Invitation to Join FACEBOOKS: RINO FREE AMERICA PROJECT
Posted on 12/05/2009 11:19:27 PM PST by Yomin Postelnik
There is currently a move underway to discredit Mike Huckabee over the rightful pardoning of a then 16 year old who had been sentenced to 108 years on robbery charges. I make this statement as someone who fully supports the death penalty for murderers and for child rapists, but also as someone who recognizes that getting tough on crime means fostering sensible rehabilitation, not turning first time offenders into violent career criminals.
Yes, Governor Huckabee pardoned more people than most governors do. That’s because Gov. Huckabee isn’t thoughtless, callous or cruel and recognizes that public service actually entails service to the public. Sentencing a 16 year old to months of hard labor generally serves as the greatest deterrent (except in cases of murder and the like). By contrast, sentencing a teen to years in prison has almost inevitably bred nothing more than a violent menaces to society.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
If logical = dishonest in your eyes then so be it.
Please read the article. 11 years, as far as I’m concerned, is also too long for a teen burglar and too lenient at the same time. 1 year of hard labor, constant hard labor, would have very likely straightened him out. Locking him up bored with career criminals breeds violent animals. His having faced the possibility of life (as parole is not automatic) would have caused a 17 year old to go maniacal if he wasn’t already, as would 26 on a slew of burglary charges. Sensible sentencing is the only way to stop thousands of Clemmons’ from developing.
Interesting. You declare that long sentences ‘create monsters’ and OTOH declare that we should execute people without trials. Go figure.
“Postelnik, a Republican candidate for Florida’s House District 91.”
I searched you comments and found this on another thread.
Are you still running for Office? Maybe ol’ Huck can come campaign for you.
Clemmons was obviously psychopathically violent from the time of his first arrest. You are obviously a pathological liar.
Sensible sentencing is the only way to stop thousands of Clemmons’ from developing.
Sensible sentences? Why don 't you get some sense? Bleeding heart morons who want to rehabilitate monsters make me sick. So now we are going to have thousands of criminals like Clemmons, where do you get your info? Shaking my head again....
Very good point.
“Please read the article.”
What a condescending thing to say.
I already read the fetid apologia for coddling violent criminals. I guess you belong to the Michael Dukakis wing of the Republican Party. I don't.
The bottom line is that if the moron Gov. Huckabee hadn't done the evil thing and permitted this violent offender to get out FIFTEEN YEARS EARLY, Mr. Clemmons would still be in prison right now. Alive. The crimes that he committed in 2001 would not have been committed. The young girl that he raped this year would not have been raped. And four police officers that he murdered would still be alive.
“Locking him up bored with career criminals breeds violent animals.”
I don't like calling any human beings “animals.” It both insults humans as well as animals, in that it robs humans of their moral agency, and slurs animals, since they don't choose to commit moral evil.
But as for the violent part, it seems that Mr. Clemmons already had that part down. He didn't need 11 years or 26 years or 108 years to learn to be a raging, violent, out-of-control self-centered verminous predator.
This was a young man who would beat up little old ladies for pocket change. This was a fellow who was so intent on violence that he made weapons out of every day items to attack his guards.
By age 17, 18, this man had already chosen to become a violent predator. By the time the criminal justice system had caught up with him, he'd already chosen violence as his primary problem-solving methodology in life. He'd already decided that he would wage violence against others on the least whim. He was already devoid of the internal restraints most of us feel most of the time, the restraints that keep us from doing violence to each other except in extreme circumstances.
By the time he was 17 years old, he was already a violent criminal sociopath. He should have been incarcerated until well past his physical prime, not 11 years, not even 26 years, but at least 35 or 40 or 50 years, so that upon release from prison, he would have been too physically spent and psychologically broken to be much of a threat to other people.
We have a place for people like this: prison.
Ordinary people have a right to live free from the fear of sociopaths like this. Prison is where we put people like this so that the rest of us who don't view violence against other persons as the primary way of getting through the day can live in relative peace.
sitetest
Mr. Clemmons, by the time he’d received his really big sentence of 60 years for burglary and stealing a weapon, was no longer a first time offender.
