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