11-06-2002, 01:02 PM
|
#5
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
No, he was doing it because he was a crack or heroine addict, I believe. This was on one of the night news shows last week. I think the real beef is with having the "3rd Strike felony" be satisfied by a misdemeanor.
I can see that line of reasoning, however that still leaves the problem of habitual offenders.
Note an interesting twist here: the bumped-up misdemeanor must, under CA law, be similar to the prior felonies. So, for the guy who stole video tapes, his midemeanor was similar to his prior felonies (13 years prior, mind you) of unarmed burglary. Had his prior felony been a crime of violence, like rape, his later misdemeanor wouldn't have been bump-up-able. In such an instance, he would have gotten 1 year or less. This strikes me as silly and irrational - which always rankles me as a professional.
Yeah, that is why lay people get so fed up with Judges and lawyers. It is when they see things like this that do not make any "common sense" to them.
Not that any of this obviates your argument that CA should govern itself, which I agree with generally. But, the 8th Amendment has had nearly all meaning written out of it by the Supreme Court over time, and I must say it offends me a bit when parts of the Constitution are judicially obviated. That said, it impressed me that the attorneys challenged the law only on the 8th Amendment. If it does go their way, CA's self-determination will have been limited by the only thing which can limit it (other than the power of the pocketbook) -- the Consitutuion.
Well hooray for that at least [img]smile.gif[/img] As it is the Federal Government has really been able to give itself far to much power of the states. (in my opinion)
As for the 8th Amendment argument, despite the fact I know it likely won't fly, I buy it. Criminal cases are individually tailored - they have to be to investigate someone's culpability (i.e. guilty state of mind). Now, with the guy and the videotapes, his 2 prior felonies were burglaries, unarmed, over a decade past. He then attempted to steal kids videos to give to some kids in his family for Christmas. He was addicted to heroine for much of his life, but had not been your really bad ne'er-do-well. Now, I personally revile this guy, but I think a *mandatory* 50 years (25-life in each of 2 misdemeanors) is a bit much.
|
I guess I have to admit a lack of sympathy for drug abusers. It is rare that someone "forces" a person to use addictive drugs. It isn't as if there isn't enough information out there detailing all the bad things drugs entail.
|
|
|
|