Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on July 28, 2006, 06:37:21 PM
-
...Why I Hate Jury Duty.
July 27, 2006
There he sat. A fifty-three year old black male. Approximately 5'9" tall; around 160 pounds.
Perpetrator of three armed robberies in the Drew County area. All committed against area businesses or restaurants.
Modus operandi...place hand inside coat, step behind the counter, extend the hand toward the clerk, and demand money.
At one of the scenes he made off with slightly over three hundred dollars. At the other, the cash register.
At the third he got nothing, zilch, nada, because one female clerk ran to the back to call 911 while he attempted to intimidate another clerk into giving him money. She refused, whereupon he left.
No weapon was ever visible at any of the attempted robberies.
Criminal statutes in the State of Arkansas stated that he was a dangerous man guilty of aggravated robbery. (I heard that laugh. Shaddup. This is serious stuff.) The law states that the mere "representation" of a dangerous weapon is enough to commit aggravated robbery.
When the police arrested him and searched his apartment and vehicle they found nary a weapon. Only a screwdriver. No gun. Of any type.
The prosecuting attorney made a convincing argument for conviction, stating the clerks had no way of knowing whether of not the man was actually armed, and that a manager or clerk in another instance, might have opened fire on him, endangering every innocent person in the establishment...perhaps producing a violent response from the perpetrator, further adding to the danger of the situation.
When the trial was over, the jury retired to a room to consider the facts. Most of the members agreed that it would be best to elect a school teacher as the jury foreman. Three were present. Two were women; one in her mid-twenties, the other in her late forties. Both flatly refused to take the responsibility. All eyes turned to a short, fat, bald, middle-aged man with thick glasses and a weak chin.
I hate jury duty.
Anyway, after ample discussion, we decided to find him guilty of three counts of aggravated robbery. State law left us little alternative. Don't ask me to explain this...you needed to be there to understand. Most of us figured he would get about ten years or so on each count to be served concurrently...with the prospect of early release on parole for good behavior. We had no idea if he was a career criminal or not because no past record was mentioned during the trial.
So...we marched back into the court room...ole Shuckins presented the verdict to the judge...and we sat down to hear evidence from the perpetrator's family as part of the defense's plea for leniency in sentencing.
His mother, sister, and a niece all presented testimony that he was a good man who had never hurt anybody in his life. He had once had a high-paying job as a sales-representative for AT&T, but had been introduced to cocaine by a co-worker about 25 years ago, and it had come to dominate his life. His younger brother, mid-forties, made no excuses for him, stating that he had allowed drugs to ruin his life...but he had never harmed anyone.
He had lost his family, his job, and all self-respect. He once sold all of his families possessions, including his children's toys to support his habit, stated his brother, but he had never harmed anyone. Further he stated that members of his family had been "enablers," making it difficult for his brother to shake the habit.
Finally they were through, and it was time for the judge to instruct us on the sentencing phase.
That's when he dropped the bomb on us. The perpetrator had committed several crimes within a two week period that were all of a similar nature. Two weeks prior to this trial, he had been convicted of committing a similar crime in a neighboring county.
This made him a "repeat" offender; according to Arkansas law, the judge informed us, he had to be sentenced to a term of no less than 40 years and no more than 80 years for each count, and must serve at least 70% of his term before he would be eligible for parole. If we had gone for the maximum he would have been sentenced to 240 years in prison
We were flabbergasted. To say the least the jury members considered this to be overkill. Some forms of manslaughter carry lighter sentences than this. The man had never committed a "violent" crime of any type before December 26 of 2005.
Did I say I hate jury duty.
Inwardly I was raging. And so were most of the members of the jury.
We felt we had been duped into giving him a sentence that would see him die in prison.
We went for the minimum and recommended that he serve the sentences concurrently. Still, it would be 28 years before he would be eligible for parole.
The only hope his family has for early release is clemency by the governor.
When I got home, I explained what had happened to my family....and then stared at the wall for two hours. I've never felt like such a fool.
I hate jury dury.
-
He had what was coming to him, Shuckins. It may have been a hard decision for the whole jury, but it had to be done. I hope I never have to serve.
Sir for your services.
-
Thanks nirvana,
Just had to get some of that off my chest. What a dam waste.
Regards, Shuckins
-
That does seem a bit harsh for sentencing....
Wonder what the judge woulda done if ya'll had tried to go below the minimum....
Who mandates the sentences? The state legislature?
-
He deserves every year.
Going out there, making threats, robbing, committing crimes, doing drugs...all his fault. He could have said no, could have walked away, could have been better for his family, could have could have could have. He made the decisions that ended him up in jail.
Its things like these that teach me to do whats right and not what is wrong, no matter how hard the times are.
