http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-11/story/jacksonville-woman-sentenced-20-years-prison-stand-your-ground
There's a lot that went on with this case, mainly she fired "warning shots". Guns are deadly weapons and their only function is to kill- you cannot warn or intent to maim with them. Her kids were present. What if her warning shot had gone through a wall and hit them? From what I understand, she was able to leave the house and get away and came back in to confront him again with the gun. It also doesn't help that she attacked him again while she was out on bail for this trial. The plea bargain was for 3 years and she wanted to take it to trial and she lost, so I don't really see why it's such a big deal.
It's a big deal because of the excessive sentence that is a result of the stupid mandatory sentencing laws. What she did was stupid and excessive, but doesn't rise to the level that it should result in 20 years.
Quote from: thekillingwax on July 08, 2012, 05:38:59 AM
There's a lot that went on with this case, mainly she fired "warning shots". Guns are deadly weapons and their only function is to kill- you cannot warn or intent to maim with them. Her kids were present. What if her warning shot had gone through a wall and hit them? From what I understand, she was able to leave the house and get away and came back in to confront him again with the gun. It also doesn't help that she attacked him again while she was out on bail for this trial. The plea bargain was for 3 years and she wanted to take it to trial and she lost, so I don't really see why it's such a big deal.
Then why's it legal to go hunting? Skeet shooting? Target shooting? Didn't realize gun ranges were really crime scenes. If their only purpose is to kill...
Back in reality-land, the woman fired into a floor (not at him) to stop what she believed was an impending attack. Classic self-defense, and the outcome goes to show how dumbass mandatory sentencing laws and tightening the definitions of what and isn't a crime have removed the common sense failsafes from the judicial system.
Don't take me as anti-gun, I own plenty and use them often but in that scenario, it's only purpose is as a deadly weapon. Shooting into the floor is stupid, in what way is that classic self defense? So from now on, anytime you feel threatened, it's okay to just fire wildly at a potential threat- if someone gets hit, that's their fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Bullets gotta go somewhere, that's why they're never to be used to "warn" someone. I may not agree with mandatory sentencing but what she did was beyond idiotic and if someone had gotten killed from her "warning shot", we'd all be hearing about how the evil gun companies are to blame and that tighter controls are needed to prevent this type of incident.
That's a lot of "ifs" there, isn't it? Once again back in reality-land, nobody did get killed (or even injured) but the woman is doing 20 years anyway. Really, you can't see any problem with this?
I already said I don't really agree with the sentence. It has zilch to do with stand your ground, which was why they dragged it back into court for just because of the Trayvon Martin mess, that's the part I found insane and I think the only reason this case got so much attention. I personally believe that she was clearly wrong in her actions and should have taken the plea bargain because such an overkill sentence was hanging over her head- but I also don't know all the minute details of the case, I've just read about it online and seen discussion of it on TV.
Maybe one day we'll have more sensible laws but I'm sure that'll be well beyond our times.
The biggest problem was that she walked out of the house, retrieved her gun, and walked back in then fired the warning shots. That is not standing your ground. She also had a deal on the table that would have given her much less time in jail had she taken it but she chose to go to trial and lost so the mandatory sentencing guidelines had to be applied.
There is quite a bit more to this story than what that article covers.
Quote from: carpnter on July 08, 2012, 06:40:16 PM
The biggest problem was that she walked out of the house, retrieved her gun, and walked back in then fired the warning shots. That is not standing your ground. She also had a deal on the table that would have given her much less time in jail had she taken it but she chose to go to trial and lost so the mandatory sentencing guidelines had to be applied.
There is quite a bit more to this story than what that article covers.
Who cares what the plea deal was. Some people have principles in this day and age still, believe it or not. She obviously believed in principle or she'd have taken what by all accounts was a good deal. And who cares whether she walked to the car, the bottom line is the woman is serving a sentence longer than many actual homicide charges.
I do not know the ins and out of this case however as law enforcement I can tell you a little bit about what has been said here:
- even some Law Enforcement Agencies train their Officers to do warning shots (in a safe direction - i.e ground) when time and safety permits.
- As a civilian: if you are able to remove yourself from the danger and then CHOOSE to go back into danger with a firearm or other weapon (as has been reported here) that is not stand your ground, that is premeditation.
