Woman arrested after 32 years on the run after prison escape.

r0beph

r0beph

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
543
Location
Huntsville, Alabama
Ridiculous.........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24391957/

do we have nothing better to do? Yes she broke the law, Yes she escaped from jail, what they're not so obvious about is that the prosecutor lied, told her she'd get probation if she plead guilty, instead she received 10-20 years, for 2 grams of heroin, sold to an undercover cop. Her family assisted in her escape after a year in lockup.... I know laws are laws, but why the hell do we call it department of corrections, isn't the intent to CORRECT? or is it punishment to punish, no other reason... is rehab of the criminal even the point anymore? She'd not broken a single law since her escape and has been married and has a 19 yr old son. America, you are a damned failure..... End of story.
 
Werbung:
r0beph said:
Ridiculous.........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24391957/

do we have nothing better to do? Yes she broke the law, Yes she escaped from jail, what they're not so obvious about is that the prosecutor lied, told her she'd get probation if she plead guilty, instead she received 10-20 years, for 2 grams of heroin, sold to an undercover cop. Her family assisted in her escape after a year in lockup.... I know laws are laws, but why the hell do we call it department of corrections, isn't the intent to CORRECT? or is it punishment to punish, no other reason... is rehab of the criminal even the point anymore? She'd not broken a single law since her escape and has been married and has a 19 yr old son. America, you are a damned failure..... End of story.
Click to expand...

You obviously know more than the story tells. Assuming you are correct it shows us that when you make deals with the prosecutors you should have a laywer to write up the draft. It shows us that the purpose of the convictions is not always to correct but to send a message (I'm not saying that is effective). What is does not show us is if her exemplary life was because she was keeping a low profile and perhaps if she had never been caught and escaped she might have gone on to bigger crimes.

What it definitely does not show us is that a single (or even a few) bad deals with prosecutors means that America is a failure. We already know that all the facts are not on the table. Maybe she got the best deal she could. Even if she did not, then, short of a pattern, at best it tells us that this one prosecutor is not fair. I have no doubt you could find more stories of bad deals. So that would tell us that some prosecutors are not fair. Do you have any stats on how many deals are bad? If we had a pattern then we could know how many prosecutors are bad.

From what I have seen most people who commit a crime can rest on the following: they most likely will not get caught, there probably won't be enough evidence to convict, they can plea the conviction down, they most likely won't get much time, if they do it will be reduced, and as soon as the jails get too full they will get let out even earlier. yup we have some problems.
 
Dr.Who said:
You obviously know more than the story tells. Assuming you are correct it shows us that when you make deals with the prosecutors you should have a laywer to write up the draft. It shows us that the purpose of the convictions is not always to correct but to send a message (I'm not saying that is effective). What is does not show us is if her exemplary life was because she was keeping a low profile and perhaps if she had never been caught and escaped she might have gone on to bigger crimes.

What it definitely does not show us is that a single (or even a few) bad deals with prosecutors means that America is a failure. We already know that all the facts are not on the table. Maybe she got the best deal she could. Even if she did not, then, short of a pattern, at best it tells us that this one prosecutor is not fair. I have no doubt you could find more stories of bad deals. So that would tell us that some prosecutors are not fair. Do you have any stats on how many deals are bad? If we had a pattern then we could know how many prosecutors are bad.

From what I have seen most people who commit a crime can rest on the following: they most likely will not get caught, there probably won't be enough evidence to convict, they can plea the conviction down, they most likely won't get much time, if they do it will be reduced, and as soon as the jails get too full they will get let out even earlier. yup we have some problems.
Click to expand...


Problem was in the 70s when she was convicted it was the hey day of mandatory extreme sentencing for drugs. Today she'd have copped a 3-5 on a conviction with a not guilty plea. However, what is a failure of our general system of justice (which is a big failure in america) is that rehabilitation is of no concern, it's all about do your time for your crime. Punishment for punishment's sake. I'm all for locking up bad guys, but come on, compassion needs its place in the court room. She did a bad thing, sure, however she has not done anything in 32 some odd years except for lie about her name to avoid her extreme sentencing, she was 19 at the time of her arrest, a kid in todays standards asked to spend 20 years of her life, 39 years old when released, behind bars. I don't condone escape, I don't condone sale of drugs, but I do say we need to really think before we run after people who are obviously causing no problems in society......
 
r0beph said:
Problem was in the 70s when she was convicted it was the hey day of mandatory extreme sentencing for drugs. Today she'd have copped a 3-5 on a conviction with a not guilty plea. However, what is a failure of our general system of justice (which is a big failure in america) is that rehabilitation is of no concern, it's all about do your time for your crime. Punishment for punishment's sake. I'm all for locking up bad guys, but come on, compassion needs its place in the court room. She did a bad thing, sure, however she has not done anything in 32 some odd years except for lie about her name to avoid her extreme sentencing, she was 19 at the time of her arrest, a kid in todays standards asked to spend 20 years of her life, 39 years old when released, behind bars. I don't condone escape, I don't condone sale of drugs, but I do say we need to really think before we run after people who are obviously causing no problems in society......
Click to expand...