Which would be the non-violent burglary of the State Trooper's home which is why I figured he had the book thrown at him.
He was sentenced to that while serving a 35-year sentence for a mugging in which he hit a woman so it is disingenuous to imply they were not part of the same crime spree.
The typical sentence for burglary is 2.5 years and for robbery 6.5 years.
This kid got a bad deal and I suspect it was because of who one of his victims was.
“...so it is disingenuous to imply they were not part of the same crime spree.”
I didn't say that it wasn't “part of the same crime spree.”
But this was a “spree” that lasted over a year. To consider him a first-time offender by the time he was being sentenced for his fifth set of felonies is what is really disingenuous.
“The typical sentence for burglary is 2.5 years and for robbery 6.5 years.”
I don't much care what's “typical.” Six and a half years for one offense might be reasonable, but by the time someone is being prosecuted for his THIRD violent assault/robbery, the sentence should be in the range of a few decades. Which, by the way, is what he got on the robbery/assault of the woman from whom he netted the grand total of $16. He was willing to injure and maim another human being for SIXTEEN DOLLARS. At that time, he should have been thrown away permanently.
As well, I don't think most states provide eligibility for parole (and almost automatic freeing on parole once eligible) after less than 25% of the original sentence. Thus, a sentence of 60 years on the burglary charge really netted less than 15 years. That's not so unreasonable for someone back before a judge for a fifth time.
“Which would be the non-violent burglary of the State Trooper's home which is why I figured he had the book thrown at him.”
I figure he got the book thrown at him because it was pretty clear that in the course of a better part of a year, he'd made a decision to become a career criminal. This was his FIFTH set of felonies, and they weren't all committed in a short period of time, but rather over the course of a year or more.
I think that what also contributed to the hefty and deserved sentences were the acts of violence while incarcerated, intending to seriously harm, maim or kill prison guards and judicial personnel. I'll betcha that that sort of behavior will ordinarily draw a little bit of extra time.
sitetest
So sentencing him, then commuting the sentence, then him getting paroled solves the issue how? If the violent despair is the source of the (later) murder, then how does after-the-fact alleviation solve the problem of needing to avoid the despair in the first place?
When you disagreed with me regarding his being a first adult offender that was what I took you to mean.
I'll betcha that that sort of behavior will ordinarily draw a little bit of extra time.
And I'll betcha that there are a whole lot of people -- non-teenage people -- walking the streets of Baltimore (and Little Rock, for that matter) on probation or parole who are far more of a threat than Clemmons was at age 17.
“When you disagreed with me regarding his being a first adult offender that was what I took you to mean.”
I believe that he was initially charged for even the first set of felonies as an adult.
I'd agree that he was a first offender if he'd have committed all these crimes in a space of weeks, or even a few months. However, I think that they stretched to over a year, and he was prosecuted for them in a period extending some months or a year or more.
So, at least from my perspective, by the time he got to his burglary trial, he was already a four-time loser.
“And I'll betcha that there are a whole lot of people — non-teenage people — walking the streets of Baltimore (and Little Rock, for that matter) on probation or parole who are far more of a threat than Clemmons was at age 17.”
That these people have been treated far too leniently is hardly an argument that the violent sociopath Clemmons should not still be in prison today [which by the way would have had the net effect of sparing his life, the life of four police officers, and would have prevented the rape of a young girl].
However, I read my Annapolis Capital newspaper pretty much every day, and take note that folks with prior violent records often draw long prison terms here in central Maryland for subsequent felony crimes. So, I'm certain it's the case that not every violent offender serves as long as he should, but I know that in my liberal state, many repeat offenders do wind up drawing long sentences.
I'd be much, much more sympathetic to your arguments on behalf of Mr. Clemmons if he'd have had a string of, say, ATM thefts, where he and his buddies busted open outdoor ATMs in the middle of the night and carted off large sums of cash. Or if they'd have been convicted of going into convenience stores, distracting the clerk, and then smashing open the cash register, grabbing some bucks and running off. Or busting into a store at night and stealing stuff and making off.
