|
|
Post by southern belle on Feb 12, 2006 13:01:12 GMT -6
Can anyone tell me where the Once a murderer link is? I can't find it again and I need it for my report!!! Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2006 13:11:12 GMT -6
in the middle row of the group of links at the top of the page
|
|
|
|
Post by southern belle on Feb 12, 2006 13:17:45 GMT -6
thanks. I also read this story about a man who kept getting released and striking again. He was like 17 when he got arrested the first time. I think it may have been a link from some website, but I can't find it. Has anyone heard of it or seen it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2006 19:38:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Feb 12, 2006 22:28:37 GMT -6
I think it was, too. Texas wanted to make sure after him, they would never run out of space for inmates...
|
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh on Mar 7, 2006 11:40:47 GMT -6
This brings the question of the purpose of the Three Strike's Law. I don't understand how there could be even three strikes allowed, considering the three strike's law only applies to seious felonies such as murder, lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years, sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life, etc.
Yet people are still complaining that this is unfair, mainly habitual offenders. It's unfair alright, unfair that they are given a second chance, much less three.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 7, 2006 11:42:21 GMT -6
This brings the question of the purpose of the Three Strike's Law. I don't understand how there could be even three strikes allowed, considering the three strike's law only applies to seious felonies such as murder, lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years, sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life, etc. Yet people are still complaining that this is unfair, mainly habitual offenders. It's unfair alright, unfair that they are given a second chance, much less three. In California a strike can be defined as any felony. A lot of whiners are saying people shouldn't be doing 25-to-life for stealing a pizza. |
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Mar 7, 2006 11:52:23 GMT -6
The proper question should be, Joe, did the kids that the pizza was stolen from feel afraid? Did they feel violated and harmed? If the answer was yes, then the 3 strikes law is just and good. I feel that the law sends the message that you had better obey the law, no matter if you think you are just stealing pizza or golf clubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh on Mar 7, 2006 12:16:06 GMT -6
This brings the question of the purpose of the Three Strike's Law. I don't understand how there could be even three strikes allowed, considering the three strike's law only applies to seious felonies such as murder, lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years, sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life, etc. Yet people are still complaining that this is unfair, mainly habitual offenders. It's unfair alright, unfair that they are given a second chance, much less three. In California a strike can be defined as any felony. A lot of whiners are saying people shouldn't be doing 25-to-life for stealing a pizza. You're right, Joe, and I wrote that wrong. What I'm meaning is, how is that applied to violent felonies - what constitutes them being given three chances? I think it's insane and I see nothing just about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Mar 7, 2006 12:30:30 GMT -6
I think any violent crime is a strike, and that multiple crimes together would be two or more strikes. A person could get out of jail after 20 years and have 2-3 strikes already...On mis-step and back for life....
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 7, 2006 12:56:54 GMT -6
You're right, Joe, and I wrote that wrong. What I'm meaning is, how is that applied to violent felonies - what constitutes them being given three chances? I think it's insane and I see nothing just about it. Violence, short of murder, is still within society's power to forgive, Jenna. Besides, most of America's inmates are in for non-violent offenses. The three-strikes laws are mostly about these felons, who are still not welcome in the midst of the law-abiding. Although you may find this hard to believe, the average time served for murder, in the United States, is only about 120 months. That's right -- 10 short years for murder. (In England it's only about 8 years). The three-strikes law is working handsomely in California. Murderers, particularly, can do a lot more time for a third strike than they would otherwise. The law has single-handedly reduced the crime rate in California by keeping dangerous felons off the streets. The problem I see with making it a two-strikes or even a one-strike law (which would never be found constitutional anyway), is that you're only going to encourage otherwise non-violent felons to commit acts of murder. After all, if you're going to serve the same sentence for murder as you would for a third-strike, there is no incentive not to commit murder if one is going to commit a third strike offense anyway. If we can't automatically sentence every murderer to death -- my ideal solution -- at the very least we can automatically send them to prison for the rest of their miserable lives with no hope of parole. Zero. Zilch. I would then give a chance for the two-strikers to behave or go to prison for 25-to-life. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 7, 2006 13:05:52 GMT -6
The proper question should be, Joe, did the kids that the pizza was stolen from feel afraid? Did they feel violated and harmed? If the answer was yes, then the 3 strikes law is just and good. I feel that the law sends the message that you had better obey the law, no matter if you think you are just stealing pizza or golf clubs. Say what? Since when is theft defined by the feelings of the victims? A crime's a crime, Mike. If stealing a pizza or a DVD from Walmart is felony theft, and the three-strikes law defines any felony as a strike, then the three-strikes law is just. Period. It's not like criminals are forced to commit crimes, particularly the 2nd-strikers. You have to be pretty stupid to steal a pizza while out on your second-strike to begin with. Or you have an unconscious need to go back to prison. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh on Mar 7, 2006 13:22:32 GMT -6
