No, but once we get rid of all the people busted for doobage we’ll have plenty of room.
That’s the perspective you should have. Save your sympathy for people who got busted breaking stupid laws.
I never argued that “three strikes” laws are unconstitutional; just that this particular sentence is certainly unusual, and bordering on cruel. I have no doubt that there are those feel he deserves every bit of cruelty we can devise, but that is not the society I live in, nor want to.
Now you’re just making that up; I’d like to see some figures on that before I accept that as anything more than a feel-good sop to justify your “jail 'em all” attitude.
It ain’t sympathy, it’s tightfistedness. There are a lot more important things to spend our money on than warehousing every two-bit thug for life.
**
May I ask how many chances we should give this guy? At some point someone has to say “We gave you plenty of chances but you keep fucking up. We’re giving up on you.”
**
Do you really want this guy to serve a light sentence and then murder or maim someone when he gets out? Funny how those rhetorical questions can go both ways.
The man has a history of violent actions. If this were the first time he was in trouble for an assault I’d be inclined to agree that the sentence is harsh. This is not the first time. So I ask again, how many chances should this guy have?
Marc
Don’t believe that there are a whole pisspot full of people in jail for nothing other than drug offenses? Read this. And this.
“Marquez entered a plea agreement in November in which he would plead guilty to two felony counts of assault and battery on a police officer and placing bodily fluids on a government employee, and misdemeanor domestic assault on his wife.”
This is what shocks me more if Im reading it right.
The spitting and bite counts as a felony assault, while breaking her arm and ribs counts as a misdemeanour?
The other thing is what Im reading is that he was up for 40 years, 8 years non parole, before the judge took his prior record into account and changed it to a life sentence.
Otara
How generous of you, to consider anything less than life in prison a “chance”, as if serving 10-20 years is equivalent to going to remedial high school. Life in prison is for the worst of the worst, not a petty thug who would have gotten a year in jail for wife beating, until he spat on the cop. This is not about the worst of the worst; it’s about defying authority, which apparent offends society even more than violent criminals that get much shorter sentences.
A real scream, MGibson; except at least my scenario is comparing the crimes that have already been committed by both convicts, not some pre-emptive notion of putting people away for crimes they might commit. Can you say, “Minority Report” ?
**
You could at least attempt to answer the question. How many chances does a person get before we decide to simply lock them up for the rest of their lives? How many women does he have to rape, how many homes must he rob, how many wives must he beat, and how many cops does he have to bite?
**
Are you being intentionally obtuse? He didn’t just spit on a cop he bit him which is why he was charged with battery. In case you’re unaware battery means that there was an act of violence. I’d be just as upset if this was just about spitting.
**
He could have just stuck his tongue at the officer instead of biting him.
Silly me for taking into account his past behavior when it comes to sentencing him for assault and battery.
Marc
And what would the Court of MGibson sentence him for that? Solitary confinement?
Seriously, what would you do if he assaulted the cop with a gun and injured him? Life in prison, and ??? No difference between biting and spitting, and assault with a deadly weapon? That’s your idea of justice? It sounds like the expediency of frustration to me.
And what if he had a communicable disease and seriously injured the cop?
Again, as someone else hinted towards earlier, the stupid rhetorical questions can go on all night long.
That was not a rhetorical question; I want to know if you or he distinguish between degrees of violence, or is it all punished the same, with life in prison?
You’re absolutely right.
First thing I do is smack your wife around. Then after I get out, I’ll smack your sister around. Then after I get out I’ll smack you around. And then after I get out because you’re unwilling to punish me for being a repeat offender I’ll smack someone else around.
That’s just not cool, is it? Yet that’s what you’re advocating with this guy. Oh gee, he smacked someone up. Let him go, he’s just not violent enough to put away for a long time.
Somewhere you simply have to draw the line. This guy had three chances and didn’t take advantage of it.
I for one am happy to see him go.
Oh, and did you read my drug cites above? What of that?
Gee, ADUSAF, if you are going to ask questions and answer them for me, the least I can do is the same for you:
I’ll take that as a yes; you believe there is no difference between spitting and biting, and assault with a deadly weapon. I just wish your poor judgement didn’t cost the rest of us millions of dollars without providing any additional safety.
**
Har har har.
I have no problem with taking someone’s past history into account when sentencing them. I’m willing to factor in things like stress, a childhood filled with abuse, a lack of prior criminal acts, or a pattern of prior violent acts.
This is an individual who has shown himself to be disposed to violent acts. I would give him a heavier sentence then I would a first time offender for the same crime.
To answer your question, yes. I do see a difference between assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc. I recognize that there are various degrees of crime and that they all shouldn’t be punished equally.
Now you can answer my question. How many chances do we give an individual before we sentence him for the long haul? In this case we’ll just assume that the long haul is a minimum of 20 years.
Marc
Sure, he might not actually spend life in prison. There might be some form of early release even on a life sentence. That’s very diferent from an appeals court overturning a sentence. Appeals courts simply don’t overturn sentences because the sentence will be too expensive. That’s not their function.
Nobody is going to release a serial child molester to make room for a serial assaulter to stay incarcerated. There are too many people in prison for non-violent crimes that can be released first. And anyway, if the child molester can be released before serving his sentence, so can the person convicted of assault. At any rate, the need for society ( through the legislature) to decide how to allocate the limited prison space is an entirely different issue from whether a particular sentence is cruel and unusual.
I don’t believe in giving any second chances; I believe we should give sentences appropriate to the crime. I don’t consider giving someone a sentence of 10-20 years in prison is a “second chance”. I don’t believe that there should be a simplistic trigger for a life sentence based on a third strike, without regard to the degree of the crime. That is a feel-good measure that is designed more to attract voters than increase public safety.
**
So past behavior should never ever be taken into account?
**
As far as I’m concerned anyone exiting the prison system is being given another chance. Whether they served one year or 20 we’re telling them “You served your time now you can come back and enter society.”
On this we agree, believe it or not I’m not a big fan of three strike laws. On the other hand I have a hard time finding any sympathy for those who are repeat violent offenders.
Marc
Of course it should; but when a third strike comprised of spitting and biting receives a life sentence, the court has made a mistake. I will be vindicated when the case is appealed.
We are going to be paying significantly higher taxes under your administration.
Me too; and when you find someone who is sympathetic to repeat offenders we’ll both gang up on them. In the mean time, I will continue to lobby for realistic sentences that enhance public safety at a reasonable cost, not knee-jerk life sentences that do nothing but pander to a vocal but misguided segment of the electorate.