“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.