You're right, Joe, and I wrote that wrong. What I'm meaning is, how is that applied to violent felonies - what constitutes them being given three chances? I think it's insane and I see nothing just about it. Violence, short of murder, is still within society's power to forgive, Jenna. Besides, most of America's inmates are in for non-violent offenses. The three-strikes laws are mostly about these felons, who are still not welcome in the midst of the law-abiding. Although you may find this hard to believe, the average time served for murder, in the United States, is only about 120 months. That's right -- 10 short years for murder. (In England it's only about 8 years). The three-strikes law is working handsomely in California. Murderers, particularly, can do a lot more time for a third strike than they would otherwise. The law has single-handedly reduced the crime rate in California by keeping dangerous felons off the streets. The problem I see with making it a two-strikes or even a one-strike law (which would never be found constitutional anyway), is that you're only going to encourage otherwise non-violent felons to commit acts of murder. After all, if you're going to serve the same sentence for murder as you would for a third-strike, there is no incentive not to commit murder if one is going to commit a third strike offense anyway. If we can't automatically sentence every murderer to death -- my ideal solution -- at the very least we can automatically send them to prison for the rest of their miserable lives with no hope of parole. Zero. Zilch. I would then give a chance for the two-strikers to behave or go to prison for 25-to-life. I understand all that, but I think you're missing my point. My question is why they are giving the violent offenders three strikes. Take Dean Bandarras-Ross for example. He should have never been let out in the first place. In 1961 Ross stabbed a 15 year-old girl 27 times and then attempted to have sexual intercourse with her corpse. He was sentenced to life in prison, but was paroled in 1977. In 1988 Ross went to the home of a married couple and held them at gun-point. He sexually assaulted the wife in front of the husband. After he forced them into a car, they somehow managed to escape. That same day Ross visted a friends house, confronting them with a gun. He fired on the friend and another man at the residence. Bandarras-Ross continued shooting both of the victims until he had run out of bullets. Bandarras-Ross was convicted of sexual battery, forcible oral copulation, assault with a firearm, attempted murder, burglary, vehicle theft, residential robbery, grand theft, false imprisonment and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 30 years state prison, but was paroled after serving only 14 years. Following his release from prison in April 2004, Bandarras-Ross was charged in San Joaquin County with failing to register as a sex offender. So, my point is that it took all of those heinous crimes to earn him lwop? That's what's insane about the three strikes law. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 7, 2006 13:43:49 GMT -6
I understand all that, but I think you're missing my point. My question is why they are giving the violent offenders three strikes. Your beef isn't with three-strikes, but with indeterminate sentencing and with Americans' moral weakness in general. As a people, we still give judges discretion in sentencing, as though they know better what to do with convicted criminals than anyone else. Legislators then refuse to take harsh stands on crime because their constituents don't much care either way. Who are the constituents? That would be people like you and me, most of whom are safely ensconced in neighborhoods where violent crime isn't a daily problem, people who are relieved if a crime involves one gang member killing another, in some other place.. It's because we don't pay attention to most crime that the rare violent crime that is committed out where we live isn't adequately punished. The rapist that is stalking your neighborhood will, if caught and convicted, not do any more time than the rapist that stalks neighborhoods the majority don't care about. People don't see the connection between their apathy and shockingly lenient sentencing, but it's crystal clear to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Snowy on Mar 7, 2006 14:12:54 GMT -6
The proper question should be, Joe, did the kids that the pizza was stolen from feel afraid? Did they feel violated and harmed? If the answer was yes, then the 3 strikes law is just and good. I feel that the law sends the message that you had better obey the law, no matter if you think you are just stealing pizza or golf clubs. Say what? Since when is theft defined by the feelings of the victims? A crime's a crime, Mike. If stealing a pizza or a DVD from Walmart is felony theft, and the three-strikes law defines any felony as a strike, then the three-strikes law is just. Period. It's not like criminals are forced to commit crimes, particularly the 2nd-strikers. You have to be pretty stupid to steal a pizza while out on your second-strike to begin with. Or you have an unconscious need to go back to prison. As for the guy stealing pizza I think someone told the whole story on here once. There was more to the story then stealing pizza. I can't remember who stated all the facts. I think the man threatened the kid or something. Besides that the man is no longer serving a life sentence. Y ou may want to ask RED. |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Mar 7, 2006 16:53:18 GMT -6
Joe, your posts are sadly true...Isn't it a crime what murderers get away with?!
