Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

[dusselldorf]

Seems to be a light sentence to me.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as mandatory minimums, I have no problem with them. In this case, your cousin committed a very serious crime that warrants the sentence. You simply don't participate in holding a gun on someone and robbing them. That is patently unacceptable. 19 is not a child in any sense of the word, it's an adult. Whether he committed any previous crimes has no bearing on the seriousness and severity of *this* crime. The punishment is just, warranted, and proper.

[Osoroshii]

I can't find any sympathy. He willingly participated in an armed robbery: doesn't matter if it's his first offence or not, doesn't matter if he was the one with the gun or not, he knew there was a gun involved and he chose to be an accomplice. Whenever a weapon is involved, there's a very serious chance that a simple robbery could turn into a murder regardless of the robber's original intentions which means that basically he was okay with putting other people's lives at risk for personal gain.

I think the sentence handed down is pretty fair. In this particular case, the justice system actually did its job and did it well.

[Theinquisition]

does he have a thug life tattoo?

[Ezekiah]

does he have a thug life tattoo?

Spelled out across his knuckles, naturally.

[time0ut]

does he have a thug life tattoo?

If not, maybe his celly can hook him up with a sweet prison tat.

[Theinquisition]

Spelled out across his knuckles, naturally.

lol nice!

[MMKing]

Stupid voters and politicians confuse good prison and justice policy with cruel and harsh justice and prison policy. Guns are involved in allot of crimes, some politician will come along promising harsher sentences upon those who use guns in crimes. By the way, your cousin's 21 year prison stay will amount to a sum larger than that an average american can ever hope to tax or even earn in the course of a lifetime.

While i don't disagree that your cousin should be punished as the criminal that he is. Any laws that have strict requirements regarding anything is poor policy. Often, the factors in a crime are to numerous and unique to be written down effectively. 15 years mandatory is extremely stupid for simply ''a gun was involved'', with no regards to the guns actual involvement. Long prison sentence, or even death sentences doesn't even have the intended effect, at least not to the degree often advocated. A short ''minimum bonus of 3 years'' for a gun ''involved in the crime'' is plenty enough, with the addition of ''gun was fired'' for an additional amount of time.

But no, shouting out being tough and cruel on criminals as if they weren't even humans to a population being force fed fear mongering is so much easier.

[Ezekiah]

Stupid voters and politicians confuse good prison and justice policy with cruel and harsh justice and prison policy. Guns are involved in allot of crimes, some politician will come along promising harsher sentences upon those who use guns in crimes. By the way, your cousin's 21 year prison stay will amount to a sum larger than that an average american can ever hope to tax or even earn in the course of a lifetime.

The three strikes law is a much bigger issue on that front anyways. Illinois actually passed the laws in response to Chicago, I'm sure, and you can hardly blame them even if they've been ineffective. They apply to everything actually, not just robbery. I don't like the mandatory nature of the laws. Never have. They should have flex and let the judge and jury make the call in each situation.

[artemishunter1]

Hi. So my family has gone through a bit of an ordeal over the past few years because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I have a cousin who was an accomplice to crime committed with a gun. He was in the car while a robbery took place, aware of it happening, and didn't call the cops. Definitely wrong. Deserves prison time. The gun wasn't fired, he never held it, it was his first offense, and he was only 19, but that doesn't change the fact that he deserves prison time.

What upsets me is that he got 21 years, not because anyone felt it was necessary, but because in Illinois, it's required that any sentence that would be given (in his case, 6-7 years) have 15 additional years added to it if a gun was present during the crime. A lot of crimes have mandatory minimums attached to them here, and not just in Illinois. It's pretty common in America. And the large claim is that the judge (and certainly any DA making a deal) has no flex on the matter.

I wondered what you guys thought about these laws. I also wanted to ask for help from anyone who disagrees with them. My family, in a last effort to try and help my cousin who has served 3 years now, created a petition in the hopes of at least raising awareness on the matter, and perhaps helping my cousin (highly unlikely.) It's just one of those online things. I'd appreciate the help. Otherwise, just an objective discussion about the laws would be cathartic and interesting to me.

http://www.change.org/p/patrick-quin...share_petition

It is an inperfect system but a necessary one. Or else, we have situations such as "oh you killed an infant, we don't want to send you to prison because you might become a monster, while ignore the fact that you would pretty much have to be a monster to kill your infant child."

- - - Updated - - -

The three strikes law is a much bigger issue on that front anyways. Illinois actually passed the laws in response to Chicago, I'm sure, and you can hardly blame them even if they've been ineffective. They apply to everything actually, not just robbery. I don't like the mandatory nature of the laws. Never have. They should have flex and let the judge and jury make the call in each situation.

