Posted on 12/07/2017 7:30:08 PM PST by hapnHal
I know. It is ridiculous anyone could hand down such a sentence. That has to be the added weight of the bogus “hate crime” moniker. Coupled with the cowardice of “zero tolerance” and mandatory sentencing and the poor schlub never had a chance. 15 years for putting bacon in a mosque is absurd. I doubt you would get more time for burning the cursed thing down.
Let me see if I get this correct....
If a non-Muslim commits a “HATE” crime (Leaving bacon at a Mosque) then its OK for a Judge to throw the book at the non-Muslim. But if a Muslim commits a “HATE” crime the sentence is ridiculous, pathetic and a joke.
Wasn't a federal case...
If it was reversed, and a Church was broken into and a cross vandalized, I bet nothing would happen.
Don’t quote out of context please
I mentioned simply that Feds do use history in sentencing particularly since they have draconian guidelines and have in effect since 1987
States use it too but often without sentencing guidelines
This notion someone’s past is on trial same time as the actual charge it not as good an idea as many here wish
And explains why historically we don’t allow it baring exception
Trials would be out of control with blaring innuendo and character assasination
Had Steinle killer been convicted his past too woulda come up The Feds weigh past history at sentencing via guidelines pretty heavy upon conviction or plea
You make a direct connection of the Steinle case to Fed sentencing paractice. The Steinle case wasn't federal.
Ok
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.