Man Gets 26 Years To Life For Cheating On Driver's License Test!

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
May 6, 2005

Another "Three Strikes" Travesty
Why is Santos Reyes Facing Life in Prison?
By ERIN YOSHIOKA

In 1994, California voters passed the infamous "three-strikes-and-you're-out" law, which is currently the nation's toughest law for repeat criminal offenders. "Three strikes" was voted into law by citizens fearful of having violent criminals roaming their streets after spending only a few years in jail.

But it has resulted in the long-term incarceration of thousands of victims indicted on relatively minor charges. Ten years after the passage of the three-strikes referendum, "two-thirds of the people locked up under the law are nonviolent persons," said Vincent Schiraldi, executive director of Justice Policy Institute.

One of the most egregious examples of injustice under the three-strikes law is the case of Santos Reyes, who was sentenced to 26 years to life for cheating on a driver's license test. Reyes took the test for his illiterate cousin. "I felt like I needed to help him because he was going to work with me as a roofer, and he needed a California driver's license first," he said.

Santos had two prior strikes--a juvenile burglary charge for stealing a radio out of someone's house, and a robbery charge at 22 years old. No one was injured in either case. The "perjury" charge stemming from the driver's license test came 13 years later.

ERIN YOSHIOKA is executive director of the Free Santos Reyes Committee.

http://www.counterpunch.org/yoshioka05062005.html

Please visit the Free Santos Reyes Committee website at:

http://www.freesantosreyes.com/

[Renew Deal]

1. "thousands of victims"

Bullshit! It should say thousands of criminals. Maybe people will take these laws more seriously now.

[RedCappedBandit]

5. Are you actually saying

that you think the ruling exampled in this article is fair?

[Renew Deal]

11. Is it fair for the crime?

No, but it is the law.

[Goldmund]

15. You mean like witch burnings during the inquisition?

Hey, it was the law.

[Renew Deal]

21. No I don't

Do you?

[Goldmund]

25. Do I what?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. Must.. not... violate... Godwin's... law... must... not... AAAAAARRRRGHHH

I CAN'T HELP IT!

THAT'S NAZI REASONING!!!!! THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL BLEW THAT EXCUSE 59 YEARS AGO!!!!!

Whew, I feel much better.

So, you agree it is disproportionate punishment but cheer for it anyway? Jesus H. Q. Rhyste on a nuclear-powered pink yellow-polkadotted pogo stick.

[Renew Deal]

28. Yes

It is not fair for the individual crime, but the 3 strikes law says 25 to life. I support the three strikes law.

[progmom]

32. Just because I'm curious

Can you justify to me why you support the three strikes law? Especially considering the idiocy of the case presented in this thread?

[Renew Deal]

38. Because it puts repeat offenders away.

Repeat offenders should be punished with escalating sentences. The California law doubles the sentence for a second felony and triples it for a third. I don't want multiple offenders on the streets. It means that they are not getting better. The 3 strikes law is also supposed to be a deterrent. If you commit a 3rd crime, you are really going away. Maybe the person can get some help or learn from their third stint, if they get out.

[Pawel K]

45. Are you listening to yourself?

You said what happened here isn't fair, yet you support it? How can anyone learn something if they will be locked up forever for something as stupid as this?

[Renew Deal]

52. I said

it's not fair for the individual incident, but it is in context of the 3 strikes law. He won't be locked up forever if he doesn't die in prison.

[Itsthetruth]

53. How Nice

"He won't be locked up forever if he doesn't die in prison."

Now isn't that a cheerful thought! Tell his family that.

And while you're at it tell his family how safe you now feel knowing that a driver's license cheater is locked up for at least 26 years.

[DoNotRefill]

88. Shouldn't that be "convicted burglar/convicted robber/convicted DMV cheat"

instead of just "driver's license cheat"?

Leaving off the previous violent felonies is intellectually dishonest.

[Renew Deal]

150. I feel safer that a 3 time felon

is not on the streets. Especially one that was going to help someone get a drivers license that doesn't deserve it. What would you tell the family of someone that has an accident with a driver that doesn't deserve a license?

[DoNotRefill]

59. Well, if he didn't learn anything after being convicted of....

felony burglary and felony robbery, what makes you think he'd learn after a third felony conviction for perjury?

[SmokingJacket]

55. They need to come up with a better solution.

Yes, it makes sense to escalate sentences with repeat offenders. And I would like punishment to be used as a deterrant, too.

But unfortunately, the *result* of this law is that non-violent people can end up in jail for life. That is wrong, dumb, and a waste of money.

I would support this for violent offenses.

[DoNotRefill]

60. He had two previous felony convictions, including robbery....

so it's kind of hard to say he's not a violent criminal....

[barb162]

69. ditto

[mrfrapp]

112. Violent?

"so it's kind of hard to say he's not a violent criminal...."

Despite the fact that the article says that "no one was injured in either case". How is he a violent criminal?

[DoNotRefill]

113. Robbery is universally seen as a crime of violence...

and most people consider burglary to also be a violent crime.

Rape is also seen as a crime of violence, despite the fact that rape victims are not generally killed.

[ghostsofgiants]

147. Peole are physically harmed in rape though

I think that might be worthy of a distinction. Just sayin' is all.

[Renew Deal]

151. Burglary is a a "violent" felony.

http://www.facts1.com/general/667-p21.htm

[Bariztr]

166. Not Correct

The penal code you cite refers to a burglary where there is a person that is "other than an accomplice" being present in the house, for example the homeowner.
Burglaries where the house is not occupied are classified as "serious" felonies.

[Garth Beaumont]

172. It is sad......

Money will buy a lot of justice in our society. This poor man could not afford it.

[tom_paine]

119. Nuremburg might have deafeated Nazi Reasoning, but if you haven't noticed

it's making a BIG-TIME comeback behind the Televised curtain of Imperial Amerika.

[DoNotRefill]

58. The guy was a burglar and a robber....

those aren't non-violent crimes....

[Conservativesux]

79. Article says he didnt harm anyone. More then I can say for Ken Lay

who is responsible for the loss of millions of dollars from his criminal acts as CEO of Enron, destroying the lifes of thosands of people.

I dont see him in prison yet.

[DoNotRefill]

86. By "didn't harm" anybody, they mean he didn't kill his victims.

He still broke into their house and stole their stuff in the first case and committed robbery against the person he robbed.

Your argument is the moral equivalent of saying that rapists don't harm their victims, since they just fuck them instead of killing them. It's pretty sickening, if you ask me...

[Conservativesux]

101. Ken Lay didnt directly kill anyone with either, just ruined thier lives.

and thats not in the same league as cheating on a driving test.

