TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

RE: Three teen thugs who hurled a rock from overpass are sentenced to prison

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
This is a bigger deal to me? No. My skull wasnt bashed in.

Well, the lady with the bashed in skull is perfectly fine with their sentences.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

It isnt just about her. Its about protecting society.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
It isnt just about her. Its about protecting society.

And a 20 year sentence for an 18 year old instead of 5 will do what? Make him a worse criminal - that's what.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I dont care.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

He choose his actions. Tough schit.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

More time in prison is less time to re offend.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ever heard of rehabilitation? Second chances? Forgiveness? The victim has.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And just remember this when you get on your next diatribe about not judging and forgiveness. Those obviously only apply when you feel like it.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ever heard of rehabilitation? Second chances? Forgiveness? The victim has.

Yep - I already broached this and she said she doesn't care if people change.

Again, it isn't about revenge. It's about punishment. And they are being punished. Society is being protected from their stupidity until they get out, at which time they will likely be so happy to be out that they will act accordingly.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I dont recall asking for mercy for anyone who has bashed someone's skull in.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I dont recall asking for mercy for anyone who has bashed someone's skull in.

Neither did I.

Ilumine · Regular

Lawyerlady wrote:
sweet tooth wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
sweet tooth wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
It was a large rock, not a boulder. They didn't TRY to hit the windshield, that just happened to be where it hit the car. Cars speeding by on a major highway would be almost impossible to target specifically, and no one would be able to aim the rock for a particular part of the car. The speed limit on that road was 70 last time I drove it. The best they were hoping for was just to hit a car, somewhere.

They got 20 years maximum. People have brutally raped babies and got less time. People have murdered and got less time.
Wow. Those poor boys, the judge is being so unfair to them. You wouldn't be saying this if it was someone you loved.

Actually - no one said that.
Maybe she didn't say it, but it sure sounds like she is implying that what the boys did wasn't so bad, and that the punishment is too severe for the crime. Especially when she says "They didn't TRY to hit the windshield, that just happened to be where it hit the car."
People forget that INTENT is a big part of being guilty of the worst crimes. Stupidity is not intent. And these boys are young and likely have clean records before this. We all said the punishment was FAIR.

I'm sorry, but did you read the same article that I did? The rock throwing incident was the CULMINATION of a night of troublemaking. They purposefully stole things, they drove through a cornfield, destroying the crops (even my 6 year old knows that this is bad), and oh yeah, threw a ****ing ROCK through a neighbor's window.

This was not stupidity and the intent was to cause HARM and it escalated as the night went on.

And JUST because other people have received LESS punishment somewhere else (under different state law and president) does not mean that one should give these four MEN a free pass. It is thinking like that, that causes the problem to begin with. Hey, we won't get into too much trouble, because hey...my aunt's husband's buddies only got 10 years for beating someone to death...

And I hate this path that society has gone down in regards infantizing our 18yos. The greatest generation that saved the world was comprised of 18 - 20 yos, who not just played cannon fodder, but LEAD the cannons to correct place where they needed to be. Now a days we have to hold their freaking hands because they cannot forward think their actions threw and recognize that if they do A, there could be at least two outcomes, where one of those outcomes is bad.

Again, my 6 yo knows that if you drop something from up high, it will more than likely hit someone down below and that would hurt them - you know learning that **** on the playground jungle gyms and all that.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Yes, I read it. But shoplifting steaks and driving through a cornfield does not aggravate it enough that these kids should get life sentences. That's what we're talking about here - their maximum are much longer than the minimums you are all stuck on.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

They got 20 year maximums. Honestly, you people need to study criminal justice and maybe read some news articles. This sentence is not out of the ordinary. People who commit violent crimes do NOT get the types of sentences you all seem to think they do. Drug crimes get you more prison time than violent crimes.

huskerbb · Guru

If they actually serve 20 years, then fine. My bet is they won't serve more than 5.

Ilumine · Regular

Lawyerlady wrote:
Yes, I read it. But shoplifting steaks and driving through a cornfield does not aggravate it enough that these kids should get life sentences. That's what we're talking about here - their maximum are much longer than the minimums you are all stuck on.

Backtrack yourself a bit. I have NO problem with the actual sentence. A 20 year maximum is quite fine. I was commenting on your view that stupidity is not intent and I my point is that there was a night full of examples of INTENT to do HARM. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, driving through a cornfield is not a victimless crime and (you seem to forget) so is throwing a rock through someones window (what if there was a child sitting underneath that window and was not only hit by the rock but all of the glass?).

They had intent to do harm, just because it MAY not have been bodily harm, it was harm. And therefor they need to be held accountable.

WHY BECAUSE even though their intent may not have been bodily, by 18 years old, they should know that throwing things through windows or on overpasses or driving recklessly in the dark can actually cause bodily/physical harm.

Why are we infantizing our children today?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ilumine wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Yes, I read it. But shoplifting steaks and driving through a cornfield does not aggravate it enough that these kids should get life sentences. That's what we're talking about here - their maximum are much longer than the minimums you are all stuck on.
Backtrack yourself a bit. I have NO problem with the actual sentence. A 20 year maximum is quite fine. I was commenting on your view that stupidity is not intent and I my point is that there was a night full of examples of INTENT to do HARM. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, driving through a cornfield is not a victimless crime and (you seem to forget) so is throwing a rock through someones window (what if there was a child sitting underneath that window and was not only hit by the rock but all of the glass?).
They had intent to do harm, just because it MAY not have been bodily harm, it was harm. And therefor they need to be held accountable.
WHY BECAUSE even though their intent may not have been bodily, by 18 years old, they should know that throwing things through windows or on overpasses or driving recklessly in the dark can actually cause bodily/physical harm.
Why are we infantizing our children today?

They are being held accountable, some people just seem to think they should be locked up and the key thrown away even though the victim is satisfied. But the issue is - did they intentionally intend to commit a felony? Did they intentionally intend to hurt a person? It was a rock - they probably never thought it would do more than dent a car.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ilumine wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Yes, I read it. But shoplifting steaks and driving through a cornfield does not aggravate it enough that these kids should get life sentences. That's what we're talking about here - their maximum are much longer than the minimums you are all stuck on.
Backtrack yourself a bit. I have NO problem with the actual sentence. A 20 year maximum is quite fine. I was commenting on your view that stupidity is not intent and I my point is that there was a night full of examples of INTENT to do HARM. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, driving through a cornfield is not a victimless crime and (you seem to forget) so is throwing a rock through someones window (what if there was a child sitting underneath that window and was not only hit by the rock but all of the glass?).
They had intent to do harm, just because it MAY not have been bodily harm, it was harm. And therefor they need to be held accountable.
WHY BECAUSE even though their intent may not have been bodily, by 18 years old, they should know that throwing things through windows or on overpasses or driving recklessly in the dark can actually cause bodily/physical harm.
Why are we infantizing our children today?
They are being held accountable, some people just seem to think they should be locked up and the key thrown away even though the victim is satisfied. But the issue is - did they intentionally intend to commit a felony? Did they intentionally intend to hurt a person? It was a rock - they probably never thought it would do more than dent a car.

People who kill someone while driving when they are drunk dont intend to do so, either, but the penalties are pretty severe.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ilumine wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Yes, I read it. But shoplifting steaks and driving through a cornfield does not aggravate it enough that these kids should get life sentences. That's what we're talking about here - their maximum are much longer than the minimums you are all stuck on.
Backtrack yourself a bit. I have NO problem with the actual sentence. A 20 year maximum is quite fine. I was commenting on your view that stupidity is not intent and I my point is that there was a night full of examples of INTENT to do HARM. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, driving through a cornfield is not a victimless crime and (you seem to forget) so is throwing a rock through someones window (what if there was a child sitting underneath that window and was not only hit by the rock but all of the glass?).
They had intent to do harm, just because it MAY not have been bodily harm, it was harm. And therefor they need to be held accountable.
WHY BECAUSE even though their intent may not have been bodily, by 18 years old, they should know that throwing things through windows or on overpasses or driving recklessly in the dark can actually cause bodily/physical harm.
Why are we infantizing our children today?
They are being held accountable, some people just seem to think they should be locked up and the key thrown away even though the victim is satisfied. But the issue is - did they intentionally intend to commit a felony? Did they intentionally intend to hurt a person? It was a rock - they probably never thought it would do more than dent a car.

Any REASONABLE person would understand that dropping a cement block or heavy rock onto a car could possibly result in harming or killing someone. They aren't 10 yrs old.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ilumine wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Yes, I read it. But shoplifting steaks and driving through a cornfield does not aggravate it enough that these kids should get life sentences. That's what we're talking about here - their maximum are much longer than the minimums you are all stuck on.
Backtrack yourself a bit. I have NO problem with the actual sentence. A 20 year maximum is quite fine. I was commenting on your view that stupidity is not intent and I my point is that there was a night full of examples of INTENT to do HARM. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, driving through a cornfield is not a victimless crime and (you seem to forget) so is throwing a rock through someones window (what if there was a child sitting underneath that window and was not only hit by the rock but all of the glass?).
They had intent to do harm, just because it MAY not have been bodily harm, it was harm. And therefor they need to be held accountable.
WHY BECAUSE even though their intent may not have been bodily, by 18 years old, they should know that throwing things through windows or on overpasses or driving recklessly in the dark can actually cause bodily/physical harm.
Why are we infantizing our children today?
They are being held accountable, some people just seem to think they should be locked up and the key thrown away even though the victim is satisfied. But the issue is - did they intentionally intend to commit a felony? Did they intentionally intend to hurt a person? It was a rock - they probably never thought it would do more than dent a car.
People who kill someone while driving when they are drunk dont intend to do so, either, but the penalties are pretty severe.

Driving while drunk is already a specific crime, whether they hurt someone or not. Is dropping a rock off an overpass already a specific crime?

huskerbb · Guru

The punishments are separate, as are the crimes, so that is irrelevant. It's the intent that matters.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
The punishments are separate, as are the crimes, so that is irrelevant. It's the intent that matters.

Exactly.

And my point was not irrelevant - you just don't like that it was valid.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Besides the fact that drunk driving is a flipping issue on the driving test and everyone is taught very well what the consequences could be.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The punishments are separate, as are the crimes, so that is irrelevant. It's the intent that matters.
Exactly.

And my point was not irrelevant - you just don't like that it was valid.

It wasn't valid. The consequences here were just as foreseeable as drinking and driving.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The punishments are separate, as are the crimes, so that is irrelevant. It's the intent that matters.
Exactly.

And my point was not irrelevant - you just don't like that it was valid.
It wasn't valid. The consequences here were just as foreseeable as drinking and driving.

No, they are not. And drinking and driving is ALREADY a crime in and of itself. You cannot ignore that in this comparison.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The punishments are separate, as are the crimes, so that is irrelevant. It's the intent that matters.
Exactly.

And my point was not irrelevant - you just don't like that it was valid.
It wasn't valid. The consequences here were just as foreseeable as drinking and driving.
No, they are not. And drinking and driving is ALREADY a crime in and of itself. You cannot ignore that in this comparison.

Of course they are. How in the world can you even make that nonsense argument? A five year old could see that dropping a rock on to a speeding car could be bad. property damage, for sure, in the best possible scenario. They INTENDED to hit a car--otherwise why do it. A drunk doesn't intend to hit anyone.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

You obviously do not understand criminal law and the requirement of all elements.

Their sentences were fair.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
You obviously do not understand criminal law and the requirement of all elements.

Their sentences were fair.

if they serve 20 years.

cadiver · Senior Member

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
You obviously do not understand criminal law and the requirement of all elements.

Their sentences were fair.
if they serve 20 years.

The max varied so I think only two are eligible for 20 years.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/pa-men-sentenced-woman-deadly-rock-attack-article-1.2348136

There the school teacher and mother of four saw 18-year-old Dylan Lahr — the declared ringleader of the group of four then-teens — sentenced to 54 months to 24 years in prison.

Tyler G. Porter, 19, was sentenced to 22 months to 10 years in a state prison, followed by 10 years' probation.

Keefer L. McGee, 18, was sentenced to 11 1/2 to 23 months in a county prison, followed by eight years' probation. He was additionally fined $500 and ordered to perform 500 hours of community service, The Patriot-News reported.

Lahr's older brother, Brett Lahr, now age 20, was previously sentenced to 18 months to 20 years in a state prison.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
You obviously do not understand criminal law and the requirement of all elements.

Their sentences were fair.
if they serve 20 years.

Nobody serves their max sentences.

huskerbb · Guru

I know--which makes the sentences BS.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
I know--which makes the sentences BS.

Not any more than any other sentence.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know--which makes the sentences BS.
Not any more than any other sentence.

Most of the time for serious crimes they have to serve 1/2 of their sentence. The disparity here is ridiculous.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know--which makes the sentences BS.
Not any more than any other sentence.
Most of the time for serious crimes they have to serve 1/2 of their sentence. The disparity here is ridiculous.

OK - now you are just making stuff up. How long criminals actually serve depends on a lot of factors and individual state sentencing guidelines. Violent offenders might serve about half, but that is certainly not true for all states. California lets criminals out of jail all the time waaaayyyy early simply because of over-crowding.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

As an example -

Lauderdale County resident Autumn Marie Wood pleaded guilty last year to manslaughter in the stabbing death of a 14-year-old girl, and a judge sentenced her to 10½ years in prison.

She almost certainly will not come close to serving all that time, however. She could be a free woman was early as April when she comes up for parole consideration. Even if the three-member Board of Pardons and Paroles passes, however, Wood will not have long to wait.

Provided she continues to follow the rules in prison, she will be out by April 24, 2017 - some seven years sooner than her sentence suggests. The reason is Alabama's law granting time off for good behavior.

Those rules allow for some inmates to shave 75 days from their prison terms for every 30 days they serve.

Good time credits were designed to both help prison officials manage inmates - by giving them incentive to behave - and ease overcrowding. But Alabama parole board members contend the rules also are partially to blame for declining parole rates in recent years.

Officials searching for way to relieve chronically overcrowded prisons are trying to figure out why that number has gone down, which had kept the prison population steady despite a 19 percent reduction in the number of people sentenced to prison between fiscal years 2009 and 2013.

GOOD TIME CALCULATOR

Search a hypothetical sentence below to determine how much time a prisoner eligible for maximum good time actually would serve.

Sentence

Parole board member Robert Longshore said that the good time rules - coupled with shorter prison terms mandated by sentencing guidelines for drug and property offenders - mean that prisoners who are denied parole on their first go-round sometimes will not get a second bite at the apple before their sentences end.

"When we get a five-year sentence, to even process it for parole, our staff puts it on the next docket," he said. "As soon as the file hits our office, they're close to getting out."

Statistics back up Longshore. The state wrote the guidelines in 2003 to reduce punishments for many property and drug offenses, and make them more standard throughout the state. Since October 2013, it has been harder for judges to depart from those recommendations. The average sentence imposed on defendants to whom the guidelines apply decreased from 96 months in fiscal year 2011 to 74 months in fiscal year 2014.

Longshore has said that diversion programs that have kept some defendants from going to prison in the first place also have siphoned off the most parole-worthy candidates. That also has led to fewer paroles, he said.

Bennet Wright, chairman of the parole board, said paroling inmates serving minimal sentences has only a limited impact.

"There is not an expectation that these offenders are going to serve a long time in prison anyway," he said.

The good time credit is not earned; inmates receive it the day they walk into prison and can lose it only through misbehavior. There are some restrictions. Inmates sentenced for the most serious crimes - like murder and rape - are not eligible for good time. Certain sex offenders do not earn good time at the same rate.

And inmates serving "split sentences," in which a portion of the prison term has been suspended in lieu of probation, must serve every day of the portion served in the penitentiary.

For the thousands of prisoners who do qualify, though, the rules mean that they serve only a fraction of the punishment imposed by judges. Someone sentenced to a year in prison, for instance, will be out in six months and 18 days. A five-year sentence, in reality, equates to a year, nine months and 13 days behind bars.

The longer the sentence, the bigger the break, percentage-wise. A 15-year sentence, for example, translates to actual prison time of four years, seven months and 22 days behind bars.

Inmates sentenced to more than 15 years in prison are not eligible for good time, but multiple, consecutive sentences are eligible. So an inmate serving multiple sentences that add up to 50 years would be out after less than 15 years.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ever heard of rehabilitation? Second chances? Forgiveness? The victim has.
Yep - I already broached this and she said she doesn't care if people change.
Again, it isn't about revenge. It's about punishment. And they are being punished. Society is being protected from their stupidity until they get out, at which time they will likely be so happy to be out that they will act accordingly.

Okay, I was all behind you until you said the bolded. These idiots were so idiotic that they thought throwing a rock off a bridge was a good idea. Generally in prison people don't learn what they did was bad. Just usually how to do more bad things and also how to make excuses for what they did. I doubt they will jumping for joy when they get out so they can lead model lives. Sure SOME people change. Many more do not.

And all this talk about the maximum sentence is just nothing. No one serves the max. No one. So that's a joke. And in Arkansas you only half to serve a quarter of your sentence to be eligible for parole. In Texas, only a third.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know--which makes the sentences BS.
Not any more than any other sentence.
Most of the time for serious crimes they have to serve 1/2 of their sentence. The disparity here is ridiculous.
OK - now you are just making stuff up. How long criminals actually serve depends on a lot of factors and individual state sentencing guidelines. Violent offenders might serve about half, but that is certainly not true for all states. California lets criminals out of jail all the time waaaayyyy early simply because of over-crowding.

You are making my point. The sentences were not nearly long enough. All the talk about 20 years is BS. No way are they going to serve that much.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know--which makes the sentences BS.
Not any more than any other sentence.
Most of the time for serious crimes they have to serve 1/2 of their sentence. The disparity here is ridiculous.
OK - now you are just making stuff up. How long criminals actually serve depends on a lot of factors and individual state sentencing guidelines. Violent offenders might serve about half, but that is certainly not true for all states. California lets criminals out of jail all the time waaaayyyy early simply because of over-crowding.
You are making my point. The sentences were not nearly long enough. All the talk about 20 years is BS. No way are they going to serve that much.

No. The point is that NO ONE serves the maximum, including murderers and rapists. So calling for harsher sentences for these boys is ridiculous - and that's what would be happening. One got a 5 year minimum - he's just already served a year of it. Considering what other criminals serve, that's a pretty strong sentence.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I find it curious you call them "boys" and we call them thugs, lol.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know--which makes the sentences BS.
Not any more than any other sentence.
Most of the time for serious crimes they have to serve 1/2 of their sentence. The disparity here is ridiculous.
OK - now you are just making stuff up. How long criminals actually serve depends on a lot of factors and individual state sentencing guidelines. Violent offenders might serve about half, but that is certainly not true for all states. California lets criminals out of jail all the time waaaayyyy early simply because of over-crowding.
You are making my point. The sentences were not nearly long enough. All the talk about 20 years is BS. No way are they going to serve that much.
No. The point is that NO ONE serves the maximum, including murderers and rapists. So calling for harsher sentences for these boys is ridiculous - and that's what would be happening. One got a 5 year minimum - he's just already served a year of it. Considering what other criminals serve, that's a pretty strong sentence.

No, it isn't. Not for this.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I find it curious you call them "boys" and we call them thugs, lol.

It's called justifying their behavior. After all, dropping rocks onto cars from an overpass is just boys being boys. That stupid woman shouldn't have driven her car there at that moment.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 9th of September 2015 01:41:32 PM