Replies

I don't doubt that he's a scumbag; however, he should only have been sentenced for and served time for things he's actually been convicted of. If the sentence for 2nd degree burglary is only 3 years, then that's what his sentence should have been reduced to once the law was changed. If he had then gone on to commit new crimes, then the law should be changed to provide for a stiffer sentence for 2nd degree burglary.

I don't doubt that he's a scumbag; however, he should only have been sentenced for and served time for things he's actually been convicted of.

The law that existed at the time he was convicted allowed for a life sentence. Once the criminal has been convicted the judge or jury can take lots of other information into account when sentencing. The fact that this wasn't his first conviction was probably a pretty big consideration in getting the maximum sentence.

I'm sure that if the same crime had been committed today he would have been convicted of attempted capital murder and DNA evidence would have been used to prove he was the one who assalted the 87 year old woman. I bet the prosecutor didn't want to have to put her on the witness stand. I see no reason why his sentence should have been lowered especially considering his behavior in prison.