Judge Opposes $20 Life Sentence - 'Three-Strikes' Law Gives Court No Choice

[Grojlach]

Judge Opposes $20 Life Sentence

'Three-Strikes' Law Gives Court No Choice

POSTED: 6:42 p.m. EDT July 16, 2003
UPDATED: 7:12 p.m. EDT July 16, 2003

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A judge reluctantly gave a man life in prison after a $20 burglary, saying he had no choice under a state law that requires such terms for repeat offenders.
Circuit Judge Bob Wattles called the punishment unjust and unfair.
"I don't have the authority or the power to not sentence you to life," Wattles told Maurice Leonard Reed, 37, of nearby Apopka, at his Tuesday sentencing.
Prosecutors had designated Reed a "prison release re-offender" under a state law that requires harsher penalties for some repeat offenders.
Reed was charged in February with robbery and burglary from an attempted undercover drug buy. He had jumped into an undercover officer's car and offered to sell him drugs. When the deputy was distracted, Reed snatched a $20 bill from his hand, hit him in the face and jumped out of the car.
He was convicted last month.
The Florida statute, in place since 1997, lets prosecutors seek enhanced sentences for people who commit certain felonies, such as burglary, within three years of release from prison.
As of the end of May, 302 people have been sentenced statewide under the law this year, according to the Florida Department of Corrections.
Reed's attorney, Christopher Smith, said he will appeal, challenging the burglary conviction.
"I just felt this was a little overzealous," Smith said.
During his sentencing hearing, Reed acknowledged that he had led a life of crime. He has had convictions ranging from aggravated battery with a deadly weapon to cocaine and heroin sales.
"I know I've made some mistakes in my life," Reed told the judge. "I don't think putting me away for life is going to bring on justice. I just come to the court for mercy."
The judge said his hands were tied and noted that the cost of Reed's incarceration will be $560,000 if he lives to be age 75.
"You might get an appellate review," the judge said. "You might have one glimmer of hope. Good luck, Mr. Reed."
Last March, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lengthy sentences for two men who were convicted of petty thefts under California's "three strikes" law.

Source: Local 6

[Timber Loftis]

I don't see how any logical analysis can stand up to this argument: increasing the sentence for your current crime based on past crimes (which you have already been punished for) violates double-jeopardy.

But, somehow the system discounts this argument.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I don't see how any logical analysis can stand up to this argument: increasing the sentence for your current crime based on past crimes (which you have already been punished for) violates double-jeopardy. But, somehow the system discounts this argument.

That is quite logical according to my logic ciruits. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Zero Alpha]

i think the idea is that if they have commited crimes before, and theyve committed again the punishment should be harsher so as to stop them re-repeating there crime. it should also mean that when they have done time for there last crimes, they know if they do it again they go away for a long time. i think that if the encarceration didnt work the first time, its not going to work by doing again but longer. encaseration doesnt work: education does.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I don't see how any logical analysis can stand up to this argument: increasing the sentence for your current crime based on past crimes (which you have already been punished for) violates double-jeopardy. But, somehow the system discounts this argument.

I'm not about to start debating law with you, as that would be foolish. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Having said that though, the fact the he got a life sentence is his own fault. He was given a chance after the first, he know it was wrong but did it again and was sentenced a second time and was stupid enough to keep going after he was re-released.

I'm aware of the double jeopardy clause, in a nutshell you cannot be charged for the same crime twice, yet these were different crimes. He showed no signs of rehabilitation and now gets to live off the taxpayers money for the rest of his life.

Hopefully it will send a message.

[johnny]

That's true Animal. When someone's on two strikes, he's gotta be pretty dumb to go out stealing again. He knew what could happen, now he has to face the consequences.

[Animal]

Originally posted by johnny: That's true Animal. When someone's on two strikes, he's gotta be pretty dumb to go out stealing again. He knew what could happen, now he has to face the consequences.

The only real downside I see to this, is the cost to the US taxpayers. Sometimes I think we're too lenient on criminals.

[Timber Loftis]

The fact remains that his current crime is being punished more harshly BECAUSE OF his past crime. Were it not for the past crime his sentence would be lighter. Ergo, he is being punished FOR the past crime -- one he has already done penance for.

Look, let me point out a big difference. Let's say his crime has a penalty range of 5-10 years. Fine, that's a DISCRETIONARY sentencing range, so using the past crime to knock him up to the max, 10 years, would be fine. But, here we are talking about knocking the penalty range itself into a WHOLE OTHER CRIMINAL CATEGORY. Take California's for instance -- it takes a misdemeanor (in the rare instance that was before the Supreme Court recently) and knocks it (a) into the felony category and then (b) into the mandatory life sentence high crimes category.

I'm not knocking your opinions that repeat criminals should be dealt with more harshly. But, I am challenging the logic. It is simple: if there is a prohibition against punishing someone for the same crime twice, this violates that prohibition.

[Animal]

I don't see it as punishment for the same crime twice, but punishment based upon his history of repeat offences. He wasn't on trial for the original two crimes.

Let's say you have an employee who is challenging your authority. First time, "Okay, your behaviour is unacceptable and you need to conform to our standards to maintain your employment." The employee maintains his unacceptable behaviour, so the second time, "Look. We've discussed this before and the next time we have to talk about it, I'm going to have to seperate you." Pretty clear, right? If the employee still insists on being disruptive then you follow through and terminate his employment.

Not to insult you, but from a lawyers point of view, I can see why you question the logic, but step out of the office for a second and look it.

[Chewbacca]

You dont have to be a Lawyer to see the logic of the double-jepardy arguement.

I see the three strike system, along with a the high rate of return to jail for offenders as failures of the rehabilitation system. I know other nations have a much lower return to jail rate, and they have a different approach to rehabilitation than we do. Our prisons are just big breeding grounds for future criminal behavior.