Lenient state judges

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Lenient state judges

An appropriate sentence would be one that is just severe enough to:

1) deter the offender from committing the same crime again, and

2) discourage other people from committing the crime in the first place.

I'm glad you said "just severe enough" because that was my main point. But then we get into the subjective part about how much is enough to accomplish all that and how much suffering they caused a 11 yo girl.

I've never heard anyone say "ah, don't worry about it - it's only a few weekends in jail". (Maybe I just don't run with the wrong crowd?) Do you have any data to back your belief on what it takes or should we just agree to disagree on this?

[matapule]

Re: Lenient state judges

I really have to stand with matapule on this one,

I feel faint......someone get me some smelling salts!

[TuNnL]

Re: Lenient state judges

Even when judges in this state are thrown off the bench by the judicial selection commission (like in the case of Sandra Simms), her supporters still moaned and cried about backroom "politics" playing a role in her firing. So while your point is noted, don't kid yourself that the current system of selecting/retaining judges are free from politics either.

I really have to stand with matapule on this one, and explore this further. There's a difference between “backroom politics playing a role” and total immersion in politics. That’s what voting judges in and out by the American electorate would bring. Politics=voting=politics. I don’t want the same boobtubers who voted Dubya into office twice, deciding the fate of judges. Why aren’t Americans allowed to vote on impeachment? Do we allow any and every registered voter to serve on juries?

Justice is supposed to be blind. There’s a certain purity that will be forever soiled when bring hopelessly blantant and unapologetic politics into the court’s every move. And for the record, just because other states allow what you recommend, doesn’t mean it would be a good fit for Hawai‘i.

[Random]

Re: Lenient state judges

Yes, they have committed a crime. I'm not arguing against the conviction. The question at hand is sentencing. Sentencing someone beyond "teaching a lesson" serves little purpose. There's a term in the military for it which escapes me right now.

Little purpose? 12 weekends in jail is not going to teach them a lesson. 12 weeks would, AT LEAST. Hammer the lesson into their brain.

I can accept the 12 weekends in jail if they include the doofuses wearing ridiculous sign of what they did to the poor girl and stand on the busy public curb for the five other days of the week. That way, guys like FM can come up to them and give them a piece of their mind.

If they get a lenient criminal sentence, I can only pray they get a harsh civil suit damage ... beyond "teaching the lesson."

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Lenient state judges

Define "appropriate". Specifically, how to determine the appropriate sentence.

An appropriate sentence would be one that is just severe enough to:

1) deter the offender from committing the same crime again, and

2) discourage other people from committing the crime in the first place.

In the case of those bombers, I would have given them prison sentences of 4 years each, with the possibility of parole after 2 years for good behavior.

YVMV, of course.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Lenient state judges

All that I'm saying is that if sentences/punishments are appropriate to the crime, that will go a long way to reducing (not totally eliminating) repeat offenders and it will act as a better deterrent to other people so as to make them think twice before committing the same mistake themselves.

Define "appropriate". Specifically, how to determine the appropriate sentence.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Lenient state judges

My point was that intent was/is a legal factor in criminal law. It's a valid criteria to use in determining punishment.

Funny how that factor doesn't seem to work in DUI cases, does it not? Clyde Arakawa didn't intend to kill Dana Ambrose. Didn't keep him out of prison, did it?

I take it you do? Do tell.

Well since you asked,....

For three years, the DOE assigned me to work half a day in Halawa teaching a class of inmates. (Except on days when there were lockdowns or shakedowns.) I wouldn't for a moment presume to say that this experience gave me a feeling for what an inmate feels. But I did have time to interact with a few of them and talk about what was going on in their lives. None, and I mean NONE, of them liked the idea of losing their freedom, privacy, and having their schedules and lives being regimented.

OTOH, you and you alone have been the only person I have encountered up to now who thinks that being locked up and incarcerated 24/7 is preferable to only being jailed on the weekends. Virtually every inmate would jump at the chance for a work-release opportunity.

But no. "You" know better.

What a joke!

There was a big change in public attitude at that time. The tougher laws was a result of that. It's hard to distinguish what the laws themselves did.

Using the "tail wagging the dog" argument now, are we?

The DUI laws in each state got tougher during the 1980s due in no small part to the very passionate and effective lobbying by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Call MADD whatever you want. But Candy Lightner didn't start that organization primarily with the idea of educating the general public. First and foremost, she wanted government to take drunk driving seriously and to treat offenders as criminals. The organization that she started has to be specially credited with influencing lawmakers on both the federal/state level. To ignore the contributions of MADD and to chalk up the 1980s trend of tougher DUI laws/standards to some kind of random "general awakening" in public attitude is totally naive.