[girl gone mad]

138. I think you are confused.

Burglary in and of itself is not a violent crime. If I steal a loaf of bread froma store, I am not committing a violenct crime.

On the other hand, if I use a gun to hold up a store or beat someone up and steal their wallet, I am committing a violent crime.

Rape is always a violent crime. A rapist is forcing someone to do something against their will, usually with the threat of bodily harm. I'm not sure how the state defines date rape, but even without the threat of bodily harm, a man is forcing himself on a woman.

[DoNotRefill]

140. I'm confused?

"Burglary in and of itself is not a violent crime. If I steal a loaf of bread froma store, I am not committing a violenct crime."

Burglary is defined at common law as a breaking and entering into the dwellinghouse of another in the night time to commit another felony. That's a far cry from stealing a loaf of bread from an open market, isn't it? And where do most people spend the night? In their homes. So Burglary is considered violent because THERE ARE NORMALLY PEOPLE THERE.

[Bariztr]

167. Burglary in California

The common law definition of burglary is not the one they use in California.

Penal Code Section 459 defines burglary as basically any person who enters any building with intent to commit a felony is guilty of burglary. Section 460(a) says that the burglary of inhabited dwellings, boats, trailers, etc...is a first degree burglary.
Section 460(b)defines non-residential burglaries as second degree burglaries.
There is nothing in the definition that defines the crime of being one of violence. It is classified as a "serious" felony under California law and qualifies as a "strike" as defined.
However it is not correct to immediately assume that there was any violence involved since one could take a bicycle out of an open garage while no one is home and the person would be convicted of first degree burglary in California.

[Renew Deal]

153. It is a "violent" crime according to the law.

http://www.facts1.com/general/667-p21.htm

[Renew Deal]

152. It's considered a "violent" crime according to the law.

http://www.facts1.com/general/667-p21.htm

[Poor Richard Lex]

106. Burglary really isn't a violent crime

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

114. Robbery most DEFINITELY is a violent crime....

and the legislature has declared that burglary IS a crime of violence.

Y'all keep saying that burglary and robbery are not crimes of violence. What do you base that assertation upon??? If they are not violent crimes, would attempted murder be a violent crime? After all, it's just an ATTEMPT....nobody died.

[Renew Deal]

154. And some here think perjury is not a "serious" crime.

The law disagrees.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Yeah, but the punishment should still fit the crime.

I'm sorry, but he's never done ANYTHING so major as to warrant that long behind bars.

[Renew Deal]

12. I understand that

The law has a purpose and it's to put away repeat offenders. I wonder if he knew that he would be subject to the 3 strikes law.

[Itsthetruth]

16. I'm Sure It Never Entered His Mind

"I wonder if he knew that he would be subject to the 3 strikes law."

I don't think you or anyone would worry about doing 26 years to life for cheating on a driver's test .... until now. If he believed that cheating on a driver's test could mean spending the rest of his life in prison as a "hard criminal" he would not have taken the written drivers examination.

What other horrible "crimes" can one get sentenced to life in prison for .... oh ..... stealing video tapes! Yup. That's covered!

[Renew Deal]

22. We don't really know.

I mean, he probably knew about the 3 strikes law. Those applications usually say it's perjury to lie and perjury is a crime. I think it's tough, but fair.

[MadHound]

33. "Tough but fair" Damn, have I wandered into bizarro world?

Please friend, look at this. One crime was committed when he was a juvenile, and in most states it wouldn't even count, since juvi records are expunged when you turn eighteen. The other crime he committed was a non-violent burglary. And when he gets popped for cheating on a drivers license test and goes away for twenty six years to life, you think that this is fair? Give me a break, this is a travesty of justice. More appropriate would have been a fine and having his license yanked.

If this is even a felony crime, I would be suprised. I also doubt that his juvi conviction was a felony, most burglaries are considered to be misdemeanor charges until you get to a certain monetary value(in my state that value is two hundred dollars). None of these crimes were violent, and quite frankly it sounds like the man, after a couple of youthful indiscretions, straightened out his life and was a productive citizen. Now CA taxpayers get to pay for his incarceration on this bogus bullshit. You know, there but for the grace of God go I. And the biggest grace is that I don't live in CA where this travesty of justice took place.

Sorry friend, but the days of Inspector Javert and Jean Valjean are long gone, and best left in the past. Sad to see that so many people want to bring them back:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

36. You make good points

And I would also like to know more about the "juvenile" felony. Why wasn't it removed from his record. My guess is that it was a felony as it takes 3 felony's to have this law kick in. Here is something on the three strikes law. http://www.facts1.com/general/3strikes.htm

I understand how you feel and why you feel that way and I even agree that it is harsh for this crime, but in light of his criminal career (no matter how long or non-violent) I think the law applies.

I would like to add one thing. I think the Democratic party should be the law and order party. I think we should support tough but fair punishment for felons and especially repeat offenders. The other party is the skirt the law party. The other party is the lie to the people party. The other party is the ethically challenged party. It should be them, not us.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. There IS such a thing as TOO MUCH law and order.

And I'm not talking about the TV series.

[DoNotRefill]

72. HELL YEAH!!! KEEP THOSE ROBBERS AND RAPISTS FREE!!!

That'll work!!!

:evilgrin:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

132. Don't be askeert, DNR, yous gots yo guns to keep you safe!

That mean 'ol Ramos won't make it out of your yard alive!

[DoNotRefill]

141. Hell, he's not going to make it out of California's prisons alive....

so he's not even remotely my concern.

BTW, what's up with that accent?

[MadHound]

51. Oh the irony, are you even listening to yourself?

"Tough but fair" What is fair about putting a man away for 26 to life, all because he A. Committed a non-violent crime as a juvi, B. He committed a non-violent burglary when he was 22, and C. He cheated on a drivers license exam thirteen years later. Do you really think that is fair or just? If so, then I really hope you do not ever have to face the kind of justice you advocate, for there is nothing that is truly just about it, merely draconian sentencing that is going to take a productive, tax paying citizen, who paid for his crimes in full long ago, and make him a ward of the state for at least the next quarter century, and possibly for decades afterwards.

In addition, this sort of sentencing will make it much more likely that this man will commit future crimes. Let's say that he gets the minimum, twenty six years. In a quarter century, at the age of sixty one, he will get out of prison. He will have few, if any relavent job skills, no money, and probably no place to go. What is he supposed to do in order to survive? I'll tell you what he probably will do, he will take the criminal skills that he learned while in joint and put them to use in this world. And it may not be just a non-violent crime he commit either. All you are going to do with this draconian sentencing is insure that a productive citizen becomes a possibly violent criminal at a future date. Not a bright move.

And speaking of justice, I did a little reasearch, and found out a few interesting things. He could indeed have had his juvi record expunged and not been in this situation. But unlike other states where this happens automatically upon the juvenile turning eighteen, in California the supplicant has to pay money to a lawyer, and various legal fees to the court in order to get your juvi record sealed, money that this man probably didn't have at the time. Thus, we have an unjust, two tiered system of law, where the haves have the money to get records sealed and verdicts anulled, while the poor don't have this option, and are thus haunted by their past. Do you think that this is just or fair?

I'm sorry, but I think that you are on the wrong side on this one. There indeed needs to be a tightening of our legal system, but to do so in this manner that you advocate is not the just or fair path to go. It is fine to be a law and order person, but realize that you need to temper that with a sense of justice and mercy. You aren't doing this, and like I said earlier, I hope and pray that you are never exposed to your own brand of justice.

[DoNotRefill]

62. Armed robbery is now non-violent????

What DO you consider to be a violent crime, if sticking a fucking gun in somebody's face while demanding their shit IS NOT violent???

[MadHound]

111. Where do you get that

The article said "robbery", not "armed robbery". There is a difference there friend, both legally and otherwise. IE this guy didn't use a gun. And in response to you post below, B&E isn't violent either, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

This isn't the nineteenth century friend. I have a couple of questions for you. Do you live in CA, will your tax dollars be supporting the incarceration of this man? Would you be personally willing to pay those costs? Unless you answer yes to one of those, all you are doing is blowing hot air and jacking up people's tax burden without having to suffer the consequences your self. For it isn't just this man who is now going to be paid for by the state, but more than likely his family too. Congratulations, you've just consigned women and children to bone crushing poverty. Aren't you tough law and order now:eyes;

[DoNotRefill]

115. Sorry, "friend"...

but read the three strikes statute. He had to have been convicted of Robbery in the First Degree...what the rest of the country calls "aggrevated". Robbery in the Second Degree or a lesser charge wouldn't have subjected him to the Three strikes law.

You say Burglary isn't violent. Well, the California Legislature disagrees with you. That's prolly because violating somebody's home is seen as being....well...a violation.

You say that the State will have to pay for his family....if you read more on it, his wife and children, unsurprisingly, have broken contact with him, what with him being a "three time loser" and all. Please elucidate how you know that the State is going to have to pay for anything for them. Or is it just that you assume because they have brown skin that they MUST not be able to prosper? There's a descriptive word for that kind of thought....it starts with R and ends with CIST.

[Tactical Progressive]

131. Since when does 'violation' mean 'violent'

Because they both start with "vio"?

I guess people who have murals on their wall should go away for life by that logic.

[DoNotRefill]

142. Did you READ the statute?

I know you are literate, since you are posting here. In order to qualify under the statute, you MUST have been convicted of a prior VIOLENT (not violation) felony. The definitions of what constitute a violent crime are also found within the statute. Burglary and robbery in the First Degree BOTH qualify under California statute as VIOLENT crimes.

[Tactical Progressive]

181. Sorry, but I don't think I'll take literary lessons from someone

who thinks that burglary is violent "because violating somebody's home is seen as ...a violation." That is nonsensical in simple language terms, let alone as a basis for legal reasoning. 'Violation' is not equal to 'violent' in any interpretation of the English language. Even if they both begin with "v".

And since I doubt that the California Legislature is anywhere near idiotic enough under any set of conditions to equate 'violation' with 'violent', I'll have to assume that your interpretation of why burglary might be classified as a violent offense is where the absurdity enters in, not their statutes.

Let me help you out: violation is a broad concept, spanning J-walking through murder. Lawmakers can decide what is a violation, and what is a violent violation, and do so with presumably a better understanding of the English language than you've displayed. That's how, as others here have pointed out, they can classify different levels of burglary as violent or non-violent.

The only thing this discussion has shown is to what extent you are willing to try twisting words in an attempt to defend the nearly indefensible.

[DoNotRefill]

184. Try reading about the necessary elements of burglary...

At common law, You did not commit burglary unless you broke and entered. There MUST be FORCE used to gain entry to the premesis. IF a door (or window) is left wide open and a person walked in or crawled in to steal stuff, it's NOT burglary at common law. Now if force was used to effect the entry (and it can be minimal force, like pushing the door open) THEN at common law it could be burglary if the rest of the criteria were met.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, really. But these distinctions are important. That's what they teach at law school....how to differentiate these things.

[MadHound]

149. LOL that's so cuuuuute!

Ad hominem attacks and implications that I'm a racist will have to do, when you realize that you don't have a moral leg to stand on, isn't that right now?
Sorry friend, but the Three Strikes law isn't just for violent crimes or criminals. If you were so up on CA law as you claim, you would have realized this, since there was a ballot initiative last fall, Prop 66, to make the Three Strikes law apply only to violent crimes. And it failed, sad to say. Here, read more for yourself<http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htThreeStrikesProp66.htm>

And no, I didn't assume that Mr. Reyes family would become a welfare recipient because I'm a RACIST, but because the statistical probablities state that. Single mom, two children, you do the fucking math. But hey, without knowing a damn thing about me, you decide I must be a racist, rather than a mathematician. That you are making such vicious ad hominems only goes to show how weak your moral position in this arguement is, and that you know it.
Well, sorry friend, it doesn't fly. If you're on the losing end of a debate, bow out gracefully. Personal attacks will get you no where except outta here.

So here you are, exposed for being ignorant of the law, and lacking in compassion. Rather than striking out viciously it would behoove you to reevaluate you position, and factor in some human decency into the question.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bariztr]

168. Wrong

Second degree robbery is considered a "strike" offense in California.
Even an attempted robbery is considered a "strike" offense. District attorneys have and do charges second degree robberies as strikes.


Edited for spelling

[DoNotRefill]

185. You're right, and I'm wrong. I meant to say...

BURGLARY in the second degree, and not ROBBERY in the second degree. My bad.

Robbery, in ANY degree, should qualify as a "strike" crime, because, by definition, it must involve a victim being actually there.

[Poor Richard Lex]

108. Juvenile records count for sentencing for adults

Im not familiary with California's 3-strike rule, other than the basics. But it seems to me that any of the felonies can be non-violent. That is the wrong criteria for this kind of law.

In Va the 3 strikes rule applies to violent felonies only. Of which Burglary is considered violent, I might add in reference to my post above.

I don't like either scheme beause I recognize it for what it is - politicians taking away the judge's discretion so they can say they are "tough on crime"

Judges are perfectly able to make the decision as to how long a person should be sentenced. They take into account the prior record.

[Renew Deal]

158. The problem with the individual laws themselves

is that there is no provision to punish repeat offenders. They are punished for a third or fourth felony like it's their first.

