The idiocy of mandatory minimum sentences.

[Peter King]

You are just as bad as a shady defense lawyer, forget the facts filter them down to the facts you want to present.

1. this is not a court, this is a debate forum. I gave an opinion based on the factual crime committed
2. this has nothing to do with facts outside of the crime and the mandatory sentence.

 

[OrphanSlug]

1. this is not a court, this is a debate forum. I gave an opinion based on the factual crime committed
2. this has nothing to do with facts outside of the crime and the mandatory sentence.

Yet you still will not provide a link the story for us all to evaluate, or search out the facts of this case.

You are presenting them as if your opinion is the authority and moreover your continued arrogance in telling everyone else they are wrong about the case.

 

[Peter King]

I oppose minimum sentences because no legislative committeewas sitting in the trial or that sentencing hearing, listening to defense cousel and the DA's office recommendations and arguments, or the testimony of mental health experts, or witnesses or the victim, or the perpetrator herself. We literally train and pay judges to weigh all these factors as part of their jobs and then remove them as relevant factors in the result.

I would be a hypocrite to participate in your exercise because you are trying to do the same thing based only on media accounts when you were not trained or educated as a judge and also were not sitting in on the trial or the sentencing hearing.

Just like that legislative committee, you and I are in a crappy position to make this call, because we are not even sitting in the baseball stands when this ball was pitched, let alone behind the plate!

You do know this is a debate forum, I posted an opinion and asked whether these specific crimes warrant the sentence given.

And we are not in a court of law or else we would have heard all evidence, I am not asking for a legal guilty/not guilty declaration but about cruel and unusual punishments that do not fit the crime.

 

[Mircea]

+ she is unlikely to re-offend
+ she is herself victim of sexual abuse as a child

Um, no, she is very likely to re-offend.

 

[jotathought]

Yes, but the issue is how long is appropriate.

It should be based on the intent .. was it an innocent interaction or was it flirtatious / promiscuous? Intent is what should drive the consequences.

 

[btthegreat]

You do know this is a debate forum, I posted an opinion and asked whether these specific crimes warrant the sentence given.

And we are not in a court of law or else we would have heard all evidence, I am not asking for a legal guilty/not guilty declaration but about cruel and unusual punishments that do not fit the crime.

You are asking us to 'pick the appropriate sentence' on someone already found guilty based on your summary of which facts warrant our attention. My point is that my entire argument in opposing mandatory minimums is founded on the premise, that I cannot know what I ought to, before making any determination and neither did a legislative body that decided a cookie cutter range designed to be popular with law and order voters before re-election time, written into a statute a decade or more prior to this woman even contemplating a criminal act, can never provide anything close to justice, and neither can we.

 

[Noodlegawd]

1. beyond any doubt, the woman in real story is a total moron for kissing a 13 year old and having him touch her breast
2. this state has minimum sentences for this offens, something I disagree with

IMO, she should have been given a long home arrest with ankle bracelet or a minimum security jail for a year or so, hell even 2 years if need be.

Now there is this additional information:
+ she was drunk (not an excuse but a contributing factor) so banning her from drinking alcohol during her sentence was also very logical.
+ she is unlikely to re-offend
+ she is herself victim of sexual abuse as a child

So what do you think that she got as a mandatory minimum sentence, if you know that the minimum sentence for first degree murder with no aggravating facts is 50 years with probation after 20 years.

Please first vote in the poll what you think is the appropriate sentence and then look below for the sentence she got in that state (again murder is 50 with possible probation after 20 years.

Life in jail with possible probation after 10 years, which was her punishment and she got probation after 10 years

No sentence. Maybe a fine should do. People are way too uptight about sexuality.

This is pretty insane. People often get less for armed robbery or forcible rape.

 

[Peter King]

Um, no, she is very likely to re-offend.

So you know her, are her psychiatrist and have examined her? She never offended in the first 16 years of her adult life.

 

[Peter King]

You are asking us to 'pick the appropriate sentence' on someone already found guilty based on your summary of which facts warrant our attention. My point is that my entire argument in opposing mandatory minimums is founded on the premise, that I cannot know what I ought to, before making any determination and neither did a legislative body that decided a cookie cutter range designed to be popular with law and order voters before re-election time, written into a statute a decade or more prior to this woman even contemplating a criminal act, can never provide anything close to justice, and neither can we.

