Mandatory Minimum Sentancing in Action.

LowKeyReturn

A good example of why mandatory sentencing isn't a great idea.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

john.han

I wouldn't consider that a good example, she was convicted of attempted murder, 20 years is a perfectly appropriate sentence for such a crime.

LowKeyReturn

john.han wrote: »

I wouldn't consider that a good example, she was convicted of attempted murder, 20 years is a perfectly appropriate sentence for such a crime.

How so? What aims of society are satisfied?

1) Rehabilitation? What rehabilitation - if the article is to be believed, and lets say for the sake of argument it can be, the woman fired warning shots to ward off an abusive husband. Even the legislator has commented that if she did just fire a warning shot it's not what they wanted to enact.

2) Punishment - yes but does not fit the crime.

3) Deterrent - clearly failed as the law has been in since 1999 and she did it anyway.

4) Incapacity/protection of society - again irrelevant to this case.

The only people this satisfies is the most hardened hang um high brigade with no sense of justice. Even the judge commented on the inflexibility of the law in this case. This woman alone will cost the US circa $1million to keep her in jail assuming she serves the full term.

mitosis

Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life."

"Under the state's 10-20-life law, a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has been discharged carries a minimum and maximum sentence of 20 years without regarding to any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that may be present, such as those in this case,"

She chose mandatory sentencing. I agree the case is not clear cut and the sentence seems severe, but she was looking at maybe three years and CHOSE to take her chances under the law with mandatory sentences.

I wasn't in court, so don't know, but what constituted discharging a firearm? Did it hit the wall above someones head, or did she fire into the floor at her feet?

LowKeyReturn

mitosis wrote: »

She chose mandatory sentencing. I agree the case is not clear cut and the sentence seems severe, but she was looking at maybe three years and CHOSE to take her chances under the law with mandatory sentences.

I wasn't in court, so don't know, but what constituted discharging a firearm? Did it hit the wall above someones head, or did she fire into the floor at her feet?

Wall above their heads, I believe the issue was it could have ricocheted but it doesn't seem that anyone is contending she intended to harm anyone. That said two children where present.

john.han

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

How so? What aims of society are satisfied?

1) Rehabilitation? What rehabilitation - if the article is to be believed, and lets say for the sake of argument it can be, the woman fired warning shots to ward off an abusive husband. Even the legislator has commented that if she did just fire a warning shot it's not what they wanted to enact.

If the article is to be believed and she just fired warning shots then she has been wrongfully convicted. However, a court has found beyond reasonable doubt that she intended to kill the man and was not acting in self defence.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

2) Punishment - yes but does not fit the crime.

Intending to kill someone? Perfectly reasonable sentence. It would be an unreasonable sentence for just firing warning shots, but the court held that was not her intention.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

3) Deterrent - clearly failed as the law has been in since 1999 and she did it anyway.

There is no way sentencing can completely eliminate crime, what it can do is punish serious offenders in a serious way and reduce the risk they pose to society.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

4) Incapacity/protection of society - again irrelevant to this case.

The only people this satisfies is the most hardened hang um high brigade with no sense of justice. Even the judge commented on the inflexibility of the law in this case. This woman alone will cost the US circa $1million to keep her in jail assuming she serves the full term.

How is it irrelevant? This is a woman who went to the house of someone she had a restraining order against, go past three exits to retrieve a weapon, go past the same three exits to confront someone, fire a number of shots that ballistics showed to be about head height, with children present, based on this I would consider her to be a danger to society. You are ignoring the crime she was convicted of - attempted murder. In terms of seriousness it's as close to murder as you can get.

howamidifferent

The Film "Snitch" deals with mandatory minimum sentencing for drug trafficking in the USA and shows how poorly it deals with fringe type situations. No spoilers here but plot shows that A posts a package to B who opens it to find drugs. B now faces mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for supply unless B is willing to implicate C which is what A had done at the outset by sending to B.

LowKeyReturn

john.han wrote: »

If the article is to be believed and she just fired warning shots then she has been wrongfully convicted. However, a court has found beyond reasonable doubt that she intended to kill the man and was not acting in self defence.

I'm seeing aggravated assault reported. Again how does 20 years in this situation assist rehabilitation?

john.han wrote: »

Intending to kill someone? Perfectly reasonable sentence. It would be an unreasonable sentence for just firing warning shots, but the court held that was not her intention.

Again why is it?

john.han wrote: »

There is no way sentencing can completely eliminate crime, what it can do is punish serious offenders in a serious way and reduce the risk they pose to society.

The US have shown that the was their system works does anything but. Why do you think long sentences does this?

john.han wrote: »

How is it irrelevant? This is a woman who went to the house of someone she had a restraining order against, go past three exits to retrieve a weapon, go past the same three exits to confront someone, fire a number of shots that ballistics showed to be about head height, with children present, based on this I would consider her to be a danger to society. You are ignoring the crime she was convicted of - attempted murder. In terms of seriousness it's as close to murder as you can get.

Again I'm seeing Aggravated assault reported but I'm open to correction. I take it you're attitude is that all crime is black and white? There is no room for aggravating and mitigating factors?

john.han

howamidifferent wrote: »

The Film "Snitch" deals with mandatory minimum sentencing for drug trafficking in the USA and shows how poorly it deals with fringe type situations. No spoilers here but plot shows that A posts a package to B who opens it to find drugs. B now faces mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for supply unless B is willing to implicate C which is what A had done at the outset by sending to B.

That's a good point and for mandatory sentencing to work there should be allowances for the defences of duress or even necessity to apply. In most normal situations B can simply go to the police with the drugs. In more complex scenarios such as the one you outline B should be able to rely on the defence of duress.

john.han

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm seeing aggravated assault reported. Again how does 20 years in this situation assist rehabilitation?



Again why is it?



The US have shown that the was their system works does anything but. Why do you think long sentences does this?



Again I'm seeing Aggravated assault reported but I'm open to correction. I take it you're attitude is that all crime is black and white? There is no room for aggravating and mitigating factors?

It's in the article itself...

Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong.

You seem to misunderstand what the court held. They held that, beyond a reasonable doubt, she intended to kill the man, that she was not acting in self defence and she was the antagonist in the confrontation

LowKeyReturn

john.han wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand what the court held. They held that, beyond a reasonable doubt, she intended to kill the man, that she was not acting in self defence and she was the antagonist in the confrontation

You seem to be misunderstanding that I'm asking how a twenty year sentence can be justified in this case.

I'm also still seeing aggravated assault being reported in most of the articles I can find. Could you link where you're reading the court decision please?

john.han

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

You seem to be misunderstanding that I'm asking how a twenty year sentence can be justified in this case.

I'm also still seeing aggravated assault being reported in most of the articles I can find. Could you link where you're reading the court decision please?

It's the sixth paragraph in the link you posted. Attempted Murder. However, I'm trying to find out from other sources and I'm now not sure what she was actually convicted of.

LowKeyReturn

john.han wrote: »

It's the sixth paragraph in the link you posted. Attempted Murder. However, I'm trying to find out from other sources and I'm now not sure what she was actually convicted of.

Fair comment - I just linked the briefest of a couple of articles I was reading - I actually ignored that bit as I thought it was a caption for the picture, but I linked it so my bad.

Marcusm

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Wall above their heads, I believe the issue was it could have ricocheted but it doesn't seem that anyone is contending she intended to harm anyone. That said two children where present.

You're a past master at citing eggshell skull; why does it not apply here IYO?

Pat Mustard

As regards mandatory sentencing, I don't think that the concept itself is wrong. However, if there is going to be mandatory sentencing, then the sentences should be objectively fair.

The problem here is that Florida's 10-20-Life Statute is over the top.

In Florida, someone who commits a felony with a firearm gets a minimum of ten years, and if they discharge that firearm, they get 20 years. If they wound (not kill) someone with the firearm, they face 25 years to life.

If Marissa Alexander had committed attempted murder, I wouldn't see anything necessarily wrong with her getting a mandatory sentence of 20 years. However, I think that the CBS News report of a conviction for attempted murder is incorrect and I don't think that she was convicted of attempted murder.

She shot her gun once, committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony. Because she committed a felony and because she discharged a firearm during the commission of that felony, she faces 20 years.

Link

Alexander was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for firing into a wall near her husband and his two young children at their Jacksonville home in 2010.

The sentence is completely disproportionate to what she actually did.

In the Irish context, I think that it's ridiculous that drug traffickers don't get the 'minimum sentence' of ten years on the basis of 'exceptional circumstances' such as jail would be hard on them or because their mothers wouldn't be able to visit. It should be just ten years and that's it.

It's not the principle of mandatory sentencing that's wrong, it's the implementation of it.

LowKeyReturn

Marcusm wrote: »

You're a past master at citing eggshell skull; why does it not apply here IYO?

I'm a bit confused by this question tbh. It doesn't apply here as there was no injury. In there was physiological injury then obviously that can be taken into account but 20 years still seems excessive.

In all honesty, worst case scenario and it was attempted murder, it's still excessive. No legitimate aim (excuse the pun) is served by locking up a woman for twenty years that lost it with their husband.

Marcusm

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this question tbh. It doesn't apply here as there was no injury. In there was physiological injury then obviously that can be taken into account but 20 years still seems excessive.

In all honesty, worst case scenario and it was attempted murder, it's still excessive. No legitimate aim (excuse the pun) is served by locking up a woman for twenty years that lost it with their husband.

Didn't mean injury, just meant having to take responsibility for her actions however unforeseeable the consequences might be.

LowKeyReturn

Marcusm wrote: »

Didn't mean injury, just meant having to take responsibility for her actions however unforeseeable the consequences might be.

Ah sorry I understand. I just think that the entire issue could have been dealt with much more efficiently with a much shorter custodial sentence say 2 -5 years.

My normal rant is people complaining about people 'cashing in' in motor accidents. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between people rushing about and rear ending people ending up with higher insurance premiums, and someone snapping in a dysfunctional relationship.

Marcusm

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Ah sorry I understand. I just think that the entire issue could have been dealt with much more efficiently with a much shorter custodial sentence say 2 -5 years.

My normal rant is people complaining about people 'cashing in' in motor accidents. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between people rushing about and rear ending people ending up with higher insurance premiums, and someone snapping in a dysfunctional relationship.

The high incidence of gun crime in Florida has led to the imposition of harsh and potentially unfair sentences for unlawful gun use. Personally, I disagree with it and suspect a resident might not be aware that strict liability attaches and little scope for contextualisation. Would be much easier if they construed the 2nd amendment narrowly - it's drafted in the context of a well armed militia, I think that should require some membership of and affiliation with a force for protecting the common good rather than free availability of weapons beyond the need of most armies not to mind private citizens.

LowKeyReturn

Marcusm wrote: »

The high incidence of gun crime in Florida has led to the imposition of harsh and potentially unfair sentences for unlawful gun use. Personally, I disagree with it and suspect a resident might not be aware that strict liability attaches and little scope for contextualisation. Would be much easier if they construed the 2nd amendment narrowly - it's drafted in the context of a well armed militia, I think that should require some membership of and affiliation with a force for protecting the common good rather than free availability of weapons beyond the need of most armies not to mind private citizens.

While it's a bikini statistic I do have to concede that, apparently, the 10-20-life law has been credited with cutting down gun crime in Florida.

I completely agree in relation to the second amendment, the shot heard around the world was followed by the comma no one saw.

Marcusm

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I completely agree in relation to the second amendment, the shot heard around the world was followed by the comma no one saw.

Irrespective of the comma, the type of judicial activism which has seen the recognition of broad swathes of unenumerated rights together with the application of the equal protection clause to activities which were possible but incomprehensible at the time the US constitution was written should ave led to a narrowing of the construction o f the right to keep and bear arms to necessity rather than desire as it was in that context it was cast.