Last night on Court TV they had a program about 6 men that stole 19 million dollars from an armored car companie. They were caught and convicted. Four of the men plead guilty and recieved sentences of 5 to 8 years. 2 men pled innocent and were then sentenced 17 years and 23 years (he was the ringleader). I know prosecuters use maximum sentencing to encourage plea bargaining, but 3x longer sentence? That seems excessive to me considering they committed the same crime.
Strangley, the next program that came on was about the Tulia 41, a group of people arrested and convicted in Tulia, TX on the testimony of one undercover officer. Some of these people recieved sentences of 20, 60 and 99 years for crimes they did not commit. DNA evidence is clearing alot of convictions these days. I wonder how many people accept a plea bargain knowing they are innocent rather than take the chance of facing 20 or more years in jail? Also how many people didn't do it, fought it, and are now inprisoned for decades? It just doesn't seem fair.
And no, everything isn't fair. But justice should be, it's supposed to be blind. I have always had the understanding that our justice system was divised with the belief that we should err on the side of protecting the innocent rather than punishing the guilty. But it seems that the reality has it the other way around.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Longer Prison Sentences
Longer Prison SentencesFollow
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
god bless america...let freedom ring! (behind bars if you make waves though)
Quote:
I wonder how many people accept a plea bargain knowing they are innocent rather than take the chance of facing 20 or more years in jail?
Thousands every year. Probably not as many people as those who are guilty and walk, but definately thousands.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
This post is, basically, USA specific. Your nation is probably not as bizzare as ours is. Feel free to compare/contrast :)
Good story on this topic done by This American Life, www.thislife.org in 2002, on 4/19, show #210. You can listen for free.
Three teens were convicted of a brutal rape/murder and served 15 years - the whole time they had blood type evidence on their side. One of the rapists had to be an O secreter, and none of them are. DNA evidence finally cleared them, but you can listen and hear how close they came to being imprisoned essentially forever, falsly - with clear cut evidence on their side that - at a minimum - there was someone else involved.
Oh ya, the fourth teen plea bargined: sent the rest to prison for life so that he would only get 2-3 years. It is this person's testimony (that basically the 4 of them did it) that was contradicted by the blood type evidence.
No one cared. In the heat of the moment, the police were under pressure to solve the crime and persuaded these boys to go along. Long after, for 15 years, they appealed, unsuccessfully on the O secreter evidence - and in the clear dispassionate light of day - they were turned down time and time again.
The second story on that episode is about how police got a 14 year old to confess to murdering his sister.
The system is so bad the state of Illinois suspended use of the death penalty.
Yet there is another problem which may be equally severe: disproportionate sentencing. So everyone wants to look tough on crime, and at the Federal level, since they don't really enforce laws like murder or rape, congress looked tough by passing mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drugs. There is something about interstate commerce in the constitution which in a strange way lead to this particular class of crimes being focused on.
Since the Federal government did not pay the states to fund this mandate, nor accept the prisoners for part or all of the mandatory sentences, the states essentially had to either build massive numbers of new prisons (thus looking tough on crime) or try to build some but not enough and effectively reduce the sentences for all other crimes...you know like rape and murder.
Obviously, looking tough on crime, but raising taxes would be unpopular so other state services may be cut, too. This is not my main point here.
When you hear about violent criminals going free after very brief jail times this is generally why.
In response to this nasty problem, the California voters implemented the "3 strikes" law, in which after 2 convictions for violent crimes, any third felony ensures life in prison.
As you can imagine this added to the drug sentences has had a huge impact on the prison population here. There is a consistent trend to higher University fees, fewer state services, and higher taxes.
The insanity of the 3rd strike being *any* felony became a topic of local humor. In public bathrooms where signs are posted saying "Felony to tamper with/destory/disable..." one often would find "three strikes and you're out baby!" scrawled across it.
Of course prosecutors have to *ask* for the three strikes law to be implemented, but as their careers are built on the severity of their victories you can imagine what happens. I'm sure no one is in prison indefinately for vandalizing a soap dispensor but....
The latest twist is that we are going to be asked to vote on another "Megan's Law" type protect the child bill. I'm not sure the actual content, but it has a rider which will change 3 strikes to ensure the 3rd strike is, actually, a violent crime.
