Plex to Jail for 2 years

[X-Terminator]

Gotta agree with Preacher and TheWARDen on this one. How Plax got 2 years in the sin bin while Stallworth got less than a month is just insane. If Joe Six Pack kills that pedestrian, he may as well kiss his ass goodbye for at least 5 years. Our laws are so friggin screwed up, it's pathetic.

[Edman]

Adios. Plaxicos.

[TheWarDen86]

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets

no here's the difference....





note the highlighted words .... MANDATORY and POSSIBLE. ...in burress's crime his destiny was preordained...in stallworths crime his destiny was determined by what kind of mood the judge was in that day. screwed up laws ??? damn right they are. if they REALLY want to deter crimes, ALL laws would have mandatory sentences, how good your lawyer is, or what judge you get, or what kind of mood he is in or does the states attourney "owe" the lawyer a "favor"...it shouldn't be playing a part in punishments..EVERYBODY should get the same reguardless of who you are or how wealthy you are.

another thing to roll over is, was the guy that got hit by stallworth at least partially at fault here ??? from what i gather he wasn't exactly in a pedestian cross walk. maybe had stallworth not been drinking, the results STILL might have been the same.who's to say the alchohol was the determining factor ? people DO have automobile accidents without being under the influence.

Exactly! Different states. Different laws. Different "crimes". Different circumstances.

[steelreserve]

Originally Posted by Preacher

I think 2 years for that is ignorant. It is all about anti-gun laws.

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.

[MasterOfPuppets]

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 .

[AllD]

It sucks he got railroaded. The law is the law, but he still got too much time. Maybe they will release him early.

[steelreserve]

Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets

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 ?

That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm talking about giving the judge some ability to make a distinction between all the various possibilities that can get categorized as a crime under the same law.

Like this one, for example. Say on the one hand, you have a guy who just moved to New York and has an unloaded gun among his stuff, not knowing there's a law against it. While he's unpacking his van, someone comes up and tries to rob him, but he pulls out the gun and scares the thief away. On the other hand, you have a street thug who sells crack, carries a gun out in the open, and menaces people with it on a daily basis because he's looking for trouble. Should they get the same sentence? According to the law, they're both guilty of the same thing. But I don't think you need me to tell you it's really two different crimes and two different sets of circumstances.

I really don't think you can boil it down to by-the-book justice. From every crime from drunk driving to murder, there are going to be things like intent, circumstances and levels of severity that tell you how bad the crime really is. Those are things that really ought to be considered in any criminal case, but mandatory minimums take that away and make those decisions in advance at the political level, based on assumptions that all cases are the same.

Is THAT really what you're arguing in support of?

[Psyychoward86]

Originally Posted by The_WARDen

just so I'm clear..

Stallworth kills someone and gets 23 DAYS in jail.
Plexiglass shoots himself and gets 2 YEARS in jail.

lol

[MasterOfPuppets]

Originally Posted by steelreserve

That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm talking about giving the judge some ability to make a distinction between all the various possibilities that can get categorized as a crime under the same law.

Like this one, for example. Say on the one hand, you have a guy who just moved to New York and has an unloaded gun among his stuff, not knowing there's a law against it. While he's unpacking his van, someone comes up and tries to rob him, but he pulls out the gun and scares the thief away. On the other hand, you have a street thug who sells crack, carries a gun out in the open, and menaces people with it on a daily basis because he's looking for trouble. Should they get the same sentence? According to the law, they're both guilty of the same thing. But I don't think you need me to tell you it's really two different crimes and two different sets of circumstances.

I really don't think you can boil it down to by-the-book justice. From every crime from drunk driving to murder, there are going to be things like intent, circumstances and levels of severity that tell you how bad the crime really is. Those are things that really ought to be considered in any criminal case, but mandatory minimums take that away and make those decisions in advance at the political level, based on assumptions that all cases are the same.

Is THAT really what you're arguing in support of?

i guess thats why they have different degree's for major offenses, i guess they would just have to expand on that. oh and by the way, pleading ignorance to the law is an unacceptable excuse... i tried that one a few years ago on a seatbelt violation in another state ...and the cop told me "thats your bad" ....

[stlrtruck]

Originally Posted by steelreserve

That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm talking about giving the judge some ability to make a distinction between all the various possibilities that can get categorized as a crime under the same law.

Like this one, for example. Say on the one hand, you have a guy who just moved to New York and has an unloaded gun among his stuff, not knowing there's a law against it. While he's unpacking his van, someone comes up and tries to rob him, but he pulls out the gun and scares the thief away. On the other hand, you have a street thug who sells crack, carries a gun out in the open, and menaces people with it on a daily basis because he's looking for trouble. Should they get the same sentence? According to the law, they're both guilty of the same thing. But I don't think you need me to tell you it's really two different crimes and two different sets of circumstances.

I really don't think you can boil it down to by-the-book justice. From every crime from drunk driving to murder, there are going to be things like intent, circumstances and levels of severity that tell you how bad the crime really is. Those are things that really ought to be considered in any criminal case, but mandatory minimums take that away and make those decisions in advance at the political level, based on assumptions that all cases are the same.

Is THAT really what you're arguing in support of?

The other thing that you're not mentioning is that Plex was carrying an unregistered gun.