Posted on 11/29/2013 11:24:37 PM PST by Olog-hai
“They treat him like a dangerous criminal.” Judith Minor has had to live with that reality for the last 13 years—ever since her son Ricky disappeared behind the bars of Yazoo City Jail in Mississippi because he had drugs worth a handful of dollars on him. He was sentenced to life without parole—something his 76-year-old mother just cannot fathom.
But his case is no exception in the US justice system. It could be a pair of socks, a slice of pizza—many petty thieves serve life sentences in the US. Ricky Minor’s offense was carrying one gram of methamphetamine. …
“These sentences are the direct result of laws that were passed over the last 40 years, as part of the war on drugs and tough-on-crime policies. Those policies led to the passage of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, three-strikes laws and other mandatory sentencing laws,” (Jennifer) Turner told DW. Those laws stipulate sometimes draconian punishment for petty crimes. In some states, like Louisiana and Florida, the three-strikes law puts anyone in jail for life who has been convicted three times. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dw.de ...
Wrong threads have nothing to do with conservatism. They expose bootlicking fanboys.
It's Utopianism no different than any other form.
Yep.
Whatever a penalty may be, it is wise and just ipso facto?
That is exactly what you said.
The jambreaker is the gospel... always was, always will be.
The idea of a prison as a PENITENTiary harks back to a time when greater America took Christianity to heart seriously.
Today’s great state allergy to Christian concepts makes for a great challenge, but it still is not insuperable.
Evangelists and preachers have an opportunity here if they will take it.
Keeping punishment in proportion to the crime is not liberalism, but Biblical.
Unless, of course, you believe that God supports the Democrats and, God is supporting the Democrats, who is supporting the Republicans?
Definitely Jonty and that is what I mean by intervention but it does have to be supported by caring parents or relatives or significant adults within a child’s life. Petty if unchecked will rarely just stay that way. It’s a slack attitude that has little self restraint. We know what happens to people who cast off restraint. Your point however is taken that if these kids are actually subjected to hard physical labor and end up doing something good for the community it is far more cost effective than putting them in jail - they may actually learn some skills and how to work.
I have told this story before but I used to have kids (pre-teens) that lived next door - they were a bit cheeky and bound to get up to mischief around the area. I got them to do paid work around my house - hard work too and I paid them for it and would give them coke and treats when they had a break. They never got to come into my house etc though but we would sit outside and I would talk to them about school, football, hard work and their future etc. They have moved now but I hope they learnt some lessons in all that.
Mel
Anyone who has committed 2 felonies knows about the three strikes law and should keep their hands off other people's property, that said this story, and others like it, is a phony, there is more to these cases them a simple misdemeanor charge sending someone to life without parole.
they may’know that and decide to railroad someone because they know a third strike gets them a huge prison term, they could be blackmailed into doing stuff.
mnd you only crooked cops’themselves pull’this crap.
The Palm? That’s still little compared to a place like Il Mulino in Manhattan, where Bill Clinton and Obama once went together. THAT is an expensive place.
You’re talking European style places that serve more courses than what you get at an American-style restaurant. Smaller courses, but more.
Not necessarily. Lots of prosecutors will amp up the charges, if they can get away with it because it looks good on their resume.
Zimmerman would be an example of this. He was charged with second-degree murder on what should have been no worse than a negligent homicide case.
The judge’s role is to only find the defendant guilty or not guilty, not decide if what he is being charged with is disproportionate to the crime.
I agree. Too many people want to live in a black and white world with no grey areas. That is until it affects them personally.
I love three strikes laws. It says that if you wanna’ be a career criminal then you can serve the rest of your ‘career’ in prison. If you’re too stupid to self restrain yourself after two serious crimes then you’re unfit for society.... Buh bye.
I think there's enough real crime out there that cops almost NEVER need to "toss a bag" into anybody's car.
These people did something other that what is being reported, period, that is why they went to jail for life.
You’re welcome to try and find what else he was found guilty of, because the judge wouldn’t find him guilty of something more than a misdemeanor, if that is all the prosecutor charged him with.
I read, you might try that sometime, that he was carrying an ounce of some type of illegal drug and that is why he went to jail, not the pizza. Unless he stole the pizza using a firearm or other weapon(armed robbery is a felony) he would not be sentenced to life without parole. Anyone who thinks this is true, including you, is a flat out idiot. These stories are made up, fabricated, twisted in order to gain sympathy for doing away with the three strikes laws. The same way stories are fabricated, made up and twisted in order to get rid of Stand your ground laws.
I know about that “slice of pizza” case. A career violent felon out on parole forcibly took a slice of pizza from a young boy on the Santa Monica pier, and was one of the first sentenced to life under California’s 3 strikes law. Liberals have used the “life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza” line ever since, without noting he assaulted a minor.
Woo hoo! Someone with a brain capable of thinking it out instead of merely going with inner opinions/likes/dislikes. It’s refreshing - thanks.
And you probably also think this is a good quote: "Do you think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
If I am correct, how do you reconcile the conclusion you made?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.