Windshield Death Sentence -- Is 50 Years Appropriate Punishment?

[aphexcoil]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Justice is now a financial matter?

What she did was reprehensible. She is entirely responsible for her actions.

She made a huge mistake. Whatever she can figure out sitting in jail for 30 years, she could easily figure out in just 5 years. Do you know how much reflection is possible sitting in an 8x8 cell for 5 years?

And as far as the finances, someone else is going to die because that money had to be allocated for her. That's a lot of money that could have been spent on more medicare for the elderly or money for the homeless. In a roundabout way, we're sentencing innocent people through ridiculously long sentences for the guilty.

 

[sunnie]

Since the trial was approx 3,800 miles away from here, I would have to trust the judgment of the jury that observed all the evidence/testimony firsthand.....

She will be eligible for parole in 25 years, with the two sentences to be served concurrently.

Going beyond the fact that she hit the man while on drugs/alcohol...

what is clearly wrong was her conduct after the accident...

she allowed the victim to bleed to death in her garage, while she and her friends plotted on how to dispose of the body.

She could have saved him, but instead allowed him to suffer and die, and then try to hide the crime.

And she was a nurse's aide...

 

[dgabriel]

Compassion for this brutal person?

THe courts stood up for the homeless in this case. People have long committed crime against the homeless with impunity. THis says that it won't be accepted (there's a boolean logic aphie, white AND homeless AND victimizer is black AND jurisdiction is Texas = 50 years)

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from dgabriel:



Drugs and alcohol. You say it is no excuse then you cite it as a partial excuse. Wassup with that?

That she left him unattended for 2 days in that car suggests although she may not have purposely hit him, she deliberately let him bleed to death. Clearly, she chose to let him expire first before attempting to erase the evidence. She may have intended to hit him, we don't know.

Did you buy her tears Apexcoil?

50 years. You can make a lot of license plates in 50 years.

She freaked out. She chose to take the drugs -- however anyone who knows anything about being on a drug knows that people do not make rational decisions while on them. She is completely guilty for chosing to take the drugs, but is not completely guilty for her actions while experiencing the effects of those drugs.

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from dgabriel:

Compassion for this brutal person?

THe courts stood up for the homeless in this case. People have long committed crime against the homeless with impunity. THis says that it won't be accepted (there's a boolean logic aphie, white AND homeless AND victimizer is black AND jurisdiction is Texas = 50 years)

The whole judicial system needs revision. Why should the taxpayers pay for her incarceration? We need a better system.

 

[dgabriel]

Its the whole package that is considered. If you want to mitigate the immediate decision making due to the influence of drugs, you have to release that leniency when viewing her actions the next day. Her actions when sober were just as cold and selfish as they were under the influence of drugs.

And if the taxpayers don't pay for her incarceration then who will, the tax evaders?

I'll be happy to send Texas $500 to held defray expenses.

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from dgabriel:

Its the whole package that is considered. If you want to mitigate the immediate decision making due to the influence of drugs, you have to release that leniency when viewing her actions the next day. Her actions when sober were just as cold and selfish as they were under the influence of drugs.

And if the taxpayers don't pay for her incarceration then who will, the tax evaders?

I'll be happy to send Texas $500 to held defray expenses.

Saudia Arabia doesn't feed inmates. The inmates rely on offerings from people who visit them. That could be a start. I don't want to sound cruel, but I just don't like the fact that other people are paying for her mistakes.

She makes a mistake and now the state of Texas is paying for it.

There has to be a better way.

 

[dgabriel]

First of all, you got everything backwards here aphie. Society is not paying for her mistakes. She did not make a mistake. A mistake is when you get to the 3rd light after the bridge and make a left when you were supposed to make a right.

She committed a crime, not a mistake.

Society pays for the imprisonment of convicted felons. There is no other way.

 

[chasmann]

I agree with you. 50 years is way too long and why should society pay for keeping that idiot fed.

My choice is put her in a spare bedroom at your house. You are responsible if she ever does anything to hurt anyone ever again.
If she smokes crack and tries to burn down the house only she and 1 idiot die ( I guess that is you ). If she decides she is too drunk to walk and steals a car, you pay for the car (and do the time in prison, it is only right because she was high).

My second choice is to let her rot in prison. I feel safer that way.
I do not have to worry that you lent her a car to get you a pizza.
I pay a little more taxes but there is is less threat that my 12 year old will end up in her windshield because her crack pipe fell in her lap and she was trying to get home B-4 the pizza was cold.

That brings us to the last option, capitol punishment. If you do not want to live with her and be responsible for her the rest of your life, and you do not want her killing your wife or son on the street this could be the best option. This is also great if you do not want to pay to keep her in prison for the next 50 years. Think of the tax dollars that would be saved. The only thing is I think you should be the one to pull the lever to make it happen.

Gee, not so easy! Thank God we have a system to take care of this sort of thing. The system said 50 years. I can live with that.

Chuck.

 

[canyonman00]

I think it would have been fair for the judge to issue a sentence in the arena of 29 years and 364 days thereby mitigating the ability to be paroled early. But as usual, IMHO the issues of color and race may have stepped in.

We have an almost identical circumstance case here in Chicago in which a white male (police officer) after a drinking feast drove past an African American street person selling papers. At a red light an altercation started and the officer got out of his car, went into his trunk for is tire iron and beat the man to death. He then proceeded to get back in his car and go about his business. The main witness, his mistress who sat in the front seat and watched the whole incident and did nothing during nor afterwards. His sentence fell down to just 15 years. And it is my understanding that after appeal, even that might be reduced as it was deemed too harsh a sentence for the crime.

Now I am not advocating any hidden agenda here. I think she should have been given a harsh sentence. But I also think that there does need to be a set of standards that are unyielding no matter the pressures. Texas has several cases involving white on white crime that don't confirm to the rough sentencing setups for the white perp. Odd cases set aside, there is a strange set of consistencies when sentencing comes about. It just seems to be that the pendulum of justice swings to the harsh side for peoples of color when metering out punishment and the other way for white folks.