A battered wife gets charged for standing up for herself?

[NotNow]

Chris,

I don't believe that the essential facts surrounding the incident are "equvocations".   Certainly intent and the manner and danger of the shooting has some  bearing on the sentencing.  I am not familiar with this case either, and I would defer to anyone who has first hand knowledge of it, but I would certainly not compare it to DUI manslaughter.  While I certainly see your point about an actual death v. the threat of death, the elements of DUI Manslaughter are so completely different that any comparison would seem unlikely.  Just my humble opinion....

[officerk]

Who cares about silly equivocations. This woman is serving a sentence that's 33% longer than the max for, as one example, DUI Manslaughter without leaving the scene. Which is an actual homicide, where someone actually died. How do you keep missing the point, that here nobody was even injured, much less died, and the woman is in jail for a sentence longer than some actual homicide charges? How does that make sense to you? Such an arbitrary justice systems discredits and embarrasses us all.

I agree that the DUI statues are entirely too lenient..

Though I don't see that the laws applied are "silly equivocations." None of the law is ambiugious, missleading, or vague. 
Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon
Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed
Pretty straight forward...

[ChriswUfGator]

Who cares about silly equivocations. This woman is serving a sentence that's 33% longer than the max for, as one example, DUI Manslaughter without leaving the scene. Which is an actual homicide, where someone actually died. How do you keep missing the point, that here nobody was even injured, much less died, and the woman is in jail for a sentence longer than some actual homicide charges? How does that make sense to you? Such an arbitrary justice systems discredits and embarrasses us all.

I agree that the DUI statues are entirely too lenient..

Though I don't see that the laws applied are "silly equivocations." None of the law is ambiugious, missleading, or vague. 
Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon
Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed
Pretty straight forward...

The law isn't a silly equivocation, only your comments. And they still are.

If you choose to continue ignoring the fact that you're falsely equating crimes involving actual deaths to a crime in which nobody was killed, or even injured, then great. Just don't expect the rest of us to do it with you.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris,

I don't believe that the essential facts surrounding the incident are "equvocations".   Certainly intent and the manner and danger of the shooting has some  bearing on the sentencing.  I am not familiar with this case either, and I would defer to anyone who has first hand knowledge of it, but I would certainly not compare it to DUI manslaughter.  While I certainly see your point about an actual death v. the threat of death, the elements of DUI Manslaughter are so completely different that any comparison would seem unlikely.  Just my humble opinion....

We shouldn't have such disparate results, is what I'm getting at. These mandatory sentencing requirements remove all judicial discretion and create situations where common sense cannot prevail. A serious defect. It makes no sense to have a sentence for a crime in which nobody was hurt or even injured significantly exceed that in many crimes that involve actual deaths. And despite the, err, argument I guess you'd call it, by the poster above my last post, the solution to a nonsensical sentencing result isn't to start assigning 9,000 year mandatory minimums to every other charge so that your viewpoint looks less ridiculous. Mandatory minimums were an interesting experiment, but at the end of the day I'm not sure they did much to deter crime, and they have done a lot of harm.

[officerk]

Chris,
we appear to be talking apples to pomegranates as I have ignored no fact only advised of laws and simply how they were applied.  I have not hidden the fact that I do not know the extensive details of this case. I have not attempted to look up any of the trial transcripts and due to the history of incredibly slanted media coverage in previous cases I have not attempted to research it in that manner and have no plans to.   

I do understand the frustrations some have with regards to our current sentencing laws.  Unfortunately, until the laws are changed they are what they are.  I was simply shedding light on some questions that were brought up on this thread with regards to things that I happen to have knowledge of given my knowledge base.   

Perhaps this woman's case will be a test case in the Florida Supreme Court to get the mandatory 10-20-Life sentencing repealed.  I personally know of another individual who is currently incarcerated for 20 years because he fired a gun at an occupied vehicle's tire. So, you see she is not the only victim of this law serving what can be seen as an "extensive"  sentence. 

There are many sentences out there that are too lenient or too excessive. Rapists and Pedophiles are at the top of my list of the too lenient... but there is just not enough time and this is not the right thread...

[ChriswUfGator]

I happen to agree about rapists and paedophiles, however, once again, this woman's crime caused no actual injury whatsoever. Child molesters steal childhoods and cause permanent psychological injury, they should be made to pay commensurately. That's the whole crux here, a punishment should fit the crime, and this one just plain doesn't. There has to be some kind of death or bodily injury requirement added into these things, or else the results become absurd, as this one is.

[officerk]

and thus, the laws will have to be changed.....

[BridgeTroll]

These laws were designed to address people using guns during criminal activities and "habitual felony offenders".  The article does not say what other convictions she has but as I understand it she probably would have to have at least one other conviction for a crime posessing a firearm.

Apparently Florida's version is a near carbon copy of California's version...


Found this on wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life

[Ocklawaha]

Based on all of the information which has been reported this woman seems to have gotten a very poor decision.

As for DUI? Our rules are incredibly lax, in El Salvador Your first offense is your last---execution by firing squad!

[officerk]

Florida's law does not require any prior criminal history. A first offense gets the full monty.  I have no knowledge of CA's law. 


According to The Florida Department of Corrections website: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/

10-20-LIFE has helped to drive down Florida's violent-gun crime rates by 30%. The state's 2004, "Index Crime" rate is now the lowest in 34 years, and the violent crime rate is the lowest in a quarter century.

The 10-20-LIFE public information program continues. The Florida Department of Corrections, in conjunction with the Executive Office of the Governor, and the Florida Legislature continue to inform the public that Florida's tolerance for crime is over. Staff from the Department of Corrections has provided several community presentations on gun violence, and distributed materials about 10-20-LIFE.

In 1998, criminals in Florida used guns to commit 31,643 violent felonies, including 13,937 armed robberies. That year, the mandatory punishment for using a gun to commit a violent felony was only three years in prison. During his campaign for Governor in 1998, Jeb Bush proposed the toughest gun-crime law in the nation: 10-20-LIFE. Under 10-20-LIFE, a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years in state prison.

The 1999 Florida Legislature passed sweeping legislation that provides for enhanced minimum mandatory prison terms for offenders who commit crimes with guns.

The results under 10-20-LIFE are impressive. In only six years, from 1998-2004, 10-20-LIFE has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 30 percent statewide. During the 10-20-LIFE era, armed criminals robbed a total of 10,567 fewer people and killed a total 380 fewer than they would have if these crime numbers had remained at 1998 levels. These crime decreases occurred even as Florida's population increased over 2.5 million (16.8 percent) between 1998 and 2004. Punishing criminals who use guns is making our state safer.

NOW.... I know that as this case was reported this woman does not specifically fit into the mold listed above... However her case would be classified as a "violent crime" for crime stats.... as I stated previously, perhaps her case could be a test case to have the law changed...


If we are going to compare our criminal punishment system to that of other countries I think we will find that the US is very lenient on MANY MANY crimes and thus the reason that the US has the issues that it has with crime that it does. The fear of punishment is just not as great here as it is elsewhere. (I am not referring to this case, crimes in general)

[Dog Walker]

Based on all of the information which has been reported this woman seems to have gotten a very poor decision.

As for DUI? Our rules are incredibly lax, in El Salvador Your first offense is your last---execution by firing squad!

In El Salvador you don't even have to COMMIT an offense to face a firing squad or at least be shot to death.  They have one of the highest murder rates in the world.  Makes the country name very ironic, doesn't it.

OfficerK,  You are very wrong about the US being lenient about punishing crime.  We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and absolutely the highest percentage in the world of population in prison or under parole supervision.  We are wasting huge resources, both money and manpower, with ridiculously harsh sentences for non-violent crimes.

[officerk]

 I am not saying that the US is not punishing crimes. I am saying that in the manner in which some crimes are punnished is entirely too lenient and others is too heavy handed. I am agreeing that the system is broken.  Point of fact the DUI.
http://staugustine.com/police-report/2012-07-06/woman-5-dui-convictions-gets-cited
this story is about an auto accident that happened on July 4th. The driver is a woman who has had FIVE DUI convictions, not arrests CONVICTIONS. And has attended four DUI schools.. When I saw this story I was appalled.. the likelihood that this woman was intoxicated in this accident is pretty HIGH... Not only should she not have a drivers license (something that we all know does not prevent anyone from driving) she should not be free.. the fact that she has not killed anyone is amazing.. she is a habitual offender and a rolling timebomb!

that is the kind of case that I am referring to and the child molester (finally gets caught) that gets a whopping 5 years, gets out, reoffends (finally gets caught) gets 10 years, gets out, re-offends (finally gets caught) and might get a sentance that is worth something but how many children has he/she hurt at this point? And the list goes on... Those are the crimes to which I am referring to..

[ChriswUfGator]

But once again molestation a crime in which a child is raped. Here, nobody was even injured, and the woman got 20 years. It's a false comparison between the two. For a crime that involves no injury or death, nor any financial harm, a 20 year sentence is just draconian. A sentence is supposed to be based on the facts of that particular case, not a bunch of what-if's involving child rape or other inflammatory examples that didn't actually have anything to do with this case. Judges need discretion, and removing that is removing the option to let common sense prevail, and removing the judicial system's ability to have the punishment fit the crime.

Regarding the lady with 5 DUIs, take her damn car and license away. Jail isn't going to do anything to fix her problems, clearly she shouldn't be driving.

[officerk]

So Chris, we are moving away from the woman who has gotten the 20-year sentence for a moment. I am curious. You think this woman who has 5 DUI convictions in her past, has gone through DUI school 4 times (clearly without success) and if you read the story, that DUI is suspected in this accident (alcohol was smelled on her person) where she rolled her vehicle after hitting the curb and having other issues keeping it upright and on the road that the only and proper punishment that she should receive is that her vehicle and licence be taken away from her?

[ChriswUfGator]

Whatever jail term the woman's sentenced to, she's going to get back out and start drinking again. Duh. If it's her 5th DUI, she almost certainly served time for DUI's 2, 3, and 4. You see how well that worked for her, don't you? If you want to remove her as a threat to other motorists, bar her from owning a vehicle. Jail isn't going to change the fact that she plainly has an alcohol problem. She needs treatment, and obviously isn't willing to get it. In this situation, the best you can do, especially where she hasn't injured anyone else, is just get her off the road.

If you're looking for me to say she should get the death penalty, and you do seem to be in favor of harsh sentences whether they fit the crime or not, I'll warn you that you're probably not going to find agreement here.