[DoNotRefill]

61. Burglary is "non-violent"?

hey, if you're burgled, I guess you wouldn't feel violated at all, yes?

Burglary isn't burglary unless there is breaking and entering.

[ovidsen]

92. nearly all burglarys are non violent.

unless you consider breaking a window or a lock a crime of violence. Personally, I don't. Doors and windows don't bleed.

[DoNotRefill]

96. breaking into somebody's house...

is a gross violation of their personal space.

You should try talking to people who have been burgled, and then talk to rape survivors. They generally have similar feelings of violation, it's just a matter of the immediacy of the violation.

[ovidsen]

109. I've been a burglary victim

I was pissed off, but I wasn't bleeding. To compare the insult of your stereo being ripped off with the horror of rape strains logic.

[DoNotRefill]

116. Why? After all....

after a rape, most date-rape victims aren't "bleeding" either...so it must not be a violent crime in your book, yes? how about attempted murder? If nobody is bleeding, that must not be a violent crime too, eh?

The California Legislature has passed legislation that states that burglary is indeed a crime of violence.

[ovidsen]

123. BIG difference! For a start

When someone lifts a stereo from my home or a radio from my car, they aren't touching me. I don't see them. I'm ticked off 'cause my property's missing but there's no way my person has been violated.

Can someone be a date rape victim without being touched? Hmmm?

Now, when it comes to attempted murder, I suppose you could split hairs and say someone planting a bomb or poison in an attempt to off me isn't really touching me. But here we delve into "intent". The bomber or poisoner wants my life. The burglar just wants my stuff, and probably hopes to God he never sees me. There is a difference.

[DoNotRefill]

143. actually, yeah...

"Can someone be a date rape victim without being touched?"

You can indeed be raped without the rapist touching you. It's called "forced object penetration" (here at least) and it's also considered a violent felony, despite the fact that the rapist never touched the victim.

"I'm ticked off 'cause my property's missing but there's no way my person has been violated."

Well, the law disagrees with you. The common law considers the violation of your home while you are sleeping in it (hence the "dwellinghouse of another in the night time" bit) to be a violation of your person.

If somebody sticks a gun in your face and has you hand over your wallet, do you consider yourself to have been violated? Because under your statements on burglary, you shouldn't, since he hasn't touched you...

[girl gone mad]

139. Come on.. you can't be serious.

Every woman I know would rather be the victim of a burglary than a rape any day of the year.

It just isnt' the same. Not even close.

[DoNotRefill]

144. Please forgive me....

I didn't mean to imply that being burgled had the same LEVEL of violation that being raped does. I meant to convey that the victims of both rape and burglary generally feel as if they have been violated.

[Renew Deal]

157. It is a "violent" crime according to the law.

http://www.facts1.com/general/667-p21.htm

[Bariztr]

169. Read carefully

What is defined as "violent" is where an individual "other than an accomplice" is found within the home. Otherwise burglary in considered a "serious" offense and not "violent".

Of course for purposes of the California strike law they both qualify as strike priors.

[Tactical Progressive]

182. Which I would take to mean

that burglarizing an empty home isn't considered violent, while burglarizing an occupied residence is considered violent given the potential threat to one's person that the occupier may feel subject to. Would that be the reasoning?

[northzax]

48. so what you're saying is

the law would have had a deterrent effect, if he'd been paying attention? Heck, if I had two strikes, I would make damn sure not to break the law again, wouldn't you?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. You use that phrase, "repeat offender", as if it has some meaning.

As if stealing pizza three times puts one on par with a murderer.

That law is asinine.

[DoNotRefill]

71. Depends on how you steal it....

If you shoplift it, no big deal, that's petit larceny. If you take it from a pizza delivery driver at gunpoint, that IS a big deal, and demonstrates that you pose an ongoing danger to society and need to be in prison.

[mongo]

90. Excuse me

but shoplifting is A BIG DEAL. I read the police blotter in the paper and judges routinely give harsher sentences for driving under suspenstion and even dog at large than they do for shoplifting.

With the crappy margin I get on magazines, I have to sell 3 magazines just to make up for the loss of one stolen.

I could actually lose more money by a single shoplifter than someone robbing me and taking the contents of the register - but shoplifting is "no big deal" - Yeesh!

[DoNotRefill]

98. the question is....

would you rather somebody shoplift from you, or rob you at gunpoint and pump three rounds into your chest?

[mongo]

118. How about neither.

And at the point they shot me, the charge becomes more serious than robbery anyway.

Besides, if someone robs me they are certainly going to get at least an earfull from me. I don't give a damn if they shoot me, they are going to hear about it, and if I get a chance, they will get a lead pipe upside their head.

[DoNotRefill]

120. I'm suitably amazed....

that some little punk with a handgun hasn't shot you yet.

Stay safe, my friend....

[mongo]

122. In a way, I am too

I routinely kick prostitutes and drug dealers out of my lot, armed only with a cordless phone.

Both me and my one employee wear a leather vest all the time - we need the pocket space. But I'm sure it looks to people like we have a concealed weapon.

I don't have as many problems as I did when I first opened. In fact, I drove the prostitution business to downtown, and the downtown assoc has just installed camera's because it got so bad down there. I've come to terms with most of the folks in the hood. They don't do their business on my lot and I don't hastle them. It's the johns I have the most problems with now - anytime I catch someone sitting in my lot I go talk to them. There's a good view of the area from here.

On edit: I guess I'm big and scary looking - but I have heart and kidney problems and am in terrible shape. So I've learned the art of Bravado really well. And I'm good at being assertive without escalating a situation - but if something ever gets physical, I'm going in with as much force as quickly as possible

[DoNotRefill]

145. OK, NOW I am REALLY worried about you....

take better care of yourself, and DON'T get yourself shot over a frigging magazine.

Bravado and looking scary is well and good. Bravado and looking scary while carrying a licensed and legal .45 is BETTER.

You can replace money. You can replace magazines. You can't replace your life.

[Renew Deal]

156. You are making that assertion, not me.

Here is a definition of repeat offender according to dictionary.com. I hope it helps.

1 entry found for repeat offender.
Main Entry: re·peat offender
Function: noun
: a person who has been convicted of a crime on more than one occasion

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=repeat%20offender

[Demonaut]

9. you've got to be kidding, the punishment should equal the crime

26 year to life? now californians will be payng 50 grand a year to house this "hardened" criminal.....we all break the law at various times, double parking, speeding, threatening physical violence, letting our dogs off the lease, tresspassing, doing illegal drugs in our youth, drinking and driving,being a litterbug, stealing in our youth(I've swiped a few holiday decorations as a prank}, now if you've not committed more than one of these offenses then you deserve sainthood, bty I've been a victim too, car stolen, checks stolen, windows broken on vehicle etc etc.

[Renew Deal]

20. We don't "all break the law"

at various times and the law isn't designed for traffic tickets. If it was, I'd be doing multiple life sentences. ;) Some of the stuff you listed isn't a crime.

These are violations of code:
double parking
speeding
letting our dogs off the lease
trespassing (1st offense)
being a litterbug

Those wouldn't even apply.

doing illegal drugs in our youth, may be a crime or a violation depending on the drug and the quantities.

threatening physical violence is usually a crime.

This law is for felonies. Perjury is usually a felony. It sucks for this guy, but he has the history and now he has to pay the lawful price.

[Demonaut]

35. laws can be considered composites of codes

if not a crime still breaking in essence, and you didnt address the theft issue

[Renew Deal]

39. The point of this law is violent and serious felony's.

http://www.facts1.com/general/3strikes.htm

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. Then why does it apply to ALL felonies?

Unless you consider cheating at a driver exam a serious felony. In which case I'd ask what you consider a NON-serious felony.

[DoNotRefill]

63. Read the law...

he got the sentence he did because he was previously convicted of felony burglary and felony robbery, BOTH of which are violent crimes. If he had been convicted at three separate times of perjury for cheating on the driver's exam, he wouldn't be eligible for the three strikes provision.

[Renew Deal]

159. His third felony is for perjury.

Which is a "serious" felony.

[Bariztr]

170. Third Felony

The third felony which triggers the strike law can be for "any" felony. There is no requirement that it be "serious" or "violent". Therefore someone can be charged with possession of cocaine, a personal use amount, Health and Safety Code Section 11350, a felony, and be sent away for 25 to life.

[unblock]

77. nonsense. the point of the law was to make politicians look tough.

this kind of cheap theatrics makes great grandstanding politics at the expense of good policy, and real people get screwed in the balance.

if the point of the law was violent and serious felonies, then it wouldn't apply when the third felony is cheating on a driver's test 13 years after any previous conviction.

i have no problem with a law that would allow repeat convictions to yield longer sentences AFTER DUE PROCESS, including giving a judge the opportunity to say "no, this just ain't right in this case".

this is not a law against repeat felons so much as it's a law against judges, in that what it does is prevent a judge from actually administering justice and forces them bureaucratically process cases instead.

[Renew Deal]

160. The third felony is perjury

And I know you would want to know who took that test if you were in an accident with the person that got the license.

[Demonaut]

81. did you just pull a 180?

[ovidsen]

93. What?????

This law is for felonies. Perjury is usually a felony. It sucks for this guy, but he has the history and now he has to pay the lawful price.

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

[Renew Deal]

161. Actually it does

And it will until the law is changed.

[mongo]

91. I think the law was a boon to the prison industry.

Do they have private prisons in Ca?

America now imprisons a larger percentage of its population than ANY country.

[frylock]

10. nominated for post of the day..

:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

23. Thanks

:hi:

[bpilgrim]

49. are you practicing for a part in Les Misérables?

:shrug:
peace

[Tace]

68. Just What I Was Thinking...

I was carefully reading through the thread to see if anyone else had made the point first. Cheers

[Renew Deal]

162. That's all you can come up with?

:applause:

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

164. I never said "well that's the law" or "the law is wrong"

I don't think the law is wrong. I said that it was harsh for the third crime, but it was appropriate in the context of the three strikes law.

[MidwestTransplant]

2. This is the reason I was not the least bit sorry to see Gray Davis go

He didn't do shit about this bill nor about any of the other grevious injustice issues facing "Culifornia." He was always looking to be Pres. and didn't want to be "soft on crime." The guy was a total Puss.

[DrDebug]

3. What?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

This outrageous. People cheat on tests period

It's not a big deal!

:banghead:

[Double T]

4. The System Is Really Broke............

.........And We Are The Only Ones Who Can Fix It.

[stellanoir]

13. since the privatization of prisons

the cost of incarcerating a person can cost anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000 per year. Ahhhh that's far more than many petty criminals make per year.

Draconian mandatory sentencing stories I've heard recently have turned my stomach. One that comes to mind was that of a 19 year old girl who had a bozo boyfriend move in with her and sold cystal meth out of her apartment. She was clueless about it. She was sentenced to 25 years. Guess what the sentence is for hijacking an airplane. . .25 years. If we all were punished for the idiocies of bozo boyfriends, alot of us would be doing time.

Another story was of a women with no priors who was going through a difficult divorce. Her girlfriends wanted to take her out to cheer her up. They got a little crazy and she purchased a small amount of coke, which she had never done before. The bar they were at was within a certain proximity to an elementary school. She was busted at midnight. She was sentenced as though she had been selling drugs to kids. She's up the creek for nine years.

That last story was told on NPR by a conservative judge (appointed by GHWB) who had retired from the bench because, due to mandatory sentencing guidelines, he felt he couldn't even weigh the merits of a case anymore. He said the courts are now controls primarily by the prosecutors and his powers had been drastically reduced.

I'm of the belief that all non violent offenders should be put on home confinement. We'd save so much dough by doing that and severely lower the outrageously high rates of recidivism.

But oh gee that would cut profits for the prison industry. Oh can't do that.

[Conservativesux]

80. We are all only a few steps from a jail cell. All it takes is someone..

pointing a finger, the cops arresting you, the jury makes a wrong decison and the agressive DA puts you away, even if/when they know that you in fact, didnt do it, or had no knowledge of a crime.

It happens all the time in the land of the wage slave.

[DoNotRefill]

85. Yup, just a few steps....like murdering somebody...

and then, Damn! Your whole life is ruined! As for the guy you killed, well, who cares about him? After all, he's dead, right?

[ovidsen]

95. Silly me!

I thought there was a difference between murder and cheating on a driver's test.

[Conservativesux]

97. Yeah, so did I . I suppose we should just execute jaywalkers now.

[DoNotRefill]

100. Hey, it's just a "few wrong steps"....

away from what this guy did.

He was convicted of robbery in the first degree. From there, it's a very short step to shooting the person you're robbing at gunpoint. After all, you're already committing a serious felony, so the "felony line" of social conduct has already been breached....

[ovidsen]

110. sooo... only a few steps separate murder from test cheating?

ummm... not!

[DoNotRefill]

117. Cheating didn't qualify as a violent crime, but burglary and robbery did..

ant they all three were felonies.

How many felonies is it now acceptable to commit? Do we need a "50 dead bodies and you're out" law?

[Bariztr]

171. 13 years is not a short step

Your escalating offense theory makes no sense in this case since the article states that there was a 13 year gap between the last strike offense and the current perjury offense.

[Conservativesux]

99. So all the men who were wrongly imprisoned for rape sans DNA were what?

Innoncent people go to prison, or hadent you noticed that?

[DoNotRefill]

102. Oh, yeah....

sorry, I forgot that ALL people who are in jail are there because they were A) framed by the police, B) the wrong skin color, or C) perjured themselves in court during a plea bargain.

I bet you've never met a convicted felon who actually committed the crime he or she was convicted of...am I correct?

[DelawareValleyDem]

6. Could have been a big problem for Jim Ignatowski

"What...does...a...yel...low...light...mean?"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Maybe I'm a dumbass but...

if the law was really supposed to keep VIOLENT offenders off the streets, why not tailor the law so that three VIOLENT offenses get you put in jail for life? :shrug:
------

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. That would be too logical

you dumbass. :P

[Itsthetruth]

17. An Organization Fighting To Amend The 3-Strikes Law

Purpose of Families to Amend California's 3-Strikes


Our major purpose is to amend the 3-Strikes law in California so it is only applicable to violent felonies. Nearly 75% of 2nd and 50% of 3rd strikes within California are for non-violent offenses.

In addition, we advocate that the law be amended in the following ways:

the law should not be applicable to crimes committed before its enactment in 1994
the law should not count multiple counts during a single act as multiple strikes
the law should include a "wash-out" period such that convictions older than ten years do not count as strikes
burglary of unoccupied dwellings should not count as "serious or violent" strikes
the law should not be applicable to juvenile offenses

We plan to continuously grow and stay active until we get the law amended. We are a state-wide organization that is actively trying to influence the news media, the public, and politicians so they learn about the problems with the 3-Strikes law. We understand the public's fear, anger and perception of crime. Some of us felt the same way and supported the 3-Strikes law as a way to protect the innocent from violent criminals. But the facts and experiences, not widely known except by the families whose lives have been destroyed by the 3-Strikes law, support our belief that the 3-Strikes law does not serve or benefit the people of California but rather the growing Prison Industrial Complex.

Prisons are big business and people are the commodity.

http://www.facts1.com/About/Purpose/

[me b zola]

74. "Prisons are big business and people are the commodity"

And the types of people who often become that commodity are disproportionately poor and/or ethnic minorities who most often rely on public defenders. If rich/middle class white kids & white collar criminals were forced to have public defenders represent them there would be no such mandatory sentencing laws.

:argh: :grr:

[Straight Shooter]

19. Well, call me a dumbass, too, then

That's my reaction to this ridiculous notion of punishing people for minor infractions.

I've worked in the criminal *cough* justice system. That's why I call it the criminal legal system. The system is legal, but there is very little justice to be found in it.

People make stupid mistakes. Hey, bush would have been behind bars for 10 to 25 in his youth if the same 3-strikes-you're-out law had been applied to him (and if money hadn't greased palms). A lot of adults who are positive contributors to society wouldn't be contributing a damn thing if their indiscretions had been punished likewise.

Justice should always be tempered with wisdom.

[DoNotRefill]

103. Isn't conviction for two violent felonies enough?

If it's not, why settle for three? Make it "50 actual dead bodies and you're out." That'll work well....

>snicker<

[Fescue4u]

18. 3 Strikes is the RIGHT idea for violent offenses

In fact I might even say 2 strikes is the right number for violent crimes.

But for essentially petty or non violent crimes? Way wrong idea.

[KansDem]

24. Adios, George!!!

"That's three arrests for Bush"

The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel.
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving.

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-arrests.html

Don't let the cell door smack you on the butt on your way in!

[Renew Deal]

29. Proof that the law can work.

Now he is commiting crimes against humanity. :evilfrown:

[natrat]

26. the system is broke

in part because there are idiots out there whose response is "it's the law"

which in a broken system is what the few decree

[progmom]

30. very well said

:applause:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Merope215]

64. Are you kidding?

Three violent crimes, sure. But this is ridiculous. Everyone breaks the law sometimes.

"The law is the law" just doesn't cut it, sorry.

on edit: damn, that happened fast. :P

[DoNotRefill]

70. But aren't burglary and armed robbery violent crimes?

[Merope215]

75. Well

I don't think burglary is, no. Armed robbery, absolutely. But I don't see anything in the article that suggests that Mr. Reyes was armed during the robbery he committed; if you find something that suggests that he was, I stand corrected.

I believe in giving people second and, yes, third chances. If someone was an idiot when he was 22, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in most cases. Lots of people are idiots at that age. My feeling is that you pay your debt to society and then you get to move on.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just soft on crime. :eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

76. He was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree....

"Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."

BTW, Robbery in the First Degree, which is what he was convicted of, is the most serious form of robbery that doesn't involve an actual victim dying.

[Minstrel Boy]

82. And cheating on a driving test was the last straw, eh?

Lock 'em up and throw away the key!

:puke:

[DoNotRefill]

84. How many violent felonies are enough?

Maybe if you actually were confronted with this guy's victims, you might feel differently. The most common victim response to a burglary is an overwhelming feeling of violation and of not being safe in their own homes. As for being robbed, well, MOST people would consider that to be a "person to person" crime of violence.

This guy knew his criminal record, and chose to commit more felonies. My sympathy for him is somewhat limited by that fact.

[Zuni]

34. 26 years for cheating on a drivers test?

I think the 3 strikes rule should only apply for violent/and or dangerous criminals with a history of serious asocial offenses

[Itsthetruth]

37. That's American Justice

So 26 years or life in prison for "cheating" is not cruel and unusual punishment.

That's American justice!

Sure.

Do you feel safer now that this fellow has been locked up for life?

I find it amazing that people who on other issues are considered liberals or progressive defend California's 3-strikes law.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. You know,

Anybody can type the words "Bush and the neocons suck" on a keyboard. Pretty easy.

[Conservativesux]

78. The law-enforcement/ prison industrial complex at work again...

after all, the only way to compete with China is to make slaves of our own citizens, so they can work for pennies on the dollar in the prison industry workhouses.

Land of the free?

Not hardly.

[DoNotRefill]

65. Do you consider burglary and armed robbery....

to be asocial activities?

Because that's what he was convicted of....

[Minstrel Boy]

83. Convicted once, and presumably he paid for it.

So why the fuck is he paying again, and for the rest of his life?

[DoNotRefill]

87. He's paying....

because apparently he didn't learn that committing felonies is a BAD thing. He only has himself to blame.

[MazeRat7]

43. Justice... For Sale to the Highest Bidder

Yeah, this is messed up and a prime example of our broken justice system.

However, rest assured if this guy was not poor and Hispanic we would not be having this discussion. Had he been white and even moderately wealthy a much different agreement would have been reached. Most likely not involving any jail time at all.

