- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Accused New Orleans candy snatcher facing 20 to life for pocketing $31 in sweets
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:29 pm to Jake88
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:29 pm to Jake88
quote:
Cool, let's just get rid of shoplifting and theft laws. We don't want to put them in jail.
Or, maybe before spending $32k on a year of incarceration, try something that will have a far greater chance of rehabilitating him. If that doesn't work? Well fine then.
0
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:32 pm to gthog61
quote:
The whole $32k per year number is probably the entire cost divided by # of prisoners. That is misleading, likely on purpose. The cost for an additional prisoner is the variable cost per head. A lot of the costs are going to be incurred anyway after you get past a certain number. At the very least they are semi-fixed.
Ahh yes, and there's the rub. The whole system is set to up to really start making more per head when the population crosses that threshold of profitability.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:34 pm to danilo
uhhhh this person is pretty dumb to forgo a jury trial.
The likelihood of there being a sympathetic person out of 12 citizens is way higher than not being thrown in jail for a long time by 1 judge who is there to keep the prisons filled.
The likelihood of there being a sympathetic person out of 12 citizens is way higher than not being thrown in jail for a long time by 1 judge who is there to keep the prisons filled.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 11:48 pm to danilo
The DA wrote a strongly worded letter to the paper over this story. Not surprisingly, the Advocate (liberal hacks that they are) listed the story on their site today but then took it down. Meanwhile, much older stories are still up. I had to Google to find the below link. Here are the first couple of paragraphs, it is worth reading to see how the paper is called out for manipulating facts to fit their bias.
It was shameful for The Advocate to publish Mr. Simerman’s story regarding Jacobia Grimes. The story is deliberately drafted to give the illusion that the District Attorney’s Office was threatening to put a shoplifter in jail for 20 years. The author must play this sleight-of-hand because no such threat was made. The Advocate cannot point to a single case in which my office has sentenced a shoplifter to a 20-year sentence, so it simply manufactured a controversy.
The sad part about these cases is that no one cares about them until one of two things happens: the defendant is repeatedly returned to the streets without any rehabilitation and he ultimately hurts an innocent person or himself; or he is given a harsh prison sentence because of his extensive criminal history.
Since 1996, Mr. Grimes has been arrested 24 times. He has five convictions for theft as well as five other convictions for crimes such as illegal possession of stolen things, unauthorized use of a moveable, possession of drug paraphernalia, obscenity and distribution of false drugs. Many of these convictions resulted in the imposition of a suspended sentence. Where were all the “reformers” after those convictions?
LINK
It was shameful for The Advocate to publish Mr. Simerman’s story regarding Jacobia Grimes. The story is deliberately drafted to give the illusion that the District Attorney’s Office was threatening to put a shoplifter in jail for 20 years. The author must play this sleight-of-hand because no such threat was made. The Advocate cannot point to a single case in which my office has sentenced a shoplifter to a 20-year sentence, so it simply manufactured a controversy.
The sad part about these cases is that no one cares about them until one of two things happens: the defendant is repeatedly returned to the streets without any rehabilitation and he ultimately hurts an innocent person or himself; or he is given a harsh prison sentence because of his extensive criminal history.
Since 1996, Mr. Grimes has been arrested 24 times. He has five convictions for theft as well as five other convictions for crimes such as illegal possession of stolen things, unauthorized use of a moveable, possession of drug paraphernalia, obscenity and distribution of false drugs. Many of these convictions resulted in the imposition of a suspended sentence. Where were all the “reformers” after those convictions?
LINK
Posted on 4/5/16 at 11:49 pm to danilo
Jesus god, my thumb wants this sticker for making it all the way through the OP.
tl/dr: Too Long/Didn't Read
tl/dr: Too Long/Didn't Read
Posted on 4/5/16 at 11:53 pm to CtotheVrzrbck
He'd need 6 out of 6 to go his way to be acquitted.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:15 am to jbgleason
quote:
e sad part about these cases is that no one cares about them until one of two things happens: the defendant is repeatedly returned to the streets without any rehabilitation and he ultimately hurts an innocent person or himself; or he is given a harsh prison sentence because of his extensive criminal history.