Crimes against property should not usually draw long prison sentences. Stuff can be replaced. Crimes against property signify a psychological mindset of rebellion, of lack of consideration for the rights of others, etc. But criminals who stick with crimes against property may be individuals who don't want to cross the line to murder, maiming and mayhem, and thus, are likely more susceptible to rehabilitation, and perhaps less likely to causing direct physical harm to persons.
But crimes against persons should usually be punished harshly. Folks can't be replaced. Think of the provocation it would require for you to beat someone. Normal folks, non-sociopaths, are very hesitant to use violence, even when they are in the right to do so. Folks willing to quickly resort to violence to impose their unjust whims on others are psychologically more devoid of empathy, of any consideration for the basic well-being of others. These are folks who readily choose to do grave evil, even including grave harm against others.
Prison is made for these sorts of folks.
That we don't incarcerate more violent offenders for longer periods is hardly a shining attribute of our justice system in the United States or an argument to let loose the sociopaths that we have correctly sentenced to long terms of incarceration.
sitetest
Ouch! Winner, right on target.
“Postelnik, a Republican candidate for Florida’s House District 91.”
Still running?
Which would mean your perspective is unique. A four-time loser is someone who is sentenced for a crime then released then commits another crime X 3.
However, I read my Annapolis Capital newspaper pretty much every day, and take note that folks with prior violent records
Which, unless you are being Kafkaesque, did not apply to Clemmons when he was 17.
“Which would mean your perspective is unique. A four-time loser is someone who is sentenced for a crime then released then commits another crime X 3.”
That's not what it suggests to me.
Like I said, if this were truly one, time-compacted crime spree, I'd see your point.
But that's not the case. Rather, Mr. Clemmons had spent some months establishing a career in crime before he was tried for a crime. It appears that there were at least five separate serious incidents spread out over time for which he was prosecuted, and it doesn't seem appropriate to consider these all part of being a "first offense."
From what I can glean, Mr. Clemmons actually was put on probation at least once early on in his career.
His first sentencing for a crime was August 13, 1989. He was sentenced to five years for robbery.
Next, he was sentenced on September 9, 1989 for burglary, theft and probation revocation, and sentenced to eight years.
I don't know when exactly he was on probation, but you gotta BE on probation to have it revoked, and that means you have to have been sentenced and then released at some point, whether after having served some part of the sentence or not, and then have committed another crime to have your probation revoked.
Then, there are these:
* Sentenced to an indeterminate amount for aggravated robbery and theft in Pulaski County, Nov. 15, 1989
* Sentenced to 20 years each for burglary and theft of property in Pulaski County, Feb. 23, 1990.
* Sentenced to 6 years for firearm possession in Pulaski County, Nov. 19, 1990.
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2009/11/maurice_clemmons_record.aspx
It's difficult to get a unified timeline of all his offenses and all his trials, but it appears that at least once or more times, he was out on probation, or perhaps out on bail, when he committed some of his crimes. That doesn't strike me as a set of circumstances where the offender, in court for his fifth conviction, is a "first-time offender" under any definition.
Another on-line article states that Mr. Clemmons insisted on separate trials for each criminal incident, so I'm guessing that he may have been incarcerated at times between trials.
Finally, I'll reiterate - the violence he showed while incarcerated likely contributed to his sentencing, and justly so.
In hindsight, it's pretty obvious that his violent tendencies were an accurate predictor of future behavior. If Gov. Huckabee had left alone the sentence against Mr. Clemmons, Mr. Clemmons would still be in prison and would still be alive, as would the four police officers.
Gov. Huckabee’s judgment in this case was faulty, and that contributed to a lot of loss of life and a few other crimes, at least one of them being horrific.
sitetest
But that's what it is.
I believe the probation was for carrying a gun at school but I may be incorrect. Perhaps the six-year sentence was for carrying a gun at school although I would hope that even you would find that a bit extreme.
Regardless, I'm not faulting Huckabee for this one.
That doesn't mean, btw, that I am a Huckabee supporter or that I want him for president.
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.