MZr7

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. This law has been a disaster here in CA....

The three strikes applies to all felonies, not just violent crimes felonies.

I simply cannot see a lifetime imprisonment for property theft and other crimes that do not involve serious assault or battery or the threat to a life (i.e., drunk driving).

Californians have wised up and are poised to have this puppy repealed. We put this in place with a ballot initiative and we will (thankfuly) remove this.

I am a very firm believer in two strikes for violent crimes -- there should be no third time for the violent felons.

[dsc]

47. I find it particularly galling given that just a couple days ago

I read about the kid who burnt his kid up in his bed who had gotten arrested on a weapons charge in California. He had also done a juvi crime so he was covered by three strikes, except he ended up not being given the three strikes sentence. Real fair. Burn your kid to a crisp and get 8 years, cheat on the drivers licence test and get life.

[geniph]

50. Most judges hate mandatory sentencing and "three strikes" laws

It takes the judge's discretion, training, and um, JUDGEMENT, completely out of the equation. Prosecutors, of course, love mandatory sentencing. And certainly there are some habitual recidivists that just need to be off the streets forever - but in my opinion, three strikes laws should apply only to crimes of violence - rape, assault, attempted murder, manslaughter, domestic abuse, things like that.

Why bother even having judges if we're going to have mandatory sentencing?

[mongo]

94. Best point of the night

Why bother even having judges if we're going to have mandatory sentencing?

[DistressedAmerican]

54. Nominated! Thanks For Posting On This Wildly Unjust Law.

My understanding is that the stats tend to support the notion that a criminal with two strikes will be far more likely to just kill a witness to his thrid crime since, the penalty for stealing a crust of bread at that point is no different.

That does not strike me as sound social policy that is keeping us safe!

[nonconformist]

56. This is just INSANE

This fellow will rot in jail, alongside some non-violent drug offender, while a pedophile gets a slap on the wrist and a corporate thug escapes with the average joe's pension.

:mad:

[ronnykmarshall]

57. Thank god he's off the streets.

I'll sleep better tonight.

[Merope215]

66. Thanks for posting this

It's a travesty. Nominated.

[Swamp Rat]

67. This is so wrong!

It makes me embarrassed to be a U.S. citizen. All my friends and relatives abroad are hammering me with accusations of empire and STATE terrorism... how can I disagree when something like this happens?

[KamaAina]

73. 26 years? You mean he doesn't get the death penalty?

I tell you, it's this lib'rul judiciary that's squishy soft on crime!

I mean, 26 measly years? Why, that's before Our Great President Bush says Social Security goes broke! I for one will not stand for these low-down driver's license test cheats collecting MY tax dollars!

:sarcasm:

[grasswire]

89. $30,000 per year to pay for custody of this guy

So he lives what, 30 more years? At $30,000 per year? Looks like a BAD investment to me on behalf of the citizens of California, whose infrastructure is crumbling and whose schools are becoming sinkholes.

[Jesus Saves]

104. Insane waste of citizen money - nt

[immoderate]

105. As a society, we should be doing better.

This is a tough decision. The fact that robbery is a serious felony is troubling. On the other hand I doubt if this fellow had the advantages that some people get in our society that steers them away from exposure to trouble. The three strike law is not a good solution to our crime problems.

Remember IIRC, Anatole France said, "The law, in its infinite Majesty, prohibits rich and poor alike from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges."

--IMM

[indepat]

107. Is this "let the punishment fit the crime" or cruel and unjust punishment?

[ovidsen]

124. What is absolutely amazing

to me about this thread are the posters who say, "well, it may be a little unjust to lock him up for decades because he cheated on a driver's test, but hey! That's the law!!"

Um, wait. Just because its the law, it's right? By extention then, all laws are right.... right?

Wrong.

[rodeodance]

125. 26 years is beyond the pale.

[amazona]

127. it is amazing, isn't it

The world has gone mad. A man works hard, cleans himself up, stays out of trouble for 13 years, even gets his own business and is in position to hire others and help them out.

OK, maybe he shouldn't have helped the cousin on the driver's license exam, but come on. How could anyone reasonably assume that this could be prosecuted as a felony? Has any non-Hispanic person ever in the history of California ever been convicted of felony perjury in the same situation? I mean, even one example? I would find it hard to believe.

Everyone in my state who has ever smoked three joints on three separate occasions has committed three separate felonies. Three strikes laws are clearly insane. They are used for the nonviolent criminals to provide a new slave class to the private prisones. Nobody is safe in a situation where people are getting life for shoplifting from video stores, stealing a ham sandwich, or, now, helping an illiterate cousin pass a driver's license test. Sheesh, give a guy a break. It wasn't like he had a big operation taking tests for money. He was helping out a cousin.

As far as the violent criminals, the purpose of ameliorating the draconian sentences of days gone by was that criminals faced with the death penalty would not leave their victims alive. A three strikes law for violent crime means that an armed robber or rapist might as well kill and eliminate all witnesses. So we see more and more killings of the innocent, not less.

The world has gone mad. I don't understand why the judge didn't throw the whole case out of court. I would. Just don't let it get to the jury if the mandatory sentencing is going to be that ridiculous. You can't tell me the judge is entirely blameless here. They come up with all sorts of excuses to throw things out of court.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Tactical Progressive]

126. If I were a California juror

I don't think I could convict anyone of a felony I wouldn't feel warranted 25 years in prison.

I guess that would leave first degree murder. Probably not even manslaughter.

Knowing that someone could get 25 years in prison for stealing a radio or cheating on a driver's test would completely change any deliberations I would engage in within my own conscience.

It should affect everyone's deliberations.

[amazona]

128. you are right

Prospective jurors need to be better informed about the consequences of their actions.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Tactical Progressive]

135. I don't know if they tell you

that someone is up on a 'third strike' offense, let alone what their prior convictions were for. I'm pretty sure they don't.

Which means you have to treat every felony charge as leading to an automatic 25-year sentence, and assume that outcome in your consideration of the matter at hand.

[Bariztr]

173. Very true

In trials, prosecutors will request during in limine motions that the fact the defendant is a 3 striker not be talked about in front of the jury. The reason, well obviously, if they find out the defendant is looking at 25 to life on a petty case, the likelihood of conviction goes down. And convictions are the bread and butter of the prosecutors, police and prison system.

[Conservativesux]

134. Problem is that the jurors keep on convicting people like this, instead

of pulling an "OJ" and letting them off, no matter what the judge tells them to do.

[Tactical Progressive]

136. If more people were aware of the aggregiously unfair

practice of the law under this absurdly mis-applied abomination of three strikes, maybe they would let them off. It would be better to let some guilty go free from non-violent 'felonies' than to send people to prison for most of their adult lives on bullshit.