Based on the "issues" that were brought up on the thread - I would say that the fact that she removed herself from danger and chose to return with the weapon was the heaviest of concerns with regards to her sentencing. Her children being present did not help and Florida having the 10-20-Life sentencing Sunk her. She should have taken the 3-year deal...
Quote from: officerk on July 09, 2012, 12:56:48 AM
I do not know the ins and out of this case however as law enforcement I can tell you a little bit about what has been said here:
- even some Law Enforcement Agencies train their Officers to do warning shots (in a safe direction - i.e ground) when time and safety permits.
- As a civilian: if you are able to remove yourself from the danger and then CHOOSE to go back into danger with a firearm or other weapon (as has been reported here) that is not stand your ground, that is premeditation.
Based on the "issues" that were brought up on the thread - I would say that the fact that she removed herself from danger and chose to return with the weapon was the heaviest of concerns with regards to her sentencing. Her children being present did not help and Florida having the 10-20-Life sentencing Sunk her. She should have taken the 3-year deal...
I see what you're saying. I think this woman may have just finally snapped and was sick of all the abuse. Unfortunately, she let that cloud her judgement considering her kids were present. I always have mixed emotions about cases like these because some abused wives feel trapped, especially when they have children with their abusers.
Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 02:43:51 AM
Quote from: officerk on July 09, 2012, 12:56:48 AM
I do not know the ins and out of this case however as law enforcement I can tell you a little bit about what has been said here:
- even some Law Enforcement Agencies train their Officers to do warning shots (in a safe direction - i.e ground) when time and safety permits.
- As a civilian: if you are able to remove yourself from the danger and then CHOOSE to go back into danger with a firearm or other weapon (as has been reported here) that is not stand your ground, that is premeditation.
Based on the "issues" that were brought up on the thread - I would say that the fact that she removed herself from danger and chose to return with the weapon was the heaviest of concerns with regards to her sentencing. Her children being present did not help and Florida having the 10-20-Life sentencing Sunk her. She should have taken the 3-year deal...
I see what you're saying. I think this woman may have just finally snapped and was sick of all the abuse. Unfortunately, she let that cloud her judgement considering her kids were present. I always have mixed emotions about cases like these because some abused wives feel trapped, especially when they have children with their abusers.
This time was a bit different. There was another article in the TU (You'll probably have to dig to find it, jacksonville.com has been rather slow lately) that had quite a few more details about the events in the house and this was not a case of her snapping.
For the record I think there needs to be some discretion allowed to judges in applying mandatory sentencing in cases like this.
As I said - I don't know the details of this case other than that it happened.. I also know that the media tends to report what is most "interesting" or enraging.... unfortunately....
The meat of the matter is that if you have removed yourself from harm and knowingly returned to it - armed, it is definitely not stand your ground...
Who cares about silly equivocations. This woman is serving a sentence that's 33% longer than the max for, as one example, DUI Manslaughter without leaving the scene. Which is an actual homicide, where someone actually died. How do you keep missing the point, that here nobody was even injured, much less died, and the woman is in jail for a sentence longer than some actual homicide charges? How does that make sense to you? Such an arbitrary justice systems discredits and embarrasses us all.
^^^+100
Chris,
I don't believe that the essential facts surrounding the incident are "equvocations". Certainly intent and the manner and danger of the shooting has some bearing on the sentencing. I am not familiar with this case either, and I would defer to anyone who has first hand knowledge of it, but I would certainly not compare it to DUI manslaughter. While I certainly see your point about an actual death v. the threat of death, the elements of DUI Manslaughter are so completely different that any comparison would seem unlikely. Just my humble opinion....
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 10, 2012, 05:07:39 AM
Who cares about silly equivocations. This woman is serving a sentence that's 33% longer than the max for, as one example, DUI Manslaughter without leaving the scene. Which is an actual homicide, where someone actually died. How do you keep missing the point, that here nobody was even injured, much less died, and the woman is in jail for a sentence longer than some actual homicide charges? How does that make sense to you? Such an arbitrary justice systems discredits and embarrasses us all.
I agree that the DUI statues are entirely too lenient..
Though I don't see that the laws applied are "silly equivocations." None of the law is ambiugious, missleading, or vague.
Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon
Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed
Pretty straight forward...
