Today's Post Of Stupidity(r)!

[goldfish]

Law professor Eugene Volokh has some commentary and research on this one:

UPDATE: Ken Lammers at CrimLaw has done more research than either CNN/Reuters or I did, and the result is something of a lesson about the need to fact-check (or perhaps I should say "law-check") news reports, even from reputable sources. As Ken points out, the Oklahoma statute that punishes spitting on a government employee doesn't specify the punishment for the crime, instead just declaring it a felony. Thus, the general provision for punishment of felonies should apply--and it provides for a fine of up to $1000 and imprisonment for up to two years, not life in prison. Ken surmises--almost certainly correctly--that the judge imposed the sentence in this case pursuant to the State's multiple offender statute. That isn't quite the same as sentencing the defendant to life in prison "for spitting on a police officer," I think. It might be more accurate to say he was sentenced to life in prison for being a recidivist jerk. (The original CNN/Reuters article did give some hint of this when it mentioned the defendant's previous convictions, but asserted that the spitting in and of itself was punishable by a life sentence.) This sentence may survive appeal after all.

See http://volokh.com/2003_06_29_volokh_archiv...734608297285168

However, Jeralyn Merritt, an attorney, makes the argument that the sentence is excessive:

They point out that the life sentence was allowed by the state's repeat offender laws. Allowed, yes. Required, no. We'd point out there's a big difference.

This Houston Chronicle article makes it clear that it was not a mandatory repeat offender sentence, but rather, one imposed by the Judge, who followed the jury's recommendation, made after 15 minutes of deliberation, despite the prosecutor's and defense attorney's requests for a lesser sentence.

. . .

Yes, biting and spitting is bad. But both the officer and defendant were tested for communicable diseases after the incident and both tested negative. Also, according to the officer's testimony, the biting occurred while the officer was physically attempting to restrain the defendant from spitting a second time. Thus, it was a defensive gesture.

The sentence is excessive, and we are offended that a judge would give credence to a jury who voted for life in prison after 15 minutes of deliberation given the facts of this case--especially when the lawyers on both sides asked for a lesser sentence.

See http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003618.html#003618

For me, that is the most troubling about this sentence -- that even the prosecutor didn't think life in prison was appropriate. In my (limited) experience, it is extremely rare for a sentence to be above what the prosecutor asks for.