get's vindictive for any reason, he's in prison till he's 26 and has a permanent stigma. Or... two adults have consensual sex and the female get's pregnant... but she's married to someone else. It's, at times, convenient to go to the rape charge. There's too many situations there that don't merrit that stiff penalty that still get caught up in it.

Sorry, but the lunacy of the legal system is only pushed deeper with these kind of laws.

Maverick · « **Reply #31 on:** July 29, 2006, 03:32:02 PM »

Mini D,

Set penalties for offenses came about because of lenient sentencing by judges that offended the folks living in that state. It is a backlash the judicial system brought on itself. The constituency complained to their legislature to correct the problem the consituency observed. Given the judicial system could not police itself in this regard it was imposed on them by the people they were supposed to serve in the first place. That's kind of a check and ballance in action based on the desires of the governed. Don't think the legislature would give a crap if they didn't get heat from their constituants.

Now has the pendulum swing too far. Maybe, but until the people decide that and instruct their law makers accordingly it won't change.

SHuckins,

You're still stuck that this guy got a more severe sentence than a person that commits a manslaughter offense. Lets not forget something here. The guy didn't commit ONE offense. He committed multiple offenses and had multiple convictions. You didn't even know about the other conviction. Would you have let him go for the 3 in your county if you kew he had already been convicted for the saem kind of crime somewhere else just so he wouldn't have to spend so much time in jail?

Now lets go to your manslaughter charge comparison. If he had committed 3 manslaughters in your country would he be guilty? Would he be less guilty if you found he had committed another manslaughter in another county,was convicted and you found out after you convicted him. Now given multiple manslaughters should he serve more or less time than a single manslaughter conviction?

Don't mix dissimilar crimes. They are not the same. You didn't put him there, HE did, don't assume responsibility for the things he himself did.

Debonair · « **Reply #32 on:** July 29, 2006, 08:53:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Deb...I miss your old avatar. Your new one sucks and is in no way representative of you. How strange.

4th track on that record is teh me:O

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 30, 2006, 10:04:24 AM »

mini... of course you can set just minimum sentancing laws.

You can make it mandatotory death sentance for forcible rape of a child by an adult and... you can leave the defenition up to the judge or jury... in other words.. the jury has to decide if it was a child that was raped forcibly by an adult.

I will agree that mandatory sentanceing needs to be spelled out very specificaly...

I would not vote on a "sexual assault" mandatory law unless the defenition of "sexual assualt" was spelled out. It would seem that... A judge would still have the option in the case you describe... of throwing the case out of court or... the jury could aquit based on not thinking that slapping a womans butt was "sexual assault"

the case brought out in the thread seems to be a just use of the law.

Can you name one real instance that is not? If they exist then we need to work on that particular law.

Let's say that they pass a mandatory prison term for "gun crimes".... If it were used to put someone in jail who didn't transport his firearm to the range exactly as the transport laws say.... that would be a travesty..

If the law said "violent gun crime" And allowed for self defence....

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #34 on:** July 30, 2006, 01:47:16 PM »

I'd rather deal with protecting myself/mine from the effects of lenient judges than deal with an ever increasing totalitarian government presence.

Once again... I'm suprised you're looking for the governement to protect you.

Sandman · « **Reply #35 on:** July 30, 2006, 02:42:36 PM »

Mandatory sentencing is bad. Mmmmkay?

lazs2 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 31, 2006, 09:05:46 AM »

releasing 3 time violent criminals out on the street is bad mmmkay?

releasing child molesters is bad mmmmkay?

Penalties have been set. Who set em? we allready have minimum and maximum sentances... the person who is on trial can either be convicted or not... he can even be released for lack of evidence.

Soooo... are you guys against maximum sentances too? would you be ok with a judge giving the death penalty for say... simple assault? How bout if a jury did it?

Lots of judges give out the maximum sentance and then state flat out that they wish they could give a longer, harsher one. Without maximums... we would have judges setting really bizzare long sentances.

judges are not infalible and they most certainly are creatures of human whim in many cases.

If they need to be guided as to maximum then they need to be guided as to minimum.

in a totalitarian government mandatory would not matter in any case.

lazs

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #37 on:** July 31, 2006, 09:13:49 AM »

Those who want to give judges sole discretion on sentencing and remove maximum and minimum legal sentences evidently have a "short" memory. How soon you forget about the guy who was "too short to go to prison" for his offenses. And that wasn't even 90 days ago.

Soft treatment of criminals is exactly why we're in the shape we're in here. Prison should be a place that no one would want to go to and would never do anything so as to have to return to.

Mini D · « **Reply #38 on:** July 31, 2006, 11:49:15 AM »

A judge can still completely dismiss a case, mandatory sentancing or not... regardless of the jury's decision. In some cases, that has now become his only option.

The idea of a maximum sentance is protecting the people from the judicial system. I am for that. The idea behind the minimum sentance is not the same.

BTW... I'm all for bumping things up on repeat offenders including a life sentance for 3 strikes. Dunno why that came up.

lazs2 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 31, 2006, 02:30:07 PM »

mini... the three strikes law is a perfect example of the minimum sentancing idea at work.

the idea being that judges were too soft on violent repeat offenders so.... a minimum sentance for a third offence needed to be impossed...

The three stikes laws do indeed impose a minimum sentance and take the option away from the judges.

As for a judge throwing out a case.... that is as it should be... your example of the man facing seven years for slapping a woman on the butt is a good example... A jury would probly not convict knowing the sentance either.

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #40 on:** July 31, 2006, 06:51:45 PM »

It's not a perfect example lazs. It's an example of evaluating a repeat offender.

Applying the same rules to someone that hasn't established the same history is not something I care to see mandatory.

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 01, 2006, 09:00:36 AM »

Not a perfect example? it is the only example in the thread that gives a negative effect of mandatory sentancing.

As for establishing a "same history"... How is that done? there never is a same history... their are simularities... hence the three strikes laws... serial killers are all the same to some extent.... child mollesters are all the same to some very important extent.

It is simply that some crimes are so bad that a minimum needs to be set... just as some are not and a maximum needs to be set... mandatory sentanceing is just a strengthening of the minimum sentancing.

Of course.. I do agree that mandatory sentancing should be well thought out and specific. I would not vote for a poorly thought out one.

I voted yes for the 3 stikes law that included minimum sentances.

lazs

Speed55 · « **Reply #42 on:** August 01, 2006, 09:31:38 AM »

You did good Shuckens.

Mini D · « **Reply #43 on:** August 01, 2006, 10:47:19 AM »

A first offense does not a history make lazs. It's not the same.

Maximum penalties protect the citizens from overzealous judicial systems. Minimum sentances increase the status of the police state and empower the legislative branch over the judicial system. It eliminates a portion of the balance.

I don't think this is that complex. I'm still quite suprised that you're attempting to justify it as needed protection. You've never sounded more like a democrat in your life.

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 01, 2006, 02:53:00 PM »

Ok.. so you are for mandatory sentances but only on repeat offenders? Is that what you are saying? you have no trouble with the three strikes law?

neither do I.

I would say that some people don't need "histories" a serial killer arrested for the first time for instance... A violent child molester say...

I would agree that we should be very careful on minimum sentancing but even you agree there is nothing wrong with the concept. Soooo if I am a big government guy then so are you.

Unless of course you can find an example where I want minimum sentancing and you don't that could be seen simply as a way to increase the police state.

I don't think you can.

I don't want the guy to get 7 years for butt slapping a woman either... what else ya got?

lazs