Quote from: officerk on July 11, 2012, 10:15:31 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 10, 2012, 05:07:39 AM
Who cares about silly equivocations. This woman is serving a sentence that's 33% longer than the max for, as one example, DUI Manslaughter without leaving the scene. Which is an actual homicide, where someone actually died. How do you keep missing the point, that here nobody was even injured, much less died, and the woman is in jail for a sentence longer than some actual homicide charges? How does that make sense to you? Such an arbitrary justice systems discredits and embarrasses us all.
I agree that the DUI statues are entirely too lenient..
Though I don't see that the laws applied are "silly equivocations." None of the law is ambiugious, missleading, or vague.
Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon
Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed
Pretty straight forward...
The law isn't a silly equivocation, only your comments. And they still are.
If you choose to continue ignoring the fact that you're falsely equating crimes involving actual deaths to a crime in which nobody was killed, or even injured, then great. Just don't expect the rest of us to do it with you.
Quote from: NotNow on July 10, 2012, 06:55:55 AM
Chris,
I don't believe that the essential facts surrounding the incident are "equvocations". Certainly intent and the manner and danger of the shooting has some bearing on the sentencing. I am not familiar with this case either, and I would defer to anyone who has first hand knowledge of it, but I would certainly not compare it to DUI manslaughter. While I certainly see your point about an actual death v. the threat of death, the elements of DUI Manslaughter are so completely different that any comparison would seem unlikely. Just my humble opinion....
We shouldn't have such disparate results, is what I'm getting at. These mandatory sentencing requirements remove all judicial discretion and create situations where common sense cannot prevail. A serious defect. It makes no sense to have a sentence for a crime in which nobody was hurt or even injured significantly exceed that in many crimes that involve actual deaths. And despite the, err, argument I guess you'd call it, by the poster above my last post, the solution to a nonsensical sentencing result isn't to start assigning 9,000 year mandatory minimums to every other charge so that your viewpoint looks less ridiculous. Mandatory minimums were an interesting experiment, but at the end of the day I'm not sure they did much to deter crime, and they have done a lot of harm.
Chris,
we appear to be talking apples to pomegranates as I have ignored no fact only advised of laws and simply how they were applied. I have not hidden the fact that I do not know the extensive details of this case. I have not attempted to look up any of the trial transcripts and due to the history of incredibly slanted media coverage in previous cases I have not attempted to research it in that manner and have no plans to.
I do understand the frustrations some have with regards to our current sentencing laws. Unfortunately, until the laws are changed they are what they are. I was simply shedding light on some questions that were brought up on this thread with regards to things that I happen to have knowledge of given my knowledge base.
Perhaps this woman's case will be a test case in the Florida Supreme Court to get the mandatory 10-20-Life sentencing repealed. I personally know of another individual who is currently incarcerated for 20 years because he fired a gun at an occupied vehicle's tire. So, you see she is not the only victim of this law serving what can be seen as an "extensive" sentence.
There are many sentences out there that are too lenient or too excessive. Rapists and Pedophiles are at the top of my list of the too lenient... but there is just not enough time and this is not the right thread...
I happen to agree about rapists and paedophiles, however, once again, this woman's crime caused no actual injury whatsoever. Child molesters steal childhoods and cause permanent psychological injury, they should be made to pay commensurately. That's the whole crux here, a punishment should fit the crime, and this one just plain doesn't. There has to be some kind of death or bodily injury requirement added into these things, or else the results become absurd, as this one is.
and thus, the laws will have to be changed.....
These laws were designed to address people using guns during criminal activities and "habitual felony offenders". The article does not say what other convictions she has but as I understand it she probably would have to have at least one other conviction for a crime posessing a firearm.
Apparently Florida's version is a near carbon copy of California's version...
Found this on wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/10-20-life.GIF)
Based on all of the information which has been reported this woman seems to have gotten a very poor decision.
As for DUI? Our rules are incredibly lax, in El Salvador Your first offense is your last---execution by firing squad!
Florida's law does not require any prior criminal history. A first offense gets the full monty. I have no knowledge of CA's law.
According to The Florida Department of Corrections website: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/
10-20-LIFE has helped to drive down Florida's violent-gun crime rates by 30%. The state's 2004, "Index Crime" rate is now the lowest in 34 years, and the violent crime rate is the lowest in a quarter century.
