04 Oct 10
I always laugh when people talk about the barbarism of Sharia law, but in their own back yard they are as civilized as cut snakes
the evidence your honor:
Texan gets 99 years for stealing smokes
by Associated Press
Associated Press
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:58 AM
Updated Friday, Sep 10 at 6:58 AM
WACO (AP) — A central Texas jury has sentenced a man to 99 years in prison for stealing a carton of cigarettes from a smoke shop.
The McLennan County jury sentenced 55-year-old Leon Willis Wilkerson in Waco Thursday after finding him guilty of robbery Wednesday.
Wilkerson was charged as a habitual criminal. He had a record of eight previous felony convictions and 12 misdemeanors.
According to court documents, Wilkerson stole the cigarettes in July 2008, tucked them in his jacket, then shoved to the ground a man who tried to stop him. The fallen man was injured, allowing prosecutors to upgrade the charge against Wilkerson from theft to robbery.
This from the nation that increasingly tells the rest of us, which way is up.
Somebody tell me this report got it wrong. Please!
04 Oct 10
Incarceration has very little to do with punishing proportionately to the value of goods stolen - else certain white collar criminals would end up with billions of years sentences.
Clearly this case is not about what he stole or its value, but the fact that he is a repeat offender (we are not told in this thread what his previous offenses actually are), and that he took the goods forcibly (quite different from shoplifting).
If somebody violently attacks shop keepers to get a pack of smokes then I too would support locking him up - at least for a bit.
04 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87Relax. It will be reduced on appeal.
I always laugh when people talk about the barbarism of Sharia law, but in their own back yard they are as civilized as cut snakes
the evidence your honor:
[quote]
Texan gets 99 years for stealing smokes
by Associated Press
Associated Press
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 6:58 AM
Updated Friday, Sep 10 at 6:58 AM
WACO (AP) — A central ...[text shortened]... gly tells the rest of us, which way is up.
Somebody tell me this report got it wrong. Please!
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solem_v._Helm
Edit: In any case, he was sentenced to 99 years more for hurting the person who tried to stop him and for being a habitual offender than for stealing the smokes. Your OP title is misleading.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76We probably shouldn't be depending on appeals to get the right sentence.
Relax. It will be reduced on appeal.
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solem_v._Helm
Edit: In any case, he was sentenced to 99 years more for hurting the person who tried to stop him and for being a habitual offender than for stealing the smokes. Your OP title is misleading.
I don't really see 99 years as being a real just sentence even given the assault and the repeat offense.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnHow can you not depend on appeals? There are tens of thousands of courts and judges and juries throughout the country. Are you telling me that it's possible that there will NOT be some outlier cases that have to be resolved on appeal now and then?
We probably shouldn't be depending on appeals to get the right sentence.
I don't really see 99 years as being a real just sentence even given the assault and the repeat offense.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76I am not saying that there won't be outliers that require appeals, but every time the appeals court is needs to do so is a shame since we didn't get it right the first time.
How can you not depend on appeals? There are tens of thousands of courts and judges and juries throughout the country. Are you telling me that it's possible that there will NOT be some outlier cases that have to be resolved on appeal now and then?
I am just Saying that we shouldn't be taking he attitude that it is ok that he got a ridiculous sentence of 99 years because it will just get reduced on appeal. It isn't ok. The requirement of the appeal shows the problem with the initial sentence.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnapologies for echoing your thoughts...unaware you had posted it.
I am not saying that there won't be outliers that require appeals, but every time the appeals court is needs to do so is a shame since we didn't get it right the first time.
I am just Saying that we shouldn't be taking he attitude that it is ok that he got a ridiculous sentence of 99 years because it will just get reduced on appeal. It isn't ok. The requirement of the appeal shows the problem with the initial sentence.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by kmax87As I thought I was fairly clear in explaining, I do NOT think this sentence will be "let through." The American justice system is built brilliantly with checks and balances on the federal and state levels so that this sort of sentence will likely not stand up on appeal.
Appeal? More work for lawyers. You call that a justice system that will let through such a rediculous sentence?
If you mean that there is something wrong with a justice system that allows incorrect or poor rulings to occur in the first place, then you are unrealistic.
In any case, your impugning of the entire American justice system based on the action of a single Texas jury that is subject to review and appeal on many levels is the height of myopia and a class example of jumping to a conclusion.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYou can't expect every jury and every judge to get it right to first time. That's what appellate courts do.
I am not saying that there won't be outliers that require appeals, but every time the appeals court is needs to do so is a shame since we didn't get it right the first time.
I am just Saying that we shouldn't be taking he attitude that it is ok that he got a ridiculous sentence of 99 years because it will just get reduced on appeal. It isn't ok. The requirement of the appeal shows the problem with the initial sentence.
Getting a judgment right on appeal IS getting it right to the first time. Appeal is part of the system.
"Shame"? Well, gee, perhaps. But unavoidable and unworthy of lament.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhy 99 years?
We probably shouldn't be depending on appeals to get the right sentence.
I don't really see 99 years as being a real just sentence even given the assault and the repeat offense.
Why not make it an even 100? I don't think he will mind sitting an extra year.
I've heard they will have better food during the 100th.
04 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Of course appeals are necessary, and of course we wish the trial courts got things right initially.
How can you not depend on appeals? There are tens of thousands of courts and judges and juries throughout the country. Are you telling me that it's possible that there will NOT be some outlier cases that have to be resolved on appeal now and then?
It is all too common that apeals judges, are golfing buddies with trial judges, or some other social connection, and that justice delayed is justice denied. Then there is the matter of the expense of mounting an appeal?
Then there is the matter of both the public, and the judiciaries intolerance of "habitual offenders" at this time. The matter of truth in sentencing is also in the mix. Time sentenced is seldom time served.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe article says he has 8 previous felonies. And 12 misdemeanors. And is 55 years old. Why he was on the street in the first place shows he has gotten off in the past w/relative slaps on the wrist.
I am not saying that there won't be outliers that require appeals, but every time the appeals court is needs to do so is a shame since we didn't get it right the first time.
I am just Saying that we shouldn't be taking he attitude that it is ok that he got a ridiculous sentence of 99 years because it will just get reduced on appeal. It isn't ok. The requirement of the appeal shows the problem with the initial sentence.
The court obviously determined this individual is a habitual and a menace to society.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonIn other news:
The article says he has 8 previous felonies. And 12 misdemeanors. And is 55 years old. Why he was on the street in the first place shows he has gotten off in the past w/relative slaps on the wrist.
The court obviously determined this individual is a habitual and a menace to society.
Man gets stinking drunk, drives 100 MPH through school zone kills 4 kids and gets sentenced to 20 yrs in prison.
Kmax posts: American man gets 20 years for speeding