- 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
0
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:35 am to ShortyRob
I sympathize with the sentiment that he doesn't "belong" in jail and that incarcerating him serves no practical good. I'm on record in every thread regarding incarceration rates in this country as saying that we are far too punitive. But I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that this guys is entitled to clemency simply because the state failed to execute his sentence in a timely manner. By its very nature, clemency is something you don't deserve.
His best bet (IMO) instead of spending a ton of money on lawyers, is to petition the Gov's office for a commutation. If he can get the family on board, he'd probably be in pretty good shape.
His best bet (IMO) instead of spending a ton of money on lawyers, is to petition the Gov's office for a commutation. If he can get the family on board, he'd probably be in pretty good shape.
This post was edited on 7/15/14 at 9:41 am
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:35 am to ShortyRob
quote:
The state failed to complete its responsibilities as it related to his case
We are in agreement that the state failed miserably in this matter after the man was sentenced. We differ in that I don't believe it absolves him of his ascribed penance.
No point going any further. We simply have different POV's here.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:36 am to navy
quote:
1) Are you a parent?
No.
quote:
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?
I would be directing my ire towards the justice system.
ShortyRob and myself are not advocating some sort of ridiculous notion of anti-state libertarianism. Hell, look at some of the comments by the district court judge and the dissenting appeal court judge. I completely agree with them.
quote:
Higginbotham wrote. “In this case, due process and fundamental fairness support the judgement of the district court.”
quote:
At the time LeBlanc suspended White’s sentence on May 3, 2013, she ruled that too much time had passed for White to serve his original two-year prison sentence without violating “fundamental principles of liberty and justice.”
This post was edited on 7/15/14 at 9:37 am
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:37 am to swampdawg
quote:
Is this mentioned in the article? If so I must have missed it. If this is true then it is an entirely different story.
Yep.
quote:
White had crashed into a vehicle carrying Brittany and her family on July 31, 1994. Brittany, who was unrestrained, was thrown from the vehicle and later died.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:38 am to swampdawg
quote:
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?
Yes it is mentioned that the child was unrestrained.
Yes there were car seat laws in 1995. My daughter was born in 1989 and there were car seat laws then.
1978 was the first year a state (Tennessee) enacted a car seat law. It looks like Louisiana followed suit if 1985.
This post was edited on 7/15/14 at 9:41 am
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:42 am to navy
quote:Let's be honest. If I were the parent in this case, I'd probably have noticed if the dude didn't go right to jail when sentenced.
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 9:42 am to swampdawg
quote:
Is this mentioned in the article? If so I must have missed it. If this is true then it is an entirely different story.
No, not really. He was convicted. For purposes of this thread, it is entirely irrelevant.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:46 am to Jay Quest
quote:As far as I'm concerned, he served his 2 years. That the state failed to put him where they'd have liked him to serve them is the state's problem. THAT is how we should look at such a state failure.
We are in agreement that the state failed miserably in this matter after the man was sentenced. We differ in that I don't believe it absolves him of his ascribed penance.
I could give two shits about this guy. I've never been much for the whole, "look how he turned his life around" shite you often see in criminal justice system.
I simply think that the preservation of the concept that the state's failures are ITS OWN to deal with is a very big deal.
For all practical purposes, not only is this guy going to go serve his sentence but his sentence was INTENSIFIED by the state's failure. I don't think any reasonable person doesn't see that 2 years now is far worse for the individual than they would've been from ages 19-21.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:49 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Let's be honest. If I were the parent in this case, I'd probably have noticed if the dude didn't go right to jail when sentenced.
For me ... it's just difficult to look at this discussion with anything other than parent-glasses on.
And ... granted ... I don't know anything about the parent(s) in this case.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:54 am to navy
quote:I hold a VERY high value on restricting the state. I can't look at it the way you want to primarily for 2 reasons.
For me ... it's just difficult to look at this discussion with anything other than parent-glasses on.
1)As mentioned, no way the fact this guy didn't go to jail escapes me for 19 years
but hell, assuming it did and at the 19 year mark I noticed
2)My view of state restriction would remain intact and the arse I'd want on the hook would be the idiots involved in failing to incarcerate him. If I were the parent, the names of EVERYONE involved in this failure would be VERY public knowledge.
As it stands now, let's be honest. Some of those involved have probably moved on to higher positions in the justice system. And, they'll experience very little pain from this failure. Why should they? The state is getting a do over. No harm no foul!!!!
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:54 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
No, not really. He was convicted. For purposes of this thread, it is entirely irrelevant.
For the purposes of reality you are probably right. For the purposes of a thread on TD you are not right.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:57 am to ShortyRob
quote:
For all practical purposes, not only is this guy going to go serve his sentence but his sentence was INTENSIFIED by the state's failure. I don't think any reasonable person doesn't see that 2 years now is far worse for the individual than they would've been from ages 19-21
This is where I stand as well.
No reasonable person can say with a straight face that "2 years is 2 years is 2 years."
19 years after the fact, 2 years in prison is a harsher sentence than when it was originally imposed.
To think it is OK for a state to impose a harsher sentence simply because it forgot to impose the sentence originally is a serious violation of the right to due process and and the 8th amendment.
That is the STATE's problem, and what they are trying to do is shift their incompetence onto a citizen who has otherwise been law-abiding and productive.
That is not what the U.S. is about. Do we even care about limits on government anymore? Or do the principles of our limited government get thrown out the window when a baby is killed?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 10:01 am to UGATiger26
quote:Nope
No reasonable person can say with a straight face that "2 years is 2 years is 2 years."
quote:Exactly. Not only is the state getting a do over, they effectively got to up the ante.
To think it is OK for a state to impose a harsher sentence simply because it forgot to impose the sentence originally is a serious violation of the right to due process and and the 8th amendment.
quote:THIS is the most important point.
That is the STATE's problem, and what they are trying to do is shift their incompetence onto a citizen
quote:No. We really don't. I mean, people talk about it, but honestly, I think even 90% of the people who advocate small government don't really get WHY it's such a big deal. They are mostly just people who don't like govt spending.
That is not what the U.S. is about. Do we even care about limits on government anymore?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 10:05 am to UGATiger26
I imagine, if he does do the time, he will serve it under the sentencing guidelines in place at the time of sentencing. He should be eligible for parole in a matter of months.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 10:19 am to swampdawg
quote:
was never called to come serve his time.
Did this guy just think it went away?
He still owes his debt to society and the family under our current system.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 10:19 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
I imagine, if he does do the time, he will serve it under the sentencing guidelines in place at the time of sentencing. He should be eligible for parole in a matter of months.
Length of sentence doesn't really matter to me, unless you're talking about 72 hours or 1 week or something like that.
Even a sentence of 2-3 months will still probably cost this guy his job and seriously screw up his life and plans.
That's why this is such a big f-up on the state's part. But that's NOT the guy's fault.
Again, from the district judge who ruled against him serving his sentence:
quote:
At the time LeBlanc suspended White’s sentence on May 3, 2013, she ruled that too much time had passed for White to serve his original two-year prison sentence without violating “fundamental principles of liberty and justice.”
Posted on 7/15/14 at 10:22 am to weagle99
quote:
Did this guy just think it went away?
Cute.
So if some individual committed some non-violent crime and was supposed to be sentenced to, say, 6 months in prison, it's perfectly OK for the state to wait 10, 20, 30 years down the road when he has a family, kids, job, etc. and THEN say "hey, you still have to serve your six months."
Posted on 7/15/14 at 10:25 am to UGATiger26
quote:
But that's NOT the guy's fault.
Where is the personal responsibility in knowing you were found guilty, knowing you will be punished, realizing the state probably screwed up, and then just keeping your mouth shut?
If the bank accidentally credits $1000 into my account and doesn't say anything for years (and I know the money isn't supposed to be there), do I get to keep the money?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 10:29 am to weagle99
quote:
Where is the personal responsibility in knowing you were found guilty, knowing you will be punished, realizing the state probably screwed up, and then just keeping your mouth shut?
Technically, I agree with you.
He may have had a MORAL obligation to do so.
But he had no LEGAL obligation to do so.
It is the state's job to carry out sentences, not the citizen's.
This post was edited on 7/15/14 at 10:30 am
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News