Posted on 01/22/2007 7:08:59 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has struck down California's prison sentencing law.
Just a breaking news pop-up, link to come soon.
Uh.... any particular sentencing law in particular? Or has the supreme court said California can't sentence anyone for anything?
Come on posters... post something meaningful, with some context or don't post at all.
Reading is fundamental...
"Just a breaking news pop-up, link to come soon."
:)
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down California's sentencing law Monday, a decision that could mean shorter sentences for thousands of state prisoners.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sentences_1
Ahh, ya beat me. LOL
Wonderful. The crime rate will increase. Career criminals need to stay behind bars.
You don't need a link to post a comment.
If somethings happened and link isn't avaialble, poster can still post a comment about the context, if not willing, wait until a link exists to post.
Oh and for the record, that link, was insanely useful, thanks... I now know the law and context that was struck down.... really.
Man... no wonder the news is an abject joke anymore.
This decision is consistent with recent SCOTUS precedent. That SCOTUS precedent has included Thomas and Scalia in the majority, so I won't be surprised if they're in the majority in this one, too.
Three strikes?
Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays!
Three Strikes is the first thing that comes to mind, unless there is something else in the sentencing laws that the Court doesn't like. It will be interesting to see just what was struck down.
Update, please:
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down California's sentencing law Monday, a decision that could mean shorter sentences for thousands of state prisoners.
The 6-3 ruling in Cunningham v. California effectively shaves four years off the 16-year sentence of a former police officer who was convicted of sexually abusing his son.
It's the latest in a series of high court rulings over the past seven years that limits judges' discretion in sentencing defendants. The court has held repeatedly that a judge may not increase a defendant's sentence based on factors that were not determined by a jury.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sentences_2
Looks like the ruling limits a judge's discretion in sentencing based on factors not considered by the jury.
No, the Court upheld Three Strikes from a cruel and unusual challenge several terms ago. This is about the sentencing itself. The whole judge vs. jury issue.
See, now was that so hard?
Dude, relax... I posted the info as soon at it was available. If you notice the link is the same as before, just now with updated info.
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.