The 10-20-LIFE public information program continues. The Florida Department of Corrections, in conjunction with the Executive Office of the Governor, and the Florida Legislature continue to inform the public that Florida's tolerance for crime is over. Staff from the Department of Corrections has provided several community presentations on gun violence, and distributed materials about 10-20-LIFE.
In 1998, criminals in Florida used guns to commit 31,643 violent felonies, including 13,937 armed robberies. That year, the mandatory punishment for using a gun to commit a violent felony was only three years in prison. During his campaign for Governor in 1998, Jeb Bush proposed the toughest gun-crime law in the nation: 10-20-LIFE. Under 10-20-LIFE, a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years in state prison.
The 1999 Florida Legislature passed sweeping legislation that provides for enhanced minimum mandatory prison terms for offenders who commit crimes with guns.
The results under 10-20-LIFE are impressive. In only six years, from 1998-2004, 10-20-LIFE has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 30 percent statewide. During the 10-20-LIFE era, armed criminals robbed a total of 10,567 fewer people and killed a total 380 fewer than they would have if these crime numbers had remained at 1998 levels. These crime decreases occurred even as Florida's population increased over 2.5 million (16.8 percent) between 1998 and 2004. Punishing criminals who use guns is making our state safer.
NOW.... I know that as this case was reported this woman does not specifically fit into the mold listed above... However her case would be classified as a "violent crime" for crime stats.... as I stated previously, perhaps her case could be a test case to have the law changed...
If we are going to compare our criminal punishment system to that of other countries I think we will find that the US is very lenient on MANY MANY crimes and thus the reason that the US has the issues that it has with crime that it does. The fear of punishment is just not as great here as it is elsewhere. (I am not referring to this case, crimes in general)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 12, 2012, 08:47:12 AM
Based on all of the information which has been reported this woman seems to have gotten a very poor decision.
As for DUI? Our rules are incredibly lax, in El Salvador Your first offense is your last---execution by firing squad!
In El Salvador you don't even have to COMMIT an offense to face a firing squad or at least be shot to death. They have one of the highest murder rates in the world. Makes the country name very ironic, doesn't it.
OfficerK, You are very wrong about the US being lenient about punishing crime. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and absolutely the highest percentage in the world of population in prison or under parole supervision. We are wasting huge resources, both money and manpower, with ridiculously harsh sentences for non-violent crimes.
I am not saying that the US is not punishing crimes. I am saying that in the manner in which some crimes are punnished is entirely too lenient and others is too heavy handed. I am agreeing that the system is broken. Point of fact the DUI.
http://staugustine.com/police-report/2012-07-06/woman-5-dui-convictions-gets-cited
this story is about an auto accident that happened on July 4th. The driver is a woman who has had FIVE DUI convictions, not arrests CONVICTIONS. And has attended four DUI schools.. When I saw this story I was appalled.. the likelihood that this woman was intoxicated in this accident is pretty HIGH... Not only should she not have a drivers license (something that we all know does not prevent anyone from driving) she should not be free.. the fact that she has not killed anyone is amazing.. she is a habitual offender and a rolling timebomb!
that is the kind of case that I am referring to and the child molester (finally gets caught) that gets a whopping 5 years, gets out, reoffends (finally gets caught) gets 10 years, gets out, re-offends (finally gets caught) and might get a sentance that is worth something but how many children has he/she hurt at this point? And the list goes on... Those are the crimes to which I am referring to..
But once again molestation a crime in which a child is raped. Here, nobody was even injured, and the woman got 20 years. It's a false comparison between the two. For a crime that involves no injury or death, nor any financial harm, a 20 year sentence is just draconian. A sentence is supposed to be based on the facts of that particular case, not a bunch of what-if's involving child rape or other inflammatory examples that didn't actually have anything to do with this case. Judges need discretion, and removing that is removing the option to let common sense prevail, and removing the judicial system's ability to have the punishment fit the crime.
Regarding the lady with 5 DUIs, take her damn car and license away. Jail isn't going to do anything to fix her problems, clearly she shouldn't be driving.
So Chris, we are moving away from the woman who has gotten the 20-year sentence for a moment. I am curious. You think this woman who has 5 DUI convictions in her past, has gone through DUI school 4 times (clearly without success) and if you read the story, that DUI is suspected in this accident (alcohol was smelled on her person) where she rolled her vehicle after hitting the curb and having other issues keeping it upright and on the road that the only and proper punishment that she should receive is that her vehicle and licence be taken away from her?
Whatever jail term the woman's sentenced to, she's going to get back out and start drinking again. Duh. If it's her 5th DUI, she almost certainly served time for DUI's 2, 3, and 4. You see how well that worked for her, don't you? If you want to remove her as a threat to other motorists, bar her from owning a vehicle. Jail isn't going to change the fact that she plainly has an alcohol problem. She needs treatment, and obviously isn't willing to get it. In this situation, the best you can do, especially where she hasn't injured anyone else, is just get her off the road.
If you're looking for me to say she should get the death penalty, and you do seem to be in favor of harsh sentences whether they fit the crime or not, I'll warn you that you're probably not going to find agreement here.
I looked her up on DOCweb.. she has served no prison term.. the fact that she has gone through the DUI school 4x means that she has had a form of treatment and the school (which includes AA requirements) is often given in lieu of lengthy incarceration.. as far as death penalty, no, DUI is not a capital crime it does not warrant a death sentence however to say that she should just have her vehicle taken away from her is certainly not a good enough punishment. Prison term is certainly called for at this juncture, probably should have been 2 or 3 DUIs ago... To take someone's vehicle and driver's license from them does not prevent them from driving, it only prevents them from driving legally.. then we run into a conundrum as what to do with the violator? fine them? they don't pay the fine. Fine them again? they still don't pay the fine. eventually there would have to be a bench warrant and now we have yet another person incarcerated which seems to be your hot button... you have issue with people being incarcerated for non-violent crimes.. if their is no fear of punishment for a violation why would anyone have any inclination to follow a law?
I think that someone who is a habitual offender definitely warrants a punishment more than a slap on the hand and stern warning not to do something again. To take this woman's car & away would be exactly that. She deserves a prison term of some length. And in prison she will receive a very comprehensive alcohol treatment program.
Quote from: officerk on July 14, 2012, 05:43:43 AM
I looked her up on DOCweb.. she has served no prison term.. the fact that she has gone through the DUI school 4x means that she has had a form of treatment and the school (which includes AA requirements) is often given in lieu of lengthy incarceration.. as far as death penalty, no, DUI is not a capital crime it does not warrant a death sentence however to say that she should just have her vehicle taken away from her is certainly not a good enough punishment. Prison term is certainly called for at this juncture, probably should have been 2 or 3 DUIs ago... To take someone's vehicle and driver's license from them does not prevent them from driving, it only prevents them from driving legally.. then we run into a conundrum as what to do with the violator? fine them? they don't pay the fine. Fine them again? they still don't pay the fine. eventually there would have to be a bench warrant and now we have yet another person incarcerated which seems to be your hot button... you have issue with people being incarcerated for non-violent crimes.. if their is no fear of punishment for a violation why would anyone have any inclination to follow a law?
I think that someone who is a habitual offender definitely warrants a punishment more than a slap on the hand and stern warning not to do something again. To take this woman's car & away would be exactly that. She deserves a prison term of some length. And in prison she will receive a very comprehensive alcohol treatment program.
In your jump to that conclusion, you should have read the article a bit more carefully. That story is from a different county, she wouldn't show up on DOCweb. Why don't you contact the Saint Johns County Clerk and request copies of the judgments rather than jumping to conclusions? FYI, repetitive DUI's already carry mandatory minimum jail terms, so your argument is ill-advised, since she's facing her 5th DUI, I think that leaves very little question as to how well your approach has worked. Since you brought this up as an example.
no. I am correct.. DOCweb is for the State of Florida Prison system.. I think the issue here is that you are not familiar with the difference between a Prison term and a Jail term. I stated that she has served no Prison term, not that she has served no Jail time... And I know and mean exactly what I said and what I meant - at this juncture PRISON time is called for - not JAIL time. At this point she has hopefully by law crossed the line to felony DUI habitual offender charges and therefore will get PRISON time and not misdemeanor DUI charges as have apparently previously been the case as she has only been in the County system and not the State system.
Now you have side stepped my question yet again.... AND side stepped a 2nd question...
No, you aren't correct...
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/activeinmates/
That's the state DC's inmate tracking system, not DOCweb, which is here;
http://inmatesearch.jaxsheriff.org/jsodocwebreports/(S(ddrbsc55vtlnqrq2ujdlru45))/Default.aspx
Regardless, both are regularly inaccurate, and if you care this much, why don't you call the clerk and get copies of the judgments rather than making assumptions?
And I'm not ducking any questions, I've pointed out several times that your comparisons are bogus and apples to oranges. If you choose not to listen, that's your business. You seem to be confusing the situation, I haven't ducked your questions, I just disagree with you.
I apologize DOCweb is a term that is used to refer to http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ by those of us that routinely access that website. DOC mean Department of Corrections, as in State of Florida Department of Corrections. It is not a free world term and that was my error.
She is not listed as a former State inmate which means that she has never served a Prison term. Clearly you are not going to understand what I am saying as you are refusing to. This was no jump to "conclusion" as I searched "Search All Corrections Offender Databases" and with her name search there are no matches with age and name. There are multiple data bases : Inmate Population Search Results; Inmate Release Search Results; Supervised Population Search Results; Absconder/Fugitive Search Results. We have her name and age. It does not take long to search each of these and figure out that she has not been on the STATE DOC guest list.... Again - I have said nothing about her never having been a guest of the Counties. We KNOW she has been a guest of the county in some fashion, she has 5 (now 6) DUI arrests.
the website to which you are referring to:
http://inmatesearch.jaxsheriff.org/jsodocwebreports/(S(ddrbsc55vtlnqrq2ujdlru45))/Default.
is the JSO jail inmate tracker.... which would be JAIL, not PRISON... these are completely different agencies/systems. Jails house pre-sentencing, trial and inmates that have been sentenced for crimes that are misdemeanors and inmates with sentences typically with individual sentences of less than 1 year and 1 day. Prisons house felons with sentences with individual sentences more 1 year and 1 day or more.
However, If you do not know, and refuse to accept the difference between Prison and Jail - you are right we are at an impass.
Quote from: officerk on July 15, 2012, 07:45:43 AM
I apologize DOCweb is a term that is used to refer to http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ by those of us that routinely access that website. DOC mean Department of Corrections, as in State of Florida Department of Corrections. It is not a free world term and that was my error.
She is not listed as a former State inmate which means that she has never served a Prison term. Clearly you are not going to understand what I am saying as you are refusing to. This was no jump to "conclusion" as I searched "Search All Corrections Offender Databases" and with her name search there are no matches with age and name. There are multiple data bases : Inmate Population Search Results; Inmate Release Search Results; Supervised Population Search Results; Absconder/Fugitive Search Results. We have her name and age. It does not take long to search each of these and figure out that she has not been on the STATE DOC guest list.... Again - I have said nothing about her never having been a guest of the Counties. We KNOW she has been a guest of the county in some fashion, she has 5 (now 6) DUI arrests.
the website to which you are referring to:
http://inmatesearch.jaxsheriff.org/jsodocwebreports/(S(ddrbsc55vtlnqrq2ujdlru45))/Default.
is the JSO jail inmate tracker.... which would be JAIL, not PRISON... these are completely different agencies/systems. Jails house pre-sentencing, trial and inmates that have been sentenced for crimes that are misdemeanors and inmates with sentences typically with individual sentences of less than 1 year and 1 day. Prisons house felons with sentences with individual sentences more 1 year and 1 day or more.
However, If you do not know, and refuse to accept the difference between Prison and Jail - you are right we are at an impass.
That's funny, I routinely access both, and DOCweb = county, several counties use that software platform, and DC = State. Two totally different websites, which you'll note from the hyperlinks are titled exactly as I've described. Obviously I am aware of the difference, since I pointed out to you that you were confusing the two. Saying that's a term you use to describe one despite its name is like saying "chevy is a term I use to refer to a ford...". Lol
And I know the difference between prison and jail, the confusion was yours, talking about DOCweb which is the system for the Duval County Jail. Pardon me for thinking that was what you were referring to. But none of that changes the fact that by DUI numbers 3 and 4, she almost certainly served time, where mandatory minimums are involved. As an example, a fourth DUI carries a statutory mandatory minimum of 12 months in state prison, and this woman is on her 5th already. So for what has got to be the sixth time I've told you this, if you actually want to know instead of simply guessing, then call the clerks and get copies of the judgments.
Until then, you're just stating your guess and calling it a fact, based on her not being listed on two websites that are often inaccurate and that she may not have been listed on anyway. It's not my fault that you didn't know the difference between the names of the websites which you brought up yourself, I even tried to point it out to you and your response was typical: "no I'm correct." Lol, I even gave you the chance to correct yourself before I had to do it for you.
Once more, if you want to continue this debate, quit stating your opinions as fact, and get copies of the judgments showing what her sentences were for her 4 prior DUIs, and then you'll either be right or you won't. It would be the 3rd and 4th that she'd have been incarcerated for, and the 4th would have been prison not jail. But at least then we'll know. Quit passing your opinion off as fact and get copies of the judgments. Then we'll know one way or the other.
If you wish to get back to my actual point, it's that the woman has by DUI #4 already served prison time and it clearly did not resolve the problem. Draconian sentences do nothing to resolve addiction problems, the whole approach is not effective. There is a wealth of research on this topic of you really have any interest in it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 15, 2012, 12:31:32 PM
If you wish to get back to my actual point, it's that the woman has by DUI #4 already served prison time and it clearly did not resolve the problem. Draconian sentences do nothing to resolve addiction problems, the whole approach is not effective. There is a wealth of research on this topic of you really have any interest in it.
You are correct, "Draconian sentences do nothing to resolve addiction problems". However, in a case such as this, where the offender obviously refuses, or is unable to accept that they need help, a draconian sentence will keep them from behind the wheel of a car. Problem solved until the sentence is served and they are out to re-offend. Then we get to do it all over again.
Please allow me to present some credentials. I happen to work for the State of FL Department of Corrections.
Therefore, I know that the website that I referred as the State DOC website is the one I was meaning when I said she has never been a guest of the State of FL. I did do the research WITHIN the STATE system... not the County - I made no Guesses with regards to her State Prison Time... she has served none. Far as your claim that this system contains errors.. not in my experience... and I have been with the Department for a few years... the "officer" in my nom de plume is not just wishful thinking, I earned it. Now if we could move away from that as it is actually moot. You and I are apparently unstoppable force and immovable object w/regards to the above.
now the original question that I wanted you to answer before the back and forth on this began, which I would honestly like to have your HONEST answer on:
Quote from: officerk on July 12, 2012, 08:53:31 PM
the only and proper punishment that she should receive is that her vehicle and license be taken away from her?
and the follow up question which I have a curiosity on:
Quote from: officerk on July 14, 2012, 05:43:43 AM
To take someone's vehicle and driver's license from them does not prevent them from driving, it only prevents them from driving legally.. then we run into a conundrum as what to do with the violator? fine them? they don't pay the fine. Fine them again? they still don't pay the fine. eventually there would have to be a bench warrant and now we have yet another person incarcerated which seems to be your hot button... you have issue with people being incarcerated for non-violent crimes.. if their is no fear of punishment for a violation why would anyone have any inclination to follow a law?
I ask these questions as I do really want to know how you would handle these situations to fix the problem if it were your place to fix them to ensure that these problems were in fact fixed and not repeated EVER. As I do agree that our institutions (both state and county) are getting filled with people who could have possibly been handled differently and I would like to hear your opinion. Perhaps had this woman (Theresa Long) been punished differently she would not be in the situation she is now.
and the State Prison System does have Alcohol Addiction classes that during her "draconian" prison term she would take advantage of as a part of the Re-Entry program which has had significant success within this state..
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2012, 06:07:51 PM
Quote from: officerk on July 15, 2012, 05:58:34 PM
Please allow me to present some credentials. I happen to work for the State of FL Department of Corrections.
Therefore, I know that the website that I referred as the State DOC website is the one I was meaning when I said she has never been a guest of the State of FL. I did do the research WITHIN the STATE system... not the County - I made no Guesses with regards to her State Prison Time... she has served none. Far as your claim that this system contains errors.. not in my experience... and I have been with the Department for a few years... the "officer" in my nom de plume is not just wishful thinking, I earned it. Now if we could move away from that as it is actually moot. You and I are apparently unstoppable force and immovable object w/regards to the above.
now the original question that I wanted you to answer before the back and forth on this began, which I would honestly like to have your HONEST answer on:
Quote from: officerk on July 12, 2012, 08:53:31 PM
the only and proper punishment that she should receive is that her vehicle and license be taken away from her?
and the follow up question which I have a curiosity on:
Quote from: officerk on July 14, 2012, 05:43:43 AM
To take someone's vehicle and driver's license from them does not prevent them from driving, it only prevents them from driving legally.. then we run into a conundrum as what to do with the violator? fine them? they don't pay the fine. Fine them again? they still don't pay the fine. eventually there would have to be a bench warrant and now we have yet another person incarcerated which seems to be your hot button... you have issue with people being incarcerated for non-violent crimes.. if their is no fear of punishment for a violation why would anyone have any inclination to follow a law?
I ask these questions as I do really want to know how you would handle these situations to fix the problem if it were your place to fix them to ensure that these problems were in fact fixed and not repeated EVER. As I do agree that our institutions (both state and county) are getting filled with people who could have possibly been handled differently and I would like to hear your opinion. Perhaps had this woman (Theresa Long) been punished differently she would not be in the situation she is now.
yeah. about that.
Chris is a very competent attorney, Officer K.
That he may be... I never said he was an incompetent anything...
Well since Stephen already outed me, I did find the lecture on how I don't understand DUIs or the difference between prison and jail, uh, rather amusing. I'm defending two of these as we speak, a DUI second offense and a DUI manslaughter. At the end of the day I think what we've got is a disagreement on whether harsh sentences have much effect especially on addiction-related crimes, which is a topic about which reasonable minds certainly can (and often do) disagree.
My main objection is that you're not providing any documentation, you're just stating your opinion as fact, and claiming that she didn't serve time when you don't actually know whether she did or not. You evidently have no interest in getting the presentencing reports or looking at the actual judgments, and those inmate websites aren't any help since we don't even know whether all 5 of the offenses occurred in Florida, or whether she served time in state prison in another state, or whether she had served time in county lookups where the offenses occurred (which is hardly pleasant and still counts). You just checked one website and made a blanket declaration. It's far more likely in my experience that she probably has, but that throwing the book at her did no good when her underlying addiction remained untreated.
I will again state that I made no assumption that she did NO time at all... only (and not an assumption) that she did no State Prison time in Florida (I searched her in the State website, she is not there).. BUT you are correct, I did the research of her Prison time was in the State of FL, I did not search any other state prison data bases... I did infer that that the DUIs were in FL and you are correct this inference could have been incorrect... BUT again I would really like to get back to the questions that I would really like to get answers to as we have both laid our credentials out there.. You know what you are talking about and I know what I am talking about, now - fabulous... could you answer the questions? As an Attorney there is a different spin on this I am sure - but providing a spectacular defense for your clients is fabulous however the safety of the general populous and hopefully a determent of repeating crimes is ideal too... though repeat business does keep the revenue flowing..
So if you could answer the questions... I would really like your answers - I do not ask questions that I don't really want to hear the answers to.....
To take someone's vehicle and driver's license from them does not prevent them from driving, it only prevents them from driving legally.. then we run into a conundrum as what to do with the violator? fine them? they don't pay the fine. Fine them again? they still don't pay the fine. eventually there would have to be a bench warrant and now we have yet another person incarcerated which seems to be your hot button... you have issue with people being incarcerated for non-violent crimes.. if their is no fear of punishment for a violation why would anyone have any inclination to follow a law?
Except that's not what you said...
Quote from: officerk on July 14, 2012, 05:43:43 AM
I looked her up on DOCweb.. she has served no prison term..
I appreciate all of the extra qualifying language you're now adding in an attempt to be right after-the-fact, but unfortunately your words are still there in black and white even when they're no longer convenient. That's the thing about message boards, I'm afraid. You said she's served no prison term at all, your words not mine, and as I've been pointing out the whole time, you have no way to know whether that is true or not, and that statement is very likely inaccurate.
But the point remains, as far as DUI goes, that often the multiple offender just continues to drive illegally. Jail and/or prison at least insures, as pointed out by a previous poster, that the offender does not endanger the public.
We can take away their DL and even sieze their car in extreme situations, but we can't (and we shouldn't be able to) keep them from aquiring such property in the future.
Ock, is there really a death penalty for first offense DUI in El Salvadore?
Chris: and the bottom line is that you are not going to answer my questions. You would rather banter with me on whether she has or has not served prison time in Florida (a records system which I do have extensive access to) or another state (a system of which we have established that I do not have access) than give any kind alternative solution to the problem which was why I really did start this inquiry not to but heads with you...