- 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
60% of Baltimore gun offenders have sentences suspended - judges refuse meeting with gov.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:43 am
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:43 am
LINK
'
Earlier this month, Hogan called for a meeting with city officials who work in criminal justice — including judges, prosecutors and politicians — to have a “frank and honest discussion” about what can be done to address the "tragic and disturbing violence being experienced in Baltimore City.”
Hogan said he was concerned that 60 percent of gun offenders convicted in Baltimore have more than half their sentences suspended — a frequent complaint expressed by police.'
'
Earlier this month, Hogan called for a meeting with city officials who work in criminal justice — including judges, prosecutors and politicians — to have a “frank and honest discussion” about what can be done to address the "tragic and disturbing violence being experienced in Baltimore City.”
Hogan said he was concerned that 60 percent of gun offenders convicted in Baltimore have more than half their sentences suspended — a frequent complaint expressed by police.'
11
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:45 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
60% of Baltimore gun offenders have sentences suspended - judges refuse meeting with gov.
I think Trump should start a pilot program of withdrawing ALL federal funds for cities who doe stupid shite like this. Baltimore just volunteered to be first.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:46 am to TaderSalad
At the rate idiocy has taken over Baltimore, they are in real danger of losing ALL funding.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:54 am to conservativewifeymom
So judges not wanting to be partisan is a bad thing? one question I did not see asked in the article was why these sentences were reduced. Is it written in the law? Was there any shady dealings in the prosecution? Were searches unconstitutional? Im not saying these are the reasons just incomplete journalism, one of the 5 "W" not asked.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:56 am to 10888bge
quote:
judges not wanting to be partisan is a bad thing?
No judges letting criminals walk is a bad thing. If I remember correctly, there is a race component involved.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:58 am to 10888bge
It's way simpler than that. Black judges don't want to send black men to jail. Even if their crime is violent or there is a long rap sheet. Baltimore is a banana republic.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 8:59 am to 10888bge
quote:
So judges not wanting to be partisan is a bad thing?
The governor and mayor want to understand the rationale for sending gun law violators back to the streets of a city plagued with violence and murder.
where does patrisanship enter the conversation?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:03 am to conservativewifeymom
What if a national, state or municipal group of judges can be indoctrinated politically to make their decisions based on the agenda of their political movement? What's to stop them from, say, suspending criminal sentences of members of a politically-favored group?
How does an executive branch office-holder address this? The governor or mayor calls a meeting to address an issue and the judges refuse to meet. The governor or mayor can't speak to the press about the issue because mass media sides with the judges -- they are both loyal to the movement.
Can the governor or mayor begin established removal proceedings against wayward judges? Imagine the political blowback -- it would be political suicide to try it.
Quite the problem, isn't it? Once a movement controls the Judicial Branch of government, they have the advantage. Combine that with control of mass media and you have the larger political entity on the path to subversion.
How does an executive branch office-holder address this? The governor or mayor calls a meeting to address an issue and the judges refuse to meet. The governor or mayor can't speak to the press about the issue because mass media sides with the judges -- they are both loyal to the movement.
Can the governor or mayor begin established removal proceedings against wayward judges? Imagine the political blowback -- it would be political suicide to try it.
Quite the problem, isn't it? Once a movement controls the Judicial Branch of government, they have the advantage. Combine that with control of mass media and you have the larger political entity on the path to subversion.
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 9:05 am
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:03 am to conservativewifeymom
Pretty sad cause Baltimore is a very cool town.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:08 am to TaderSalad
quote:
I think Trump should start a pilot program of withdrawing ALL federal funds for cities who doe stupid shite like this. Baltimore just volunteered to be first.
Couple that with the multiple cases of police planting evidence and acting unlawfully, I agree.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:20 am to 10888bge
Oh yes, let's remember this 'logic' next time there's a discussion about gun control. 
And anyone who thinks these judges aren't biased already lives in lala land.
And anyone who thinks these judges aren't biased already lives in lala land.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:25 am to conservativewifeymom
Complaining about a portion of a sentence being suspended strikes me as a rather ignorant complaint, and I don't intend that term to have any negative connotation.
It's extremely common in my line of work to have a prosecutor tell me that, and I'm just going to make up numbers here because I just had my coffee, my client who has been in jail a year can either do another another two years in jail and get out time served or he can get out now and go on probation, but instead of a three year sentence, he would plead to a recommended sentence of 12 years. So, the carrot is that he gets out and goes on probation after sitting in jail for a year, but the stick is that he's now backing up 11 more if he fricks up.
Did the judge "suspend over half of the sentence"? They sure did. Is it likely more effective in limiting future criminal behavior? Yep.
Note: I'm intentionally ignoring parole and good time calculations for the sake of easy math. I could give "correct" numbers, but it would just confuse everyone unless I went into a full blown tutorial, and I'm currently disinclined
It's extremely common in my line of work to have a prosecutor tell me that, and I'm just going to make up numbers here because I just had my coffee, my client who has been in jail a year can either do another another two years in jail and get out time served or he can get out now and go on probation, but instead of a three year sentence, he would plead to a recommended sentence of 12 years. So, the carrot is that he gets out and goes on probation after sitting in jail for a year, but the stick is that he's now backing up 11 more if he fricks up.
Did the judge "suspend over half of the sentence"? They sure did. Is it likely more effective in limiting future criminal behavior? Yep.
Note: I'm intentionally ignoring parole and good time calculations for the sake of easy math. I could give "correct" numbers, but it would just confuse everyone unless I went into a full blown tutorial, and I'm currently disinclined
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:26 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
Hogan said he was concerned that 60 percent of gun offenders convicted in Baltimore have more than half their sentences suspended — a frequent complaint expressed by police.'
I believe that is standard operating procedure across the nation.
They pick up repeat offenders, use their pre=trial detention as part of the sentence, give them probation for the rest of the sentence, and turn them loose. Rinse and repeat.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:34 am to conservativewifeymom
This is one of the "tough on guns" things that pisses me off.
Liberals want to enact all kinds of new gun laws, but they don't even enforce the ones on the books.
If you commit a crime with a gun -- especially a stolen gun -- you should serve some SERIOUS time.
Tougher enforcement of gun crimes should be the NRA's number 1 focus. Because criminals with guns are the biggest enemy of legal gun owners.
Liberals want to enact all kinds of new gun laws, but they don't even enforce the ones on the books.
If you commit a crime with a gun -- especially a stolen gun -- you should serve some SERIOUS time.
Tougher enforcement of gun crimes should be the NRA's number 1 focus. Because criminals with guns are the biggest enemy of legal gun owners.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:49 am to 10888bge
quote:
So judges not wanting to be partisan is a bad thing?
So other cities and judges not suspending 60% of gun offenders are being partisan?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:51 am to 10888bge
quote:
So judges not wanting to be partisan is a bad thing?
Huh?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:52 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Couple that with the multiple cases of police planting evidence and acting unlawfully, I agree.
What would you estimate the ratio of cops planting evidence to gun offender hand slaps is? Just a ballpark guess.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:53 am to Dale51
Abiding the Rule of Law is not partisan.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:54 am to Joshjrn
Hmmmm, that must be hard to explain to the next person they are likely to kill or maim after being let loose early. It strikes me that the only person being thought of here is the perp not the victims, past, present or future. But, of course, it's not 'my line of work.'
Posted on 8/26/17 at 9:55 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Huh?
In the article linked one of the judges referenced policy not to be part to partisan politics.
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News