Today's Post Of Stupidity(r)!

[WarLocke]

Read it here.

This makes me sad for the human race. Cockroaches, kill us now.

- WL

[goldfish]

Different news outlets carry different levels of detail

Marquez, 35, was convicted of hurling body fluids on Sapulpa Officer Charles Gadd while Gadd was taking Marquez to jail following a domestic disturbance in which a woman's arm was broken.

The 1996 state law that makes it a felony to place bodily fluids on law enforcement officers was enacted amid concerns that deadly diseases, such as AIDS, could be transmitted this way.

Gadd told the jury that Marquez spit on him despite being warned and then bit him when Gadd was trying to prevent Marquez from spitting again.

Gadd and Marquez tested negative for any communicable diseases.

The jury took 15 minutes on May 14 to recommend the life sentence. Marquez's prior felony convictions, including rape and burglary, were taken into consideration in determining the sentence.

(See This News Report)

Still a pretty harsh sentence. But given the crime he was arrested for (breaking woman's arm), the fact that he was warned and bit the officer afterward, and the prior convictions, it is more understandable. (And of course, it may well be reversed on appeal.

EDIT: Link.

[Zarathustra]

If you ask me, he didn't get that sentence due to spitting in the officer's face. They just used that as an excuse to jail the <expletive deleted> for beating his wife. I do not pity him.

[HonorTemplar]

Well he DID beat his wife after all...

[Faragon]

Finally a lawyer who uses loopholes in the law to jail those who belong there, instead of making them walk. :)

Seriously, life may be a bit harsh, but seeing what the guy did, it's clear they're dealing with a totall you-know-what, and he deserves some time in the comforting arms of Bubba, the 250 pound celmate ;)

[[wcip]Angel]

Marquez's prior felony convictions, including rape

Rape? And people think sentencing this man to life in prison was to harsh? That -is- stupid!

[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.

[Quark]

Putting the man in jail for life? Not a bad thing.

It should have been done for rape, not for spitting.

Unless you think that the ends always justify the means?

[Nystul]

It should have been done for rape, not for spitting.

Absolutely.

Unless you think that the ends always justify the means?

It's tough to call this justice. He basically got busted on a technicality. I consider resisting arrest a serious matter, but it would seem that if he resisted arrest without using his spit and teeth he would have gotten off with a much lighter sentence. That said, if I were on a jury, we had a repeat offender law affecting sentencing, and the group of offenses looked like this guy's rap sheet apparently does, I'd reccomend the maximum sentence too.

That's kind of a case of getting punished twice for the same crime, but it's also kind of a case of "Enough is enough."

[Occhidiangela]

IMO, the Supreme Court needs to take a good hard look at them. I firmly believe that

1) the punishment should fit the crime
2) once debt is paid to society, it is paid. I honestly feel that the Three Strikes approach is a sentencing version of double jeopardy. It is also a discarding of a citizen completely, so why not just put a bullet in his head? He/she is already being thrown in the trash, figuratively speaking.

[goldfish]

Lots of posters are opining that h should be sentenced to life in prison for rape.

Two things to note here:

First, we don't know the background of that conviction. He may have been given a lighter sentence due to a weaker case, etc.

Second, and most importantly --

It is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL that in non-death-penalty states, rapists are NOT generally sentenced to life in prison.

That is, the penalty for rape must ALWAYS be less than the penalty for murder.

Why? Because otherwise the rapist loses nothing by simply killing his victim. When the penalty for rape is the same as the penalty for murder, the result is a lot of dead rape victims. The rapist has nothing to lose from killing the victim (same penalty), and a lot to gain (since the victim is the best witness against him).

China had this happen a few years back when they revised their criminal code. Both rape and murder were capital crimes, and the result was that rapists killed their victims. When they realized this result, they changed the criminal code.

[--Pete]

Hi,

What is the difference between a bad person and a person who has done something bad? A good person can do something bad because of circumstances, poor judgment, or any number of factors. A fitting punishment, and they've learned their lesson. A bad person repeats their bad actions in spite of punishment.

Society does not need to protect themselves from good people that make a mistake because these people are not a threat. It does need to protect itself from bad people, because these are a threat, they are predators.

Recently I looked up some crime statistics. Between one third and one half of the persons released from prison for a crime are in prison for that or a similar crime within one year of release. Most crime is committed by habitual criminals. Three strikes is one more bite than a dog gets.

the punishment should fit the crime

I disagree. It should fit the criminal.

once debt is paid to society, it is paid.

