Obama Commuting Sentences!!!! …… And, I Agree!!!!


I write this, reluctantly, only because I fear the meaning of this post may be misconstrued.  It is, mostly, to point out Breitbart’s disingenuity. 

So, we have this from Breitbart …..


They go on to list the offenders, their crimes, sentences, and commute date.  Many, if not most, had life sentences. 

Here’s what Breitbart didn’t tell you ….

Under current sentencing guidelines most of those prisoners would have already finished serving time.

It’s a bit of a reverse ex post facto.  These people were sentenced under old sentencing guidelines, and had they been sentenced under today’s guidelines, they would have already been freed.  I believe it should be law that if the sentencing guidelines change, then, so too, should the sentences of the ones previously sentenced under the old guidelines. 

We are told these people were convicted of non-violent crimes.  And, from what I can read, this is true.

In a just society, punishment must match the crimes.  Let me state this unequivocally.  There is no greater crime than the willful, premeditated, taking of another’s life.  People can babble about ifs and buts, but it doesn’t stand to the light of day or reason. 

In a just society, 1st degree murder must have the most harsh sentence.  It cannot be otherwise, else, it isn’t a just society. 

Please don’t get me wrong.  I’m not advocating freeing drug dealers.  I believe they are scum.  But, from what I’ve read, these people have served considerable time.  It is simply, these people cannot be punished the same or more than a 1st degree murderer.  There must be equity in crime and punishment.

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Obama Commuting Sentences!!!! …… And, I Agree!!!!

  1. leftinflagstaff says:

    I guess. But another felony conviction…throw away the key.

    • suyts says:

      Right ….. my point was that it has to be equitable. If murderers, in our society, can get out in 10 …..

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        Yes, well that’s absurd also.

        But if these throw away this chance to turn their lives around by committing new crimes, they in turn should thrown away.

  2. Ted G says:

    I agree with leftinflagstaff, But I don’t think to many are going to go straight.

  3. suyts says:

    Guys, I understand the angst. I believe if you do a crime, you should do the time. But, I don’t believe a crime is more heinous relative to the amount of times one individual commits them. Should habitual speeders be thrown away? …. That is people who violate the auto speed laws. What about jay walkers? …..

    It should be that you make the punishment fit the crime each time one commits the crime. If they continually do it, and the crime does severe harm to society, then, the punishment isn’t severe enough. But, there should be no double jeopardy for past crimes. Ever. And, again, the top punishment should always be towards murder. 15 convictions of drunk driving (assuming no other harm) should never equal the minimum of one 1st degree murder conviction.

    • DirkH says:

      “In a just society, 1st degree murder must have the most harsh sentence. It cannot be otherwise, else, it isn’t a just society. ”

      In Germany, judges and perpetrators generally fall in love with each other during the process because the judges are Hippies from 1968 and want peace, love and understanding. BTW the victim is dead or crippled so doesn’t disturb the proceeds anyway. A typical closing remark from a German judge after giving a perp 3 years, who kicked the head of his victim at least 18 times, (causing 18 fractures of the heads bones) “You are so lucky. I could have been so much harsher.” The perp will at most do 2 of those 3 years.

      OTOH I have an American friend who emigrated to Germany (where his family roots are) escaping from the harsh prison sentences for Marihuana posession. Friend of him got 7 years in Indiana for having some.

      USA is the incarceration nation, Germany the free-violence-for-all nation.

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      Habitual speeding isn’t a felony. They should just no longer be licensed to drive after a certain number. Drunk drivers should never be allowed behind the wheel again, well before fifteen convictions. Most would probably have killed someone well before fifteen.

      It isn’t double jeopardy to take repeat offenses into account.

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        Five illegal border crossings, and that SF woman was dead.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          ‘But, I don’t believe a crime is more heinous relative to the amount of times one individual commits them.’

          I do see 10 murders being worse than one.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Yes. We’re basically agreeing.

          But, still, I bet the records would show who now overwhelmingly comes out the worse in a jaywalking accident. The jay or an innocent bystander. And anyway, for most laws, the victim is very apparent.

          I’ve jaywalked plenty. Had I ever been ticketed for such, in an incident which led to harm to another, did my punishment, and then jaywalked again, yes, I deserve greater punishment.

      • suyts says:

        Leftin, I respectfully disagree. First of all, I believe in some states habitual traffic offenses are a felony. For instance, being caught driving w/o a license 3 or more times can lead to a felony conviction.

        But, more to the point, how can it not be double jeopardy if one takes prior offenses into account? ….. what ever the crime, be it speeding, drunk driving, or robbery, once convicted, and sentenced or fined, it is assumed the violator has paid their debt to society. But, if they do it again, our society says, “not so fast, remember the last time you did this? Well, we’re going to punish you more for that time prior”. It is that we are jeopardizing these people twice for the same offense.

        As to the ten murders being worse than one, ….. if it is 1st degree cold blooded murder, then, 1, 10, or 100 …. should the one committing one 1st degree cold blooded murder be punished less than the one who committed 10?

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          But it’s not the same offense. It involves a conscious choice to commit the offense again, despite the attempted corrective punishment. Habitual disrespect for laws, especially those concerning the lives of others, is just really habitual disrespect for the lives of others. Displaying a flagrant pattern for that shouldn’t increase punishment?

          ‘should the one committing one 1st degree cold blooded murder be punished less than the one who committed 10?’

          No, but, the system seems engineered toward that. You can be paroled in 10yrs for a murder conviction. Conviction on 10 counts, not so much. And, show of hands: Who ranks Hitler worse than Jack the Ripper? I bet most.

        • suyts says:

          Habitual disrespect for laws, especially those concerning the lives of others, is just really habitual disrespect for the lives of others. Displaying a flagrant pattern for that shouldn’t increase punishment?

          Leftin, that’s where I run into a difficulty with the line of reasoning. Define laws “concerning the lives of others”. Again, I’d go back to jaywalking and speeding. But, we can go to a thief, who otherwise doesn’t harm anyone, nor threatened to. In my view of justice, regardless of how many times they rob, they shouldn’t ever get more time than a rapist or a murderer. Sure, the thief would be a scumbag, and we should probably increase the punishment for such, but, saying he’s a serial robber doesn’t mean he’s worse than a one-time 1st degree murderer.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          ‘Define laws “concerning the lives of others”.’

          Common sense, really. A good chance the jaywalker himself will be the only life negatively effected by his crime. At least directly. Speeding can take out several others.

          Thieves? My life’s been negatively effected each time someone’s taken what belongs to me.

          And I’m not arguing that some crimes don’t deserve more punishment than others. Just that repeating them, regardless of their severity, absolutely deserves increased punishment. Maybe I should have been more specific in my original comment.

          I believe in second chances, not fifteen.

        • suyts says:

          Leftin, yeh, I think we were talking about closely related, but, different things. And, I’ll concede that there are occasions when a serial offender probably should be punished more than a first time offender …. depending upon the offense.

          Re. jaywalking …….. not so. From what I can tell of the history of such laws, it wasn’t to protect the idiot jaywalkers, but, rather, others such as drivers who would do anything to avoid hitting the idiots, such as swerving into other vehicles and pedestrians on sidewalks and such.

          But, that’s where the fine line is. Many jaywalkers, including myself, have never caused harm to others for the dastardly deed of jaywalking. Yet, many have. It doesn’t matter how many times I’ve jaywalked. I’ve not caused harm. Now, if I have caused harm, that’s a different story, and, the extent of the harm is a different story.

          Note: I’ve never been ticketed for jaywalking. But, I live in small town settings. Currently I live in a town of ~ 1,000 souls. It’s 20 miles from a metropolis of ~ 10,000 souls. We all cross the street where we please. No one cares, but, it’s still a law.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Replied to the wrong ‘Reply’. 🙂

  4. gator69 says:

    The “Three Strikes” law, like our drug laws, is a large part of the problem and was a dumb idea.

    I am all for a three strikes law when it comes to violent criminals, that only makes sense as it gets the violent offenders off the streets. But handing out life sentences to non-violent offenders is just nuts, as is our modern prohibition which only drives up violent crime as well as addiction rates and gang memberships.

    How anyone cannot see that our current war on drugs is the same mistake we made in 1919 with the passage of the Volstead Act is beyond me.

    • cdquarles says:

      Same here. The drug laws (you really ought to read them, Title 18 of the USC is the Title that contains the Federal criminal code) were designed to make it easier to control people. Haldeman was not the first person to express it. Whatever the government wants to use to reduce our liberty, the first thing they’ll do is registration. The banning will come later, and sooner if they can get away with it.

  5. Lars P. says:

    “the chador” ….”is the best dress for women in Islamic society since it covers the body of women from head to toe and does not draw attention”
    am a bit confused here, does he mean: does not draw attention of viruses, bacillus or other bacteria, thus avoiding intestinal diseases?
    “‘Doctors believe that frenzied emotions that enter the soul bring physical illnesses to people.”
    Oh, I see, if a women gets seen other then as a black crow it creates her(?) frenzied emotions.
    It must be that frenzied emotions activates your bacillus & comp. Now this is scientifically explained…

  6. gator69 says:

    Speaking of insane…

    By virtue of his pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, the now 27-year-old Holmes has never denied he was behind the killing.

    But given his mental state, his lawyers contend that he should not be found culpable.


    How is it there was ever any question about the sanity of Holmes? Anyone who commits a crime of this type is obviously crazy, as no sane human would kill a group of unarmed and innocent human beings.

    Not guilty by reason of insanity should not be allowed in these cases, it is insane to even allow such a plea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s