Wow, 10 years possibly out of a 45 year sentence!

Once again, thank you for serving!

Reminds me of a line in "Support Your Local Sheriff!":

Jason McCullough: You know... he strikes me as bein' a lonely man.
Jake: Lonely? Danby? Why he's a mean, no-good, lowdown bushwhacker!
Jason McCullough: Well, there you see? No wonder he's lonely.

:lol:

Let me pose a question that has been gnawing at me for years. First, the caveats. I do believe in jury nullification, and I think the purpose of the criminal legal system (police, courts, prisons)is to prevent as much crime as possible.

Now, we have time off for good behavior and in some places day-for-day credit. I don't know if Texas does day-for-day but it doesn't sound like it. Additionally, as you said, he's eligible for parole in 10 years out of a 45 year sentence under all these exceptions. Granted, parole is a lot different from being released (A LOT different) but the point is he's out.

Doesn't this mean that the "real" penalty is 10 years, not 45? The system was set up this way on purpose. This guy isn't *accidentally* getting out in 10 years--the legislature and courts have created rules where this is pretty much known.

In other words, the 45-year sentence is nothing more than a fiction created by lawmakers who a) want to appear "tough on crime" but b) acknowledge the practical impossibility of abiding by the rules they pass. Indeed we see that the main obstacle to "truth-in-sentencing laws" (where 45 years means 45 years) is that no one wants to pay for it.

But on the other side perhaps we can look at this as the market working. I argued nullification because I view 45 years for the offense in question as unjust. However, the invisible hand seems to have worked so that the sentence turns out to be 10 years. So the market outcome could be argued to agree with me, in that the invisible hand recognized an unjust sentence and moved to correct things without any explicit action by anyone.

So my question is that if we implicitly recognize these sentences to be extravagant, why don't we explicitly reduce them?

On the other hand, if the majority view the sentences as just, why are they unwilling to fund a truth-in-sentencing law?

This quandary, along with my personal views on the propriety of drug laws, is why I have come to support jury nullification, which does what society is unwilling to do--actually deal with an issue one way or another.

Anyway, the ultimate issue I'm getting at is that we should accurately state the penalties, whether we think they should be great or small. What matters is accuracy. If the purpose of a penalty prior to the crime is deterrence, then that effect can only be achieved if the potential criminal knows what to expect. As an incentive, I wonder if it becomes a relative measurement (i.e., serving 10 out of 45 is less a deterrent than serving 10 out of 10).

Deep questions. Have fun. :sunny:

But he may not actually get out in 10. That's just when he is eligible for parole. It has to come up before the parole review board. If there is anyone who thinks he should not be out, then they can petition the parole board.

There was a man who killed a young woman back in 1979. My cousin was a witness to the crime. The killer was Roger Leroy DeGarmo. Every time he came up eligible for parole, her family and friends would petition the parole board, and they would keep him in. He was originally sentenced to die, but he got a new trial. Look at the name of the lawyer that got him life in the second trial:

http://www.greggladden.com/profile.html

:eek:

I wonder if there's any relation. :wha:

See, I would (basically) do away with all these uncertainties, including parole. The penalty for murder should be death or life without parole. Same with rape and drunk driving.

I fail to see as strong a deterrent effect in allowing parole for crimes like murder. Actually, I fail to see the justice or punishment in it either. No justice because it is not proportionate (until we figure out how to raise the dead, there's no "parole" for murder victims) and because of the lack of the first two, it's not sufficient punishment either.

But if we're really going to insist on criminalizing drug possession, we might as well be honest about the punishment. Say 45 and mean 45, or say 10 and mean 10, or even 6 months and mean 6 months.

:goodjob:

I wonder if there's any relation.

I'm sure there is. But you don't want to get me started on that. :lol:

I agree with you for the most part. I think parole is pointless and adds a lot of red tape and paperwork. Let's just sentence them and be done with it. I do, however, see the built-in safety feature of appeals in murder cases, eventhough I think we stretch that out far too long. You should be able to appeal and get an answer in far less than 20 years.

I would have voted to take him out back and shoot him in the head. And televise it for your deterrent factor.

They kinda frown on that.

Man....that didn't work. I was trying out the new minis and it told me the page could not be found.