And maybe if jurors were to act with that awareness, the thugs who want to incarcerate people on any pretext they can muster and who are willing to countenance any extent of injustice to do so, would find the blowback of an epidemic of 'not guilty's - by reason on not wanting to send people to prison for life for cheating on a test - having the opposite effect to that which they desire. And lead to dismantling such unjust laws in pretty short order I would imagine.

Thugs don't care about right and wrong. They want what they want. Whether it is your radio, or sending someone to prison for life for taking your radio.

[Conservativesux]

137. I agree. There are indeed thugs on both side of the system..

How any sane America thinks its a good idea to send a person who seems to have no criminal history of violence, for simply cheating on a driving test is beyond my ken.

I'd have caused a hung jury on this one had I been a juror, and damn the judge and this insane law!

[CarefullyLiberal]

129. Reply

I guess he shouldn't have fucked up the first two times.

I think you are missing the point of the three strikes and you're out concept, which is this: He did not get sentenced to 26 years for cheating on his driver's license, he is getting that amount of time for cheating on his driver's license and all the other things he did prior to that.

And by the way, robbery is not a "non-violent" crime. Just because nobody was hurt doesn't mean it should be excused.

He sounds like a scumbag to me. I'm glad he's in jail and I hope he stays there.

In closing, how did going easy on criminals become a plank on the progressive platform?

Respectfully,

-Fergus

[amazona]

130. what part of stayed clean for 13 years did you not understand?

Nobody is excusing the previous crimes but he was convicted, did his time, and changed his life for 13 years and had a business such that he was able to employ others.

Until I see proof that a non-Hispanic person, any non-Hispanic person, was ever prosecuted for this crime as a felony, I'll retain my own opinion of the justice system and the judge and jury in question.

Everybody is a criminal if a minor peccadillo like this is considered a crime. Sheesh. One of the crimes was a juvenile offense. Like you never hit anyone or stole anything or inhaled anything when you were a juvenile.

It is not a question of "going easy" on anybody. It is a question of fairness. Show me a white non-Spanish-speaking person prosecuted as a felony offense for cheating on the driver's license exam. I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be treated as a misdemeanor or even just a summary offense. Sheesh. A friend of mine (white) had her concealed weapons offense treated as a summary offense, ticketed for $50. Would this have been the case if she had been a black male? Don't think so. It would have been the dreaded felony.

The system is broken. I don't respect the law when it has clearly failed to earn my respect.

Fair is fair, and going back and sentencing someone for a crime they already paid the price for and never committed again is not fair.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Conservativesux]

133. I couldnt agree more. The system is rigged to give whites a break

and non-whites get the maximum penalty slapped on them.

After all, we would want too many whites in the prison slave industry system, would we?

Just like the old days before 1865, nothing changes much.

[SouthernDem2004]

148. Where do you get the racism in this story? True, the sentence is wrong

but how is it racist? The law does not allow for race. It does not say 3 strikes if you are non-white. They even offerred him a plea deal which he turned down. Three strikes laws need to go but they are not racist.

[w4rma]

163. I would have turned down a 25 year plea deal, also. 5th & 8th Amendments:

This is pure BS and I think it could be argued that it is unConstitutional as it seems to me that this law goes against the 'proportionality' interpretation of the 8th Amendment and the 'double jeopardy' interpretation of the 5th Amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/07.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/02.html#1

[SouthernDem2004]

165. Deal was for four years.

[w4rma]

179. Nonetheless, this guy is taking a stand against an unConstitutional law.

He is taking a very big chance by sticking his neck out like this because he felt that he was being treated unfairly and also felt that the folks in power would agree with his position. Imho, this is very brave (although I'm sure *you'd* probably use the word "stupid") of him.

[SouthernDem2004]

180. Mind reader, eh?

The law is not Unconstitutional its just a bad idea. The Supreme Court has upheld three strikes laws.

Can you tell what I am thinking now? ;)

Peace

[w4rma]

183. No. But was I right, before? (nt)

[Bariztr]

174. Unfortunately you would lose that argument

If you think that a higher court would save you by using those arguments, save your breath, it has been tried and failed. Enjoy your long stay on the state's dime.

[w4rma]

178. As more Repug judges get into power, less adherence to the Constitution

is followed by our judges. They live to ruin people's lives. They take care of their family and 'friends' and ruin everyone else.

[DoNotRefill]

146. well, around here...

falsifying identity documents/perjury is ALWAYS charged as a felony. In fact, it can NOT be charged as a misdemeanor. And I've seen 3 or 4 cases of white people being charged with that within the past WEEK at work.

Do NOT lie to the cops about who you are in an attempt to escape prosecution for a traffic offense. You WILL lose, BIG-TIME.

[CarefullyLiberal]

175. You're response is hilarious!

I got a good laugh from that one. Thanks.

Maybe we should weight criminal sentencing with a racist standard like "Affirmative action"?

Yeah, affirmative action in the courtroom, that would make it fair and just!!

No, when I was a kid I never hit somebody, stole something or inhaled anything that was illegal. Even if I had that doesn't make it alright and somehow excusable that the guy in question robbed someone before he turned 18.

Why are you defending someone who has no respect for laws? Why aren't you standing up for the victims of his crimes. People that always take the side of the criminal need to think about their priorities.

Thanks for the laugh, you made my day.

-Fergus

[Octafish]

155. Good thing he didn't start an illegal war under false pretenses.

He'd probably get re-selected.

[Bariztr]

176. Three Strikes not Mandatory

In 1996, i believe, the California Supreme Court came down with the Romero decision. Basically, it allows a judge to remove "strike" priors, for the purpose of sentencing only, so that the defendant can get a sentence that is not 25 to life. That does not mean he goes home right away and even when strikes are removed it can still lead to lengthy prison sentences where a defendant has to serve 80% of the prison term ordered by the court.

For example, a 3 striker doing 25 to life, has to serve approximately 20 years before they are "eligible" to get parole. Since the sentence is indeterminate, one does not have to be released at that first parole hearing.

A "two" striker, a defendant with only one strike prior alleged, would have his base sentence doubled and serve 80% of that term. For example if your base sentence is 5 years, it would be doubled to 10 years and you would have to serve 8 years before being paroled. The difference here is that you would definitely be paroled because the term is determinate.

The Romero decision allows the judges discretion to remove strikes. My question is was this done here? If not, why not? If it was, what findings were made by the judge to deny that request? I certainly would be very curious to find out exactly what happened here. If this was this person's only significant contact with the law in 13 years he certainly would seem to be a candidate to have one if not both of his strikes stricken.

[Moderator]

186. Locking....

This discussion has run its course and has become inflammatory.


DU Moderator