Posted on 02/05/2014 10:36:19 AM PST by nickcarraway
Ok, fair enough . . . so if I’m sentenced for trying to steal your dog, it’s ok to skip out as long as you get your dog back?
“When did you become so paranoid?”
“When they started plotting against me!” - Randy Quaid, The Paper.
Your cookie-thieving crime had an SOL that expired in the 4th grade.
Then 23 years old, Hayman had been serving a minimum sentence of 16 months for attempted larceny, according to the Michigan Department of Corrections website.
There is a statute of limitations for escape from prison, but I don’t know what it is. I’d bet it’s been exceeded.
Things to consider: This woman had 8 aliases. True, about half of them were variations on her own name. Nonetheless, she committed crimes when she got documentation under false names.
I’m not saying burn her at the stake, I personally think she should pay her extradition costs, make the restitution she no doubt owes, and be allowed to leave. I’m just enjoying the legal aspect of the case :)
Heck no!! My dog and I will come check on you in jail. Just because the victim has been made whole, the crime was still committed and must be punished. (Oh, and my dog would never let you steal him...he would fetch you to death! You'd be begging me to take him back!)
I will sleep better knowing that this fugitive has finally been caught. Great police work!! Great use of my tax dollars. if only we had more police to catch such hardened criminals. /S
I can top that . . . my dog will welcome you into my house, and only bark when you leave. UPS driver, mailman? He tries to get in their truck to go for a ride.
Back when I was in the Navy, I interviewed a number of long-term deserters who had been brought back into custody. Some of them had turned themselves in after 20 years or more, some had been arrested for other things and identified as deserters afterwards, but all of them talked about the constant nagging fear that the next knock on the door, the next flashing light behind them, the next phone call, would see them exposed and brought back into custody.
This woman was a total idiot. She escaped rather than finish a minimum sentence that would have been completely forgotten by now. I think the hell she put herself through by going on the lam and then having to live like a church mouse for three decades is plenty of punishment for her crime.
I hope the judge screams at her, tells her she’s a stupid ditz, and sends her home.
LOL! I have a feeling that neither you nor I consider our dogs “guard” dogs, am I right? My dog could serve as the greeter at Walmart..and direct all the bad guys to the high-end electronics!
She was sentenced on 06-28-76. Assuming the prison wasn’t that far away (I wonder where they sent the females back then?) let’s say a week for MDOC to pick her up and log her in. That started her clock.
She escaped on 04-14-77. So she had served about 9 months of what could have been a 16 month sentence-figuring that she would have been released at her earliest date (not counting good time, as I don’t know if we still had good time in the prison system then-we don’t now). So yeah, a ditzy move. Let’s see, 7 more months in the lock up vs. a lifetime of always waiting for that knock on the door, or those little blue lights behind you? Was the food THAT bad?
For example, in this case, the "unjust or stupid" law against theft?
You realize that every individual, left to his own recognizance, can arbitrarily decide that any law at all is "unjust or stupid", right?
That your premise implies utter anarchy?
The definition of "anarchy" is "without a ruler".
Suits me.
The literal etymology of "anarchy" - an + arxos - actually means "without a magistracy."
"Without a ruler" would be anakratia, or "anacracy" along the same lines as "democracy", "aristocracy" etc.
The actual historic definition of the English word "anarchy", according to the OED, is "absence of government; a state of lawlessness."
I personally do not care to have a ruler.
What I do care to have are laws, and a government that executes the laws equitably.
The viewpoint that holds that anyone who is dissatisfied by the laws should feel free to break them if he wants to is a viewpoint that advocates complete lawlessness.
That is not what the Founding Fathers wanted, and it is not what anyone with a functioning brain wants.
Anarchy is defined as "being without a ruler".
Nothing wrong with that.
Condolences.
By you, perhaps.
The actual etymology and definition are different.
That was the exact opposite of what I said.
I'm sorry that you lack the capacity to read my post as carefully as I read yours.
That's right Free John Cozine. Free the bankers responsible for 2008. Oh wait...
So your argument is that two wrongs make a right.
Very deep thinking.
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.