Exactly. We need to get to a point in our society where we make legitimate attempts to rehabilitate first, before prison.
quote:
Since 1996, Mr. Grimes has been arrested 24 times. He has five convictions for theft as well as five other convictions for crimes such as illegal possession of stolen things, unauthorized use of a moveable, possession of drug paraphernalia, obscenity and distribution of false drugs. Many of these convictions resulted in the imposition of a suspended sentence. Where were all the “reformers” after those convictions?
Typical rap sheet of a drug addict and theif, but hardly a dangerous hardened criminal. These are the types that actually can be helped, but few states have even close to a good system set up to get these people to turn themselves into contributing members of society.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:20 am to ULSU
Eternal opportunists like that will never decide to change that lifestyle for one where he's making minimum wage, which is more than he should get. The problem has been the system's failure to actually punish him at any point. Think about the attitude he has to smoke weed on the way to court.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 6:20 am to ULSU
quote:
Exactly. We need to get to a point in our society where we make legitimate attempts to rehabilitate first, before prison.
Step one of rehab is to be raised to know right from wrong and respect other people. If those two things are present how are you ever going to teach someone to be a useful member of a society where those two things are expected?
Posted on 4/6/16 at 6:28 am to RogerTheShrubber
I understand this is insane, but if he keeps getting off, what's the motivation to stop stealing, or conversely what's the motivation to pay for anything that's not "that expensive". I don't know the answer, but financially it may not make sense to lock this guy up for $31, but what is the cost of the precedent you have set. Ando this guy has been caught 5 times, how many times had he gotten away with it. It's not that hard to walk out of a store with shite, so if he got caught 5 times, he's probably done it 100. If we set the precedent that we will not protect business from losses that are too small to worry about, then do we basically advocate anarchy as long as it's under ~$50???
Posted on 4/6/16 at 6:32 am to tjtiger9
Say you are right.
That means we will spend about $600,000 to imprison this jackass in order to protect $31 dollars of a store owner's candy. It would be cheaper for the State to insure candy stores against theft.
The "bitch". -- aka the habitual offender law -- is a really expensive way to deal with the problem. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should hate it.
That means we will spend about $600,000 to imprison this jackass in order to protect $31 dollars of a store owner's candy. It would be cheaper for the State to insure candy stores against theft.
The "bitch". -- aka the habitual offender law -- is a really expensive way to deal with the problem. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should hate it.
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 6:36 am
Posted on 4/6/16 at 6:45 am to Boagni Swamp
quote:
the habitual offender law -- is a really expensive way to deal with the problem. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should hate it.
You don't think decriminalizing theft is maybe a little more costly than $31. Not saying the current system works for us and there aren't better ways. But surely saying "it's not worth dealing with" is not the answer.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 6:50 am to tjtiger9
quote:
Sounds like the punishment being offered is correct if he hadn't learned his lesson by now.
Clearly our corrections system continues to fail
Posted on 4/6/16 at 6:56 am to Boagni Swamp
It's not costing that, it's not costing near that, and everyone who calculates that per diem by dividing the cost of things like capital expenditures, or the total budget of the Department of Corrections, is a moron. The state feeds for around $0.88 per meal. The actual cost of his incarceration is probably less than the government benefits we were paying him that were stripped away at intake.
Also, keep in mind that he's probably stolen 30 times for every single time he's caught. He is costing all of us money in the form of increased prices. We are paying for increased security details. We're paying for police to sit around completing reports after people walk outside in the morning to find their shite gone.
All that aside, the DA said that just like last time, he had no intention of billing him as a quad. This whole "20 year" controversy came straight from the mouth of Franz Ziblich and no one else. Anyone should agree it's time for him to actually be punished to some extent. The suspended sentences and probation are not working. There is no rehabilitation for someone who has experienced simply doing what he wants without consequences for this long. He couldn't even stay clean from Marijuana (which we constantly hear trumpeted as non addictive) while on bond for a week... .from a section of court where the judge tells you he'll drug and alcohol test you as a condition of bail at every appearance. It wasn't like he simply tested positive, he actually showed up high. He simply has no respect for the law.
Also, keep in mind that he's probably stolen 30 times for every single time he's caught. He is costing all of us money in the form of increased prices. We are paying for increased security details. We're paying for police to sit around completing reports after people walk outside in the morning to find their shite gone.
All that aside, the DA said that just like last time, he had no intention of billing him as a quad. This whole "20 year" controversy came straight from the mouth of Franz Ziblich and no one else. Anyone should agree it's time for him to actually be punished to some extent. The suspended sentences and probation are not working. There is no rehabilitation for someone who has experienced simply doing what he wants without consequences for this long. He couldn't even stay clean from Marijuana (which we constantly hear trumpeted as non addictive) while on bond for a week... .from a section of court where the judge tells you he'll drug and alcohol test you as a condition of bail at every appearance. It wasn't like he simply tested positive, he actually showed up high. He simply has no respect for the law.
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 7:19 am
Posted on 4/6/16 at 7:06 am to danilo
quote:
20 to life for pocketing $31 in sweets
No; this is why
quote:
A career shoplifter
Posted on 4/6/16 at 7:20 am to Hoops
quote:
Step one of rehab is to be raised to know right from wrong and respect other people. If those two things are present how are you ever going to teach someone to be a useful member of a society where those two things are expected?
The better parenting is never gonna happen, so society has to decide if they want to pay to really try rehab and job skill training for these types of offenders, or if we want to just pay to keep them in jail forever.
I prefer trying option 1 at this point, because just throwing g people in prison and letting them out in 5 years creates a far far worse individual out on the streets.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 7:26 am to tLSU
So we jail him for drug addiction?
I get that he is a problem. I understand that ignoring theft leads to anarchy. I'm sure the DA isn't serious. But the Bitch is a bitch. It's real effect is to give prosecutors an awful lot of power.
I'm not knocking prosecutors by the way. Those I've dealt with work hard to reach fair results. That said, if a DA gets a bug up his arse or wants to make a point or headlines, the habitual offender law can lead to some pretty bad results.
I get that he is a problem. I understand that ignoring theft leads to anarchy. I'm sure the DA isn't serious. But the Bitch is a bitch. It's real effect is to give prosecutors an awful lot of power.
I'm not knocking prosecutors by the way. Those I've dealt with work hard to reach fair results. That said, if a DA gets a bug up his arse or wants to make a point or headlines, the habitual offender law can lead to some pretty bad results.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 7:42 am to Boagni Swamp
He's not being jailed for drug addiction. It doesn't even seem that he uses addictive drugs, at least not that he's been caught with. He's being jailed because he roams the street thinking he can do whatever he wants and just take others' things. I'm all for giving people second chances. He's been slapped on the wrist two dozen times. Innocent people should not have to simply deal with it. If I was the DA, I'd offer a double and 2 years and give him 30 days to take it. Otherwise he goes to trial and gets the bill.
Eta: and yea, if the drugs you chose to start using are "causing" you to steal peoples' shite and commit crime (which is BS), you don't get a pass because you're an addict. It's not like we're talking about a possession charge, it's someone's property being taken.
Eta: and yea, if the drugs you chose to start using are "causing" you to steal peoples' shite and commit crime (which is BS), you don't get a pass because you're an addict. It's not like we're talking about a possession charge, it's someone's property being taken.
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 8:06 am
Posted on 4/6/16 at 10:43 am to tLSU
quote:
He's not being jailed for drug addiction. It doesn't even seem that he uses addictive drugs, at least not that he's been caught
Did you not see my post on page 2 where he showed up to court yesterday high on multiple drugs? He was arrested right there. BTW, drugs are not a free pass in my book
quote:
A New Orleans man at risk of a lengthy prison term after his arrest on suspicion of stealing candy bars from a Dollar General store in Central City last December was jailed Tuesday (April 5) after coming to court high.
Jacobia Grimes tested positive for cocaine, marijuana, opiates and Oxycodone before a scheduled hearing in his case, a violation of his pretrial bond. Criminal District Court Judge Franz Zibilich ordered Grimes to be drug tested at the request of Orleans Parish prosecutors, then remanded him into custody after receiving the results.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 10:47 am
Posted on 4/6/16 at 11:27 am to High C
they have to fill those "for huge profits" jails some how.
Can't suck up the tax payers money with open cells.
Can't suck up the tax payers money with open cells.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News