Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: an amused spectator
She served one year on a 10-20 year sentence. Obviously, at the time, she was something more than just a casual user IMHO.

I feel sorry for her husband and kids who had no idea...but she needs to go back and pay her debt. Otherwise, justice means nothing. Run away and hide long enough and you are exonerateed? I think that would be a pretty slippery slope.

2 posted on 04/30/2008 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Head

I don’t know. At that time there were very, very serious penalties for even the smallest amounts of drugs. She just might have been someone who was caught with a joint and got 20 years - I think that kind of thing happened at that time or earlier.


3 posted on 04/30/2008 3:18:49 PM PDT by TCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head

If she has managed to live a crime free and productive life for the past 32 years, the system can arguably count that as a successful rehabilitation, I suppose.


4 posted on 04/30/2008 3:19:40 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
Run away and hide long enough and you are exonerateed?

Is that not exactly what was in the defeated Immigration Bill? Evade being caught for 5 years and all is forgiven. Or am I wrong?

6 posted on 04/30/2008 3:21:44 PM PDT by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
The guy she was sentenced with (same sentence) was paroled after two years.

This is just government OCD vengeance. They blew thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars, state and federal, to make this useless "pinch".

A reasonable person would have assessed the situation and let it slide.

8 posted on 04/30/2008 3:22:44 PM PDT by an amused spectator (Spitzer would have used the Mann Act against an enemy in a New York minute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
Look up the full story. She go 10-20 for accepting $600 as the middlman (middlewoman?) in a drug sale. The undercover cop basically said, "Here's $600, go buy me some heroin." As soon as she accepted the $600 they slapped the cuffs on her...she never delivered or had the drugs. Her boyfriend, the actual drug dealer who had drugs, only served two years.

IMO, they should let her go. That same crime would barely net 30 days nowadays, and she did serve a year of it. She's spent the last 32 living as an honest citizen. The purpose of incarceration is to punish people for the crimes they've committed and to protect society. It doesn't look like she's any danger to society, and in my book spending a year in prison is sufficient punishment for what is really a fairly petty crime.
11 posted on 04/30/2008 3:26:29 PM PDT by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
We must never forget that we are At War.

Yes, some call it the “Forgotten War” while most of us know it as “The War on Drugs.”

If we are to be victorious in the War on Drugs we need to drag this women by her hair all the way to GitMo and lock her there for the rest of her life.

Perhaps if we give her a little electric shock to sensitive parts of her body she will give up her fellow drug using friends from back in 1976 the year of our Bicentennial.

12 posted on 04/30/2008 3:28:02 PM PDT by trumandogz ("He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and it worries me." Sen Cochran on McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head

It’s a local story here. I live about three miles from the prison. She admits she was a user but a friend claimed she was dealing and she was caught with some a small amount of cocaine and a vial of morphine. She was told she would probably get a year’s probation if she plead guilty. Instead she was hit with 10-20 year sentence. Her grandfather and another relative helped her escape after serving one year.


15 posted on 04/30/2008 3:32:09 PM PDT by stayathomemom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
I feel sorry for her husband and kids who had no idea...but she needs to go back and pay her debt.

On drug charges? Even pursuing her all those years has been a total waste of money. Mow we're going to take her out of a taxpaying job and warehouse her at government expense, taking up space that could have gone to an actual criminal. Maybe we should have a program to bill drug warriors for such antics.

22 posted on 04/30/2008 3:41:23 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
I feel sorry for her husband and kids who had no idea...but she needs to go back and pay her debt. Otherwise, justice means nothing. Run away and hide long enough and you are exonerateed? I think that would be a pretty slippery slope.

You've been on the front lines here at Free Republic just as long as I have, Jeff. I usually agree with everything you post.

But I've been doing a lot of thinking about our "government" over the years, especially after the Clinton impeachment debacle.

The government had the perjuring, obstructing, tampering felon dead to rights, and they spent millions of our taxpayer dollars to do it - and they let him walk.

After that, I started looking at governmental claims about the need for "law enforcement" with skepticism.

Then I realized that our government at the local, state and national levels was ramming around, spending wads of our dough enforcing an ever-expanding litany of "laws" that the Founders would have gone bugeyed over.

Then I realized that the Founders didn't mean for the government to have a blank checkbook to pursue "criminals" that they were inventing daily - especially when the "laws" were applied subjectively in the end (see 1. Bill Clinton and 2. the illegals aliens, etc.).

Now I'm at the point where I'm REALLY skeptical when it comes to cases like this.

Somebody's got to start pointing out to people that just because the government CAN do it doesn't mean they SHOULD do it.

29 posted on 04/30/2008 3:55:06 PM PDT by an amused spectator (Spitzer would have used the Mann Act against an enemy in a New York minute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson