- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: 60% of Baltimore gun offenders have sentences suspended - judges refuse meeting with gov.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:55 am to Joshjrn
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:55 am to Joshjrn
Also, to bring this all the way back around, let's pretend for the sake of argument that I hate justice. frick justice. You're the arbiter of what it is, and I absolutely loathe it.
This was my original post, that prompted now four pages of screeds about my bias:
I bolded the statements of obvious opinion and italicized my rendition of object fact. Please tell me which you object to, due to my bias arising from a hatred of justice.
This was my original post, that prompted now four pages of screeds about my bias:
quote:
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.
I bolded the statements of obvious opinion and italicized my rendition of object fact. Please tell me which you object to, due to my bias arising from a hatred of justice.
0
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:57 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Joshjrn
You are pretty sharp. Folks like you often give good insight on topics that most of usdon't know anything about. Keep posting.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 12:01 pm to 10888bge
quote:
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.
60%
That answers every one of your questions.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 12:01 pm to Dale51
quote:
I compared the veracity of claiming someones "profession" equaling being free of person bias with that of a used car salesman and any questions asked either are free from personal bias.
You're waaay too sensitive.
I never once claimed that my status as a professional of any sort freed me from bias. In fact, I've freely admitted my individual and specific bias as it pertains to representing my actual clients. Your citing to asking a used car salesman about a car he's trying to sell you is utterly unrelated. You have no idea who I am. You have no idea who my clients are. The one thing you almost certainly know is that I don't live in Baltimore.
I've even gone so far as to freely admit that my opinion that this tack is likely more effective than locking people up for longer is possibly subject to my bias. In fact, I'm the only person in this entire thread that has admitted to any measure of bias whatsoever.
And the fact that you're now accusing me of being oversensitive tells me that you're no longer particular sure of your argument. I'll know we're done when you call me a snowflake
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 8/26/17 at 12:10 pm to conservativewifeymom
And I'm still waiting for the conservative who also happens to be a wife and has given live birth to children who survive to this day to give me a definition of "gun crime" as it pertains to this 60% statistic. I'm getting rather bored with arguing about the extent of my bias.
Here, I'll help:
Do we know whether these "gun crimes" also include victimless crimes? Are we including people who were charged with carrying a concealed, legally obtained, firearm without a permit? I could see a ton of those being probated. Having a legally obtained firearm in the glove compartment of their car when they were pulled over for speeding and the officer searched the vehicle after seeing a marijuana blunt in the console? I could see the overwhelming majority of those being outright probated as well. Being found in possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a non-violent drug possession felony? I see those all the time. They legally can't be probated in Louisiana (if they were convicted as charged, so we normally break those down), but I have no idea what the law is in Maryland.
Or are we talking about violent "gun crimes" with actual victims? Because I would be fairly surprised if 60% of violent gun crimes with victims have over half of their sentence probated. But hey, could be wrong.
Here, I'll help:
Do we know whether these "gun crimes" also include victimless crimes? Are we including people who were charged with carrying a concealed, legally obtained, firearm without a permit? I could see a ton of those being probated. Having a legally obtained firearm in the glove compartment of their car when they were pulled over for speeding and the officer searched the vehicle after seeing a marijuana blunt in the console? I could see the overwhelming majority of those being outright probated as well. Being found in possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a non-violent drug possession felony? I see those all the time. They legally can't be probated in Louisiana (if they were convicted as charged, so we normally break those down), but I have no idea what the law is in Maryland.
Or are we talking about violent "gun crimes" with actual victims? Because I would be fairly surprised if 60% of violent gun crimes with victims have over half of their sentence probated. But hey, could be wrong.
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 8/26/17 at 12:15 pm to Beessnax
quote:
You are pretty sharp. Folks like you often give good insight on topics that most of usdon't know anything about. Keep posting.
I appreciate it. Sometimes posting on this board feels like shouting into the wind
Posted on 8/26/17 at 12:39 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
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
You certainly sound well informed, but is your explanation what is in play here or a straw man?
The article references considerable requests for frank and honest discussions, repeat violent offenders and 60% being reduced sentences (the part you argue). I believe the remainder of the article better serves public safety and that is keeping violent people off the streets of Baltimore and one means of doing that is discuss the topic of reduced sentencing.
Shouldn't violent armed robbery already have mandatory sentences? Why would these be negotiated away as you describe?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 12:57 pm to larry289
I'm a little confused as to why you quoted that disclaimer in my original post. Would you expound?
But that's not what the article says, though I conceded it's, likely intentionally, misleadingly written. It says this:
In putting those two next to one another, we assume they are directly related, but there is no evidence that is so. With no explanation of what a "gun offender" is, we have no idea what kind of crimes they have committed (beyond that they possessed a gun at the time), what their records look like, etc. We certainly have no evidence that 60% of "repeat violent offenders" are having the majority of their sentences suspended. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that's not true. I'm simply saying we have no idea based on the information we currently have.
