Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 103

Thread: Lenient state judges

  1. #1

    Angry Lenient state judges

    1) Judge Frances Wong - sentenced a hit-and-run driver responsible for 2 counts of negligent homicide to 18 months in prison and 5 years probation.

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...811190398/1001

    2) Judge Richard Perkins - sentenced two men guilty of setting off an explosive device that severely injured a then 11 year old girl to a combined 14 weekends in jail and community service.

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...ING01/81119051

    This is the same Judge Perkins that gave the former Miss Hawaii Tiffani Hercules zero prison time for dealing ice.

    It's sentences like this that make me think we need to have a Con Con so an amendment can be passed, making state judges an elected position.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Returned to Molokai
    Posts
    3,419

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    2) Judge Richard Perkins - sentenced two men guilty of setting off an explosive device that severely injured a then 11 year old girl to a combined 14 weekends in jail and community service.

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...ING01/81119051

    This is the same Judge Perkins that gave the former Miss Hawaii Tiffani Hercules zero prison time for dealing ice.

    It's sentences like this that make me think we need to have a Con Con so an amendment can be passed, making state judges an elected position.
    Perhaps, but one could bring up the argument using George Herbert Walker Bush.

    But I do agree with you. Perkins is the dumbest judge in Hawaii. No wonder we have dumbest criminals walking the street.
    Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

    Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

  3. #3

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Random View Post
    Perhaps, but one could bring up the argument using George Herbert Walker Bush.
    Oh, voting won't prevent incompetent judges from taking the bench, anymore than voting prevents corrupt people from becoming politicians.

    The point is,.... when someone has proven that they can't get the job done right, give people the opportunity to vote them out. Had it not been for term limits, Bush would surely have been rejected if he had run for re-election this year, right? Why not give Hawaii voters the chance to throw out stupid, overly-lenient judges? Other states do.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    I understand and appreciate your frustration, FM. But dispensing justice is a tricky thing and it isn't always black and white. Just look at Solomon in the Bible! I have a couple of friends who are judges in California (appointed by the way). I have asked them about cases they adjudicated that got a lot of press in the newspaper. Well, there is the newspaper side of the story (remember the newspaper, or TV, or magazine is not to inform people, it is to entertain people) and then there is what REALLY happened. Upon explaining to me how and why they sentenced people given the circumstances of the case, requirements of the law, innocent parties that could be affected by a sentence, and a myriad of other ancillary issues affecting a case - sentencing is not an easy or simple matter. Do my friends ever second guess themselves about some of the sentences they dispense? Absolutely, even lose sleep over it! But after explaining to me the reasons for the sentences in some cases I questioned, I began to have second thoughts about my initial reaction. I am not defending the judges or the defendents you cited, but I wont denigrate those judge's decisions without knowing more of the facts.

    With regards to elected/appointed judges, again there are pros and cons to both scenarios. Appointed judges are like tenured faculty at an institution of higher learning. Their positions are secure and they are immune to outside pressure trying to get them out of office because of unpopular positions, controversial philosophies, or independent thinking. Tenure can work well at the University level and it can work well at the judicial level. Elected judges are problematic. Since they know they will have to stand for re-election periodically, they often make decisions based on what will get them re-elected - what is popular - rather making decisions based on what is right and just. Elected judges come very close to being nothing but politicians.

    So, in summary, justice is not easy and it is not perfect. You are correct, some case decisions just don't seem to be fair. But frankly, Frankie, if the judges get it right 99% of the time, then we ain't doing too bad! My first priority is to make sure I am not one of those cases.
    Last edited by matapule; November 20th, 2008 at 05:22 AM. Reason: to please Bob Jones
    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  5. #5

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    I am not defending the judges or the defendents you cited, but I wont denigrate those judge's decisions without knowing more of the facts.
    In the case of Frances Wong, it wasn't just her leniency. It was her total incompetence. She changed her sentence on the hit-and-run driver, not once, but twice based on her incorrect interpretation of sentencing law. And because she extended the sentence on the driver from a year to 18 months, she not only has the families of the 2 dead victims angry at her, but she even has the defendant's lawyer pissed.

    Imagine that. A hit-and-run driver responsible for 2 people dead upset at getting an 18 month prison sentence. Only in Hawaii!

    And in the case of Richard Perkins, I wouldn't have brought him up except for the fact that there seems to be a pattern of excessive leniency on his part. You want to carefully pick through all the facts in the case, be my guest. I see a pattern and I'm not afraid to call out "BS!" when I see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    With regards to elected/appointed judges, again there are pros and cons to both scenarios. Appointed judges are like tenured faculty at an institution of higher learning. Their positions are secure and they are immune to outside pressure trying to get them out of office because of unpopular positions, controversial philosophies, or independent thinking. Tenure can work well at the University level and it can work well at the judicial level. Elected judges are problematic. Since they know they will have to stand for re-election periodically, they often make decisions based on what will get them re-elected - what is popular - rather making decisions based on what is right and just. Elected judges come very close to being nothing but politicians.
    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. And anytime judges are thrown out of their jobs, whether it be through a public vote or through a secretive commission, you'll always hear cries and complaints about politics being the culprit. When does any judge publically admit that they lost their job because they screwed up? Let's get real here.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Electing your judges is a good start, but just a start. New York elects their judges, but it's still a proverbial cesspool 1 2 3 (and that's just in a county with a DA with the stones to prosecute a sitting judge). You also need a state judicial conduct commission with complete transparency, so complaints don't get dismissed by connected committee members and sealed away under the guise of privacy. It would be a plus if some members of the commission were 'civilians', or non-lawyers, but even that needs to be kept under strict scrutiny to make sure cronyism is severely minimized.

