Posted on 11/14/2013 3:17:52 PM PST by dennisw
...because he IS a habitual offender.
Keep him off the street. We don't need to put up with the ill effects of his sociopathy.
Taxpayer support issues? OK. Work his ass ragged to pay for his incarceration.
“Stick it to the Man!!!”
Do you always have a problem with your comprehension skills?
I stated very clearly that I wasn’t commenting on the case, just your foolish response...
5 years and actually doing the full sentence. it wasn’t a stick of gum, it was expensive and someone else’s livelihood tool, and he had priors.
yeah you are probably corrct he did other crimes he was never punished for. i read awhie ago cops figure for every arrest the habituals have done anywhere from 20-50 crimes they didn’t get caught for.
My point being that you steal the tools a man needs to work, he’s out of work, regardless of who the “real” owner of those tools is. The welder can’t work without the welder.
Was I unclear that time?
This is not a victimless crime.
Going hard the first time is better than leniency for years.
I have a friend who got a year in prison for stealing a car at 17. 30 years later he’s never been in trouble again and is working the job he got the week he got out.
Appeals Court Document in which the crimes are detailed and an explanation
by one the three judges of having to follow the law.
Click through at when the link opens to get the PDF file.
http://www.la-fcca.org/Opinions/PUB2010%5C2010-12/2010%20KA%201040%20Decision%20Appeal.pdf
I am often the victim of crime (theft). I’ve had lawn mowers, compressors, electric scooters, 5 gal gas cans full of gas, and yes... even a MIG welder stolen from my driveway.
Of course there’s a victim. But “life in prison”? That’s crazy.
but most welders don’t own their own machines...
***************
But many do......... And this was three separate crimes where he stole items.
One of the appeals judges notes in the decision that he has to follow the law.
http://www.la-fcca.org/Opinions/PUB2010%5C2010-12/2010%20KA%201040%20Decision%20Appeal.pdf
I think we can agree that cripplecreek’s post at 66 would be a better approach.
Too often petty criminals are allowed to grow into career criminals, and a career criminal needs to be isolated from the rest of us.
We don’t have an Australian “away” to send them, and must make due with prison.
Sorry Blayton and Hayley, your dad is a sociopath and a dirtbag.
You’ll like your new daddy much better . . .
Certainly and the greatest justice system in the world routinely gives first offender the benefit of the doubt. And yes a debt paid to society should be considered just that, but that doesn’t mean that we should not consider past criminal history. If a rapist is convicted and after years of incarceration is given freedom again, goes out and commits the same crime,again, is it unreasonable to examine prior criminal history in deciding appropriate punishment?
what if it was the tenth time? Would it be reasonable then?
There are no perfect judges or laws or perfect enforcement abilities, which, in my opinion, is precisely why an examination of prior record MAY be in order with repeat offenders. And we must depend on rational discerning judges to make reasonable decisions, and appropriate sentences.
Or this thief could have his hand removed by machete, or be stoned to death which is what happens in countries that don’t worry with due process.
but I’ve been there too, and I learned from my mistakes, made restitution, and grew up and learned freedom doesn’t mean I can do whatever I want. I corrected myself.
some people can’t.
how can we deal with a criminal if were not honest about his character?
It seems the SOB never learned his lesson in the traditional justice system.
I say cane the POS until his ass bleeds. I'll guarantee you he learns to walk the straight and narrow.
Yes it’s reasonable to consider prior history, but shouldn’t be the only criterion, and we can’t depend on rational discerning judges because how can the system guarantee it? Do you want to hear something ironic? In the time in took for me to respond to your last post, my $780 bicycle was just stolen. I bet it was just some kid, however, who doesn’t deserve life in prison for it. Maybe a baseball bat.
Perhaps if he would have actually been punished for the first two convictions he would have not commented the third theft
If I were king, I would bring back hard labor. I would reduce all non-capitol offenses by 75%, but the 25% they must serve would be hard, hard labor. 5 years of hard labor is tougher and cheaper than 20 years of the country club we have not with three squares, A/C, cable TV and workout equipment.
Perhaps if he would have actually been punished for the first two convictions he
would have not commented the third theft
*****************
Actually the thefts occurred two on one day and the third on the morning of the
next day. Click the link in post #69. It gives some details and the
Appeals Court verdict in which one judge thought life was too much but
the law had to be upheld.
That's exactly the Judicial behavior that led to many states passing "three strikes" laws in the first place. People were starting to get pretty PO'ed about the revolving doors in the prisons, so they took away the Judges' discretion. Things are never as simple as the ACLU would have us believe.
Nice family. I hope Daddy’s Sh!t-for-brains gene didn’t get passed to the next generation.
We could use your reasoning and arrive at that conclusion.
I've had things stolen from me in the past and it stinks. Still, if someone stole $750 worth of my tools and was sentenced to life in prison for it, I would actually advocate for a lesser sentence for them.
If I knew it was their third offense and they had not been involved in any type of armed robbery I'd be fine with a year or two. After that they just become institutionalized anyway.
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.