It does, and generally isn't. That's my point. If you tell me that 60% of individuals arrested for armed robbery in Baltimore are getting the majority of their sentences probated, I would be utterly fricking shocked, and I would tell you all that you're justified in your horror. But the reality is that we have no idea. I see vastly more penny ante victimless "gun crimes" on the docket than I do "violent" gun crimes. If that's what's responsible for this statistic, then I think it's much ado about nothing.
I can tell you that in Baton Rouge, violent gun crimes being reduced to something that can be probated are the extreme exception, not the rule.
quote:
You certainly sound well informed, but is your explanation what is in play here or a straw man?
The article references considerable requests for frank and honest discussions, repeat violent offenders and 60% being reduced sentences (the part you argue). I believe the remainder of the article better serves public safety and that is keeping violent people off the streets of Baltimore and one means of doing that is discuss the topic of reduced sentencing.
But that's not what the article says, though I conceded it's, likely intentionally, misleadingly written. It says this:
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’m going to ask the judges directly, ‘What does it take to get these repeat violent offenders off the streets?’ ” the Republican governor said.
In putting those two next to one another, we assume they are directly related, but there is no evidence that is so. With no explanation of what a "gun offender" is, we have no idea what kind of crimes they have committed (beyond that they possessed a gun at the time), what their records look like, etc. We certainly have no evidence that 60% of "repeat violent offenders" are having the majority of their sentences suspended. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that's not true. I'm simply saying we have no idea based on the information we currently have.
quote:
Shouldn't violent armed robbery already have mandatory sentences? Why would these be negotiated away as you describe?
It does, and generally isn't. That's my point. If you tell me that 60% of individuals arrested for armed robbery in Baltimore are getting the majority of their sentences probated, I would be utterly fricking shocked, and I would tell you all that you're justified in your horror. But the reality is that we have no idea. I see vastly more penny ante victimless "gun crimes" on the docket than I do "violent" gun crimes. If that's what's responsible for this statistic, then I think it's much ado about nothing.
I can tell you that in Baton Rouge, violent gun crimes being reduced to something that can be probated are the extreme exception, not the rule.
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 8/26/17 at 1:02 pm to larry289
quote:
and one means of doing that is discuss the topic of reduced sentencing.
I wanted to pull this out on its own, because I think it's important. I agree with you, the conversation should absolutely happen. However, the ethical rules governing judges are extremely strict. I think anyone involved on either side of the criminal justice system would recoil at the idea of elected officials sitting down and scolding sitting judges because those officials disagree with their decisions.
Now, we as human beings might be inclined to look the other way if we agree with the scolding, but I don't know how many of us would be comfortable with it from an objective perspective, in a vacuum.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 1:58 pm to Joshjrn
I stand by my statement. It is an article not a legal dissertation. Your considerations would, I suspect, all be included in a frank and open conversation between parties. In Baltimore as well as current Baton Rouge, the politics can not be removed from "any of the parties".
In regard to your comment about criticizing the judges and their strict rules, as a layman I say BS. The ninth circuit in CA has continually made their rulings based generally on circumventing constitutional law and political ideology. They have been struck down repeatedly by the SCOTUS. So yea, I see no problem calling these morons out.
In regard to your comment about criticizing the judges and their strict rules, as a layman I say BS. The ninth circuit in CA has continually made their rulings based generally on circumventing constitutional law and political ideology. They have been struck down repeatedly by the SCOTUS. So yea, I see no problem calling these morons out.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 2:08 pm to larry289
quote:
In regard to your comment about criticizing the judges and their strict rules, as a layman I say BS. The ninth circuit in CA has continually made their rulings based generally on circumventing constitutional law and political ideology. They have been struck down repeatedly by the SCOTUS. So yea, I see no problem calling these morons out.
You can say bullshite as a layman, and I can appreciate that. If you, or the mayor, or the president, want to write an open letter saying that their decisions pertaining to sentencing are wrong, wrong, wrong, I would encourage you to do so. Call them out to your heart's content.
But them sitting across from someone in person who is actively lobbying for them to change how they rule in cases before their courts is beyond the pale, in my opinion. Do you not remember how conservatives reacted when Obama "called out" SCOTUS over Citizen's United? With the justices sitting in the room? I remember watching them, rightly, lose their everloving minds.
This isn't any different. In fact, I would argue this would be more egregious. Now, I'm by no means an expert in judicial ethics. They might technically be allowed to do so. But I can say with a fair amount of certainty that this would be frowned upon heavily, and they very well might be barred from doing so.
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 2:11 pm
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News