would u find this guy guilty knowing it would be a 30+yr sentence - Poll it !

If the laws/prosecutor want a conviction, then they must present a punishment that fits the crime and offender.

I hate thieves. But I vote no, and would be ashamed at the options presented by the "justice" system.

we could do what they do in the middle east.. cut off his hand and brand him on the cheek.

or impose supervised community service, roughly 10 hours for every dollar stolen.

Justice used to be focus on recompensation to the victims which is never "the state".

I would say not guilty because the current system relies on theft to punish a thief and is more bent on propping the system up rather than any sort of justice.

sudden valley gunner said:

Justice used to be focus on recompensation to the victims which is never "the state".

I would say not guilty because the current system relies on theft to punish a thief and is more bent on propping the system up rather than any sort of justice.

Click to expand...

You must have the same crystal ball I have.....

sudden valley gunner said:

Justice used to be focus on recompensation to the victims which is never "the state".

I would say not guilty because the current system relies on theft to punish a thief and is more bent on propping the system up rather than any sort of justice.

Click to expand...

Oh, my. Well said.

Thank you for passing along that irony.

Justice and the law are not always synonymous, on the same page.

Not guilty. The justice system is so loathsome I am compelled to exercise any power to disrupt prosecution efforts I may be given.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Not guilty. The justice system is so loathsome I am compelled to exercise any power to disrupt prosecution efforts I may be given.

Click to expand...

Do you really believe that disrupting the municipal court system (administrative court) will bring change to these corrupt systems? Tho I loathe Eric Holder, he did let the cat out of the bag when he said the Ferguson MO municipal court system existed to extort money. He is a 1,000% correct.

Go sit in your local municipal court and watch the majority be raped of every cent they don't have. Broken tail light lens, fine and court cost - $350. In Ohio, minor misdemeanors (most traffic violations) are non-jailable offense. Yet they are threatened with jail if they don't pay. They are never read their rights. It is a sham system.

twoskinsonemanns, you must believe in jury nullification?

I agree that in too many cases the courts seem to be far more interested in extracting money from individuals and companies than about any sense of justice. Many traffic violations fall into this category. On the one hand, the fines and fees for non-hazardous technical violations are often excessive. On the other hand, penalties for truly dangerous conduct is often far too lenient.

There is just no reason why anyone should have 4 or 5 DUI convictions. After DUI #2 the person ought to have lifetime loss of driving privileges. If there is a DUI #3, that ought to signal a need to separate the person from society so he can't drive around drunk. And yet, time and time again we see multiple repeat drunk drivers getting hit with just fines and fees and an interlock device on their car.

The case that is the subject of this thread is NOT a case of someone violating some minor, technical, bureaucratic rule and then facing horribly unjust penalties.

The case at hand is a repeat offender thief. He has multiple convictions for stealing from others.

What is amazing to me is that some of the same folks who advocate for the law allowing them to shoot any and all trespassers, regardless of intent or risk or other circumstances, now turn around and want to go easy on a multiple convicted thief. Is this a blatant disregard for the property rights of those who have been victimized by the thief? Or is it some juvenile hostility to government? If the latest victim had shot the thief dead and been completely open and honest about not feeling in danger, but refusing to be victimized by a thief, how would you respond? Full support for the shop keeper, I suspect.

It seems some folks prefer anarchist vigilantism to a functioning court system.

I don't think shopkeepers ought to be shooting non-violent, shoplifters/petty thieves. I think an impartial investigation by the police and a trial, and punishment from the state, along with restitution to the victims is a far better option.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

...There is just no reason why anyone should have 4 or 5 DUI convictions. After DUI #2 the person ought to have lifetime loss of driving privileges. ...

Click to expand...

Keep in mind what counts as a "DUI" these days. It's perhaps the biggest money-maker scheme they have.

utbagpiper said:

I agree that in too many cases the courts seem to be far more interested in extracting money from individuals and companies than about any sense of justice. Many traffic violations fall into this category. On the one hand, the fines and fees for non-hazardous technical violations are often excessive. On the other hand, penalties for truly dangerous conduct is often far too lenient.

There is just no reason why anyone should have 4 or 5 DUI convictions. After DUI #2 the person ought to have lifetime loss of driving privileges. If there is a DUI #3, that ought to signal a need to separate the person from society so he can't drive around drunk. And yet, time and time again we see multiple repeat drunk drivers getting hit with just fines and fees and an interlock device on their car.

The case that is the subject of this thread is NOT a case of someone violating some minor, technical, bureaucratic rule and then facing horribly unjust penalties.

The case at hand is a repeat offender thief. He has multiple convictions for stealing from others.

What is amazing to me is that some of the same folks who advocate for the law allowing them to shoot any and all trespassers, regardless of intent or risk or other circumstances, now turn around and want to go easy on a multiple convicted thief. Is this a blatant disregard for the property rights of those who have been victimized by the thief? Or is it some juvenile hostility to government? If the latest victim had shot the thief dead and been completely open and honest about not feeling in danger, but refusing to be victimized by a thief, how would you respond? Full support for the shop keeper, I suspect.

It seems some folks prefer anarchist vigilantism to a functioning court system.

I don't think shopkeepers ought to be shooting non-violent, shoplifters/petty thieves. I think an impartial investigation by the police and a trial, and punishment from the state, along with restitution to the victims is a far better option.

Charles

Click to expand...

yepper, do not challenge multiple offender part of your statement however, the individual according the the OP's initial post, quote: According to his lawyer, those five previous convictions totalled (sic) less than $500...unquote

20 years for 500$ worth of merchandise...especially when it cost approximately 60K/year to maintain them plus later years hospitalization costs.

additionally, the Parrish DA is pushing the 20 years in prison sentence... by raising the latest theft to a felony...quote: Cannizzaro’s office, for one, often takes advantage of such charging decisions to ratchet up the possible consequences for criminal defendants, sometimes as leverage to elicit guilty pleas. ...could have been charged with a state misdemeanor under a different statute.unquote

at least the judge recognizes the ludicrous BS the Parrish DA is pulling, quote: Grimes appeared Thursday for arraignment before Criminal District Court Judge Franz Zibilich, pleading not guilty. “Isn’t this a little over the top?” Zibilich wondered aloud over the threat of a “multiple bill,” an approach that leaves little discretion to a judge. “It’s not even funny,” the judge said. “Twenty years to life for a Snickers bar, or two or three or four.” unquote. http://theadvocate.com/news/neworle...-facing-20-to-life-for-pocketing-31-in-sweets

yes, David need another spot on your poll...BS!!

ipse

MAC702 said:

Keep in mind what counts as a "DUI" these days. It's perhaps the biggest money-maker scheme they have.

Click to expand...

What counts in Utah is a tested BAC of 0.08% or higher. The majority of DUI convictions are for drivers who are at least 50% higher than that, at 0.12%.

Did you really want to defend someone driving around with a BAC of 0.08% or higher? Do you really want to attack that law as just a money making scheme on the part of the state?

I have no interest in sharing the road with someone who is obviously impaired. BAC is one of the easier drugs on which to set an objective test.

Other drugs generally require evidence of impaired driving in connection with evidence (medical test or admission) of the drugs being present in the driver's system.

Distracted driving from cell phone use (and other generic causes) is also prohibited in Utah.

And before you go sideways into checkpoints, roadblocks, or other fishing expeditions, I oppose those in all but the most extreme cases (eg looking for an escaped fugitive). Not only are DUI checkpoints offensive to our rights, but I believe they are far less effective than patrolling and looking for drivers who are driving in an impaired manner.

Charles

solus said:

.....20 years for 500$ worth of merchandise...especially when it cost approximately 60K/year to maintain them plus later years hospitalization costs......

ipse

Click to expand...

With that sentence he would be entitled to * ***** implant........

color of law said:

With that sentence he would be entitled to * ***** implant........

Click to expand...

you need to go for a walk on campus work off that excess 'energy'...

(tho quite kute)

ipse

utbagpiper said:

And the cost of letting them roam free in civilized society?

Click to expand...

Everyone in prison lumped into one, followed by a story of men gang-raping a child. Then you deny making any conflation. Yet the conflation is plain to see, I bet a chimp could pinpoint it.

"It's too dangerous to let the guy who stole candy to walk, because would you suggest letting a guy that raped a child walk?" This is your argument. And it sucks.

Your story about 4 guys that need to be incarcerated does nothing at all to negate solus' point that we have problematically high incarceration rates. Our incarceration rates are not higher due to the sort of individuals your story is about. You already know this, yet you disregard this fact which obviously makes any semblance of a point you might have had moot.

stealthyeliminator said:

Everyone in prison lumped into one, followed by a story of men gang-raping a child. Then you deny making any conflation. Yet the conflation is plain to see, I bet a chimp could pinpoint it.

Click to expand...

I'll bet that same chimp might have enough memory to notice that the OP of this thread routinely says that we should allow property owners to shoot any and all trespassers.

By that logic, a shop keeper might well have been "justified" (in McBeth's messed up world) to just shoot the shoplifter for "trespassing" since once he engages in crime he is no longer welcome on the property. But then he turns around and complains because the government might impose a 30 year sentence??

What this reeks of is a mentality that hates government and any sense of law and order while loving the idea of unbridled vigilantism.

It is reckless, dangerous, and juvenile position.

stealthyeliminator said:

Your story about 4 guys that need to be incarcerated does nothing at all to negate solus' point that we have problematically high incarceration rates. Our incarceration rates are not higher due to the sort of individuals your story is about. You already know this, yet you disregard this fact which obviously makes any semblance of a point you might have had moot.

Click to expand...

What I know is that the recreational-drug-legalization crowd likes to engage in presenting mythology as fact. They like to claim that we have huge numbers of peaceful, otherwise-law-abiding pot heads spending decades in prison for no other reason than they were caught with two joints.

I call utter crap on that claim because it isn't true. And until you can provide solid citations to demonstrate otherwise, the claim--directly made or inferred--is bunk.

It is true that a lot of prison inmates have a drug problem. That problem may well have helped contribute to the behavior that got them into prison. But the vast majority of folks in prison are there only after repeatedly violating the rights of others including through theft and violence.

Incarceration rates and sentences for DUI and white collar crimes like theft through fraud or deception are pathetically low.

We have a high incarceration rate because we have a segment of our population that likes to rob, rape, murder, and otherwise victimize their fellow men. It is one of the primary reasons we all here demand our rights to own, carry, and (heaven forbid it be necessary) use our firearms in self-defense.





Notice what happened in the early to mid 1990s in both graphs. Violent crime spiked; We the People got tired of the liberal soft-on-crime that had coddled criminals since the 60s and 70s (remember the SCOTUS even banning executions for season in that time frame?), and decided some folks needed to be isolated from society. By the late 90s that was having the effect of reducing violent crime. Versions of the 2nd graph that are more recent, show the continuing decline in violent crime from 2012 to the present.

Charles

quote:

Yet against a national backdrop of declining crime rates, most of the debate about incarceration in recent years has focused on prisons. A significant body of research shows that our reliance on incarceration as a primary crime control policy has had only a marginal impact on public safety.



... unconvicted people in this country are held in jail simply because they are too poor to pay what it costs to get out. I was startled by the numbers of people detained for behavior that stems primarily from mental illness, homelessness, or
addiction. I was dismayed by how even a brief stay in jail can be destructive to individuals, their families, and entire communities.

I suspect that many readers will come to this report thinking that jail is reserved only for those too dangerous to be released while awaiting trial or those deemed likely to flee rather than face prosecution. Indeed, jails are necessary for some people. Yet too often we see ordinary people, some even our neighbors, held for minor violations such as driving with a suspended license, public intoxication, or shoplifting because they cannot afford bail as low as $500. Single parents may lose custody of their children, sole wage-earners in families, their jobs—while all of us, the taxpayers, pay for them to stay in jail. unquote. http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarcerations-front-door-report.pdf

Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America

actually quite a reasonably balanced and exemplary report released in early 2015

Cut his hands off. Have him repay everything he stole.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

studenygreg said:

Cut his hands off. Have him repay everything he stole.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Caught speeding, cut his foot off?

color of law said:

Caught speeding, cut his foot off?

Click to expand...

He could still speed using his leg nub.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk