Posted on 12/05/2009 11:19:27 PM PST by Yomin Postelnik
“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.
sitetest
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 hadn’t 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 we’re 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?
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.