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

Skip to comments.

Judge assails sentencing laws / He reluctantly imposes a 55-year prison term (must read)
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company ^ | November 17, 2004 | Angie Welling

Posted on 11/18/2004 3:23:03 PM PST by Former Military Chick

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
First my opinion might be colored as the victim of a violent crime.

Yet, I do have compassion and I have thoughts on federal mandatory sentencing guidelines.

When you break the law you should be punished. But, I wonder, when someone is breaking the law selling pot, with a gun? When you put it in those terms there seems to be little one can say in his defense of a lesser sentence.

Yet, the DA wanted to make a pretrial deal. I have so many issues with that I cannot even begin to know where to start.

Many recall the young boy, in Florida, who claimed he was doing a wrestling move he saw on TV, that resulted in the death of a little girl. The boy's mother would not do a pretrial deal, and, the boy was found guilty and sentenced to life, until the Governor and state courts got involved. There are many other issues with this case but that his mother could have done a deal that would have kept in jail less then the trial has me questioning the DA's power. The same feelings I have that this young man told the big bad government that he wanted to have a trial by his peers and sadly that if he lost the DA would be much tougher. Why?

I brought up the Tate case because I feel that mother should have made a deal, and when she didn't the young man suffered a tougher punishment. The same is true for this young man in Utah.

I think we have taken to much away from our judges and we need to think hard and long if that is what we want our society to be or if we need to reel these mandatory laws back to a more reasonable punishment.

To be clear:

This young man deserves jail time, he clearly broke the law, but, laws that were imposed for Kennedy assassins are dated.

I feel that congress has to much leverage in the process.

That making deals while saving the government time and money should be part of the sentencing if the defendant decides to use his right to a trial.

The idea that a rapist and murderer gets less time is something I cannot stand for.

All thought are welcome, again, we know as voting block we can make a difference so lets start making a positive difference.

1 posted on 11/18/2004 3:23:06 PM PST by Former Military Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: No Longer Free State; Hank All-American; edfrank_1998; TheCrusader; exDemMom; dsc; bushpilot; ...

mandatory-minimum laws **ping**

This is an important subject that I think requires open and honest discussion.

Thanks in advance!


2 posted on 11/18/2004 3:26:00 PM PST by Former Military Chick (Lets keep the MSM to the grind stone, stories like this should not be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

You do the crime, you do the time. If this guy was carrying a gun while doing drug deals, it was (is) only a matter of time until he shot someone.

This was not just about doing drug deals. It is being armed while doing drug deals where people are impaired and violence is extremely likely.

I have no qualms about getting this guy of the street until he is 80 or 180.


3 posted on 11/18/2004 3:28:02 PM PST by arjay (If the NYT is against it, it must be good for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

"The bulk of that term — the 55 years imposed Tuesday — is based on just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional firearms at his Fort Union apartment. "

Throw away the damn key!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


4 posted on 11/18/2004 3:28:03 PM PST by American Vet Repairman (Why do the Nazis and liberals have so much in common?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

I am NOT AT ALL Heart Broken.

There is a reason the CRIME RATE is at 30 or is it 60 year lows.

If one of those drug sales where this guy took his guns, has gone bad, how long would it have taken for him to kill someone else or get killed himself.

This is what these laws are for. You have 3 chances, and if you are too retarted to not stop, you deserve to sit in jail cell for rest of your life.

His age doesn't matter, his crimes do.


5 posted on 11/18/2004 3:28:58 PM PST by The_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: American Vet Repairman

probably a relative of this judge of our here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282909/posts


6 posted on 11/18/2004 3:31:23 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (Justice of the Piece: Hope IS on the way...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

My dear dear oldest child is an alcoholic. He is in recovery. It may take him another course of treatment to recover but right now he's doing well... Today he's doing well. Thank God he has no children. Even when he was in the deepest part of his disease though, he would not have endangered anyone nor owned guns nor sold drugs. Hard to understand.


7 posted on 11/18/2004 3:33:09 PM PST by Mercat (I call, You hear me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

I'm no expert but it seems to me that the reason there are mandatory minimum sentences is because the public got tired of seeing criminals get minimal punishment and then repeatedly re-offend. The public then leaned on the legislators to do something about it and they passed laws imposing minimum sentences. Democracy in action. Since it is largely the same folks complaining about the harshness of minimum sentencing who supported the politicians who appointed the too-lenient judges in the first place, I say "tough darts!"


