Vicky sent me this one. She said (emphasis added):
I thought this article was interesting.
I guess I could sort of see the source of the judge's logic, but still it's weird.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12501285/
They were perfectly comfortable with giving him .5 years jail for helping to kill a girl. But writing about selling pot — they add on 7.5 years.
So does that mean writing about selling pot is 15 times worse than helping kill a girl? … So growing pot is almost as bad as helping kill a girl, but it is no where near as bad as writing about selling it.
Yes, this is all-too-typical of the American police state. Actually committing a crime isn't nearly as bad as thinking about it, and conspiring on paper. It's the thought that counts — moreso than the action. Can we say thoughtcrime?
(And yes, before anyone argues with me, I understand perfectly what conspiracy laws are.)
April 27, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Well, it’s not completely fitting, but I love this quote so I’m going to share it anyways:
One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.
-Charles A. Beard, 1935
April 27, 2006 at 11:27 AM
It sounds pretty bad – but don’t forget that the kid got a reduced sentence for helping prosecutors convict the actual shooters (the two shooters each got 8 years). So you have to include that in your equations when computing that “15 times” factor.
It may be a case of “don’t let the perfect be an enemy of the good”. In this case, the “perfect” is to convict all three participants with the shooting. But pursuing that may have led to zero convictions due to lack of evidence. So they have to make a compromise (the “good”) with the kid to get his testimony against the shooters.
April 27, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Be that as it may, my opinion has not really changed on the matter.
They made a deal, then used marijuana thoughtcrime to essentially welch on it.
I guess in the name of justice, this brings the guys’ sentence up to the others. Of course, helping a murder vs actually doing the murder should not get equal sentences anyway….
But the plain matter is, they used *speech* about marijuana to give someone a sentence equal to that of most murderers. Regardless of whether he’s Charles Manson, or Marilyn Manson, or Marilyn Monroe, I think that is wrong.
April 27, 2006 at 11:46 AM
It’s not welching if the deal is made on crime A and the guy gets caught on crime B. You can’t say that the kid is exempt from punishments on unrelated crimes.
But I agree that there’s something wrong with a judicial system that deals out marijuana-related punishments that are equal to the punishments given to murderers. Hell, pot probably makes people too relaxed to go around killing folks.
“Whoa… this gun is really shiny. What was I doing again?”
April 27, 2006 at 12:14 PM
But they **are** related. They inreased his sentence for the first crime based on the second. This wasn’t another trial, this wasn’t another conviction. It’s a new ruling on the same charge. How that isn’t a form of double jeopardy is beyond me as well. Sentences can be changed after the fact?! What the fuck?
April 27, 2006 at 12:15 PM
I mean “increased”.
April 27, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Yeah, that DOES seem wrong, and an abuse of authority. The judge should have run the kid through the courts on separate charges!