Common sense will prevail. Before all is done she will need to pass before a prosecutor again and a judge again. I think the drug charges will go away. but of course they can't let her go unpunished for escaping jail...what kind of message would that give to all the people in jail. Considering her time as an upstanding citizen this time I doubt they will throw the book at her.
 
Selling crack to an 11 year old shouldn't be punishable by law...

I'm all for legalising most drugs but theres a limit.
 
You break the law, you pay the consequences.

I don't get you people...

You'd be the same ones at the Pearly Gates after you die saying, "what, all that stuff was bad? sure, I know, but come on...only a little bad."
 
9sublime said:
Sounds good to me.

How about we start by making cannabis legal, ecstasy legal but highly regulated along with speed.
Click to expand...

Is there any nutritive or medical value to cannabis or ecstasy or speed that cannot be better accomplished with another drug?

I doubt there is for ecstasy or speed. One might make a case for medical marijuana. And that is why we have procedures for putting drugs through a review process. Until then it is illegal and unless one advocates that anyone who disagrees with any law has the right to ignore it then we should follow it.
 
It will not be reviewed...it can't be patented, so no company will spend the millions to get it approved.

Laws that prohibit consentual acts between consenting adults should be ignored.
 
Dr.Who said:
How about we get an FDA that makes drugs controlled or not based on reasonable criteria.
Click to expand...

Pipe dream. The FDA is a convoluted web of patronage and corruption, which ensures that drugs reach the market based on palm greasing and lobbying and not quality. There are drugs Europeans have had access to for years that we don't.

-Dr House :cool:
 
Dr.Who said:
Is there any nutritive or medical value to cannabis or ecstasy or speed that cannot be better accomplished with another drug?

I doubt there is for ecstasy or speed. One might make a case for medical marijuana. And that is why we have procedures for putting drugs through a review process. Until then it is illegal and unless one advocates that anyone who disagrees with any law has the right to ignore it then we should follow it.
Click to expand...

Its not a question of its medical value - in case you hadn't realise drugs are taken for their recreational value too.

As the post above says, what two consenting adults choose to do between themselves should not be controlled by law unless its going to adversley affect non consenting adults.

Thus - if my mate wants to grow some gange and I want to buy some off him and smoke it - whats your issue?
 
Werbung:
9sublime said:
Its not a question of its medical value - in case you hadn't realise drugs are taken for their recreational value too.

As the post above says, what two consenting adults choose to do between themselves should not be controlled by law unless its going to adversley affect non consenting adults.

Thus - if my mate wants to grow some gange and I want to buy some off him and smoke it - whats your issue?
Click to expand...

My issue would be that pot smoking is not harmless to oneself.

First, there is the smoke that is ingested, it is 14 times thicker than tobacco smoke and is harmful to the lungs. Then there are the effects on the testicles and the alteration of a persons ability to make wise choices while under the influence of the drug. All in all, it is probably less harmful than alcohol and maybe even french fries. But it should at least be reviewed. Which it has - and it has been found to be not worthy of approval. We may disagree. And the solution is to make a case that it has merit or at least no negative aspects. The solution is not to flaunt the law.

Now, even if it is harmful, if someone wants to harm himself and there are no consequences to me then by all means....

But if he is in my insurance pool then it becomes my concern. So let teh insurance company disqualify marijuana related health expenses (MRHE).

If he is going to go to the ER and use public aid then it is my concern. So let Public Aid refuse to provide service for MRHE.

If he is going drive while under the influence then it is my concern. So make it illegal to drive while under the influence (which it is).

And if we ever get universal health coverage then he will be in my insurance pool and it will be my concern. So again, let him be refused coverage for MRHE.

For that matter if someone does something really stupid to himself why should I pay for the consequences in any way except in cases where by my own compassion I choose to help?
 

Similar threads

steveox
Fla. congressman to resign after cocaine scandal
Replies
1
Views
1K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
P
Case for the death penalty
2
Replies
15
Views
2K
Boris Norris
B
GBFan
The Reality of Obamacare
Replies
4
Views
2K
dogtowner
dogtowner
M
    • Like
It's time to rid America of corrupt prosecutors
4 5 6
Replies
76
Views
3K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
K
The Iraq War Seven Years Later
Replies
1
Views
1K
khothla
K
Back
Top