05 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadgoogled it, just found that he had a narcotics offense, and he snitched in a murder case (the murder case went to appeal because the defense thought that Wilkerson, having offered the info in exchange for leniency, may not have been the most unbiased informant).
Did he steal the smokes because he couldn't afford them? If he was given free cigarettes, would he not steal anything else?
As for your cost comparison, I am sure the person who got assaulted would have gladly given the man free smokes to avoid the assault if he knew that was all there was too it. But he probably knew that if you give a man free smokes ...[text shortened]... e are told that they had a bearing on the judgement. So how can we honestly make an assessment?
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by kmax87you continue to ignore the elephant in the room.
I'm all at sea with American justice. The lines between stealing and robbery with the disproportionate sentencing. Never quite get it. Like the jaywalking incident where at different times the girls under the law were categorized differently.
In someways both of these incidents serve to highlight one thing.
Freeom is dead in the land of the free.
he was sentenced to 99 years because he had EIGHT PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS.
06 Oct 10
Originally posted by kmax87i googled it a couple of days ago, and only found mention of what i posted a few posts back. maybe you'll have better luck googling now.
what was the scale of these offences, and if he lived in a more liberal country like the netherlands or switzerland, how many of these convictions would simply dissapear.
just think, if only you could see into the future, you could've rounded up your buds to chip in for his plane ticket to your liberal paradise! he could have been a productive citizen! now his life is wasted! oh, God, oh, God, oh, God!
dude, it is not too late. you can save others. don't miss this chance. use it as the impetus for your future.