This presupposes that the primary purpose of the criminal system is to punish and thus rehabilitate criminals (which only works in some cases). The primary purpose is to protect society. If that can't be done by rehabilitation, then some other means must be used. A person who has chosen to cut himself off from society through repeated criminal acts is a person that society should ban. Since being transported is no longer an option, incarceration or death are the only remaining options.

It is also a discarding of a citizen completely, so why not just put a bullet in his head?

I realize this was both rhetorical and sarcastic. However, I agree with the literal interpretation. But the reason it cannot be done is the excessive veneration some of our society has for life. But that's another day's battle :)

--Pete

[WarLocke]

realize this was both rhetorical and sarcastic. However, I agree with the literal interpretation. But the reason it cannot be done is the excessive veneration some of our society has for life. But that's another day's battle

Another problem with this would be the "oops, look at the new evidence, he wasn't guilty after all!" factor. It is indeed a tough balancing act.

- WL

[Occhidiangela]

The punishment should fit the crime

I disagree. It should fit the criminal.

I suppose it needs to fit both, but you make an interesting point. Problem is, fitting punishment to the criminal raises the theoretical argument that fairness and equal protection is not being applied, rather a "custom fit justice system" would be what was applied. Somewhere, in the back of my head, the idea of punishment need fitting the crimnial --makes sense to me-- gets caught in slippery slope arguments where "tailored" sentencing evolves into "if you are Hispanic, you get four years, Asian, you get 3, Anglo, you get 2, and Black gets 7" or abuses of that sort.

However, if we could make the punishment fit the criminal, you hit Martha Stewart, if convicted of securities violations, massively in the wallet, which is where rich people really feel pain: all court costs, tripled, and ___ fine consistent with whatever SEC rule she violated, tripled (due to not just paying her fine and promising to be a good girl in the future) and repay SEC for the time they spent on her case. That would be, in my view, a nice piece of tailored justice, custom fit to both the criminal and the crime.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Somewhere, in the back of my head, the idea of punishment need fitting the crimnial --makes sense to me-- gets caught in slippery slope arguments where "tailored" sentencing evolves into "if you are Hispanic, you get four years, Asian, you get 3, Anglo, you get 2, and Black gets 7" or abuses of that sort.

There is a fine line between discrimination and *discrimination* :)

"Blacks can't ride this roller coaster" is *discrimination*.

"People under 4' 6" can't ride this roller coaster" is discrimination.

The difference? One is arbitrary, the other one is not.

The "slippery slope" argument seems to be able to be used against anything. Race, religion, national origin, etc. have nothing to do with whether a person is a criminal or just made a mistake. Previous crimes do. For each previous conviction, double the penalties for the present crime. On the third conviction, a ten year sentence becomes forty -- might as well be life.

As for fines, I think a percentage of disposable income would be a much fairer way to asses them. If two people pay the same amount for the same action, but for one it means less food and for the other less time on the golf course, then they aren't being punished equally. Perhaps fines should be eliminated completely and corporal punishment used instead. Ten lashes with a cane will "cost" the beggar and the millionaire about the same. ;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

"People under 4' 6" can't ride this roller coaster" is discrimination.

I suddenly had the mental image of Billy Barty, and extras from Munchkin land, picketing the line at the Santa Monica West Coaster.

I think fines need to be uniform. Otherwise, they would violate the equal protection clause. But, I do think that restitution based on your ability to pay could be included in addition to a fine.

The problem I have with the application of 3 strikes laws is that many times the 1st, 2nd, and/or the 3rd offense are classified as felonies, but are either trivially so, or are victimless crimes.

The 16th century notions of justice while severe, also fully redeemed the offenders status with the community. Once justice had been served, you were considered to be of the same status as before the crime had been committed.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I suddenly had the mental image of Billy Barty, and extras from Munchkin land, picketing the line at the Santa Monica West Coaster.

Yeah. My solution: get them to sign a waver of all claims against the park. Then let them ride and let them die. We can't protect people from themselves and we probably shouldn't even try -- makes for a better gene pool. :)

I think fines need to be uniform. Otherwise, they would violate the equal protection clause. But, I do think that restitution based on your ability to pay could be included in addition to a fine.

Other than semantics, what's the difference between "fines based on ability to pay" and "uniform fines, plus (I presume mandatory) restitution based on ability to pay"? That's too fine (hehehe) a distinction for me. :)

The problem I have with the application of 3 strikes laws is that many times the 1st, 2nd, and/or the 3rd offense are classified as felonies, but are either trivially so, or are victimless crimes.