Why? There has to be something to account the judge. Since, American double jeodry law already fucks the Justice system. On top of that, you want to have judges give zero to no punishment? A child molester got NO prison time, because a judge decide prison is hard for him. With a Jury, if it is liberal, will never have death penalty, a Liberal Jury would more likely to aquit no matter what the evidence, than give death penalty. A conservative Jury would fuck people even if it is small amount of mariwana

[Themius]

Sounds like he got what he deserved. Mandatory minimums are both bad and good. In this case it is good. Your cousin belongs in prison for 20+ years because he committed armed fucking robbery.

20+ years... that's like a murder charge.

[dextersmith]

lol nice!

Lol'ed at your sig Tony!

Edit: I read follow up remarks for it and am now creeped out.

[Nobleshield]

I personally think mandatory anything in the law is bad. The law should be interpreted based on each individual situation, not fall under some catch-all umbrella. Florida has something similar where if you are involved in a crime with someone else and that person gets killed (e.g. shot by police) then you are charged with their murder.

It's ridiculous, if you ask me. The point of laws and sentencing is not to punish, but to rehabilitate. The two got confused at some point where people just want vengeance, not actual justice.

[Kruncholyo]

Stupid voters and politicians confuse good prison and justice policy with cruel and harsh justice and prison policy. ...
But no, shouting out being tough and cruel on criminals as if they weren't even humans to a population being force fed fear mongering is so much easier.

Judges and sentencing like this is why minimum mandatory sentencing happens:
http://nypost.com/2014/11/03/judge-b...y-three-years/

[dextersmith]

It's ridiculous, if you ask me. The point of laws and sentencing is not to punish, but to rehabilitate.

Not necessarily.

[Nobleshield]

Judges and sentencing like this is why minimum mandatory sentencing happens:
http://nypost.com/2014/11/03/judge-b...y-three-years/

Should it not be the judges choice though, whether or not people agree? Laws should be interpreted on a per-case basis. The issue I have is that mandatory minimums seem to exist only to placate the people who cry about "injustice" when they don't get the result they want.

[Deleted]

Wow, 21 years for being an accomplice in an armed robbery, no wonder 1% of all Americans are in prison doing nothing productive.

I personally think mandatory anything in the law is bad. The law should be interpreted based on each individual situation, not fall under some catch-all umbrella. Florida has something similar where if you are involved in a crime with someone else and that person gets killed (e.g. shot by police) then you are charged with their murder.

It's ridiculous, if you ask me. The point of laws and sentencing is not to punish, but to rehabilitate. The two got confused at some point where people just want vengeance, not actual justice.

Not in the US it is apperantly, in the country of opportunity, justice is about petty vengeance.
Pretty sick if you ask me.
I think that a justice system that is based on profit is a bad idea.

Also, I wonder how much of a sentence a corporate fatcat would get if its found out that he laundered a few billions.
A slap on the wrist and a fine probably.

[Invid]

Holy crap, just trying to sort through this. If its so illegal to use a gun in your country how are they so easily attainable?
How much does it cost to put some one up in prison for a year? I heard it was around 140k or some thing. Are your penitentiaries not privatized as well?
So, people are getting filthy rich because some kid sat in a car seat and goes to jail for 21 years.
I'm sorry guys but your shit is fucked up.

[Meggle]

I can see why that sucks because from your POV he "technically" didn't do anything "wrong". But what if the guy with the gun shot someone? Would you still be questioning your cousins mandatory minimum? He may not have held or fired the gun in that hypothetical situation either, just drove the car to help the guy get away. Still deserves punishment.

Besides, armed robbery...hello? Of course he deserves it. He knew 100% what was going on. o_O

[Kalis]

Here's the thing, he had the ability to look up the sentencing guidelines in his region before he committed the crime, he didn't act out of emotion. He took a gamble, and whilst the length may be harsh, it's a clear case of tough shit. Even if they change the law, I don't think they should make it retrospective for crimes not involving emotion.

One saying that has been repeated numerous times in media and in life, is "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". He had no excuse not to know what the time was likely to be.

[Nobleshield]

But what if the guy with the gun shot someone?

Then the guy who shot someone should suffer the consequences, not everyone involved (not for the same thing, anyways) just because. If two people rob a bank, then both are certainly guilty of robbing a bank. If one of those two shoots someone, both should not be guilty of shooting someone because they were robbing the bank, only the one doing the shooting should be charged (and, likely, convicted) of shooting someone. So let's say hypothetically that bank robbery has a sentence of 5 years, and shooting someone has a sentence of 20 years. The guy who shot someone would get 25 years (20 + 5, although IMO the higher should just override the lower, but that's something else). The other guy should just get 5 years because he robbed the bank but didn't shoot someone. Both shouldn't get 25.

I find it somewhat funny that one of the first things you are taught is that If some A are B and some B are C it doesn't mean all A are C. But with laws and minimum sentences, the following is basically true: If two people are bank robbers, and one bank robber becomes a murderer, then both bank robbers are murderers.

That isn't justice, that's vengeance and wanting to see someone "pay".