tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post7894000912872676869..comments2023-12-19T07:29:42.437-06:00Comments on Dedicated Tenther: The Growing Police State: Minimum Sentencing EditionDedicated Tentherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02169003228002700000noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post-59257021618814729502012-05-22T06:40:35.415-05:002012-05-22T06:40:35.415-05:00I don't disagree with your first paragraph at ...I don't disagree with your first paragraph at all. See my other reply above. I'm not saying she didn't commit a crime, or that she doesn't deserve some jail time.<br /><br />I am saying that 20 years for a woman who had never committed a major crime, and who had never committed a violent crime at all (from the reporting I found, at least, if you've got other information, I'd love to see those articles/links) prior to this is a little beyond the pale.<br /><br />The fact is, 10-20-Life doesn't act as a deterrent: no law does. The only people who obey laws are those who are law abiding anyway. It's called 'moral hazard.' We talk about it regarding economic activity all the time, but its true of criminals, too.<br /><br />The idea is that a person who believes the Justice System is there to "protect them" is more likely to take these things to trial and then get convicted, while the 'real' criminals know that they can accept a plea deal and get out in half the time, or less. Sometimes much less, depending on the evidence itself.<br /><br />Minimum Sentencing laws end up perverting the Justice System.Dedicated Tentherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02169003228002700000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post-65163493339854857602012-05-22T06:34:29.194-05:002012-05-22T06:34:29.194-05:00I agree. This isn't so much a defense of her:...I agree. This isn't so much a defense of her: obviously she lost any right to claim self-defense when she left the scene and went back.<br /><br />But, insofar as the Justice System should mostly be concerned with ensuring the safety of citizens; my immune system analogy; what this woman did is not something that requires 20 years in prison to make sure she's not a threat to society.Dedicated Tentherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02169003228002700000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post-11709585655273334202012-05-21T21:36:02.338-05:002012-05-21T21:36:02.338-05:00Usually like your thoughts, but gotta disagree wit...Usually like your thoughts, but gotta disagree with you on this. Going back in the house with the firearm wiped out pretty much any defense--"stand your ground", prevention of a forcible felony, fear for her own safety, etc. It's clear from the 911 calls her husband was in fear for his life-- and if the call from the second incident (where she attacked him AT HIS SAFE HOUSE) were allowed at trial, no wonder it only took the jury 12 minutes to convict. <br /><br />10-20-Life is <i>supposed</i> to be harsh. Not merely as a pushback against lenient sentencing, but as a deterrent to the abusive use of a firearm. And it's worked. And JMO, it's one of the reasons a state so full of Yankee transplants can have such Southern gun laws.Lurking Florida Moronettenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post-1973513711811505922012-05-21T19:16:57.381-05:002012-05-21T19:16:57.381-05:00If she got the 20 years for this act of extreme st...If she got the 20 years for this act of extreme stupidty it may be a bit much. But she did disengage, get her gun, AND THEN GO BACK. I don't know about Florida's CC laws, but here in Wisconsin, that is a big no-no. Whatever protections she had under the law would have been waived by going back in.<br /><br />So, her stupidity leads to 20 years. I will not cry for her.Deathknytenoreply@blogger.com