minimum mandatory sentences

Rune said:
No.
More than 100 times that much in one fire alone.
Here is a hint for you dmbfuck; research first post second.
Remember google is your (Only) friend.
Click to expand...

First of all, I said "I believe" indicating I didn't remember for sure. Then to demonstrate your complete stupidity, you insult me for .. agreeing with you ...

Talk about being a dmbfuck
 
Rune said:
No.
More than 100 times that much in one fire alone.
Here is a hint for you dmbfuck; research first post second.
Remember google is your (Only) friend.
Click to expand...
The almost killed their nephew, he had to take to a creek to survive. There is also a claim that his uncle abused him and would have caused him further harm for his testimony against them if they were to see him. So sad.
 
Rana said:
The almost killed their nephew, he had to take to a creek to survive. There is also a claim that his uncle abused him and would have caused him further harm for his testimony against them if they were to see him. So sad.
Click to expand...

They were certainly not nice people.
The heros the cons choose always surprises me...
 
Rune said:
No.
More than 100 times that much in one fire alone.
Here is a hint for you dmbfuck; research first post second.
Remember google is your (Only) friend.
Click to expand...

Which they claim was the result of a lightening strike.....did they prove otherwise ?
 
Jarod said:
Yes, five years for Arson of land against a man with no prior criminal record is a huge sentence...

But thats what happens when you have minimum mandatory sentences.

These Con-Queda members have a beef with the Conservatives not the liberals like they think.
Click to expand...

whats your opinion on the three strike sentence law?
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
If you review their case the repeated arson was only part of their crime.
Witnesses say they slaughtered a whole herd of mule deer on BLM land hours before the blaze was set to cover evidence of that crime up.
Their disregard for human life when they were told specifically not to light a back fire because there were campers and firefighters in that area.
Had they been a little less lucky they would now be convicted of manslaughter on federal land and would be facing the mandatory death penalty...
Five years was light, IMHO.
Click to expand...

You are convicted for a particular crime. In this case, arson, not for the alleged, imaginary motive of the crime. FOOL.
 
NOVA said:
A little history....


Dwight Hammond and his son, Steve, were taken to federal court for the 2001 fire. Steve was also charged for the 2006 back fire. The father and son were tried and convicted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, created by Congress in response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Under the Act’s minimum sentencing requirements, both Hammonds faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall stated: “The verdict sends an important message to those who think that they are above the law.”

But in the October, 2012 sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan reduced Dwight’s sentence to three months and Steve Hammonds sentence to one year, based on his belief that such a harsh sentence was not what Congress intended in creating the statute. “It just would not be – would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality,” Judge Hogan stated.

The men completed their sentences and repaid about $400,000 in damages to the government.

Arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, according to the U.S. District Attorney's Office, but the Hammonds successfully argued during their sentencing that the mandatory minimum was unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the decision, and a federal judge in October sentenced them both to five years in prison with credit for time they already served.


Dwight Hammond Jr., 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, quietly surrendered at a Southern California federal prison.



They probably should not have been convicted under this Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 in the first place....so that the 5 year mandatory would not
be applicable....looks likes a railroad job to me....shit, the kid in the news that killed 4 people in a DUI accident didn't even get this harsh a treatment....
Click to expand...

The law is the law. They were convicted. It carries a 5 year min man.

Your problem is with minimum mandatory sentences that don't allow for discretion by the Judge for situations where the prescribed sentence is unreasonable.
 
NOVA said:
and ARSON does not have a min. mandatory, boob
Click to expand...

Arson on federal land does. NOVA you keep lying... are you desperate?

18 U.S. Code § 844 (f)(1)

"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both."
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
Usually republicons gripe about Judges legislating from the bench...Blabo makes an exception to this judge who decided to write his own law when the statute and the conviction were clear...
Poor BLABO
Click to expand...

Well, these defendants were white.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
whats your opinion on the three strike sentence law?
Click to expand...

Its bad law that takes much needed human decision making power away from Judges, makes prosecution very difficult, and prevents some bad people from going to jail while also causes some rehabilitatable people to be in Prison for life at the tax payers expense for sometimes non-violent crimes.
 
Jarod said:
What caused you to see the light?
Click to expand...

I am in a position this year to dole out punishment to kids. We have a handbook to follow. As I was looking through the handbook I saw some ridiculously severe punishment for certain offenses. I re-wrote that part of the handbook and put a qualifying statement in there that "the following offenses and consequences would serve as a guide but the final decision would be at the discretion of the principal (me)."

For instance, the consequence for tobacco use was three days suspension, automatic. I live in a very rural area with very rural kids. It is getting so that fewer and fewer dip tobacco but I still have a substantial number of kids for whom this is a normal activity. I can see one of my students forgetting she had a dip in her mouth before coming on campus. I'm not sending her home for three days for that. She's probably among my best behaved kids and likely my valedictorian. But I am of the mind for stiffer and stiffer consequences for repeat offenders.
 
leaningright said:
I am in a position this year to dole out punishment to kids. We have a handbook to follow. As I was looking through the handbook I saw some ridiculously severe punishment for certain offenses. I re-wrote that part of the handbook and put a qualifying statement in there that "the following offenses and consequences would serve as a guide but the final decision would be at the discretion of the principal (me)."

For instance, the consequence for tobacco use was three days suspension, automatic. I live in a very rural area with very rural kids. It is getting so that fewer and fewer dip tobacco but I still have a substantial number of kids for whom this is a normal activity. I can see one of my students forgetting she had a dip in her mouth before coming on campus. I'm not sending her home for three days for that. She's probably among my best behaved kids and likely my valedictorian. But I am of the mind for stiffer and stiffer consequences for repeat offenders.
Click to expand...

Good, I agree.

I know we have some bad judges, but as one who has seen the interworking's of the criminal justice system I have seen first hand how Minimum Mandatory sentences gum up the system and sometimes result in great miscarriages of justice.
 
Jarod said:
The law is the law. They were convicted. It carries a 5 year min man.

Your problem is with minimum mandatory sentences that don't allow for discretion by the Judge for situations where the prescribed sentence is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Knowledge that you cannot lawyer your way out if penalty tends to give people reason to not act. Keep it harsh.
 
Jarod said:
Yes, five years for Arson of land against a man with no prior criminal record is a huge sentence...

But thats what happens when you have minimum mandatory sentences.

These Con-Queda members have a beef with the Conservatives not the liberals like they think.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate the Rep Party, the Dems have proven to be anything but open minded. They're as authoritarian as can be. They're not tolerant at all, and have offended me and others beyond belief.
 
Jarod said:
The law is the law. They were convicted. It carries a 5 year min man.

Your problem is with minimum mandatory sentences that don't allow for discretion by the Judge for situations where the prescribed sentence is unreasonable.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with mandatory minimum and the three strikes law. I think the mandatory was put into place because some thought that liberal judges were being too lenient. How soon some people forget.
 
Rana said:
I have a problem with mandatory minimum and the three strikes law. I think the mandatory was put into place because some thought that liberal judges were being too lenient. How soon some people forget.
Click to expand...

You're thinking is in error, again.
Mandatory minimum sentences came about; because liberals were complaining that defendants with money were getting a lesser sentence, for the same crime, then those who had to use public defenders.

They wanted "EQUAL JUSTICE" and from that came the 3 strikes law.

And now the worm has turned and liberals are complaining that the mandatory minimum sentendes are unfair.

If nothing else, liberals can always be counted on for amusement.
You just have to wait long enough and eventually they'll reverse directions and fall flat on their faces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top