Teen Receives 196-Year Prison Sentence

RichardDeaf said:
Remember this is ARMED robbery. And we dont know his past history, and its possible he may have committed more crimes during his early teen...
Click to expand...

I am confused. Are you forgetting about your past teenage history? :dunno:
 
I feel that judge was not at all impartial... the ruling smells of personal feeling, abuse of power, possibly vengance, who know what else.

I love Amercia but this ruling should be a 'slap in the face' that we have MAJOR problems internally, and they are going to get worse if something isn't done about it. I can see why people write dystopian novels...
 
jenni-m said:
I feel that judge was not at all impartial... the ruling smells of personal feeling, abuse of power, possibly vengance, who know what else.

I love Amercia but this ruling should be a 'slap in the face' that we have MAJOR problems internally, and they are going to get worse if something isn't done about it. I can see why people write dystopian novels...
Click to expand...

whoa whoa you're getting too far. I think somebody mentioned that this guy has rap sheets as thick as your biology textbook. That's why he's getting maximum penalty.
 
jiro123 said:
whoa whoa you're getting too far. I think somebody mentioned that this guy has rap sheets as thick as your biology textbook. That's why he's getting maximum penalty.
Click to expand...

I know that.
And I STILL think it is too much.
It is a pointless sentence which serves no other purpose than to punish him until death, and keep him locked away (and therefore a burden for the rest of his life, which may be a long time)

I can understand a sentence of many years. 200 years is excessive. He will not survive the entire sentence, it may as well be 2000... after his lifespan, it no longer matters. It is essentially a very slow death penalty, or as I see it, almost like how other countries will cut off hands or limbs.... except worse.

Also, excessive punishment for criminals possibly sets precident for bad treatment of non criminals...
 
Richarddeaf and I am try test with you to see if you can talk to for short, Please ? I just moment for only test
 
Hi Jenn-m, Can you talk to me for short and I try to find out it is working on chat in this area . Please ?
 
Silenthand said:
Hi Jenn-m, Can you talk to me for short and I try to find out it is working on chat in this area . Please ?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are trying to do, but I see your post... :)

Some times it will take people time to respond, be patient.

(I especially have a hard time navigating the forum and finding the topics that I want...)
 
jenni-m said:
I know that.
And I STILL think it is too much.
It is a pointless sentence which serves no other purpose than to punish him until death, and keep him locked away (and therefore a burden for the rest of his life, which may be a long time)

I can understand a sentence of many years. 200 years is excessive. He will not survive the entire sentence, it may as well be 2000... after his lifespan, it no longer matters. It is essentially a very slow death penalty, or as I see it, almost like how other countries will cut off hands or limbs.... except worse.

Also, excessive punishment for criminals possibly sets precident for bad treatment of non criminals...
Click to expand...

then he shouldn't have commit the crime. it is not excessive. the court is doing what the law said. he probably committed 4 crimes. each of those crimes added up together to 196 years. what do you want? 5 years for him and then he gets out to commit another crime? sheesh get real!

justice is served :smash:
 
jiro123 said:
then he shouldn't have commit the crime. it is not excessive. the court is doing what the law said. he probably committed 4 crimes. each of those crimes added up together to 196 years. what do you want? 5 years for him and then he gets out to commit another crime? sheesh get real!

justice is served :smash:
Click to expand...

Why is it when I disagree, people assume I take it completely the opposite direction...

No.

I am insulted by the fact you think I want '5 years'. I am not an idiot.

And yes, I know that is how the 'law works'. But I disagree with it.

I cannot say what number I think is appropriate at this time, it would take a bit of thought... but 50 to 60 would be a good place to start, I think.
 
jenni-m said:
Why is it when I disagree, people assume I take it completely the opposite direction...

No.

I am insulted by the fact you think I want '5 years'. I am not an idiot.

And yes, I know that is how the 'law works'. But I disagree with it.

I cannot say what number I think is appropriate at this time, it would take a bit of thought... but 50 to 60 would be a good place to start, I think.
Click to expand...

he would have been dead by then or too old to live once he gets out. he'll be living on street and then die in some cardboard house. that's cruel.... :doh:
 
jiro123 said:
he would have been dead by then or too old to live once he gets out. he'll be living on street and then die in some cardboard house. that's cruel.... :doh:
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather die free than in a cage.
What say you?
 
jenni-m said:
Personally, I'd rather die free than in a cage.
What say you?
Click to expand...

really? even in a cardboard home in some alley? You said 50-60 years is appropriate for his crime. so that means he'd be 79 years old when he gets out. What can he do at 79 years old? He'd rather go back to prison. Hopefully a family member would take him in. Almost most of time, no family member would take in ex-convict. Who wants to expose their kids to a man with extensive criminal records?
 
jiro123 said:
really? even in a cardboard home in some alley? You said 50-60 years is appropriate for his crime. so that means he'd be 79 years old when he gets out. What can he do at 79 years old? He'd rather go back to prison. Hopefully a family member would take him in. Almost most of time, no family member would take in ex-convict. Who wants to expose their kids to a man with extensive criminal records?
Click to expand...

Well, if you will read my previous language... :)
I said I don't know what an appropriate sentence would be but 50 - 60 would be a good place to start. It could be higher, or lower.

And yes, I would rather live in a cardboard box than live somewhere that I have almost no control, people telling me what to do and when to do it, knowing I would -never- be able to leave... people that possibly want to kill me or beat me up... that would be pretty hard, especially when I started to get old. So yes, having my own cardboard box where I could choose to die on my own time without someone yelling "Lights out!!" would probably be the best thing in the world to me, at that point.
 
Back
Top