To: mhx
One clue is in the article- he apparently mouthed off that he "had a right" to do what he did. Fits in with his rich-poor Trotskyite talk.
Judges and juries frequently are swayed by shows of remorse, admissions of guilt, and promises not to do it again, and plea bargains are another good way to get out of doing time (and a plea bargain includes an admission of guilt and an monitored promise to not do it again called probation). "Repent and sin no more" comes to mind as a lesson in forgiveness.
Judges and juries are frequently not impressed with defendants who refuse to admit guilt (claiming a right is salt in that) and who are unrepentant and unremorseful.
Now, that may not be just or moral but I've been in enough courtrooms to see the dynamic. A judge in LA handed a six month sentence to a gang member who huffed, "So?" and the judge changed it to eighteen months on the spot. The gang banger was silent at that point.
And the unknown part of the story may lie in the "distribution" statement, which may simply be a statutory requirement based on quantity, a la possession with intent to distribute, or maybe more, I can't say.
25 posted on
05/09/2006 6:04:09 PM PDT by
DBrow
To: DBrow
Well, 25 years in jail for a disabled man with a legitimate need for painkillers ought to show him real good!
Jebby needs to spring this man ASAP.
28 posted on
05/09/2006 6:11:59 PM PDT by
Cecily
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson