Skip to comments.Huckabee Was Correct and America Needs Such Principled Leadership
Posted on 12/05/2009 11:19:27 PM PST by Yomin Postelnik
click here to read article
It appears that in Arkansas, prison sentences are given out almost in dog years. From what I've read, the parole board is a pretty easy group of folks, and once you're eligible for parole, you need to do something pretty nasty to be denied it.
Thus, one must evaluate Mr. Clemmons’ “108-year” sentence in light of his first parole date, which I've read to be in 2015. From 1989 or 1990, that's not 108 years. That's not even half of 108 years. It's about 26 years, or about a little less than quarter of the sentence.
I've never heard of a state where you need to serve less than one-quarter of your sentence to be ordinarily eligible for parole.
Gov. Huckabee acted in a way that strongly suggests that he knew the parole board would parole just about anyone eligible, as when he commuted Mr. Clemmons’ sentence to 47 years, 5 months and 19 days, it made Mr. Clemmons eligible for parole as of the day of the commutation, even though he only served about 11 years or so. The parole board released Mr. Clemmons a few weeks later.
Thus, it's disingenuous to argue that Mr. Clemmons received a 108-year sentence, and thus would spend the rest of his life in prison. Rather, he was handed down a sentence that was formally 108 years, but that would likely require 26 years of incarceration.
One hundred eight years IS a little excessive for three brutal assaults, a couple of robberies, a fairly significant breaking, entering and burglary, weapons charges, and violent and attempted violent attacks against prison and judicial personnel.
But truthfully, 26 years seems a little on the light side.
And 11 years is a mockery of justice.
Mr. Clemmons brutally assaulted a SEVENTH grader. That's a child about 12 years old. He beat a woman for $16 and beat a man for a piece of jewelry. This is a fellow who needs little incentive to hurt people.
While awaiting trial, he took apart a door to make the door hinge into a weapon, he tried to assault a guard with a lock, he tried to steal a guard’s firearm, and he so credibly threatened the judge in his case that the judge had him appear in court in leg shackles.
This is not someone who received 108 years for a couple of thefts and a burglary. This is someone who effectively received 26 years for a series of brutal assaults followed by attempts to escape incarceration by harming prison and judicial personnel.
When I described the series of crimes to my family, my son said, “This is the sort of person we build prisons for.”
Ironically, if Mr. Clemmons had been left in prison to his original parole date in 2015, he'd still be alive today, the little girl would not have been raped, and four police officers would not have been brutally murdered.
Twenty-six years in prison for a string of violent crimes and a string of attempted violence while in custody is far from unreasonable.
By the way, John Hinckley didn't serve a prison sentence, not of 32 years or of any other length.
He was acquitted of attempted assassination of the president by reason of insanity and is committed to St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, DC. At this point, after 28 years (not 32), he is now permitted out on to see his mother nine days at a time, and his restrictions have been otherwise loosened. Nonetheless, he is still a residential patient at the hospital.
In most states a juvenile -- which would be anyone under the age of 18 in most states -- would not be tried as as adult for a series of robberies especially if weapons or extended hospital stays were not involved.
Further, in just about any other state, the sentences would not be consecutive but concurrent if it was deemed an adult trial was warranted. Since it looks like about 13.5 years per crime -- and I assume they were giving him the max -- he would have been out in about four years which would be an expected sentence for a first-time adult offender for such crimes.
I agree that Huckabee expected Clemmons to be freed on parole which, of course, is not the same as a pardon.
You are quite right that Hinckley was not sentenced. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and incarcerated for 32 years for attempting to kill the president and crippling another man for life.
That should be 28 years.
There are plenty of crimes “other than murder” for which individuals, including teenagers, should have the key thrown away on them, if not more draconian (Draculan?) punishment. IMHO
So what. The judge was an ass as well.
The 17 year old had already been sentenced to 108 years in prison. Huckabee's commutation wound up giving only 11 years to this dangerous person? Where is Huckabee serving God's justice in this? God is merciful and just.
Liberals forget about the justice part of the equation.
Mr. Clemmons, by the time he’d received his really big sentence of 60 years for burglary and stealing a weapon, was no longer a first time offender. In fact, as far as I can tell, this was at least his third time (and maybe his fifth) in front of a judge for sentencing on separate incidents, having already made trips for carrying a weapon on to school property, and for three nasty assaults, two of which included robbery. By the time he was sentenced for the burglary, he'd already been tried and convicted on separate occasions for a weapons charge on school property, assaulting three folks and robbing two of them. The burglary was his fifth set of felonies. In some states, that would mandate life in prison.