8 posted on 11/18/2004 3:33:52 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

My prayers are with him. May God give your courage to help him through it.


9 posted on 11/18/2004 3:35:03 PM PST by The_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: American Vet Repairman
First brake the key off in the lock. Then throw away the key.
10 posted on 11/18/2004 3:35:08 PM PST by crabpott (Please send guns, money and lawyers and the rest of my Buffett CD's....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
In a way, these stiff mandatory sentences seem like a sort of backlash against lenient, liberal judges and judicial activism. If judges could be trusted to mete out punishment in a fair and evenhanded manner, so that the punishment fits the crime and reasonably takes mitigating circumstances into account, then these laws would not be necessary. But murderers and rapists being back out on the streets within a few years caused public outrage, which led to pressure on legislators for such laws.
11 posted on 11/18/2004 3:36:11 PM PST by Ryan Spock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

How much did the case cost to prosecute? The guy was guilty, was offered a deal to serve less time, but gambled and lost. I think he deserved a harsher penalty (and got it) for wasting the public's time and money.

I think what really happened here was he did not receive good counsel. His case was hijacked by his lawyers for the purpose of challenging mandatory minimum sentencing. It was win-win for his lawyers - they would either win the case or get a poster child.

12 posted on 11/18/2004 3:37:28 PM PST by vollmond (Head back to base for debriefing and cocktails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

"Utah-based rap music label "


That sentence makes me giggle.


13 posted on 11/18/2004 3:37:33 PM PST by osboy (Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
Trafficking in Class A controlled substances, multiple weapons violations and money laundering? And the judge thinks 18 years is ok? Whatacrock! 55 years is too light. This guy needs to be off the streets forever.
14 posted on 11/18/2004 3:39:01 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (May the wings of Liberty never lose so much as a feather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Gun laws being enforced properly is the way to decrease gun violence. Mandatory minimums are one of the most important ways we combat the gun control lobby and the gun criminals. And, dealing drugs deserves a harsh punishment. Destroying the lives of others for personal gain is evil.


15 posted on 11/18/2004 3:40:04 PM PST by Stonedog (I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's difficult to pronounce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
Angelos, the founder of the Utah-based rap music label Extravagant Records, initially faced at least a 61 1/2-year sentence for the 16 criminal counts of which he was convicted in December. The bulk of that term — the 55 years imposed Tuesday — is based on just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional firearms at his Fort Union apartment.

Notice how the writer goes out of their way NOT to mention what the 16 other charges were? This guy is a career criminal, buw we are supposed to cry big crocadile tears because he leaves a wife and daughter behind while he is kept off the street where he belongs?

slam door, toss key.

16 posted on 11/18/2004 3:40:49 PM PST by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: konaice
On another thread there was a list of witnesses...a veritable who's who of gangsta rap.
17 posted on 11/18/2004 3:42:29 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
I disagree.

There are a lot of people that care about gun rights.

There are a lot more that don't really care about gun rights, but they care about crime.

And then there are anti-gun fanatics.

The anti-gunners have made hay with gun related crimes for a long time and used it to push their anti-gun agenda through.

Laws like this don't help them, and they don't hurt the law-abiding citizen that has a gun. They only apply to criminals that use a gun.

The middle-of-the-roaders like that. It does the gun-rights crowd no harm as it won't apply to you if you don't commit a crime with a gun and it ticks the gun grabbers off because it actually does something about gun crime, namely, get rid of criminals that use guns.

Now, some of these laws have been perveted to cover non-violent "paperwork" crimes, but that's not the case in this instance.

This guy broke the law. And he took a gun with him while doing it. He has a long sentence coming to him.

18 posted on 11/18/2004 3:42:31 PM PST by Knitebane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

"First my opinion might be colored as the victim of a violent crime."

I sincerely hope that is not why you are a "Former" Military Chick.

Former Military Dude


19 posted on 11/18/2004 3:46:23 PM PST by Tarpaulin (Look it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
...just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales
"Just"
20 posted on 11/18/2004 3:46:58 PM PST by oh8eleven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

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