|
Post by webrunner on Dec 28, 2008 10:58:56 GMT -7
Hey Web, The problem Ihave with mandatory minimums is that it defeats the role of a judge. I know there are many cases of judges being too lenient and too brutal, both those cases represent the outer edges of the bell curve. The soultion, IMHO, is worse than the problem. I guess it's a balancing act between which is the worse evil. Folks getting wildly disparate treatment for essentially the same crime or actions vs a failure to take each case on a case by case basis and limiting judicial discretion. Snil, what about these cases in your mind mitigates against the sentences they got?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 28, 2008 11:04:25 GMT -7
Hey Web, The problem Ihave with mandatory minimums is that it defeats the role of a judge. I know there are many cases of judges being too lenient and too brutal, both those cases represent the outer edges of the bell curve. The soultion, IMHO, is worse than the problem. I guess it's a balancing act between which is the worse evil. Folks getting wildly disparate treatment for essentially the same crime or actions vs a failure to take each case on a case by case basis and limiting judicial discretion. Snil, what about these cases in your mind mitigates against the sentences they got? I can understand the need for balance, but if this were the case, there would be more demonstrable success at this point--or at least some clearer indications of fairness across the board
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 28, 2008 11:12:35 GMT -7
[quote author=webrunner board=local thread=82 post=325 time=1230487136 Snil, what about these cases in your mind mitigates against the sentences they got? [/quote]
Basically their crime wasn't that they shot the drug runner, but that after doing so they 1) hid the evidence of the shooting, 2) did not file a report that a shooting took place.
They violated the public trust by doing so and the rules of their positions -thus a criminal act.
Now given that no killing took place, and not ever being able to know what they thought the guy was doing (was he armed etc) that precipitated the shooting, then the cover up is all you have conviction of.
So where is the justice in 11 and 12 year sentences? especially when, if they had done what they were required to do, according to former sector chiefs, and based upon past cases, they would have been reprimanded or suspended or fired. Johnny Sutton has even said he thinks the sentence was over board. The sentence was mandatory because a gun was used in the crime, I do not think the law intended for this to apply in these circumstances. I also believe given the facts - the actual crime took place after the using of a gun, not a gun used during the commission of the crime
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Dec 28, 2008 11:47:44 GMT -7
[quote author=webrunner board=local thread=82 post=325 time=1230487136 Snil, what about these cases in your mind mitigates against the sentences they got?Basically their crime wasn't that they shot the drug runner, but that after doing so they 1) hid the evidence of the shooting, 2) did not file a report that a shooting took place. They violated the public trust by doing so and the rules of their positions -thus a criminal act. Now given that no killing took place, and not ever being able to know what they thought the guy was doing (was he armed etc) that precipitated the shooting, then the cover up is all you have conviction of. So where is the justice in 11 and 12 year sentences? especially when, if they had done what they were required to do, according to former sector chiefs, and based upon past cases, they would have been reprimanded or suspended or fired. Johnny Sutton has even said he thinks the sentence was over board. The sentence was mandatory because a gun was used in the crime, I do not think the law intended for this to apply in these circumstances. I also believe given the facts - the actual crime took place after the using of a gun, not a gun used during the commission of the crime[/quote] Snil, what they did was a bit more than hide a justifed shooting (btw why try to hide shooting that's truly justified?). Read the opinion and tell me if you still think the shooting was justified. www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-51489-CR0.wpd.pdf
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Dec 28, 2008 11:54:13 GMT -7
I guess it's a balancing act between which is the worse evil. Folks getting wildly disparate treatment for essentially the same crime or actions vs a failure to take each case on a case by case basis and limiting judicial discretion. Snil, what about these cases in your mind mitigates against the sentences they got? I can understand the need for balance, but if this were the case, there would be more demonstrable success at this point--or at least some clearer indications of fairness across the board What's more fair on a case by case basis? Limited discretion or unfettered discretion? I really don't know the answer. Both ideals are flawed but you watch, there'll be some case where some guy with a gun gets off with a slap on the wrist and the cry will once again be in favor of mandatory minimum sentences.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 28, 2008 19:16:02 GMT -7
it's already happened; I don't have the answer, in part because I don't happen to believe there really is an "ideal"....
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 30, 2008 5:21:25 GMT -7
Maybe that's part of my problem here: there's no "ideal"....but in this case, pragmatics should have some bearing on punishment, particularly in cases where mandatory minimums don't appear to be that effective or are inappropriately applied...as does happen Web
in this particular case, these two, whether or not they have "learned their lesson" and just from my point of view, this appears quite unlikely given all of the support they have enjoyed since they did what they did, will suffer the consequences for what they did for the rest of their lives
they will do so whether or not their sentences are commuted; they're in isolation now, at great cost to the taxpayers, and they're not much good to society in any other context. They are, in essence, "dirty cops" for lack of a better way to put it, and they will still some day have to rebuild their lives.
|
|