In my neck of the woods, which is not a very conservative place [Maryland], a juvenile will usually get tried as a juvenile the first time around. However, probably not for carrying a firearm on school property. Whether it's in spite of or because Maryland is a rather liberal state, prosecutors aren't very tolerant of that offense. But someone convicted of that alone might be tried as an adult and might escape jail or prison, or at least, not get much time.
However, by the third or fourth felony, especially since several of these crimes were at the age of 17, would likely wind up tried as an adult and start receiving significant sentences.
As well, doing things like trying to take a guard’s firearm, or using other items as weapons against guards, or credibly and seriously threatening a sitting judge, might also increase the sentences that one might receive for the crimes for which one was convicted.
Where I live, a person like this wouldn’t get 108 years, but he might easily get a few dozen years, and would be expected to serve more than half his time.
“He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and incarcerated for 32 years for attempting to kill the president and crippling another man for life.”
He was not incarcerated. He was committed to a mental hospital for as long as he remains insane and a danger to others. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wound up dying at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, but it’s false to say that he was incarcerated for attempting to kill the president, etc. He was indefinitely committed as a danger to himself and others.
In that he committed these acts in 1981, he hasn’t been at St. E’s for 32 years, as the acts were only committed 28 years and some months ago.
Hmm perhaps....Well how do you know his sentence DID turn him into a rapist & murderer? Or a violent maniac... Perhaps he had it in him all along. I don't believe his jail sentence had anything to do with it. He should have done his time & not been released. Some people belong in jail & can't be rehabilitated.
Look at Joseph Duncan. His first recorded sex crime occurred in 1978 in his hometown of Tacoma, Washington, when he was 15 years old. In that incident he raped a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint, and the following year he was arrested driving a stolen car. It goes on & on....
Had a judge done his duty & kept this MONSTER in jail from the start many innocent people would be alive today. How do you think Shasta Groene feels? Is her life ever going to be normal????
IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME DON'T, DO THE CRIME!
Sorry - WA gave ridiculously low bail in an iron clad case of child rape, for which Clemmons should have been executed on the spot - for the hyper-technical.
That still has nothing to do with Huckabee’s rightheaded decision to commute his sentence when he was only a 16&17 year old robber and petty thief who had served 11 years. And yes, human nature and statistics show that such over the top sentences have often created monsters - which we must now try to avoid.
If logical = dishonest in your eyes then so be it.
Please read the article. 11 years, as far as I’m concerned, is also too long for a teen burglar and too lenient at the same time. 1 year of hard labor, constant hard labor, would have very likely straightened him out. Locking him up bored with career criminals breeds violent animals. His having faced the possibility of life (as parole is not automatic) would have caused a 17 year old to go maniacal if he wasn’t already, as would 26 on a slew of burglary charges. Sensible sentencing is the only way to stop thousands of Clemmons’ from developing.
Interesting. You declare that long sentences ‘create monsters’ and OTOH declare that we should execute people without trials. Go figure.
“Postelnik, a Republican candidate for Floridas House District 91.”
I searched you comments and found this on another thread.
Are you still running for Office? Maybe ol’ Huck can come campaign for you.
Clemmons was obviously psychopathically violent from the time of his first arrest. You are obviously a pathological liar.
Sensible sentencing is the only way to stop thousands of Clemmons from developing.
Sensible sentences? Why don 't you get some sense? Bleeding heart morons who want to rehabilitate monsters make me sick. So now we are going to have thousands of criminals like Clemmons, where do you get your info? Shaking my head again....
Very good point.
“Please read the article.”
What a condescending thing to say.
I already read the fetid apologia for coddling violent criminals. I guess you belong to the Michael Dukakis wing of the Republican Party. I don't.
The bottom line is that if the moron Gov. Huckabee hadn't done the evil thing and permitted this violent offender to get out FIFTEEN YEARS EARLY, Mr. Clemmons would still be in prison right now. Alive. The crimes that he committed in 2001 would not have been committed. The young girl that he raped this year would not have been raped. And four police officers that he murdered would still be alive.
“Locking him up bored with career criminals breeds violent animals.”
I don't like calling any human beings “animals.” It both insults humans as well as animals, in that it robs humans of their moral agency, and slurs animals, since they don't choose to commit moral evil.