I am asking you what an appropriate sentence would be for this case.

And my view is that a judge should be able to deviate from the norm. They have been trained to do this, in fact it is one of the largest parts of their job in most cases/first world countries.

Courts should be about justice if at all possible.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

For some reason, I see this as far more minor than it would be if it were a grown man fondling a female child.
And I think most of society sees it the same way I do.
Not sure why that is exactly...but to answer the question I do not believe in mandatory minimum sentences at all.I have no idea what punishment she got and see no point in guessing. I am assuming its something ridiculously draconian or you wouldn't have posted this.

 

[btthegreat]

I am asking you what an appropriate sentence would be for this case.

And my view is that a judge should be able to deviate from the norm. They have been trained to do this, in fact it is one of the largest parts of their job in most cases/first world countries.

Courts should be about justice if at all possible.

I know what you are asking. I I don't know enough about the case or the accused and I am smart enough to realize that. I am the son of a law professor, and district attorney/ prosecutor and pro tempore judge here in Oregon , and my dad always stressed the pitfalls of doing much speculating based on media reports of trials and sentences. In general, my view is that the very legislative bodies that are putting the handcuffs on judges via maximum minimum sentencing, is under constant pressure from the upcoming reelection campaigns, based on well publicized media stories of 'lenient' sentences to legislate longer and harsher sentences. Law and order mantras are far more popular and thus we end up with our jails turning into geriatric wards for aging criminals long past their capacity or interest in committing the kind of violent crimes bars and cells were designed to stop. Look at this chart. https://www.statista.com/statistics...h-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/


I will take another look at the OP and see if I can provide you with some greater insight here but
We are doing something very wrong.

Edit. Nope there is no link to the actual case. I can't possibly learn the judge's rationale by reading his decision or his comments on this from the bench, or the accused's history or the facts from an objective source. Every single fact I read comes from you and only you. I doubt you are a credible professionally trained journalist who covers law and justice issues for the local newspaper so I can't even hope for a professional journalistic standard. I don't know squat

 

[Cardinal]

A drunk woman kissed a 13 year old and put his hand on the clothes over her breast, she was found guilty and got a minimum sentence, what do you think is the appropriate punishment for someone who has been diagnosed as having low chances of doing something like this again and was the victim of sexual abuse as a child herself.

13 is 13, and if the woman is an adult then the Romeo And Juliet Train has left the station. But I’m still curious about the details and why you’re not linking to the story.

 

[btthegreat]

13 is 13, and if the woman is an adult then the Romeo And Juliet Train has left the station. but I’m still curious about the details and why you’re not linking to the story.

There is absolutely nothing for any of us to comment on. Every single fact is provided by Peter King and Peter King alone. We don't even know what those maximum and minimum sentencing guidelines require because we don't know the jurisdiction. The judge may have been gleeful as he handed this down. I would like to read his remarks as he sentenced her so I knew what his thinking was.

 

[Cardinal]

There is absolutely nothing for any of us to comment on. Every single fact is provided by Peter King and Peter King alone. We don't even know what those maximum and minimum sentencing guidelines require because we don't know the jurisdiction. The judge may have been gleeful as he handed this down. I would love to read his remarks as he sentenced her.

It appears to be based on this 12 year old article written by right wing hack Jonathan Turley. There are links to the original story: one page is broken, the other hopelessly blocked anti-anti-adware, which I can’t seem to turn off just to see the story.

Which begs the question: how did Peter King stumble across a hopelessly obscure article that’s older than the Pyramids and written by a joke of a human being that no professional legal mind takes seriously?

Nevada Woman Sentenced to Life Imprisonment For Kissing 13-Year-Old Boy and Putting His Hand on Her Breast

In Nevada, the sentence of Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, is attracting considerable debate. Taylor was convicted of lewdness with a minor under 14 after kissing a friend’s 13-year-old child, putti…

jonathanturley.org

 

[btthegreat]

It appears to be based on this 12 year old article written by right wing hack Jonathan Turley. There are links to the original story: one page is broken, the other hopelessly blocked anti-anti-adware, which I can’t seem to turn off just to see the story.

