Originally Posted by steelreserve
Well, that and mandatory minimum sentences. Not that those are usually a good idea either.
Is two years too much for this case? I don't know the answer to that. It's harsh, that's for sure. But if it was some dickhead gang member or drug dealer carrying around a gun in public and being careless about it, or more likely using it to send a threatening message, I don't think I'd want a 30-day catch-and-release. That's who the law was really written for.
Which goes back to the point that mandatory minimum sentences are dumb because they don't let the judge ... you know ... JUDGE the case. Burress was an idiot and he should've gotten punished for this. But this case is obviously at a different end of the spectrum from the intended recipients of the mandatory sentence. One-size-fits-all justice usually results in an extreme verdict one way or the other.
are you kidding me ? why should one person go to prison for years, and another person get 30 days for committing the same crime ,just because they drew a different judge ? hell in my local newspaper just yesterday, there was an article on a found guilty child molester who got ZERO days behind bars !!! the point in punishment shouldn't be just to punish offenders, but to deter future would be offenders.... how many people do you think would stop drinking and driving if they knew they'd get 10 years in prison if they got caught ? i know i wouldn't roll those dice. if you don't wanna do the time...don't do the crime .