Where is the consistancy in criminal sentencing???

Just read this today and it reminded me of the horrible method we have in sentencing criminals which are no where near appropriate nor consistent.

KALAMAZOO, MI – In November, Timothy Tucker punched his girlfriend in the face and then pummeled her with the couple's two-week-old puppy to the point that the small animal defecated on the woman and died.

Tucker, who has a lengthy criminal record, pleaded guilty in December to one count of third-offense domestic violence as a second-time habitual offender. As part of a plea agreement in the case, one count of killing/torturing animals was dismissed and Tucker was able to avoid being convicted as a fourth-time habitual offender.

A Cobbs agreement between Tucker and the court called for no prison time for Tucker and entry into the Swift and Sure Sanctions Program. A Cobbs plea allows for defendants to enter a guilty plea in a case that can later be withdrawn if a judge's sentence falls outside the terms put forth by the judge before a defendant entered their plea.

Reisterer argued Tuesday for Tucker to be sent to prison. According to court documents, Tucker has prior convictions for third-offense domestic violence in 2005, fleeing police in 2006 and writing counterfeit checks in 2008.

Circuit Judge Alexander C. Lipsey also noted during Tuesday's sentencing that Tucker was previously convicted of second-offense domestic violence in 1999, 2001 and 2013 and illegal entry and malicious destruction of property in 2010.

Lipsey on Tuesday stuck to the terms of the Cobbs agreement and sentenced Tucker to six months in jail with credit for 68 days already served, as well as four years of probation and entry into the Swift and Sure Sanctions Program. He ordered Tucker to pay state fees and restitution and told Tucker that failure to successfully complete Swift and Sure could result in prison time.

Puppy killed when used as weapon by man in beating of girlfriend in Kalamazoo

Now, the same day in the same court we also have this.

Clifford Williams, 56, of Sunsprite Drive, was sentenced to five months in jail and ordered to pay state fees for a probation violation stemming from an original charge of possession of methamphetamine/ecstasy as a second-time habitual offender in September 2013 in Kalamazoo.

Clifford Williams

So 5 mo. in jail, probation and fines for failure to appear for a previous drug possession charge and 6 mo. in jail, probation and fines for beating a person with a 2 week old puppy until the puppy is dead and the person hospitalized while being a multiple violent offender!! WTF is going on here???

One is a non-violent possession charge while the other is a horrible domestic violence charge and animal cruelty charge from a multiple violent offender and the only difference is a month in jail??? I can't even begin to process this kind of thinking. This guy belongs in a damn cage. I fail to see how any court mandated therapy is going to fix this 51 y/o psychopathic, repeat violent offender.

a reply to: mOjOm

Wow!!
I am all for diversion programs for non violent and drug offenses, not even only the first time but even second time as well.

But this guy that beat a woman and the killed a dog?! Ya he needs to be locked up and not have charges dismissed and get diversion which could mean more dismissal of charges...

Every crime is different, but I do get what you are saying. Personally, the first guy should get some hard time. Scumbag. The fact he has priors for domestic violence and then kills a puppy beating his chick shows me the guy is worthless. I say throw the key away till he is old and decrepit. 2nd time dope offender should get some time, but I generally want to see these folks put in rehab. The problem is a lot of criminals are also drug addicts. They do their crimes to feed their addiction so they aren't all that innocent.

Usually it's very consistent:

1. Rich: consistent

2. Poor: consistent

3. White: consistent

4. Black: consistent

5. Politician: consistent

6. Corporate CEO: consistent

7.Diplomat: consistent

Look for the patterns because they exist. Not 100% of the time of course but usually.

Peace

When a person is placed on probation they are making a promise to stay out of trouble or they will get to serve the sentence that was waved for probation. He broke that promise and is now serving his sentence. The judge had little choice on this case.
Why the other guy is not nailed to a post somewhere is another question.

As a general statement, there shouldn't be any consistency in sentencing because each individual and crime has many different mitigating circumstances come time for sentencing.

Plus, you must remember that the jury--our peers--generally decides the sentencing (even though the judge must sign off on it).

That said, often times there is an attorney that just plain sucks--in the case of your first story, it'd be the prosecutor. In the case of the latter, it's just the damn war on drugs in general that is the problem there (and it was probably a mandatory sentence...mandatory sentencing is a plague on our system). And, some of the time, the judges are corrupt as well.