Which begs the question: how did Peter King stumble across a hopelessly obscure article that’s older than the Pyramids and written by a joke of a human being that no professional legal takes seriously?

https://jonathanturley.org/2010/06/...3-year-old-boy-and-putting-his-hand-on-her-th

Got it. Thanks This is not a thread I am going to hang around in.

 

[Peter King]

I know what you are asking. I don't know enough about the case or the accused and I am smart enough to realize that. I am the son of a law professor, and district attorney/ prosecutor and pro tempore judge here in Oregon , and my dad always stressed the pitfalls of doing much speculating based on media reports of trials and sentences. In general, my view is that the very legislative bodies that are putting the handcuffs on judges via maximum minimum sentencing, is under constant pressure from the upcoming reelection campaigns, based on well publicized media stories of 'lenient' sentences to legislate longer and harsher sentences. Law and order mantras are far more popular and thus we end up with our jails turning into geriatric wards for aging criminals long past their capacity or interest in committing the kind of violent crimes bars and cells were designed to stop. Look at this chart. https://www.statista.com/statistics...h-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/

We are doing something very wrong.

Well, if a judge in the Netherlands give a way too lenient punishment the prosecution just appeals. The new higher court will re-do the trial and then the lenient sentence will be going bye bye.
re
We do not know minimum punishments, we know maximum punishments. We also don't have the trade off system, you confess to this and we will give you that punishment. We don't have that. Cases like this one would have been solved in a matter of weeks. The court case would have lasted just a few days. Afterwards the judge would give his ruling 2 weeks later.

We have what we know as "regiezitting" this is a preparatory day or days. This takes place before the actual trial. Such preparatory days are done in very complex court cases. A Dutch court case is very different than a US case.

First of all we have the judge commissioner, he is the de-facto leader of the investigative stage. He invites witnesses, he officially questions them and that testimony will be added in the file. If neither the judge of the court stage, the lawyer or the prosecutor have no further questions about the testimony then the witness will not be called to testify during the court case.

After the investigation comes the court case itself, now as said it if is a very complicated case (not a case like the Blandino case) there will be one or more preparatory court dates to hammer out the trial itself. In this preparatory court date all parties in the case are present, prosecutor/suspect/lawyer/judges. The first thing talked about is how the investigation is going, is more time needed or is the investigation almost closed. And especially if this investigation should hear more witnesses and what the actual trial is going to look like.

Example, after the preparatory court phase had ended the trial itself took 7 days, this case was the death of a young child and after a long number of years through a massive DNA test among the population the familial DNA of the suspect was found. So the case was child man slaughter.

On day 1 and day 2 the dossier is discussed and the prosecution showed a 3d presentation.
Day 3 was reserved for finalizing the discussion about the dossier if needed and hearing of expert witnesses
Day 4 was split in the morning session in which the forensic psychologists discussed and personal circumstances are discussed. In the afternoon session the family members can give their statements as how this case affected them and explanation by the family's lawyer as to additional demands for the judge to rule on (like financial compensation for the family)
Day 5 is reserved for the indictment and the lawyers response
Day 6 is reserved for the plea of the prosecution as to the desired punishment, after that the plea of the defense as to what punishment they see appropriate (of asking for acquittal of course)
Day 7 is reserved for the reply and rebuttal

Than the judges ended the trial and give the date they will rule on. This ruling is read out in court.

Then the prosecution and the defense can appeal the case if they disagree with the verdict. In this case the appeal court case took just 5 days of actual trial dates.

No jury, no days or weeks of testimony and still a just verdict IMO.

 

[Peter King]

It appears to be based on this 12 year old article written by right wing hack Jonathan Turley. There are links to the original story: one page is broken, the other hopelessly blocked anti-anti-adware, which I can’t seem to turn off just to see the story.

Which begs the question: how did Peter King stumble across a hopelessly obscure article that’s older than the Pyramids and written by a joke of a human being that no professional legal mind takes seriously?

Nevada Woman Sentenced to Life Imprisonment For Kissing 13-Year-Old Boy and Putting His Hand on Her Breast

In Nevada, the sentence of Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, is attracting considerable debate. Taylor was convicted of lewdness with a minor under 14 after kissing a friend’s 13-year-old child, putti…

jonathanturley.org

How I stumbled across this case? Because I watch court cam and during a recent episode on Dutch television this case was featured. That is how I came across this case.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Her lawyer, and I am pretty sure they are not allowed to lie in court.