But as for the violent part, it seems that Mr. Clemmons already had that part down. He didn't need 11 years or 26 years or 108 years to learn to be a raging, violent, out-of-control self-centered verminous predator.
This was a young man who would beat up little old ladies for pocket change. This was a fellow who was so intent on violence that he made weapons out of every day items to attack his guards.
By age 17, 18, this man had already chosen to become a violent predator. By the time the criminal justice system had caught up with him, he'd already chosen violence as his primary problem-solving methodology in life. He'd already decided that he would wage violence against others on the least whim. He was already devoid of the internal restraints most of us feel most of the time, the restraints that keep us from doing violence to each other except in extreme circumstances.
By the time he was 17 years old, he was already a violent criminal sociopath. He should have been incarcerated until well past his physical prime, not 11 years, not even 26 years, but at least 35 or 40 or 50 years, so that upon release from prison, he would have been too physically spent and psychologically broken to be much of a threat to other people.
We have a place for people like this: prison.
Ordinary people have a right to live free from the fear of sociopaths like this. Prison is where we put people like this so that the rest of us who don't view violence against other persons as the primary way of getting through the day can live in relative peace.
Mr. Clemmons, by the time hed received his really big sentence of 60 years for burglary and stealing a weapon, was no longer a first time offender.
Which would be the non-violent burglary of the State Trooper's home which is why I figured he had the book thrown at him.
He was sentenced to that while serving a 35-year sentence for a mugging in which he hit a woman so it is disingenuous to imply they were not part of the same crime spree.
This kid got a bad deal and I suspect it was because of who one of his victims was.
“...so it is disingenuous to imply they were not part of the same crime spree.”
I didn't say that it wasn't “part of the same crime spree.”
But this was a “spree” that lasted over a year. To consider him a first-time offender by the time he was being sentenced for his fifth set of felonies is what is really disingenuous.
“The typical sentence for burglary is 2.5 years and for robbery 6.5 years.”
I don't much care what's “typical.” Six and a half years for one offense might be reasonable, but by the time someone is being prosecuted for his THIRD violent assault/robbery, the sentence should be in the range of a few decades. Which, by the way, is what he got on the robbery/assault of the woman from whom he netted the grand total of $16. He was willing to injure and maim another human being for SIXTEEN DOLLARS. At that time, he should have been thrown away permanently.
As well, I don't think most states provide eligibility for parole (and almost automatic freeing on parole once eligible) after less than 25% of the original sentence. Thus, a sentence of 60 years on the burglary charge really netted less than 15 years. That's not so unreasonable for someone back before a judge for a fifth time.
“Which would be the non-violent burglary of the State Trooper's home which is why I figured he had the book thrown at him.”
I figure he got the book thrown at him because it was pretty clear that in the course of a better part of a year, he'd made a decision to become a career criminal. This was his FIFTH set of felonies, and they weren't all committed in a short period of time, but rather over the course of a year or more.
I think that what also contributed to the hefty and deserved sentences were the acts of violence while incarcerated, intending to seriously harm, maim or kill prison guards and judicial personnel. I'll betcha that that sort of behavior will ordinarily draw a little bit of extra time.
So sentencing him, then commuting the sentence, then him getting paroled solves the issue how? If the violent despair is the source of the (later) murder, then how does after-the-fact alleviation solve the problem of needing to avoid the despair in the first place?
When you disagreed with me regarding his being a first adult offender that was what I took you to mean.
I'll betcha that that sort of behavior will ordinarily draw a little bit of extra time.
And I'll betcha that there are a whole lot of people -- non-teenage people -- walking the streets of Baltimore (and Little Rock, for that matter) on probation or parole who are far more of a threat than Clemmons was at age 17.
“When you disagreed with me regarding his being a first adult offender that was what I took you to mean.”
I believe that he was initially charged for even the first set of felonies as an adult.
I'd agree that he was a first offender if he'd have committed all these crimes in a space of weeks, or even a few months. However, I think that they stretched to over a year, and he was prosecuted for them in a period extending some months or a year or more.
So, at least from my perspective, by the time he got to his burglary trial, he was already a four-time loser.
“And I'll betcha that there are a whole lot of people — non-teenage people — walking the streets of Baltimore (and Little Rock, for that matter) on probation or parole who are far more of a threat than Clemmons was at age 17.”
That these people have been treated far too leniently is hardly an argument that the violent sociopath Clemmons should not still be in prison today [which by the way would have had the net effect of sparing his life, the life of four police officers, and would have prevented the rape of a young girl].
However, I read my Annapolis Capital newspaper pretty much every day, and take note that folks with prior violent records often draw long prison terms here in central Maryland for subsequent felony crimes. So, I'm certain it's the case that not every violent offender serves as long as he should, but I know that in my liberal state, many repeat offenders do wind up drawing long sentences.
I'd be much, much more sympathetic to your arguments on behalf of Mr. Clemmons if he'd have had a string of, say, ATM thefts, where he and his buddies busted open outdoor ATMs in the middle of the night and carted off large sums of cash. Or if they'd have been convicted of going into convenience stores, distracting the clerk, and then smashing open the cash register, grabbing some bucks and running off. Or busting into a store at night and stealing stuff and making off.
Crimes against property should not usually draw long prison sentences. Stuff can be replaced. Crimes against property signify a psychological mindset of rebellion, of lack of consideration for the rights of others, etc. But criminals who stick with crimes against property may be individuals who don't want to cross the line to murder, maiming and mayhem, and thus, are likely more susceptible to rehabilitation, and perhaps less likely to causing direct physical harm to persons.
But crimes against persons should usually be punished harshly. Folks can't be replaced. Think of the provocation it would require for you to beat someone. Normal folks, non-sociopaths, are very hesitant to use violence, even when they are in the right to do so. Folks willing to quickly resort to violence to impose their unjust whims on others are psychologically more devoid of empathy, of any consideration for the basic well-being of others. These are folks who readily choose to do grave evil, even including grave harm against others.
Prison is made for these sorts of folks.
That we don't incarcerate more violent offenders for longer periods is hardly a shining attribute of our justice system in the United States or an argument to let loose the sociopaths that we have correctly sentenced to long terms of incarceration.
Ouch! Winner, right on target.
Postelnik, a Republican candidate for Floridas House District 91.
Which would mean your perspective is unique. A four-time loser is someone who is sentenced for a crime then released then commits another crime X 3.
However, I read my Annapolis Capital newspaper pretty much every day, and take note that folks with prior violent records
Which, unless you are being Kafkaesque, did not apply to Clemmons when he was 17.
“Which would mean your perspective is unique. A four-time loser is someone who is sentenced for a crime then released then commits another crime X 3.”
That's not what it suggests to me.
Like I said, if this were truly one, time-compacted crime spree, I'd see your point.
But that's not the case. Rather, Mr. Clemmons had spent some months establishing a career in crime before he was tried for a crime. It appears that there were at least five separate serious incidents spread out over time for which he was prosecuted, and it doesn't seem appropriate to consider these all part of being a "first offense."
From what I can glean, Mr. Clemmons actually was put on probation at least once early on in his career.
His first sentencing for a crime was August 13, 1989. He was sentenced to five years for robbery.
Next, he was sentenced on September 9, 1989 for burglary, theft and probation revocation, and sentenced to eight years.
I don't know when exactly he was on probation, but you gotta BE on probation to have it revoked, and that means you have to have been sentenced and then released at some point, whether after having served some part of the sentence or not, and then have committed another crime to have your probation revoked.
Then, there are these:
* Sentenced to an indeterminate amount for aggravated robbery and theft in Pulaski County, Nov. 15, 1989
* Sentenced to 20 years each for burglary and theft of property in Pulaski County, Feb. 23, 1990.
* Sentenced to 6 years for firearm possession in Pulaski County, Nov. 19, 1990.
It's difficult to get a unified timeline of all his offenses and all his trials, but it appears that at least once or more times, he was out on probation, or perhaps out on bail, when he committed some of his crimes. That doesn't strike me as a set of circumstances where the offender, in court for his fifth conviction, is a "first-time offender" under any definition.
Another on-line article states that Mr. Clemmons insisted on separate trials for each criminal incident, so I'm guessing that he may have been incarcerated at times between trials.
Finally, I'll reiterate - the violence he showed while incarcerated likely contributed to his sentencing, and justly so.
In hindsight, it's pretty obvious that his violent tendencies were an accurate predictor of future behavior. If Gov. Huckabee had left alone the sentence against Mr. Clemmons, Mr. Clemmons would still be in prison and would still be alive, as would the four police officers.
Gov. Huckabee’s judgment in this case was faulty, and that contributed to a lot of loss of life and a few other crimes, at least one of them being horrific.
But that's what it is.
I believe the probation was for carrying a gun at school but I may be incorrect. Perhaps the six-year sentence was for carrying a gun at school although I would hope that even you would find that a bit extreme.
Regardless, I'm not faulting Huckabee for this one.
That doesn't mean, btw, that I am a Huckabee supporter or that I want him for president.
“But that’s what it is.”
In your view.
From my perspective, someone already convicted of felonies from four different events spread over a period of months is a four-time loser. Especially since there was at least one intervening period where the individual wasn’t in custody.
“Perhaps the six-year sentence was for carrying a gun at school although I would hope that even you would find that a bit extreme.”
That’s my best guess.
No, I don’t consider a sentence of six years to be excessive in a state where one wouldn’t expect that the convicted person likely would serve as much as 18 months. I know that in some states, crimes with a firearm add five years to the underlying sentence. That seems reasonable to me.
The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to bear them wisely and legally.
Huckabee stuck his nose in where he shouldn't have and at the very least a 12 year old has been raped and 4 cops are dead! Lets not even start investigating every other felon he let lose.
Without even a single shred of question about this guys innocence, or police or judicial misconduct he let this monster and hundreds more like him back out on the street. Huck's misguided "compassion" is nothing more than idiotic behavior, and it has no business in higher office.
The trial judge supported the commutation and no one objected at the time, despite confirmed notifications sent to the wardens, correctional staff, etc.
There are multiple reasons... in this case getting rid of a seemingly excessive sentence when the 27 year old hadn’t acted up, except for minor skirmishes since he was 17. The anti-Huck people on this thread never liked him and now want him to have had a crystal ball. Last year they attacking him for outlawing price gouging in middle of storms and natural disasters.
Look at recidivism rates and different forms of corrective punishments and the answer’s pretty obvious about what needs to be done to stop cultivating murderers.
You disagree = I lie.
You have nothing to offer of substance other than half cocked rants while I’ve painstakingly laid out the case for what I believe = you have nothing to answer = I lie.
Good strategy. It’s because of people like you that we’re in this mess as a nation and common sense solutions are rarely offered.
It sounded like you didn’t read it as you ignored key arguments. I also don’t know how “please read the article” is condescending and no, I don’t belong to the Mike Dukakis wing. Was Huckabee freeing murderers or are you just having fun blaming him for not having had a crystal ball at the time he freed a juvenile burglar whose most violent act came when he was 17 and facing a life sentence and who had behaved after that for 11 years? Why not blame the trial judge who supported the commutation? Do you have someone else who knew more about the case than he did.
I agree with the rest of what you say and yes, we do have a right to live free of murderers, attempted murderers and child rapists. That doesn’t mean that throwing the key away at teen burglars who were neither murderers or attempted murderers at the time is a sound policy or even a humane one.
Does not make it the right decision. My guess is that by that point the word was out that the Huckster was commuting sentences for everyone in the State. If you look you will find the Parole and Pardons Board are appointees by - guess who - the Governor.
I’m sorry - but your social theories are very, very liberal and illogical. “...getting rid of a seemingly excessive sentence when the 27 year old hadnt acted up, except for minor skirmishes since he was 17” means that these “minor skirmishes” were occurring in prison.
The psychology of your position requires a denial of human nature for it to be true - Clemmons, who was sentenced for violent anti-social behavior, was not as violent in his prison cell, so therefore he MUST be released. I’ll take that bet and cover the spread, so to speak.
With respect to price gouging, do you realize you are making an argument for a MAXIMUM wage? What liberals call “price gouging” is the free market at work, in its purest form. Apparently you don’t care for economic freedom. And to the cries of “It’s not FAIR!”, I reply simply that preparedness - having the necessary supplies and equipment before they are needed - obviates the need to have large sums of money to buy scarce commodities.
Finally, I am an “anti-Huck” person, because I know his record. You believe that circumventing the criminal justice system makes him compassionate and involved as a governor, but what it really makes him is a meddler - one who did so over the objections of anyone standing in his way. His need to be ‘compassionate’ made him “laugh out loud” when the prosecutor objected. I cannot ever support a nanny-statist, especially one who somehow believes that the all-encompassing state has no role in protecting law abiding citizens from criminals.
He wasn’t sentenced for anti-social behavior. He was sentenced for teen burglary. Do you support life sentences for every juvenile petty thief who burglarizes a few times before getting caught?
My “theories” are conservative and common sense. Yours sure aren’t the second and therefore aren’t the first, if you believe as you seem to.
Re price gouging - You aren’t seriously comparing preventing store owners artificially inflating prices during a storm (which no decent store owner does) to a maximum wage; are you?
I can understand the case against price gouging laws, but to compare that to wage control is outrageous.
IMHO you are a bleeding heart moron. Where do you get off saying people like TigersEye is why were in this mess as a nation and common sense solutions are rarely offered.
I think YOU, Yomin Postelnik & the rest of the bleeding heart morons who let criminals out of jail to re offend & kill are the real problem. Again, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
He rejected over 90% of commutation/pardon requests. He had a system in place whereby everyone could have objected. The staff got the notices, the prosecutor, who’s a vigilant anti-Huck Democrat, says he doesn’t think he got his (maybe he just didn’t read through his mail). The trial judge supported the commutation.
Absent a crystal ball, the pardon was not only right, many governors would have done the same thing. Those who attacked Huckabee for anything are having fun skewing facts, using the tragic deaths of police officers as political fodder (while accusing Huckabee of not caring about the police, who he actually expressed deep remorse for).
You already see how no one on attacking on this thread has the facts straight and how his record has been deeply distorted. I’m sure no one knew the system he put in place or the number of requests he received (average of 1,200 a year, with average of 100-110 granted).
Your theories are social engineering, plain and simple. You may believe that to be conservative and common sense, but your beliefs are not grounded in reality.
With regard to price gouging and wage controls - please reveal to us all the difference between a wage control and price controls from the perspective of the store owner. Huck and you believe that a store owner, who has prepared themselves for an emergency by stocking up on those things that will be necessary, should be prevented from profiting from their foresight.
In other words - the government should control the amount of money the store owner can make.
Logic apparently isn’t your strong suit, FRiend. (Neither is psychology)
You are TigersEyes make a good fit. You both substitute rants and raving sentences for conversation and both believe that you’re 100% right, though you can’t discuss anything or make a case for your beliefs, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Most very mentally challenged people do, so no offense taken, but you may want to retract on the “bleeding heart moron” statement, as you’d be even harder pressed than you are now in making the case that someone who is for capital punishment for murderers, terrorists and child rapists is a bleeding heart liberal. In fact, if sane people are reading this, I’m sure they’re astonished that people as clueless as you can actually type.
I know, I could have worded the above truths nicer. But after going at this ad nauseam, pointing out how appropriate sentencing and even sometimes clemency, etc. is needed to prevent crime and getting nothing but raving lunacy in return, my patience is limited.
Question for you: Since you believe in harsh sentences across the board and see callousness as a virtue, would you support long sentences for speeding drivers, jay walkers, etc.? Just wondering where or if you draw the line at the mantra you’ve now chanted 5 times about “can’t do the time.”
If you disagree with the law - change the law.
You are arguing (ad nauseum) that the law should not be applied as written, because the legal sentences handed out are "too harsh".
If you want that kind of power, then run for office. But don't bother talking down your nose at those who see things differently than you do.
And don't expect conservatives to rally behind Huckabee.
The law allows for gubernatorial commutations.
So I’m advocating for the law.
Also, again, the trial judge agreed with the commutation.
The really sick thing is, the Huckster isn't offering an excuse. He has made it quite clear that if he had it to do all over again, he'd release Clemmons to slaughter the four police officers all over again.
And feel holy about himself for doing so.
You say the store owner is “artificially jacking up prices”.
What makes it artificial? The fact that the store owner has the commodity, and no one else does? That’s supply and demand.
Your refusal to think is the reason why you cannot see the parallel. I’m sorry you have chosen to be closed-minded.
You believe, clearly, that the government should be setting the price for commodities in “emergency” situations. A man’s labor is a commodity. Special skills make the man more valuable to an employer who needs those skills.
The same as the “emergency” makes the commodity owned by the store keeper more valuable.
But not in your world, where government sets the price.
Oh - and “imposing wage caps across the board” is a straw man fallacy. You see, I simply stated that price controls is analogous to wage controls - but I spoke not a whit about universality. By injecting universality, you have attempted to argue against a position I have not espoused.
It’s also funny that you had to inject the “romneybot” ad hominem fallacy, although I have not said a single thing about any politician but Huckabee. I have no affinity for Romney, just the same as I have none for Huckabee.
And you are arguing against stiff sentences.
It’s nice when you can play the ends against the middle, isn’t it?