-
Cave,
Yep...state legislature set the sentence in this type of case, as part of a movement to get control of violent crime.
For a career criminal with a history of violent offenses...yeah, this would have been appropriate.
But in THIS case, the law tied our hands.
The thing that's wrong with many of our laws is that they're written by lawyers....and create business for them. That's why so many make no sense.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Thanks nirvana,
Just had to get some of that off my chest. What a dam waste.
Regards, Shuckins
You're right, Shuckins...it is a waste of a life.
But what is important to remember is that YOU, and other members of that jury did not cause that life to be wasted. The convicted man did. He made the choices that gave society, acting through the members of the jury, no choice but to remove him from itself.
All you did on the jury was reach an honest verdict on the nature of the crimes he had commited.
It's sad when any life is wasted, but what would this man had done if not brought to justice? How many lives would he have wasted besides his own?
Thank you for serving. I will probably never get that opportunity, since my job usually means that I will be excluded from sitting on any jury.
-
in florida if the criminal says or pretends to be armed it is "armed robbery",
the victim doesn't know if the criminal is armed or not.
florida is not a good state to be a criminal, if the criminal uses a gun in a crime it's automatic 10 years, shoot the gun,20 years, if they hit someone it's 25 to life depending on how good their aim was.
-
Shuckins,
Dude, you've been suckered into caring about someone who made a routine practice of threatening deadly violence to steal. WTF over?!?!?!?!?! He's lucky he wasn't shot on the spot by an undercover cop, armed clerk, or concerned citizen.
I think your jury made the exact right decision and I'm very glad he's going to be out of circulation because his behavior is absolutely not compatible with any form of public life. He made repeated and apparently believable threats against other people's greatest freedom (their life) so I do not think it is a bad thing at all to ensure that he cannot continue such behavior.
He's already been convicted, so do you really think a slap on the wrist would convince him to change his ways?
Or how about this - if he'd gotten off lightly, would you feel better or worse if next time he decided it would be easier if he really did have a gun? Or what if the next time he did this, the clerk and the counter pulled out a shotgun and blew his head off? Would that be "justice"? What if a cop responded and opened fire, and an innocent bystander was hit? Would you still feel better about him receiving a light sentence?
No, we're all better off with that guy carefully and legally removed from the public arena. The ONLY thing I have reservations about in this case is that our prison system IMHO violates every shred of human rights by failing to protect the inmates after removing their right to protect themselves. If society locks someone up, society takes up the obligation to protect that person. Our society has failed to do that and I think that may be the single worst thing about the US. Our prisons allow the prisoners to abuse each other and that's a completely immoral situation IMHO.
-
As someone who's been on the other side of the counter having a "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" weapon pointed at them, I have very little pity for the man. The minimum sentence you folks decided on was appropriate.
-
Wow... Jury duty sounds like a tough gig. Great post Shuckins, and thanks for sharing it.
-
Shuckins,
On one hand I understand you are upset because you had to stand in judgement over this individual. On the other hand I think you are a victim of his attorney and family's attempt to make you feel sorry for him.
Why would you feel sorry for him? He committed 3 armed robberies, presence of the weapon is not necessary, just the threat. The victims of those robberies were traumatised and likely scared out of their wits with the threat of real death, their own.
The prior conviction was likley witheld from the trial as it would be considered to taint the jury in the deliberations for the offenses you were sitting on. That was no doubt at his attorney's insistance.
The claim of the drugs, meh. He is an addict, He made the decision to seek money for drug through robbery, not to seek treatment for the drugs. Drugs are not an excuse for doing something wrong.
The fact that he had a prior conviction 2 weeks prior to his last trial only goes to show he was consistent in committing felonies. The fact that he hadn't hurt anyone only shows it hasn't come up yet. It is not proof that he never would have hurt anyone just that he has not to date that you know of. Do you actually think he would have stopped all by himself? If someone had died during the robbery he would be guilty of felony murder. Would that have fit your definition of hurting someone?
This guy made decisions all on his own. He commited crimes all on his own. He decided NOT to seek treatment to get off of the drugs all on his own. His sentence in prison was from actions he decided to do on his own.
You did not put him in prison, he did. Do not accept guilt for actions he committed. He is responsible for his actions and the results of them you are not.
-
I have been called up for jury duty in mid august. I've never been to one, so it should be interesting.
-
I think the sentence is too long. He needs to be on the street in just a few years because his services are needed.
What we need are more criminals to support the ever-expanding law enforcement and criminal justice industry.
