Is your knee-jerk over?
The courts are supposed to mete out punishments. Mandatory sentencing laws are wrong-headed and just as bad as courts legislating from the bench.
If judges are not performing properly, use the existing constitutional means to remove them, don't just write more laws.
This jparticular case shows the weakness of the three strikes laws as well as the fallacies of gun laws.
What, exactly, are you referring to? My stated opinion, or some imagined physical event?
The courts are supposed to mete out punishments. Mandatory sentencing laws are wrong-headed and just as bad as courts legislating from the bench.
Statutes specify punishments for breaking laws. That's what laws do. Are you suggesting that laws should not specify punishments for crimes, that all punishments should be determined by judical fiat?
If you want to prove me wrong on this, cite some criminal laws that don't specify punishments for breaking them. Good luck.
If judges are not performing properly, use the existing constitutional means to remove them, don't just write more laws.
That seems reasonable enough to me.
This jparticular case shows the weakness of the three strikes laws as well as the fallacies of gun laws.
How does this case show the weakness of "three strike" laws? I'm somehow missing the point of this absurd non sequitur.
And lest we drift off topic, I will repeat that my objection to Don W's post is based on my rejection of the idea that harsh punishment inspires crime. This felon was already a criminal, and was in the process of continuing to be one. Speculating that mandatory sentencing somehow is responsible for this situation is patently ridiculous.
If you want to argue that mandatory sentencing begets crime, then let's talk. But let's not wander around obsessing on my knees, okay?