Regardless, there are absolutely massive cracks in our judicial system, and often times punishments do no fit the crimes (going both ways--too harsh or too lenient). But most of the time, you have to blame our peers who decide guilt and punishment. We are raising a bunch of whiny babies in America these days, so is it surprising that punishment is a hard concept for them to grasp and employ?

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
When a person is placed on probation they are making a promise to stay out of trouble or they will get to serve the sentence that was waved for probation. He broke that promise and is now serving his sentence. The judge had little choice on this case.
Why the other guy is not nailed to a post somewhere is another question.

Right. My point isn't about the Drug offender. Obviously he's got problems being a repeat offender and failing to comply with the court and all.

My point is that one of these guys could literally be your next door neighbor and odds are you and your family are safe. While the other guy might actually kill you or your family or your dog in some fit of anger which he's already been convicted of multiple times already. So the fact that in comparison they both got sentenced to almost the same sentence is just insane to me.

I mean one guy has some addiction problems and the other is obviously an unhinged, sociopath with a history of violence.

a reply to: mOjOm


Maybe the violent guy had an abusive father that beat his mother. Could be he just needs some therapy.
Slap monkey was right, each case should be treated differently. Really it's hard to judge these people from a news clip or two.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: mOjOm


Maybe the violent guy had an abusive father that beat his mother. Could be he just needs some therapy.
Slap monkey was right, each case should be treated differently. Really it's hard to judge these people from a news clip or two.

Maybe but I doubt it. This guy seems a bit too old and far too gone for therapy to fix but then I'm not qualified to say either way. In either case, he belongs somewhere where he cannot harm others until he is either cured or dead. I'm all in favor of getting people the help they need and all that but I'm also smart enough to know that sometimes there is no way to fix some things.

Anyone who is able to beat up their girlfriend with a two week old puppy and has a history of violence and the only thing he said in court was about exchanging property with the woman at an agreed time and place IMO is FUBAR. I'm also not saying he should be punished or tortured or anything like that. I imagine a life of suffering is probably what has caused his issues to a large degree and added suffering won't help anything. But at least get him away from other people who still have a chance at living a life without this kind of thing happening to them. Or their puppy.

originally posted by: Edumakated
2nd time dope offender should get some time, but I generally want to see these folks put in rehab.

Seriously! What possible positive outcome can come from putting a non-violent personal drug user in jail?

All it does is destroy lives and has a massive negative effect of society, its a medical issue not a criminal issue. But I guess it keeps the police in work and its obviously much easier to police morality by arresting harmless people, rather than doing real police work and actually dealing with hardened criminals!

Anyway, the court system has a really warped way of how they make decisions, imo. Nothings consistent, it all comes down to how you dress on the day, whether your families there to support you and basically how good your lawyer is. It's a capitalist system basically.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa


Drunk drivers are non violent criminals, they kill people all the time and that destroys lives. When they stay home to indulge in their non violent habits I will agree with you.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: Subaeruginosa


Drunk drivers are non violent criminals, they kill people all the time and that destroys lives. When they stay home to indulge in their non violent habits I will agree with you.

That's the point Subaeruginosa I think is trying to point out though. Drinking isn't illegal but driving drunk is. The same should apply for drug use but it doesn't. Even doing drugs in your own home you can get busted for which doesn't make sense. If you steal to support your habit then your crime is theft.

The same as if you steal to support your drinking. Or rob people or whatever. There should be no difference in what the substance is for addiction you should address it the same whether it's Alcohol or heroin as far as legality goes. Crimes associated with your addiction are still crimes like before, but simply taking a substance of some kind is your own business. The reason there is such a problem with addiction is because with drugs we force people in to hiding it and having to deal with criminals rather than allowing them to get help or support or whatever they need openly.

That's a whole different topic than this one though.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: mOjOm


Maybe the violent guy had an abusive father that beat his mother. Could be he just needs some therapy.
Slap monkey was right, each case should be treated differently. Really it's hard to judge these people from a news clip or two.

Bollocks.

I dont care how violent ones childhood is violent crime is violent crime, and should allways carry heavier punisment.

Murder
Rape
Manslaghter
Unprovocked Assault

All should be mandatory prison. Allways.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Drunk drivers are putting others lifes at risk by operating machinary.
The end result i would say could end in violence.

Everyone knows drink driving or drug driving can result in death or injury or innocents.

To do so your are knowling putting others life in danger, it is selfish and reckless disregard or anothers well being.
So yes I would count it as a violent crime in that sence.