The tougher laws that were lobbied for and eventually passed didn't give motorists any choice. Even if John Doe had a high tolerance for alcohol and was able to safely drive himself home from the local watering hole for the last 25 years w/o getting into a single accident despite a high BAC, he could now be arrested if he is pulled over by a cop and found to be over the legal limit.

So if you want to think that society has (over the last quarter-century or so) now has become conscientious of DUI because of the sad tales of needless death and destruction, that is no doubt true for a significant segment of the population. But you would be fooling yourself if you didn't think that there are many who now take DUI seriously primarily because they don't want to risk losing their license.

AFAIAC, whatever motivates people, the key is that it discourages people from driving under the influence. That's all that matters.

Gee, why don't we make all laws mandatory life sentence? No one would ever break a law again! Repeat offenders would be unknown!

Well, look around on this thread. You're the only person who's suggesting that.

All that I'm saying is that if sentences/punishments are appropriate to the crime, that will go a long way to reducing (not totally eliminating) repeat offenders and it will act as a better deterrent to other people so as to make them think twice before committing the same mistake themselves. First time DUI offenders having their license suspended for up to 90 days is enough to make most motorists at least give pause before they think about getting behind the wheel after a few drinks.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Lenient state judges

But remember, you've built your whole argument on the idea that unintended consequences should be a mitigating factor in determining punishment.

My point was that intent was/is a legal factor in criminal law. It's a valid criteria to use in determining punishment.

Whatever. If you have no personal experience to back up this kind of talk, then that is exactly what it is. Talk.

I take it you do? Do tell.

Seems to me that the tougher laws are doing just fine when it comes to discouraging drunks from getting behind the wheel, whether it be first-time or potential repeat offenders.

There was a big change in public attitude at that time. The tougher laws was a result of that. It's hard to distinguish what the laws themselves did.

Again what does it take to work? If it took tougher punishment to deal with DUI, then so be it. What does that have to do with the two clown under discussion?

Gee, why don't we make all laws mandatory life sentence? No one would ever break a law again! Repeat offenders would be unknown!

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Lenient state judges

I've heard judges complaining about mandatory sentences because they'd rather have complete discretion to sentence each person as the judge sees fit but we have mandatory sentences because we don't entirely trust our judges to sentence appropriately.

Hawaii now has mandatory sentencing laws, thanks to a corrupt judge named Harold Shintaku. Shintaku was not merely lenient or incompetent.... He was a crook. Actually had the gall to overturn a jury's guilty verdict of Charlie Stevens for a double murder case and set the organized crime leader free. (Stevens testified in a later trial that he paid off Shintaku.) The judicial misconduct caused such a public uproar that the state legislature instituted the reforms that would prevent a gross miscarriage of justice like that to happen again.

Unfortunately, even with mandatory sentencing law, misguided and wrong-headed judges still have a lot of leeway to inappropriately defer and/or give light punishment with callous disregard for the victims.

[Adri]

Re: Lenient state judges

What about Judge Michael Town letting Ernie Gomez stay out of jail not just while he was appealing his conviction of beating his wife and threatening her with a semiautomatic gun in front of their children but even after he lost all appeals while he sought a pardon from the Governor? Gomez had a mandatory prison sentence for using the gun as part of his abuse but Town thought he shouldn't go to jail at least in part because (something to the effect of) "Gomez behaved impecably in court even though Gomez didn't behave impecably on the day he abused his wife"? Gomez wasn't disputing that he beat his wife and threatened her life with a semiautomatic weapon, he just didn't think he should have to go to jail for it. I've heard judges complaining about mandatory sentences because they'd rather have complete discretion to sentence each person as the judge sees fit but we have mandatory sentences because we don't entirely trust our judges to sentence appropriately.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Lenient state judges

The average person understands the danger of a car wreck. The average person probably doesn't understand how powerful an explosive they are making.

No kidding about car wrecks being dangerous. (As if anyone here said otherwise.) But remember, you've built your whole argument on the idea that unintended consequences should be a mitigating factor in determining punishment.

I repeat what I said earlier: Street racers don't start out with the intention of deliberately getting into a car wreck that ends up hurting or killing other people. So what makes them any different from someone who sets off a homemade bomb who likewise had no intention of hurting or killing other people?

Uh huh. Your argument is looking more and more flimsy than a house of cards.

I think the human spirit is quite resilient. Oh, 24/7 will be horrible at first. But I think after a year a person would tend to acclimate.

Whatever. If you have no personal experience to back up this kind of talk, then that is exactly what it is. Talk.

Sure! Why not? As long as we can find a punishment that successfully prevents repeat offenders. (Gee, there seems to be a pattern here.....)

Yes. Here's a pattern for you.

Since the penalties for DUI have gotten tougher, the percentage of alcohol-related deaths when compared to the total number of traffic fatalities has gone down. And this is backed up by statistics, not cheap talk.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-dr...tatistics.html

In 1982, 60% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol related. In 2006, that same figure dropped to 37%.

Seems to me that the tougher laws are doing just fine when it comes to discouraging drunks from getting behind the wheel, whether it be first-time or potential repeat offenders.

But no, you actually want to go back to the days when well over half of the traffic deaths were alcohol related? You don't mind having over 10,000 more people dying in alcohol related accidents every year?

Please do everyone a favor and don't run for political office!

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Lenient state judges

Well, street racers just want to experience driving at a high speed and beating the other guy.

The average person understands the danger of a car wreck. The average person probably doesn't understand how powerful an explosive they are making.

Then I guess the crux of the matter is,.... exactly what punishment is appropriate.

If by appropriate you mean what does it take for the culprits to not do that again, then we're in agreement.

(Considering weekends in jail as being favorable compared to being incarerated 24/7 in a prison facility. Oh-puhleeeze!!!)

I think the human spirit is quite resilient. Oh, 24/7 will be horrible at first. But I think after a year a person would tend to acclimate.

But again, what does it take to prevent repeat offenders?

With your kind of thinking, the severity of DUI laws would be scaled back to what it was 30 years ago.

Sure! Why not? As long as we can find a punishment that successfully prevents repeat offenders. (Gee, there seems to be a pattern here.....)

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Lenient state judges

Probably a big bang. The bucket may have been to direct the blast upward. They didn't realize it would shred it instead.

Well, street racers just want to experience driving at a high speed and beating the other guy. They don't start out "intending" to hurt or kill other people. But regardless of intentions, street racing presents an endangerment, both to the racers and other innocent motorists.

You may think a 30 day prison sentence for a first offense on racing/reckless driving is too strict. I say, such a punishment is nothing, NOTHING, compared to the physical and emotional pain and trauma that both the racer and the victim's family will feel should the law be so lenient as to give street racers slaps on the wrist until someone gets killed. Likewise, making and setting off bombs presents a potential endangerment. People have gotten hurt and killed in the past. Waiting for someone to be killed before taking decisive action on the matter is asinine, to the extreme.

Yes, they have committed a crime. I'm not arguing against the conviction. The question at hand is sentencing. Sentencing someone beyond "teaching a lesson" serves little purpose. There's a term in the military for it which escapes me right now.

Then I guess the crux of the matter is,.... exactly what punishment is appropriate. You're entitled to your opinion on that, however warped it may be. (Considering weekends in jail as being favorable compared to being incarerated 24/7 in a prison facility. Oh-puhleeeze!!!)

With your kind of thinking, the severity of DUI laws would be scaled back to what it was 30 years ago. Scary.

Big deal, officer! *hic!* Sorry for knocking over da fire hyrdrant. But I nevah mean to hurt nobody. I can make 'um back home. Trust me! *hic!*

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Lenient state judges

All right. Then what was the actual intent of those two guys making and setting off that bomb in a public street?

Probably a big bang. The bucket may have been to direct the blast upward. They didn't realize it would shred it instead.

Maybe you consider that a prank. The law considers that as a criminal act of vandalism and property damage.

So in this particular case, it doesn't matter what the exact intentions of the 2 bombers were. With or without anybody getting hurt, what they were doing was a crime, pure and simple. And in any society that hopes to perpetuate a sense of law and order, persons caught red-handed committing a crime have to be appropriately punished.

Yes, they have committed a crime. I'm not arguing against the conviction. The question at hand is sentencing. Sentencing someone beyond "teaching a lesson" serves little purpose. There's a term in the military for it which escapes me right now.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Lenient state judges

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think there some other issues here.

First, what is the purpose of punishment? A deterrent to others? A way to modify the behavior of the guilty party? Or a way to get them to atone for their sins?

All of them. No reason on Earth why they each have to be mutually exclusive.

Yes, an 11-yo girl was hurt, but that wasn't anywhere in their intent. I think you're judging the results, not the intent.

All right. Then what was the actual intent of those two guys making and setting off that bomb in a public street? Merely to damage other people's cars with shrapnel?

Maybe you consider that a prank. The law considers that as a criminal act of vandalism and property damage.

So in this particular case, it doesn't matter what the exact intentions of the 2 bombers were. With or without anybody getting hurt, what they were doing was a crime, pure and simple. And in any society that hopes to perpetuate a sense of law and order, persons caught red-handed committing a crime have to be appropriately punished.

If these clowns never touch another explosive device again, I'm happy. Their behavior has been modified.

How do you know that for sure? Just because they were apologetic to the judge before getting sentenced?

Must be nice to imagine yourself living in a world where there is no such thing as a "repeat" offender.

But getting back to the real world,....

Working all week and going to prison sounds like the worst of both worlds. Go to jail for 5 years, you'll adjust. It will be home. Go to jail on weekend and it's likely to stay a place you'll hate.

Unless you have actually been a prison inmate, this statement is a complete and utter joke.