    We also need to do more Operation Greylords, but that's talking federal level action.
    Last edited by Vanguard; November 20th, 2008 at 12:33 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    K-Town
    Posts
    2,497

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Returned to Molokai
    Posts
    3,419

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    I understand and appreciate your frustration, FM. But dispensing justice is a tricky thing and it isn't always black and white. Just look at Solomon in the Bible! I have a couple of friends who are judges in California (appointed by the way). I have asked them about cases they adjudicated that got a lot of press in the newspaper. Well, there is the newspaper side of the story (remember the newspaper, or TV, or magazine is not to inform people, it is to entertain people) and then there is what REALLY happened. Upon explaining to me how and why they sentenced people given the circumstances of the case, requirements of the law, innocent parties that could be affected by a sentence, and a myriad of other ancillary issues affecting a case - sentencing is not an easy or simple matter. Do my friends ever second guess themselves about some of the sentences they dispense? Absolutely, even lose sleep over it! But after explaining to me the reasons for the sentences in some cases I questioned, I began to have second thoughts about my initial reaction. I am not defending the judges or the defendents you cited, but I wont denigrate those judge's decisions without knowing more of the facts.

    With regards to elected/appointed judges, again there are pros and cons to both scenarios. Appointed judges are like tenured faculty at an institution of higher learning. Their positions are secure and they are immune to outside pressure trying to get them out of office because of unpopular positions, controversial philosophies, or independent thinking. Tenure can work well at the University level and it can work well at the judicial level. Elected judges are problematic. Since they know they will have to stand for re-election periodically, they often make decisions based on what will get them re-elected - what is popular - rather making decisions based on what is right and just. Elected judges come very close to being nothing but politicians.

    So, in summary, justice is not easy and it is not perfect. You are correct, some case decisions just don't seem to be fair. But frankly, Frankie, if the judges get it right 99% of the time, then we ain't doing too bad! My first priority is to make sure I am not one of those cases.
    So, by your logic, the media exaggerated or embellished the hand injury that was inflicted on the girl (who was young at the time) to rationalize a more serious punishment than 12 weekends in jails. Weekends. That's 2 or 2-and-a-half days out of the whole week every week. Not counting the 5-year probation.

    I don't think it SEEMS unfair, I think it IS unfair.
    Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

    Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Returned to Molokai
    Posts
    3,419

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Seems the list of lenient judges in Hawaii is growing...

    Add Virginia Crandall for sentencing a child abuser Rita Makekau just 5 years in prison for the 4-year torture of her nieces, nephews, and her daughter's children.

    Oh, and get this. High makamaka Rita prefers to be called Her Royal Highness for being an officer of a Hawaiian Sovereignty Group. Talk about a model spokesperson. Yeah, right.

    To that group, kick the demented, retarded lady out. Your Hawaiian Sovereignty Group should protect your future that are your children from that fat, ginormous monster.

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...e=rss_breaking
    Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

    Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

  10. #10

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Random View Post
    So, by your logic, the media exaggerated or embellished the hand injury that was inflicted on the girl (who was young at the time) to rationalize a more serious punishment than 12 weekends in jails. Weekends. That's 2 or 2-and-a-half days out of the whole week every week. Not counting the 5-year probation.

    I don't think it SEEMS unfair, I think it IS unfair.
    Call me hotheaded. Call me vengeful. But if that was my daughter who was the victim in the case, then Judge Perkins had better hope that we never meet up outside the courthouse. Otherwise, he'll end up getting surgery in the hospital with a fractured hand.

    And I would be more than happy to pay for that pleasure with 12 weekends in jail.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Okay, I'm going to let you be the judge. Justice isn't always easy. Here is a true case. You have all the evidence. You make the decision!




    A legal question:













    Is this statutory rape???





    Or is It just a moosedemeanor. ....

    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  12. #12

    Default 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?

    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. (Look up the difference between First degree murder, Second degree murder and manslaughter. All three result in a dead body.)

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

    I don't see any point to demanding a pound of flesh for their punishment. First of all, that's putting them up at taxpayer expense. They get put away where they can learn a new "trade". Then when they get out and try to find a job that will take a ex-prisoner, they may have to resort to this new "trade" to put food on the table. 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.

    And then between prison crowding and the number of convicted car thieves still out there, I have to wonder just what murderer or rapist they have to release to jail these two. Jailing every guilty party is how we got into this mess.

    As for deterrence for others - well, first you have to convince the deviants that they will get caught. <sigh>

    So the real question isn't the lenient sentences - are these people staying out of trouble? If so, then why get upset?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    K-Town
    Posts
    2,497

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Prisons have only become expensive in the last 35-40 years.

    Some crackpot came up with the idea that prisoners have rights. And need good medical care. And hot food, blankets, clothing, mattresses, televisions, weight sets, basketball hoops, counselors, group meetings, and rehabilitation.

    All of you know the reason why prisons have become expensive.

    Hint: It's a one word answer.
    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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,....

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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!*
    Last edited by Frankie's Market; November 28th, 2008 at 11:13 PM.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    (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?




    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.....)

  18. #18

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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&#37; 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!
    Last edited by Frankie's Market; November 29th, 2008 at 07:50 AM.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  19. #19

    Default 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.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Adri View Post
    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.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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!

  22. #22

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Frankie's Market; November 29th, 2008 at 01:44 PM.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  23. #23

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    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.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Returned to Molokai
    Posts
    3,419

    Default Re: Lenient state judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    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."
    Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

    Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •