Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jman0904 · 07-17-2003, 08:24 PM

http://www.local6.com//news/2337839/detail.html

Quote:

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A judge reluctantly gave a man life in prison after a $20 burglary, saying he had no choice under a state law that requires such terms for repeat offenders.

Don't have the authority my ass. Declare it unconstitutional and set a precedent for the fucking judicial system assklown. Supreme Court Justices shouldn't be the only ones allowed to use common sense. And if you're a Republican, your actions will be justified retroactively and in retrospect.

Quote:

"I know I've made some mistakes in my life," Reed told the judge. "I don't think putting me away for life is going to bring on justice. I just come to the court for mercy."

The judge said his hands were tied and noted that the cost of Reed's incarceration will be $560,000 if he lives to be age 75.

"You might get an appellate review," the judge said. "You might have one glimmer of hope. Good luck, Mr. Reed."

Good fucking luck. Incarcerating a repeat offender for half a mil just for 20$ and a couple of crack convictions?
Drop the nukes already and take me away to Mars.

Bill · 07-17-2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jman0904
Don't have the authority my ass. Declare it unconstitutional and set a precedent for the fucking judicial system assklown. Supreme Court Justices shouldn't be the only ones allowed to use common sense. And if you're a Republican, your actions will be justified retroactively and in retrospect.

Unfortunately, his hands really were tied. The United States Supreme Court decided a case similar to this one just last March. In Ewing v. California, the Supremes upheld a similar case, thusly:

Quote:

Under California's three strikes law, a defendant who is convicted of a felony and has previously been convicted of two or more serious or violent felonies must receive an indeterminate life imprisonment term. Such a defendant becomes eligible for parole on a date calculated by reference to a minimum term, which, in this case, is 25 years. While on parole, petitioner Ewing was convicted of felony grand theft for stealing three golf clubs, worth $399 apiece. As required by the three strikes law, the prosecutor formally alleged, and the trial court found, that Ewing had been convicted previously of four serious or violent felonies. In sentencing him to 25 years to life, the court refused to exercise its discretion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor--under a state law that permits certain offenses, known as "wobblers," to be classified as either misdemeanors or felonies--or to dismiss the allegations of some or all of his prior relevant convictions. The State Court of Appeal affirmed. Relying on Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263, it rejected Ewing's claim that his sentence was grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and reasoned that enhanced sentences under the three strikes law served the State's legitimate goal of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders. The State Supreme Court denied review.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

So, it all boils down to the old adage: if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime!

Yes, its inhuman. Yes, its costly to the taxpayer. Yes, it is arguably bad policy. But it is NOT unconstitutional! At least, not at this juncture.....

== Bill

Bill · 07-17-2003, 09:24 PM

Oh, yeah; at the same time as the US Supreme Court decided the Ewing case, above, it also decided Lockyer v. Andrade where the 9th Circuit had reversed an even more egregious case, re-reversing the poor schmuck into consecutive life sentences:

Quote:

California charged respondent Andrade with two felony counts of petty theft with a prior conviction after he stole approximately $150 worth of videotapes from two different stores. Under California's three strikes law, any felony can constitute the third strike subjecting a defendant to a prison term of 25 years to life. The jury found Andrade guilty and then found that he had three prior convictions that qualified as serious or violent felonies under the three strikes regime. Because each of his petty theft convictions thus triggered a separate application of the three strikes law, the judge sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. In affirming, the California Court of Appeal rejected his claim that his sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It found the Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, proportionality analysis questionable in light of Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957. It then compared the facts in Andrade's case to those in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263--in which this Court rejected a claim that a life sentence was grossly disproportionate to the felonies that formed the predicate for the sentence, id., at 265--and concluded that Andrade's sentence was not disproportionate. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The Federal District Court denied Andrade's subsequent habeas petition, but the Ninth Circuit granted him a certificate of appealability and reversed. Reviewing the case under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the latter court held that an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under 28 U. S. C. �2254(d)(1), occurs when there is clear error; concluded that both Solem and Rummel remain good law and are instructive in applying Harmelin; and found that the California Court of Appeal's disregard for Solem resulted in an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law and was irreconcilable with Solem, thus constituting clear error.

Held: The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of �2254(d)(1). Pp. 6-13.

So, the schmuck stole $150 worth of video tapes in two separate thefts and ends up with two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences! That means he must serve a minimum of about 50 years before he gets a parole review. Since he has been a career criminal (heroin addict) since the 1970s, he won't live that long.

== Bill

FoE · 07-17-2003, 09:26 PM

Perhaps the judge should have just stepped down.

Ronin · 07-17-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Incarcerating a repeat offender for half a mil just for 20$ and a couple of crack convictions?

From the article:

During his sentencing hearing, Reed acknowledged that he had led a life of crime. He has had convictions ranging from aggravated battery with a deadly weapon to cocaine and heroin sales.

Reed's chosen life has been inhuman, costly and bad policy.

That said...I'll agree that a life sentence for what appears be a petit larceny is excessive.

jman0904 · 07-17-2003, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill
Yes, its inhuman. Yes, its costly to the taxpayer. Yes, it is arguably bad policy. But it is NOT unconstitutional! At least, not at this juncture.....

== Bill

Depending on the view you take...

Quote:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And laws that leave no lee-way for Judges are bound to have results like these.

And what does it matter that he admitted he led a life of crime? As far as I could read into it, he was being tried for stealing 20$ from an undercover cop.

And is it possible for a ruling to be unconstitutional while the law itself is not?
Couldn't the judge have simply said "The ruling that I am forced to give in accordance with the State of Florida is in violation of the Eighth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional"? Or forward the case to a higher court?
Anyone?

Henry-Finland · 07-18-2003, 01:04 AM

Who exactly have done this law?
Should they not get some professional help?
Even Hammurabi-laws some 2000 BC where more human. (And did not cost so much).

Calzaer · 07-18-2003, 01:55 AM

However, if he'd raped a girl, he'd still be on the street today. I'd put hard money on it.

Jolimont · 07-18-2003, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FoE
Perhaps the judge should have just stepped down.

I think that's what it would take for people to take notice, but most judges have bills to pay and kids to put thru college, so we can't expect them to be the heros. How about tossing the legislators out? They are the ones passing such ludicrous bills!

Ronin · 07-18-2003, 07:38 AM

Quote:

And what does it matter that he admitted he led a life of crime?

I was responding to jman0904 when he said ~ "Incarcerating a repeat offender for half a mil just for 20$ and a couple of crack convictions?"

He admits that he has not been able to live by the standard rules of society and has committed more than just narcotics violations.

Quote:

As far as I could read into it, he was being tried for stealing 20$ from an undercover cop.

That is my assessment as well...along with a simple assault.

Quote:

However, if he'd raped a girl, he'd still be on the street today. I'd put hard money on it.

Given his history, I'd put hard money on him raping a girl if he had not been given the sentence handed to him...that really doesn't address the issue though.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2003, 09:26 PM	#4
FoE Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,168	Perhaps the judge should have just stepped down.

07-18-2003, 01:04 AM	#7
Henry-Finland Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Finland Posts: 7,018	Who exactly have done this law? Should they not get some professional help? Even Hammurabi-laws some 2000 BC where more human. (And did not cost so much).

07-18-2003, 01:55 AM	#8
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	However, if he'd raped a girl, he'd still be on the street today. I'd put hard money on it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.