Replies

If we get to a point where we can't incarcerate criminals, we have some big problems.

First of all, my original post was half in jest --- as if stealing a black and white tv is any different from stealing a color set.

Secondly, I agree with you that he should've received a stiff sentence -- just not life in prison.

The problems with articles like this is the author intentionally leaves out half the story. There is no mention of his numerous infractions while in prison. There is no mention of the fact that the 80-year-old woman was home at the time of the robbery and was apparently assaulted. There is no mention of whether or not he had convictions for previous violent crimes. Without all of this information, how is the reader supposed to make a valid judgement?

Of course, the reader is not supposed to. The author of this piece wants to lead the reader around by the nose, to come to the predetermined conclusion.

Let me say that if this person had more than one prior conviction for a violent felony and did, in fact, strike this 80-year-old woman during the course of this home invasion, I have no problem at all with a life sentence. The value of the haul (the TV set) is not important. The nature of the crime is.

To put it another way, if this 80-year-old woman happened to have a Million dollars in her mattress and the thug got away with that, should he deserve a greater punishment? I think not. The crime is breaking in and stealing, not what he stole.

He may have gotten a sentence of life in prison b/c of a prior criminal history. Before "three strikes" laws, judges did consider the offender's criminal history when sentencing. All this "three strikes" stuff did not suddenly appear out of the air. It came from the experience of earlier judges.