SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly?
MSFT 479.75-1.5%2:14 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (40085)3/29/2000 11:54:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls  Read Replies (4) of 74651
 
I respectfully disagree. Judges have a lot of latitude, particularly in non-violent crime areas.

There's a case in California where a homeless man/bum/whatever was sentenced to mandatory major prison time under the Three Strikes law for stealing a slice of pizza since he had two other non-recent priors (non-violent theft, I believe). Many drug statutes call for mandatory prison time for mere possession of "recreational" amounts of pot. In these cases the judge has no latitude and there is no room for "fairness", only the application of the law.

Whether or not it's "fair" for an 18-year-old who pleads guilty to statutory rape for having sex with his 16-year-old girl friend to have to file as a "sex offender" and notify the neighbors when he moves in for the rest of his life is something that I won't go into here. Indecent exposure would fall into the same category (so much for streaking making a comeback).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext