LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

if I am ever going to jail for a long time, im gonna hack off my shins.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12969163/?GT1=8199

Take a look at the live vote and the number of votes.

cjwilhelmi wrote:Take a look at the live vote and the number of votes.

wow. 97% say he should be in prision. I am one.

I say lock him up in a juvenile detention center then where everyone is shorter and keep him in isolation so he cant possibly come in contact with any kids. I know, that really makes about as much sence as not putting him in prison because he is short. Fine then, let's build a little person prison so short people have a place to serve their time without basically getting off scott free!!! If this guy comes into my neighborhood, look for my name to be in the news!

This is what we get when we allow judges to legislate from the bench.

A judges role is to ensure that the rule of law is followed.

Nowhere in the law does is allow for "special" treatment because of his stature. If the judge or his attorney want to have a new, protected class defined, they need to speak to their legislators.

I learned this in my high school freshman American Civics class - the judge must have been on a foreign exchange that semester.

Someone needs to activate the ejection seat under this judge's judicial robes.

peterwho wrote:This is what we get when we allow judges to legislate from the bench.

A judges role is to ensure that the rule of law is followed.

That's not "legislating from the bench". With the exception of mandatory minimum sentences, Judges have always had discretion in sentencing. If you have a problem with that, write your senator. Next time, use some care when parroting political talking points.

In this case, I think the judge is being an idiot. Ever heard of solitary confinement?

But it does bring up a point. If our prison system is so dysfunctional that it cannot protect its own prisoners, then how does a judge fairly assign prison sentences? If going to prison implictly means getting beaten, raped, or killed, then juries and judges are going to much more hesitant about sending people to prison.

peterwho wrote:This is what we get when we allow judges to legislate from the bench.

A judges role is to ensure that the rule of law is followed.

Nowhere in the law does is allow for "special" treatment because of his stature. If the judge or his attorney want to have a new, protected class defined, they need to speak to their legislators.

I learned this in my high school freshman American Civics class - the judge must have been on a foreign exchange that semester.

Someone needs to activate the ejection seat under this judge's judicial robes.

Check "cruel and unusual punishment".

I want this person detained, but not at the cost of the civil liberties afforded to him by the constitution.

Hackaliscious, as always, made a good point about the inherent flaws of our country's detention facilities, they simply are out of control. This man was NOT given a death sentence, his crime did not, by our societies standards, set forth by codified law, fit said proverbial bill. The judge in this instance, in accordance with my beliefs, believed that this man would be killed by other inmates. That is by no means a stretch. In fact, its very likely that someone who committed such a heinous crime, be murdered. The situation has much precendent. Therefore the judge, in accordance with the "SUPREME law of the land", ruled for an alternative punishment.

Bored,
Joe

P.s. I think the chosen alternative punishment was extremely light and unjust.

p.s.s. Did anyone else notice how incredibly loaded the survey question is?

Joe Opron wrote:Check "cruel and unusual punishment".

I want this person detained, but not at the cost of the civil liberties afforded to him by the constitution.

Hackaliscious, as always, made a good point about the inherent flaws of our country's detention facilities, they simply are out of control. This man was NOT given a death sentence, his crime did not, by our societies standards, set forth by codified law, fit said proverbial bill.

It's not like this just applies in this case.

Think about what happens to the Duke Lacrosse players if they are convicted. Then they go to maximum security prison where they are likely to be brutalized on a daily basis.

Even if there is not a conviction and they are found innocent of all charges, imagine if they weren't lucky enough to have parents who could afford a $200,000 bail and private lawyers. They'd be sitting in jail right now, possibly for up to 8-9 months, then would get some public defender. That's what would happen to 90% of people in their shoes.