It seems like ever other person in the country is working for Homeland Security, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the Justice Department, ATF, the IRS, Immigration and Naturalization, Border Patrol, state police, county police, city police, sheriffs department, railway police, subway police, clerks, judges, lawyers, bounty hunters and bond companies, parole officers, game wardens, state, local or federal park rangers, the state local or federal attorney general, prison guards, private security guards and hundreds of thousands of paper pushers and clerks that support them.
Not to mention all the companies (and their hundreds of thousands of employees) who sell products and services to the criminal justice industry. Cars, trucks, tanks, pistols, shotguns, ammunition, assault rifles, uniforms, bullet-proof vests, badges, buildings, computers, desks, chairs, post-it notes, pens, fax paper, boots and belts.
What we need is more drugs to fill the market demand for more criminals.
More effort should be made to throw more people into the criminal justice to increase the rate of increase of hiring and spending. Heaven forbid the lowly finger-pointing criminals ever figure out how to steal big money by getting an MBA or an accounting degree, or even getting themselves elected to Congress.
-
Oh SNAP!
Nicely played. :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh SNAP!
Nicely played. :D
Word!
-
i was once maced by a sorority chick for doing somehting similar
-
Deb...I miss your old avatar. Your new one sucks and is in no way representative of you. How strange.
:noid
-
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.
He had once had a high-paying job as a sales-representative for AT&T
This alone should be a hanging offense. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Deb...I miss your old avatar. Your new one sucks and is in no way representative of you. How strange.
:noid
4th track on that record is teh me:O :O :O :O
-
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
-
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.
-
Mandatory sentencing is bad. Mmmmkay?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
You did good Shuckens.
:aok
-
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.
-
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
-
In our current political state, sentencing will become less and less controlled by the judicial. What politician is going to vote against a bill for stiffer penalties? "Bob Jones is SOFT ON CRIME!! Bob Jones supports ARMED ROBBERS THAT PREY ON HELPLESS GRANDMOTHERS!!" will flood the TV screen at the next election. It's job security.
-
Serial killers and violent child rapists are not who minimum sentance laws are impacting. My god lazs... are you a victim of propaganda here?
As for repeat offenders... with the 3 strikes rule... the judge's discretion on the first two and the states on the 3rd. That's not that complex. It's significantly different than allowing a judge to review a no-offense record and tie his hands on a sentance. 3 strikes is giving up on someone after trying, it has little to do with not even considering them.
-
I'm pretty old and have avoided committing even one felony. If I had committed two and was unhappy with living in prison I think I could avoid committing a third. Is it really that hard?
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'm pretty old and have avoided commiting even one felony. If I had commited two and was unhappy with living in prison I think I could avoid commiting a third. Is it really that hard?
It shouldn't be. But for some people it seems to be a way of life.
-
Those people tend to commit those felonies at the expense of someone else. A good reason they should be kept away from those they like to prey upon.
-
mini... protest all you want but you are telling us that you want minimum sentances in some cases... so do I.
What is left is... which ones. You haven't given an example of a bad one yet. I have given the three strikes law as a good one.
I would vote for a minimum on child mollesters with no prior conviction. Same for serial killers.
neither of us would vote for 7 years for slapping a woman on the butt.
lazs
-
ANY Felony at the age of 18 and above = Death
ANY Misdemeanor at the age of 18 and above = Life
Crime in the USA would drop by 90%. (The 10%.. Well the world would still have tards).
Yes larceny of a candy bar is a Misd. That better be one hellova candy bar.
Talk about sleeping with the doors unlocked. I dont think it would be a problem. :D
PuckIt
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mini... protest all you want but you are telling us that you want minimum sentances in some cases... so do I.
What is left is... which ones. You haven't given an example of a bad one yet. I have given the three strikes law as a good one.
I would vote for a minimum on child mollesters with no prior conviction. Same for serial killers.
neither of us would vote for 7 years for slapping a woman on the butt.
lazs
Repeat offense is taking history into account and is the only exception. Everything else no.
I'm not for minimum sentancing on any child molestation case as long as there are no penalties for an ex-spouse pressing false charges. I've not seen any need for minimum sentancing with serial killers. The options are either life in prison or death in those cases. Of course, "innocent by means of insanity" seems to be a going one these days, but minimum sentancing laws don't protect those.
You're for minimum sentancing laws where there is no need or where the charges can be so vague that a vendictive wife could get you 7 years in prison.
I think we have VERY different expectations as to what the government should be requiring.
-
different views? what do you base that on?
the example I gave was for 3 strikes and that is the only one I have ever voted on... you agree with that one.
What I consider serial killers... multiple killings.. have been released.
I said that a child molester needs a minimum... I would prefer death... but... there had better be DNA evidence... not the word of a spouse or 3 shrinks talking a kid into it. It had better be DNA or better.
lazs