Author Topic: The Case of the Loaded Finger, or... (Read 1489 times)

DiabloTX · « **Reply #15 on:** July 29, 2006, 12:51:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Oh SNAP!

Nicely played.

Word!

Debonair · « **Reply #16 on:** July 29, 2006, 01:42:36 AM »

i was once maced by a sorority chick for doing somehting similar

DiabloTX · « **Reply #17 on:** July 29, 2006, 01:51:12 AM »

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

Jackal1 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 29, 2006, 08:43:22 AM »

Man...............Shuckins I just gotta say...I don`t get it.
Exactly what are you upset about?
You don`t beleive this cat should be locked up for that long or what?
According to what you have posted, he has been a leech who has been bleeding not only society, but even his own family for a good period of time now. It also seems that he has been progressivly going down hill and has been becoming more and more criminal as time passes.
The most logical escalation I can see that he was headed toward would be to progress to not only robbery, but to total disregard of human life and society in general. BANG...someone has no husband, father, mother or wife to come home to.
I hope you weren`t thinking that a short sentence would rehabilitate .
Maybe I`m reading you wrong here.
The cocaine addiction could have been ended at any time. It was his choice
An excuse that is used way too often and coddled by way too many people IMHO.

Quote

He had once had a high-paying job as a sales-representative for AT&T

This alone should be a hanging offense.

lazs2 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 29, 2006, 08:51:23 AM »

well shuckins... the man was starting to realize that a cocked and loaded finger was not getting the job done.

His coke habit doesn't really care to hear his excuses about how he "tried" but they were on to the finger thing... My guess is that if he is not put away he would have to do a better job at intimidating the victims... A real gun is best for that...

If he has to shoot someone... well.... not his fault... he has a habit man! It is their fault for not turning over the money fast enough or...not having enough or... looking at him with that condencending look.

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #20 on:** July 29, 2006, 09:24:01 AM »

I vote against every "minimum sentancing" bill that shows up on the ballot and will continue to do so, but this case isn't an example of why.

lazs2 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 29, 2006, 09:32:24 AM »

If judges handed out sentances that were realistic and protected us from the worst of the sociopaths then I would be against minimum sentancing laws too mini.

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #22 on:** July 29, 2006, 09:52:44 AM »

I'm suprised you'd vote on anything that gives the legislative branch even more power.

I prefer to have the judicial system be more of an autonomous entity very much as it was intended to be. With it's good points and bad points. Balance of power is essential.

The minimum sentancing bills take away the ability for someone close to the case to take a stance of leniency on the few occassions it's needed.

lazs2 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 29, 2006, 09:59:41 AM »

I realize all that mini. I think that some crimes require a minimum sentance. I feel that the minimum should be just that... and that most judges should find it "too minimum" It should only be used to protect us from insane judges doing even more damage.

The "few cases" where leniency is a good option are far outweighed by the total disreguard for citizens in the majority of cases that judges allow dangerous socipaths and sex offenders to walk out while still a danger to people.

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #24 on:** July 29, 2006, 10:09:43 AM »

They don't set "too minum" for any minimums lazs.

I think that when a minimum sentance for a sex offense crime can be translated to mean that if a man slaps a woman on the bellybutton and is convicted, he has to go to prison for 7 years and then be listed as a registered sex offender for the rest of his life that things have gotten out of hand.

Minimum sentancing removes the ability to look at those cases individually. That's why we have jury trials, and it's why we used to have judges doing the sentancing.

lukster · « **Reply #25 on:** July 29, 2006, 10:17:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
They don't set "too minum" for any minimums lazs.

I think that when a minimum sentance for a sex offense crime can be translated to mean that if a man slaps a woman on the bellybutton and is convicted, he has to go to prison for 7 years and then be listed as a registered sex offender for the rest of his life that things have gotten out of hand.

Minimum sentancing removes the ability to look at those cases individually. That's why we have jury trials, and it's why we used to have judges doing the sentancing.

There's no question things have "gotten out of hand". Judges looking to make a political statement or maybe they simply sympathize too much with a particular crime let child rapists (and I do mean child, not some 16 year old statutory thing) off with a stern warning or a couple of years in prison. People like this are what force the minimum sentencing laws.

Shuckins · « **Reply #26 on:** July 29, 2006, 10:57:42 AM »

Well guys, I have no problem with the conviction of this man. After 25 years of addiction he had turned to a life of crime.

Had he hurt someone in the commission of those crimes I would have cheerfully given him the 80 year sentence.

If he had killed someone, I could have voted for the death sentence, and come home and gotten a good night's sleep.

But each case is different. The law tied our hands and denied us the use of our own judgement in imposing a sentence. The law doesn't impose sentences this harsh for certain types of manslaughter.

While this law was intended to take dangerous career criminals off the streets, this man's career was only three weeks long when the police took him into custody.

Make no mistake, I have no sympathy for drug dealers, gang-bangers, rapists, murderers or their like. They all fall into the category of "scum" and deserve anything the courts dish out.

But there should always be room within the justice system for basic human judgement and compassion.

Regards, Shuckins

Mini D · « **Reply #27 on:** July 29, 2006, 10:59:36 AM »

laws do not allow for variation. That is why we use people for sentancing. When we made laws for sentancing, the whole intent of the judicial system was hurt severely.

lazs2 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 29, 2006, 11:53:51 AM »

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

I would vote yes for a minimum sentance of the death penalty for the forced rape of a child by an adult.

lazs

rogwar · « **Reply #29 on:** July 29, 2006, 12:10:56 PM »

Given that criminals often get bolder and more violent as time goes on, you may have just saved an innocent person's life.

Whenever I see some of these criminals on TV complaining about their sentence or some group complaining about sentences, I always think a very good solution would be not to commit a crime in the first place.

He chose drugs. He chose a path of crime. He got caught. He goes to jail.