Many times since 3 strikes the legislature has tried to change the 3rd strike to a violent felony only. They failed. Okay: this is a state that had, after the 2000 election, all statewide offices held by the liberal party (Democrats) and both chambers of the state legislature as well.
California. Strange place.
Good story on this topic done by This American Life, www.thislife.org in 2002, on 4/19, show #210. You can listen for free.
Three teens were convicted of a brutal rape/murder and served 15 years - the whole time they had blood type evidence on their side. One of the rapists had to be an O secreter, and none of them are. DNA evidence finally cleared them, but you can listen and hear how close they came to being imprisoned essentially forever, falsly - with clear cut evidence on their side that - at a minimum - there was someone else involved.
Oh ya, the fourth teen plea bargined: sent the rest to prison for life so that he would only get 2-3 years. It is this person's testimony (that basically the 4 of them did it) that was contradicted by the blood type evidence.
No one cared. In the heat of the moment, the police were under pressure to solve the crime and persuaded these boys to go along. Long after, for 15 years, they appealed, unsuccessfully on the O secreter evidence - and in the clear dispassionate light of day - they were turned down time and time again.
The second story on that episode is about how police got a 14 year old to confess to murdering his sister.
The system is so bad the state of Illinois suspended use of the death penalty.
Yet there is another problem which may be equally severe: disproportionate sentencing. So everyone wants to look tough on crime, and at the Federal level, since they don't really enforce laws like murder or rape, congress looked tough by passing mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drugs. There is something about interstate commerce in the constitution which in a strange way lead to this particular class of crimes being focused on.
Since the Federal government did not pay the states to fund this mandate, nor accept the prisoners for part or all of the mandatory sentences, the states essentially had to either build massive numbers of new prisons (thus looking tough on crime) or try to build some but not enough and effectively reduce the sentences for all other crimes...you know like rape and murder.
Obviously, looking tough on crime, but raising taxes would be unpopular so other state services may be cut, too. This is not my main point here.
When you hear about violent criminals going free after very brief jail times this is generally why.
In response to this nasty problem, the California voters implemented the "3 strikes" law, in which after 2 convictions for violent crimes, any third felony ensures life in prison.
As you can imagine this added to the drug sentences has had a huge impact on the prison population here. There is a consistent trend to higher University fees, fewer state services, and higher taxes.
The insanity of the 3rd strike being *any* felony became a topic of local humor. In public bathrooms where signs are posted saying "Felony to tamper with/destory/disable..." one often would find "three strikes and you're out baby!" scrawled across it.
Of course prosecutors have to *ask* for the three strikes law to be implemented, but as their careers are built on the severity of their victories you can imagine what happens. I'm sure no one is in prison indefinately for vandalizing a soap dispensor but....
The latest twist is that we are going to be asked to vote on another "Megan's Law" type protect the child bill. I'm not sure the actual content, but it has a rider which will change 3 strikes to ensure the 3rd strike is, actually, a violent crime.
Many times since 3 strikes the legislature has tried to change the 3rd strike to a violent felony only. They failed. Okay: this is a state that had, after the 2000 election, all statewide offices held by the liberal party (Democrats) and both chambers of the state legislature as well.
California. Strange place.
So? So what if some retards were coerced into admitting guilt despite being innocent? So what if, by practicing your constitutional right to a trial by a jury of your peers, your sentence is increased threefold?
I have serious problems. I got a speeding ticket a while back- I was going 82 in a 65.
If I had gone to court to fight the ticket and lost, I would have been sacrificing my right to go to 'Traffic School'. Oh, the humanity!
It's extortion! Would would Tommy Jefferson and Mr. Payne think?
Edited, Wed Apr 21 19:59:42 2004 by Thundra
I have serious problems. I got a speeding ticket a while back- I was going 82 in a 65.
If I had gone to court to fight the ticket and lost, I would have been sacrificing my right to go to 'Traffic School'. Oh, the humanity!
It's extortion! Would would Tommy Jefferson and Mr. Payne think?
Edited, Wed Apr 21 19:59:42 2004 by Thundra
Recent Visitors: 370
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (370)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Longer Prison Sentences
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC