Page 1 of 2
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:22 pm
Hey, are any of you familiar with a measure in Oregon called Measure 11? It has to do with criminal sentencing laws. It's been a while since I've posted anything on this site because I wasn't able to get to a computer. Some of you have talked to me already, and I'm not sure if you have, you even remember me, but I'm currently incarcerated and have been for the last 5 years. The measure I'm talking about is a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline that is effective against juveniles as young as 14 or 15. If they are convicted of a measure 11 crime, they will have a minimum sentence of 5 years, 10 months, for the least crime enforceable under measure 11. The problem with this is that most kids come in at 14 or 15, and haven't had any real world experience. They were young and dumb, and did some stupid $h1t because they were with other guys doing stupid things, and got caught up. Just wanted to know what you guys think of mandatory minimum sentencing for juveniles. They are charged as adults under measure 11, and so their felony stays with them the same as if they were charged if they were 30. It's on the ballot for revisions this november.
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:45 pm
Yes, I remember you. If you remember me, you probably already know what I'm going to say.
I HATE mandatory minimum laws. They are nothing but a ploy of the legislature to get around the checks and balances of the judicial system. As such I feel they are unconstitutional. In some cases they may violate rights such as no cruel or unusual punishment. So again they run afoul of the constitution in my opinion. Then juvenile records are suppose to be sealed. That sounds like shaky ground to me as well. But that's how it is in this country, people just don't think anything bad can ever happen. They are all too willing to vote away their rights, and mine along with them. Hopefully people in Oregon will be smart and vote this down.
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:34 pm
I don't know enough about Measure 11 to comment about it specifically, however in general I think sentancing guidelines are a good thing, since they create uniformity in sentancing. As for charging juveniles as adults, I think it depends on the nature of the crime. Things like drug possesion, property crimes and status offences are generally best handled by the juvenile system. However, when it comes to serious violent crimes like murder, forcable rape and armed robbery I'm a lot less forgiving.
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:19 pm
It's the arbitrary rules that take the judgement out of being a judge. I would rather be judged by someone capable of looking at each case on it's own merits. On a lesser scale, I was ticketed once for running a stop sign (not something I normally do) at 2 AM with not a car in sight but because someone had complained at some point about that spot, the police had a zero-tolerance policy in effect and the cop couldn't give me a warning if he wanted to.
People need to stand up for each other's freedom.
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:26 pm
Yea that's how those stupid school zones are. The cop said the best he can do is reduce it to 7 over. I continue to break that law provided I don't see a cop for a kind of half-assed civil disobedience.
It sounds mean, but because of how ridiculous it is I am thinking "F*** the kids". Then I think "It's called a cross walk, I was able to use it at 6. If you can't figure it out by junior high, please don't reproduce. Although I know you will because sex-ed isn't going to sink in either. Then I get to pay for your food stamps and your kids and section 8 housing, and pay even more while you are all in and out of prison and........." Then my thoughts get interrupted by someone driving in both lanes and I start thinking "Hang up and pay attention, !&(@^%#&!^%(&[email protected]
That's kind of weird though I think. But that's how those silly laws are, they make me wonder how dumb some people really are. Dumber than I can comprehend being possible, that's for sure.
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:34 pm
I guess I just don't have much confidence in authority figures to be fair and unbiased and always show good judgment.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:18 am
They don't always show good judgement but there are checks and balances that work most of the time. If it's an arbitrary rule vs the judgement of a competant individual, I'll go with the competant individual.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:36 am
I just jumped in, so here is my answer to the original post (and poster). Yeah, Halfbreed, I remember you.I don't know what guidelines are in measure 11, but my take on it is that unless juveniles commit pre-meditated murder (or something equal-I don;t know what that would be), they should be hel in a JUVENILE court for time commensurate with the offense, if it's a felonet, so note it, but SEAL up the records. If it's a mjor feloney, hold a hearing at age 18 to determine any further action.
OK, now I'm going on a rant. Most of us are in the US, and this is the system I'm ranting about. Our facilities are fullI see nothing at all that prepares inmates for fitting back into society, on the contrary I just see a penal system that prepares them to be more hardcore offenders. NO WAY should you put you put young and dumb juveniles into that system.I remember when I was 17, and some friends and i got ahold of a case of beer, got busted, and when the local PD showed up to bust it, kind of sorted locked him up in his patrol car and had a good time laughing at him. Well, his back up ended up hauling us in. Well, one night in the drunk tank, a fine for a misdemeanor and having to look a runny eggs over hash passed through the bars in the morning, plus my father doing much wore to me was enough to straighten me right out, as I think it would be for most juveniles. The parents, not the police, have to take back control of the younger generation. OK, end of rant.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:22 am
Tim I understand what your getting at. Young people do some pretty stupid things sometimes. That's why we have a juvenile justice system. But I've also met juveniles who are/were already dangerous criminals with long records who repeatedly got off light because of their age.
For example, when I was in school, there was a kid a grade ahead of me named John-Paul who was infamous. He was a big kid with a real meanstreak. Among other things, he slashed another kids face with a broken wiskey bottle in a school fight that he started, and set his blind father's bed on fire while the father was sleeping in it. Each time he got off with a slap on the wrist because of his age.
It wasn't until he turned 18 that had to do real time for savagely beating an elderly man with baseball bat and robbing him of the few dollars he had in his wallet. That was the last I heard of him, although I'd be very surprised if he hasn't commited other violent offenses since then.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:31 am
I agree, and it seems to be getting more and more that way. Again, it goes back to family upbringing, plus maybe they are just wired that way. I can't get through a local news show everynight where some of the kids are killing other kids, for no obvious reason. HOWEVER, I don't think that there should be a blanket rule for all juvenile offenders (or even adults) I think it should be judged on an individual basis based on the nature of the crime. In your example, that kid should have been locked up with the key thrown away long before he turned 18. I guess I'm just not happy with these blanket measures, look at Calif with it's 3 strikes law. The Penal systems are full to the brim , and in a lot of cases, the 3rd stike might have een something like shoplifting.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:43 am
I agree about three-strikes laws. Giving someone, even a repeat offender, a life sentance for drug possesion or stealing a car is stupid.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 am
Of course, in some states juvenile detainees can't be held past their 18th or 21st birthday. So, if a 17 year old commits rape or armed robbery and gets tried as a juvenile, he could be out in less than a year. If the same guy gets tried as an adult, he could serve much longer.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:59 am
Again, that's an arbitrary rule getting in the way of justice. It works both ways.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:37 am
True, it is a stupid law, but it also shows bad judgment for any prosecuter to charge a 17-year-old rapist as a juvenile.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:47 am
Of course, idealy sentancing guidelines are just that guidelines, with some degree of flexibility. For example, 5-10 for X offense, or 20-life for Y. There's also generally the option of substituting probation for prison time, or paroling a prisoner who's already served part of his or her sentance ... not to mension plea bargains.