- 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: should this man have to serve his sentence?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:10 am to Scruffy
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:10 am to Scruffy
quote:
Which is another case of black and white.
I understand why you keep appealing to a continuum of justice, but you are not the fact finder. At trial, he was presumably allowed to offer evidence of mitigating circumstances. The jury convicted. That really is the end of it for our purposes unless you want to lobby the legislature for a change in the law.
0
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:12 am to swampdawg
He was convicted and sentenced, but never served his time.
Now that he's a productive member of society, sending him to prison doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps he can lawyer up and get an alternative sentence of community service that he can fulfill.
I believe sentences are for punishment, not rehabilitation.
Now that he's a productive member of society, sending him to prison doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps he can lawyer up and get an alternative sentence of community service that he can fulfill.
I believe sentences are for punishment, not rehabilitation.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:13 am to ShortyRob
quote:
the ONLY reason we don't allow double jeopardy is because someone wrote it into law. The WHY of it seems totally lost upon you.
This is is clearly not a case of double jeopardy. You continue to insert that well founded restriction on government into the debate as if you're making a point with it. You're not
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:14 am to Jay Quest
quote:The point I'm addressing is WHY do you think we set that standard for the state? It creates the same effect you're unhappy with here. People who ARE guilty don't serve time because the STATE failed.
Once acquitted we can never revisit his crime. That's not the case here so your premise doesn't fit
I'm not addressing the "what" of double jeapardy in my example. I'm addressing the WHY of it. And, that WHY is exactly the same reason we should tell a state that when it fricks up for 20 damned years, that's no longer the problem of the citizen. Hell. I'll take it damned further. If the state sentences you to two years and then can't be bothered to actually put you in jail, then that clock should STILL start ticking when it should have. IE, 24 months after they SHOULD have put you in jail, you're done.
The bias should ALWAYS and 100% of the time be AGAINST the state and for damned good reason.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:14 am to swampdawg
quote:
should this man have to serve his sentence?
Based on these circumstances, absolutely not.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:15 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:Well no shite.
This is is clearly not a case of double jeopardy
Read again.
quote:
the ONLY reason we don't allow double jeopardy is because someone wrote it into law. The WHY of it seems totally lost upon you.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:15 am to swampdawg
quote:
should this man have to serve his sentence?
quote:
Stanley White, 39, 503 Vatican Drive, pleaded guilty in July 1995 to the reduced charge following an alcohol-related crash on Airline Highway near Gonzales that killed a 10-week-old St. Amant girl in mid-1994.
If it were my child that he'd killed ... well, let's just say that he probably would not even be around right now...particularly if the State had done nothing in the last 19 years.
More than likely ... Mr. White would have had an "accident" by now.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:17 am to navy
quote:
If it were my child that he'd killed ... well, let's just say that he probably would not even be around right now...particularly if the State had done nothing in the last 19 years.
You would have had your kid in a car seat.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:17 am to UGATiger26
quote:
To me, that would fall under "cruel and unusual."
If his act resulted in anything other than a loss of life I would be in full agreement with you and others in this thread. The death is the deciding point for me.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:19 am to ShortyRob
quote:
The WHY of it seems totally lost upon you.
The why is not lost on me but thanks for assuming as much. I will not consider it here because it does not apply.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:19 am to Golfer
quote:
You would have had your kid in a car seat.
As if this matters at all in this discussion.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:23 am to Tigerlaff
So the guy just killed a kid, knew he was supposed to serve a sentence, and never once asked about it? Sounds like a little dishonesty on his part.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:23 am to ShortyRob
quote:
The bias should ALWAYS and 100% of the time be AGAINST the state and for damned good reason.
And it is every time the state brings charges against one of its citizens. Nothing you're arguing here is applicable to this case.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:24 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:The WHY of setting the standard high for the state most certainly DOES apply here.
I will not consider it here because it does not apply.
Frankly. The only reason there isn't a legal provision preventing THIS particular state stupidity is likely because no one thought of a scenario where the state just fricking FORGETS to put a guy in jail.
I bring up WHY we created double jeopardy because that reason exists in this case too. And, the effect of keeping that standard high would also be the same. We, as a society, decided that criminals going free was a price we'd pay. We also have made this decision on rules of evidence and a whole host of other areas. ALL for the same WHY. REPEAT.....ALL FOR THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT!!!
shite. Something tells me that if we'd never created the concept of double jeopardy, half the folks on this board would be pissed if we tried to install it.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:26 am to Jay Quest
quote:Um. Yes. It does. The state failed to complete its responsibilities as it related to his case. He played no role in that failure. It isn't he citizen's responsibility to go to the police station and say, "hey, weren't you guys supposed to put me in jail"??
And it is every time the state brings charges against one of its citizens. Nothing you're arguing here is applicable to this case.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:27 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
If his act resulted in anything other than a loss of life I would be in full agreement with you and others in this thread. The death is the deciding point for me.
To me, intent would be the distinguishing factor, not death.
It was tragic, yes, but there was no malicious intent to kill the child.
If this guy murdered someone, or committed some other violent crime with malice, then I would have no problem putting him in prison. In fact, I doubt the state would have overlooked such a case in the first place.
Based on the fact that this guy didn't flee or leave the country or something like that, I would say he was prepared to serve his time. The fact that the state failed to do their part in a practical window of time does not give them the right to reach back 19 years, and say "whoops, our bad. You need to serve your two years."
Give him 2,000 hours of community service, 20 years of probation. Whatever the state thinks equates to 2 years in prison. But to lock this guy away after becoming an otherwise productive and law-abiding citizen is nothing more than an act of sheer vengeance.
This post was edited on 7/15/14 at 9:27 am
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:28 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
As if this matters at all in this discussion.
I think the people who didn't properly secure the infant are equally as negligent.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:31 am to Golfer
quote:
You would have had your kid in a car seat.
Is this mentioned in the article? If so I must have missed it. If this is true then it is an entirely different story.
Did car seat laws not exist in 1995?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:31 am to UGATiger26
quote:
Give him 2,000 hours of community service, 20 years of probation. Whatever the state thinks equates to 2 years in prison. But to lock this guy away after becoming an otherwise productive and law-abiding citizen is nothing more than an act of sheer vengeance.
I'm not disputing your proposal one way or the other ... but, I would ask two things:
1) Are you a parent?
2) If yes on #1 ... what would you want? Would you be so willing to forgive and forget after looking at photos of your little baby for 19 years ... and wondering what she'd be like today? Or ... would you still want vengeance?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:32 am to Golfer
quote:
I think the people who didn't properly secure the infant are equally as negligent.
This is the political talk board, not the mock trial comparative fault board.
This issue is whether or not a person convicted can be approached years later and forced to serve time. The issue is not "is the man really guilty?" A jury has already determined that he is.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News