They are not permitted to lie, if you’re accused of a crime an attorney can’t knowingly claim you were somewhere else if he knows that to be untrue.

Saying “my client is unlikely to reoffend” is not a statement falsifiable statement of the kind that can be subject to being truth or a lie.

 

[Peter King]

In the Netherlands a suspect is allowed to lie on the stand. Because forcing him to not testify because he would have to lie or would have to say I have to plead the 5th is not acceptable. You are never sworn in to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as a suspect because that would force you to cooperate with your conviction.

In the Netherlands only witnesses and experts are sworn in when giving testimony and they can get prosecuted for lying under oath. A suspect can lie his ass off during the entire court case.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you know her, are her psychiatrist and have examined her? She never offended in the first 16 years of her adult life.

That (bolded above) assertion is based on what? Many crimes are not reported or are simply one person’s word vs. another’s and lack physical evidence to support prosecution of the allegation(s).

 

[gino]

Just to let you know, here in Florida, if you take a plea, you get a lesser sentence. If you decide to fight it at trial, the State's Attorney will go for the maximum sentence. So it sounds like she refused to take a plea and fought it at trial and lost. I would imagine the State Attorney offered a plea deal for less than 10 years prison, but she declined to take the deal. The plea deal might have been for a reduced charge.

 

[Peter King]

Just to let you know, here in Florida, if you take a plea, you get a lesser sentence. If you decide to fight it at trial, the State's Attorney will go for the maximum sentence. So it sounds like she refused to take a plea and fought it at trial and lost. I would imagine the State Attorney offered a plea deal for less than 10 years prison, but she declined to take the deal. The plea deal might have been for a reduced charge.

This is illogical, in the Netherlands the prosecutor files for the crime committed, this was a lesser offense so here she would have prosecuted for a much lesser crime. But then again we have no jurors and a judge knows the statutes and would know which kind of crime someone needs to be sentenced for. A Dutch prosecutor can have several charges against a person each with a higher potential sentence. Then the judge (or in a bigger trial 3 judges) would choose the proper charge for which a person is guilty and give a punishment that is appropriate for that specific crime.

 

[Poison]

1. beyond any doubt, the woman in real story is a total moron for kissing a 13 year old and having him touch her breast
2. this state has minimum sentences for this offens, something I disagree with

IMO, she should have been given a long home arrest with ankle bracelet or a minimum security jail for a year or so, hell even 2 years if need be.

Now there is this additional information:
+ she was drunk (not an excuse but a contributing factor) so banning her from drinking alcohol during her sentence was also very logical.
+ she is unlikely to re-offend
+ she is herself victim of sexual abuse as a child

So what do you think that she got as a mandatory minimum sentence, if you know that the minimum sentence for first degree murder with no aggravating facts is 50 years with probation after 20 years.

Please first vote in the poll what you think is the appropriate sentence and then look below for the sentence she got in that state (again murder is 50 with possible probation after 20 years.

Life in jail with possible probation after 10 years, which was her punishment and she got probation after 10 years

I'm confused on this one. Are you saying that the mandatory minimum for this offense was life in prison? What charges was she convicted of?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Mandatory sentences make sense so criminals can't keep getting out over and over only to commit more crimes. In this particular case I can't believe if what she did wasn't so bad that she wouldn't have been allowed to plead it down to a lesser charge.

Unfortunately we can't trust liberal judges and prosecutors to do the right things so mandatory minimums seems like a must. Of course the judge may be able to go with a suspended sentence unless there are rules preventing that.
Every case is different and the circumstances and contributing factors should be considered as to whether or not they have merit. All in all our courts can really mess us the law. It's not usually the law that's messed up but the people administering it.

 

[Peter King]

I'm confused on this one. Are you saying that the mandatory minimum for this offense was life in prison? What charges was she convicted of?

Yes, life in jail with the first potential release after 10 years. So for her wish not to be placed on the sex offender list (I guess because she had children) she got life in jail with a possibility for probation after 10 years.