Mixing two issues here. One is the question of the difference between habitual criminals and people who've made a mistake. The other is the question of the screwed up laws we live under (and the USA as much or more than most). Because *some* of the laws are wrong (or at least "wrong-headed"), should we then throw out all the laws? That is what our mostly ignorant and stupid society has done -- thus the driving, drinking, and drug laws have succeeded mostly in making the USA an "outlaw" society. Observing what has happened and understanding why does not mean that one must accept the status quo.

I, for one, want both a reduction in unnecessary and intrusive restrictions and much increased punishment for violation of those things which indeed should be crimes. Maximum freedom coupled with maximum responsibility. In this, at least, I am no moderate.

The 16th century notions of justice while severe, also fully redeemed the offenders status with the community. Once justice had been served, you were considered to be of the same status as before the crime had been committed.

Ever hear the phrase, "Forgiven but not forgotten"? Each individual builds up a reputation. We do that financially (hence credit reports), we do that educationally (hence curricula vitae), and so on. If one has a reputation for honesty, one is believed. There is nothing wrong with judging a person by their past -- it is the best indicator of their future. If the past is mostly lawful marred with a mistake, that person committed a crime, but is not necessarily a criminal. If that past is filled with crimes, be they big or small, that person is a criminal. At worse, that person is a menace to society. At best, that person is only a nuisance (but even a buzzing fly gets swatted).

One cannot undo one's education. One cannot undo one's work history or marriage history. One is stuck with one's credit history. Why should not the history of abiding, or not, with the law matter?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Then let them ride and let them die.

That works. You should have the right to be stupid, but then the roller coaster is the park's property.

Other than semantics, what's the difference between "fines based on ability to pay" and "uniform fines, plus (I presume mandatory) restitution based on ability to pay"?

To me, it seems the "Fine" is the punishment, in lieu of say a jail sentence. But, restitution is arbitrary, and determined by a judge. Many times I've noticed around my area that those with the means to pay more, are levied the maximum fine, and also asked to pay large amounts in "restitution". They also tend to be sentenced more often to many hours of community service, and "the work house". The work house is a detention program which allows the convicted to leave the minimum security jail to go to work only. The poor criminals seemed to be judged as able to contribute less to society and so get prison terms.

I, for one, want both a reduction in unnecessary and intrusive restrictions and much increased punishment for violation of those things which indeed should be crimes. Maximum freedom coupled with maximum responsibility. In this, at least, I am no moderate.

I'm with you. I'm ready for the pendulum to swing back to normality. I'm in favor of a system that treats violent crimes like rape, armed robbery, and murder as the most serious crimes.

Ever hear the phrase... ...At best, that person is only a nuisance (but even a buzzing fly gets swatted).

I think a judge and jury should be able to consider the nature of prior similiar convictions, but to a limit. If you are busted for some youthful mistake, how long should that crime haunt one, once the justice is satisfied. There have been many cases publicized lately where youthful indiscretions are factored into felony convictions 10 - 20 years later.

Here are some examples; Families to Amend California's Three-Strikes (FACTS)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Here are some examples; Families to Amend California's Three-Strikes (FACTS)

One hundred fifty cases. How often has the law been applied. What does 150 cases represent? 90%? 10%? 0.0001%? Anyone looking for perfection (as opposed to striving for it) is a fool. We are an imperfect species in an imperfect world. If this law is working correctly over 95% of the time, then that's good enough for me. If the other 5% are people so *stupid* as to continue to commit "crimes" and get caught, they're probably better off in jail anyway.

The list in the link you gave is pure crap anyway. Look at the first case, "stealing a spare tire". Makes it sound so innocent. Now look at the *other* two crimes: residential burglary and residential burglary. You know, the kind that breaks into your house, rips off what can be ripped off, destroys most of the rest. Probably kills your pets, and if you are unlucky enough to be home, kills you too.

Just clicking on the links in that table, at random, I keep running across "residential burglary", usually two or three times as the prior bad acts. So, the third (or fourth, or fifth, or . . . ) offense *that they actually got caught for* might have been something comparatively minor. Given that for each conviction, they probably got away with half a dozen other crimes, these all belong in jail (or on an island about a thousand miles from civilization). These aren't people who "made a mistake", these are what used to be called ha-bitches (habitual criminals). For every years this scum spends in jail, the number of robberies, etc. goes down by fifty or more.

To paraphrase an old saying: "A person can make a mistake, that's happenstance. They can make two mistakes, that's coincidence. But if they make three mistakes, that's enemy action." Drop stealing tires and possessing drugs as crimes, and from the ones I looked at, those people should still be in jail for life for the other crap they pulled.

Sorry, but I think your "evidence", when examined closely, weakens your argument.

--Pete