Thanks for enlightening the public as well...as they do not know (since they are not one of us)
that if and/or when they ARE affected by murder, or any violent crime, their offender will
not receive the justice they SHOULD, and that is what is so sad...
So glad you told it like it is, but they'll never get it, unless it happens to THEM!!
Joe, good posts...
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 7, 2006 17:02:04 GMT -6
Joe, your posts are sadly true...Isn't it a crime what murderers get away with?! Thanks for enlightening the public as well...as they do not know (since they are not one of us) that if and/or when they ARE affected by murder, or any violent crime, their offender will not receive the justice they SHOULD, and that is what is so sad... So glad you told it like it is, but they'll never get it, unless it happens to THEM!! Joe, good posts... Thanks, Guest. Now sign up!  |
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Mar 7, 2006 19:16:23 GMT -6
Joe, what I meant was that the kids were afraid. The justice system took that into account when they sentenced those guys. Plus, when people steal stuff, after being in prison at least once, they need to be back in prison so they do not commit more crimes. At least with long sentences, inmates often are not physically able to commit crimes any more...
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 7, 2006 23:15:02 GMT -6
Joe, what I meant was that the kids were afraid. The justice system took that into account when they sentenced those guys. Plus, when people steal stuff, after being in prison at least once, they need to be back in prison so they do not commit more crimes. At least with long sentences, inmates often are not physically able to commit crimes any more... OK, I get you now, Mikebook. I wouldn't vote for a single-strike of 25-to-life for all felonies, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Eagle on Mar 20, 2006 13:29:08 GMT -6
:)Joe, why wont the A.D.A of San Francisco seek the death penalty, I thought California was a pro -DP state? Monday, March 20, 2006 Halfway into her term as San Francisco's district attorney, Kamala Harris wins praise from colleagues for bringing professionalism and innovation to the office, but has been unable to quell police criticism of her handling of criminal cases -- particularly homicides Four months into her tenure, Harris got off track with police and even some fellow Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, when she took just two days after the arrest of police Officer Isaac Espinoza's alleged killer before announcing she would not seek the death penalty. Harris first said she was sticking to a campaign promise never to seek capital punishment when she decided to pursue life in prison without parole for David Hill in the April 2004 shooting. Later, she insisted that she had acted only after reviewing the facts and the law in the case. When she took office, Harris made it a high priority to eliminate a backlog of 73 homicide cases she inherited from Hallinan, some of which had been pending for several years. She soon took the unusual step of sending out letters to defense attorneys who had murder defendants, inviting them to discuss possible deals. Fifteen of the defendants were convicted of murder within two years, a review of court records and statistics provided by Harris' office showed. But in 32 cases, Harris' office cut deals for manslaughter or took pleas to other crimes such as assault or burglary. Those deals carried an average sentence of 10 1/2 years. Overall, the average sentence on the resolved backlogged homicide cases was 24 1/2 years. Several cases either have yet to be resolved or led to trials that did not result in murder convictions. Harris said many of the plea-bargained cases had been mishandled by Hallinan's administration, and some were more than four years old. Police point to the case they made against David Taylor, now 45, who, confessed to investigators that he killed his 65-year-old mother in July 2001. He acknowledged locking her body in her home, setting the alarm and fleeing the state, then trying to use her ATM card, police said. Taylor said he had mistaken his mother, Altaneze Taylor, for an intruder in a fit of crack cocaine-induced paranoia, hitting her first with a hammer and then taking her, still alive, upstairs and stabbing her with scissors. Prosecutors cut a deal after Taylor's attorney raised the potential for a diminished capacity defense, citing records that showed a history of mental illness. They agreed to let Taylor plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter in exchange for a sentence of 12 years in state prison, with no requirement for psychological treatment. Police homicide Inspector Maureen D'Amico, who led the Taylor investigation, said she is still furious about how Harris' office resolved the case. "This deal was made without any input from me,'' she said. She said no mental defense would explain away the apparent care that Taylor put into both the killing and his escape. Why are state prosecutors allowed to flout CA Law?  |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 20, 2006 13:46:11 GMT -6
why wont the A.D.A of San Francisco seek the death penalty, I thought California was a pro-DP state? California is. He's not. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 20, 2006 13:58:10 GMT -6
Why are state prosecutors allowed to flout CA Law? The district attorney there doesn't work for the state of California. He is paid by the county of San Francisco. |
|
