Iowa man sentenced to 16 years for setting LGBTQ flag on fire

[Toecutter]

This is what a quick search fpund about him.
Past convictions include aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in March 2008 and robbery, possession of marijuana and theft in May 2013. All are felonies.

 

[LMS]

It should be just what’s put on paper. 1st offense equals X. Second offense equals Y. When you start adding arbitrary sentences because someone did something else unrelated years ago, it’s open to abuse and this example in the OP shows that.

What would you consider related? Not talking about parking tickets here, talking about serious crimes.

Pretty sure what's on paper is a range for sentencing, and leeway for judges to use past offenses in sentencing habitual criminals. And I think that makes sense.

Are you saying you don't?

 

[Darth]

Parking tickets was just an example. Insert whatever crime you see fit. I can see your point to an extent. If you got arrested for assault and got 1 year for example and got arrested again for the same thing, I can see a harsher sentence making sense. But it has to be set on paper and for the same exact crime and not at the whim of a judge on what the punishment should be. If the 1st offense is one year and the 2nd offense is two years, that makes sense.

But a harsher sentence for an unrelated crime previously, makes no sense. Once you allow that, then they can make your first assault sentence greater because you had a parking ticket in the past.

Judges shouldn't be "deciding" time. I disagree with that whole process.

 

[LMS]

Judges shouldn't be "deciding" time. I disagree with that whole process.

Gonna part ways with you on that one.

 

[Darth]

Gonna part ways with you on that one.

Willing to hear your explanation on why certain people should be able to decide the fates of others on a whim.

 

[LMS]

Willing to hear your explanation on why certain people should be able to decide the fates of others on a whim.

I won't bite on that one - it's a sucker's bet. But I'll go for this one:

Willing to hear your explanation on why certain people should be able to decide the fates of others [bait redacted]

Because someone has to synthesize all the facts, and see if there's circumstances that need to be taken into account to move the sentencing and rehabilitation needle one way or the other from the min or max or average. Also because it's our justice system and we get a chance to elect folks that we think have good judgment to do that and to balance the police&DA on one side and the defense on the other side. It sucks that it doesn't always work (and jeezus we've seen too much of that lately) but I'd like to hear about a better system if ya got it.

 

[Darth]

I won't bite on that one - it's a sucker's bet. But I'll go for this one:



Because someone has to synthesize all the facts, and see if there's circumstances that need to be taken into account to move the sentencing and rehabilitation needle one way or the other from the min or max or average. Also because it's our justice system and we get a chance to elect folks that we think have good judgment to do that and to balance the police&DA on one side and the defense on the other side. It sucks that it doesn't always work (and jeezus we've seen too much of that lately) but I'd like to hear about a better system if ya got it.

Why don't we take a look at the judges we have upholding our 2A rights.

Yeah, and they should be deciding fates as well? Pass.

Why don't we have some sort of rule set where "If you do X, Y will happen?" Why should the feelings of a judge get inserted into things?

 

[LMS]

Why don't we take a look at the judges we have upholding our 2A rights.

Yeah, and they should be deciding fates as well? Pass.

Why don't we have some sort of rule set where "If you do X, Y will happen?" Why should the feelings of a judge get inserted into things?

So are you suggesting we get rid of judges for sentencing? If the jury finds you guilty then the sentencing is pre-set?

 

[Darth]

So are you suggesting we get rid of judges for sentencing? If the jury finds you guilty then the sentencing is pre-set?

Sure.

 

[LMS]

@Darth, let's say some guy goes out to a bar and gets blotto. His friends try to get him to slow his pace and he tells them to fuck off. They try to take his keys away and he tells them to fuck off. He gets in his car under the influence and kills someone. Now let's also say @Darth is at a bar, some chick recognizes him from those art films he claims he stars in, she slips him a mickey hoping to get some. When she's done having her way, he gets in his car, still messed up under the influence and kills someone. First offense for both. The cops have to charge both with the same crime, and the jury finds them both guilty.

By your logic, both get the same sentences. Do you think that's the way it should be?

 

[Acer-m14]

@Darth would like that and ask for seconds and then be sober LOL .

 

[Acer-m14]

@LMS all does not matter now in NYS .. jan 1st no bail .. have you seen the list ..

 

[LMS]

@LMS all does not matter now in NYS .. jan 1st no bail .. have you seen the list ..

Fuck - you're right....

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Darth, let's say some guy goes out to a bar and gets blotto. His friends try to get him to slow his pace and he tells them to fuck off. They try to take his keys away and he tells them to fuck off. He gets in his car under the influence and kills someone. Now let's also say @Darth is at a bar, some chick recognizes him from those art films he claims he stars in, she slips him a mickey hoping to get some. When she's done having her way, he gets in his car, still messed up under the influence and kills someone. First offense for both. The cops have to charge both with the same crime, and the jury finds them both guilty.

By your logic, both get the same sentences. Do you think that's the way it should be?

If he’s found guilty, then yes.

 

[LMS]

If he’s found guilty, then yes.

I just realized by using @Darth in the example, everyone is gonna vote "yes".

 

[Marine Cpl]

I just realized by using @Darth in the example, everyone is gonna vote "yes".

Forget about Darth and a ruthie as an example. If you commit a crime, the sentence should be uniform. There are many injustices these days due sentences not being uniform.

 

[LMS]

Forget about Darth and a ruthie as an example. If you commit a crime, the sentence should be uniform. There are many injustices these days due sentences not being uniform.

I agree with you about the injustices. But I think there are also justices done because of the same rules. It all depends on the judge. If we elect good ones it works most of the time. I'd rather take that bet than make the whole thing robotic, with no leeway. We just disagree, but I thank you for the respectful dialogue.

 

[Darth]

@Darth, let's say some guy goes out to a bar and gets blotto. His friends try to get him to slow his pace and he tells them to fuck off. They try to take his keys away and he tells them to fuck off. He gets in his car under the influence and kills someone. Now let's also say @Darth is at a bar, some chick recognizes him from those art films he claims he stars in, she slips him a mickey hoping to get some. When she's done having her way, he gets in his car, still messed up under the influence and kills someone. First offense for both. The cops have to charge both with the same crime, and the jury finds them both guilty.

By your logic, both get the same sentences. Do you think that's the way it should be?

We should all be so lucky.

But, yes. Without it you are injecting emotion into the situation. It's why I despise "murder" vs ". murder of a FIRST RESPONDER" laws. What makes their life more valuable than mine? Not a thing.

But those 2 situations are not the same however. No judge needed.

Just like murder and justified homicide are not the same.

No judge needed.

 

[LMS]

But, yes.

We'll have to disagree. I just don't see those two circumstances as equal.

Without it you are injecting emotion into the situation.

Perhaps - but it seems like you are assuming that injecting that fouls objectivity at an an unacceptable level, where I think smart people know how to deal with that most of the time - enough of the time to outweigh when they fuck up.

It's why I despise "murder" vs ". murder of a FIRST RESPONDER" laws. What makes their life more valuable than mine? Not a thing.

You'll get no argument from me there.

But those 2 situations are not the same however. No judge needed.

Of course they are different - that's my point. Given the cop MUST charge them the same, then who differentiates them? The DA?

 

[Darth]

Perhaps - but it seems like you are assuming that injecting that fouls objectivity at an an unacceptable level, where I think smart people know how to deal with that most of the time - enough of the time to outweigh when they fuck up.

By definition injecting personal opinion removes objectivity.

Of course they are different - that's my point. Given the cop MUST charge them the same, then who differentiates them? The DA?

The jury. Either the crime at hand happened, or it did not.

Maybe don't write laws that encompass the good and the bad? Like the vile "zero tolerance" laws.

 

[Toecutter]

Problem here is the system is overwhelmed and people are lazy.

Plead guilty to 5 years or go to trial and we put you away forever. This time people are over sensitive about LGBT and this guy gets 16 years 10 years ago it may have been nothing.

People are corrupt and will eventuallly abuse any power they have. It also can be abused other ways , you dont think the government lets mass murderers off with a slap on the wrist for telling on another murderer . that's fucked too.

Someone can't look at our current criminal justice system and sit back with a strait face and say its satisfactory.

 

[CaseHardened]

I just realized by using @Darth in the example, everyone is gonna vote "yes".

Well, not me.

Darth is the goat of much abuse, and I believe he enjoys some ot it.

Still, he is difficult to rile, and listens to opposing opinions with grace.

So be it, and MERRY CHRISTMAS Darth. Whether you like it or not, I believe Jesus would count you as a close friend.

 

[Darth]

Well, not me.

Darth is the goat of much abuse, and I believe he enjoys some ot it.

Very much so.

Still, he is difficult to rile, and listens to opposing opinions with grace.

So be it, and MERRY CHRISTMAS Darth. Whether you like it or not, I believe Jesus would count you as a close friend.

We're both into BDSM.

 

[Acer-m14]

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

 

[LMS]

By definition injecting personal opinion removes objectivity.

You continue to claim people can't have a personal opinion and be objective. That's just not true.

The jury. Either the crime at hand happened, or it did not.

You are wrong here. Have you ever served on a jury in a criminal trial? The jury in a trial decides guilty or not based on charges brought. They don't get to change the charges. The cop has to charge the crime committed. The DA might indict on a different charge - are you saying you're okay with them using their judgment making that call but not okay with a judge using their judgment?

 

[LMS]

Problem here is the system is overwhelmed and people are lazy.

Yep.

 

[spat]

What would you consider related? Not talking about parking tickets here, talking about serious crimes.

Pretty sure what's on paper is a range for sentencing, and leeway for judges to use past offenses in sentencing habitual criminals. And I think that makes sense.

Are you saying you don't?

In order for a justice system to actually be "just" it needs to be deterministic.

The same set of facts should always lead to the same outcome. Anything else is arbitrary, and thus unjust.

There should be zero leeway in sentencing. Once the facts are determined by the jury the sentence should be precisely prescribed by law.

If there are different sets of circumstances that should lead to different sentences, they should be spelled out precisely in the law.

We have clowns in our legislatures and that has led to us getting used to a terrible quality of legislation. We should demand better.

As a society we are capable of incredible degrees of precision in complex engineering documents that allow complex equipment manufactured by completely different companies to interoperate without any of the engineers in either company speaking with other.

We should demand the same degree of precision and completeness from our legislators, not the current level of "what would a reasonable person in a similar circumstance feel like ?".

Imagine how the internet would work if the specifications for protocols read "a packet of a moderate size should be handled in a reasonable manner"

 

[Darth]

You continue to claim people can't have a personal opinion and be objective. That's just not true.



You are wrong here. Have you ever served on a jury in a criminal trial? The jury in a trial decides guilty or not based on charges brought. They don't get to change the charges. The cop has to charge the crime committed. The DA might indict on a different charge - are you saying you're okay with them using their judgment making that call but not okay with a judge using their judgment?

Definitions:
Subjective refers to personal perspectives, feelings, or opinions entering the decision making process.

Objective refers to the elimination of subjective perspectives and a process that is purely based on hard facts.

So it is true.

I'm OK with an objective, binary decision on the part of the jury. At no point does emotion get involved.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

My take. There should be no personal emotion tied into sentencing. As others have said, there should be a standard invoice for the punishment of a certain crime. Do x get y. Do x AND y get z. Leniency is actually a huge problem in the court systems today and is a big reason why shit is the way it is. If you give a reduced sentence on the arbitrary feelings of a judge the person may not learn the lesson.

At the same time though the sentence should be DONE once the time is served. You shouldn't lose say your gun rights for life after you've served your time. And yes. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime they should be able to get guns after they serve their time. But make the time needed to serve fit the crime. Robbery you get 10 years. Or whatever it is in the state. Murder? Probably life or get the death penalty. But in either case you can't give them leniency let them out way early and then complain that they do the same thing over again. See how that works?

 

[LMS]

If there are different sets of circumstances that should lead to different sentences, they should be spelled out precisely in the law.

Even if our government wasn't dysfunctional, there's no way the written law could keep up with the massively large set of possible facts that could come into play.

We have clowns in our legislatures and that has led to us getting used to a terrible quality of legislation. We should demand better.

No argument here.

As a society we are capable of incredible degrees of precision in complex engineering documents that allow complex equipment manufactured by completely different companies to interoperate without any of the engineers in either company speaking with other.

Speaking as a engineer who has been practicing the trade for over 40 years, this statement is utter bullshit.