Mom arrested in San Diego, 32 years after escaping Detroit prison

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Prison is about storage not rehibilitation. The US Marshals will track you for 99 years and put you vack in jail. It is all non emotional. What ever the book says is what they do. Escape is usualy 15 mounths. THE BOP and the board has all the control. They can do what they want but always go on the high side. The get to about $52 k yr to house so they are $ thinking.

Worse part shes on TV this means a story can be sent to public. Escape means new housing is max no matter what. Dont look good.

Running is bad because in a tecnolgy like we have you get set up great and clean then past takes it away.

It is always the turn in thats worth $1000 usualy a friend.

Jim

reply to post by FredT


I hope you are this strict with the criminals in government and the mountains of crimes they get away with on a daily basis. Oh but wait lets get the terrorist mother of 3 because she might harm others.

I personally feel that the "serve her time" comment considering what her crime was and the fact that it was so long ago is pretty weak minded but fits with the police state we are going into. Maybe you can get a job in a camp and hunt us down if we escape.

The Justice system is so fundamentally flawed that to say what you said is rediculous. People are serving 5 years around America for simple pot possession but w/e lock em up throw away the key.

Here's the story with a picture of her. Susan Lefevre

And here ABC NEWS

I just thought of something that has bothered me for awhile now. Illegal aliens cross the border and get a fake name and social security number all the time, but they never are considered as breaking the law. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's up to the judge now and maybe her behavior will help her out? If she doesn't get time in prison then she needs to pay a fine at least and probation, community service etc. She still broke the law for drugs, and escaping prison, but if a pardon is granted then I hope she lives a good life throughout and her family sticks together.

[edit on 5/2/2008 by Solarskye]

Originally posted by asthepalacesburn
On top of that drugs are a victimless crime.

I'm not an anti drug advocate, but that has got to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Isn't that what we are supposed to deny around here?

It really is a sad story. The fact is that something in western society identifies with people who buck the system. Something inside us roots for bank robbers and prison escapees (as long as they're not lunatics) because they've got enough cojones to do something most of us never would. Personally I hope that the authorities will commute her sentence.

I am all for not doing the crime if you can't do the time, but to punish someone for decades for something they did when they were an immature young person is ridiculous. This case brings to light something that everyone already knows - the justice system needs a major overhaul, especially for nonviolent offenders.

She was arrested in the 70's on a Herion charge and sentacned to punishment........she decided to escape and live on the lam.

She should have to finish the remainder of her sentence and then get whatever additional time for escape.

She broke the law and had to pay for her crime, she decided not to.......well her past has cought up with her.

Sucks for the family but its all her fault no one elses.

Originally posted by gauncents
reply to post by FredT

 

It's more than just that. I believe prison is for rehabilitation. If she has be law abiding for 32 years. I believe that she has been rehabilitated. She may have been rehabilitated through family. We've been throwing criminals in prisons or prisons type facilities for hundreds if not, thousands of years.

Who's to say that maybe our present way of rehabilitating criminals needs to evolve a little.

A question of scrupples. Certainly she's kept her nose clean, but wouldn't you if you escaped prison? I'd like to know more about how she just "walked out" after a year. Someone leave the door open? This wasn't a planned escape?

Who knows if she might have got her time reduced for good behavior. She'll never know now. In fact, they may make an example out of her. Look 10 - 20 years at nineteen might seem like a lot, but the latest she would have been out is when she reached 39. Now, 32 years later, she's 51 and only served one year of her sentence. This means that she might not get out until she's 70.

Granted, everything you said above may very well be true, but does that eliminate the sentence she was given? What if this were an ax-murderer or child rapist who escaped after a year, moved to California, married, had kids and didn't commit a crime for 32 years. Would you consider this rehabilitation? Would you want this person sent back to prison?

I think she'll end up doing some time.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Freenrgy2]

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

What if this were an ax-murderer or child rapist who escaped after a year, moved to California, married, had kids and didn't commit a crime for 32 years. Would you consider this rehabilitation? Would you want this person sent back to prison?

No, I would not want an ax-murderer running around. It's not fair to compare the two. They are completely different scenarios.



[edit on 2-5-2008 by Freenrgy2]

I too generally agree that if you do the crime, you should do the time.

But I am also conflicted about the fact that this was based upon a drug related crime, where for $600 our system converts the life of someone so young into one of a meaningless existence at the taxpayer's expense.

Blind justice is not justice. Incarcerating her now serves little purpose. I'd much rather see parole with a lengthy community service requirement. That would make far more sense, imo.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by loam]

Seems we treat illegal Aliens better than our own people. Border Patrol lets some illegals go.

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer

The Oaxacan immigrants fall under a loophole that gives border agents discretion to keep some adults and children together and out of jail.

"They do qualify for jail and prosecution," Border Patrol spokesman Ramiro Cordero said. "However, we've got to look at the humanitarian factor first if we are going to have to separate the family."

Seems we let illegals with family's go so we don't destroy or spit up their families, because it is the humanitarian thing to do, but how dare us do anything humanitarian for one of our own who's only crime was being caught with drugs as a teenager.

I know escape is considered a crime by the system, however I think escaping is a god given drive for every human being and one who does not try or think about escape would not be human. I applaud her for using her skills to outsmart the system as a teen and for 32 years build a decent life. Resistance is not futile.

Now as a 53 year old with a family we can't look the other way? I think we can and we should. She has overcome the dark forces and I predict she will once again.


[edit on 2-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by FredT

She committed a crime. She evaded her responsability for that crime by escaping. She needs to finish her sentance period. Its really that simple.

By this statement alone I can already tell you're a person that has never been tried and prosecuted ever in their life before. If you did i imagine you would have a different position on this. You probably wouldn't judge things so black and white.

A year ago I was out and had too much to drink to drive at a friends house, luckily though my car was parked next door at the Needs convenience store, so I decided to just sleep it off in my car instead of getting a DUI and hopefully no one would tow my car with me in it. So I put my keys in the ignition and turned on the CD player but never engaged the engine. After about 15 minutes some over ambitious rookie cop trying to prove a point pulls up and arrests me for "care and control of a motor vehicle". Keep in mind my engine was never even engaged. This is thanks in part to Harpers new "tough on crime" policy in Canada now having keys in the ignition is all it takes to be charged with what is essentially a Canadian DUI. That's right I got a DUI without even having my engine turned on. I now have yet to get my license back as it's been suspended for awhile, insurance will not be affordable for 7 years I was told by Allstate. Made getting to my college classes really difficult. Lost my job because it wasn't on the city bus route. I now have a criminal record and it's another 6 years before I can apply for a pardon, who knows how long it will take to process. This criminal record also cost me numerous career opportunities when I graduated from college, jobs that we're willing to pay 40K+ a year with full benefits, until they found out I had a criminal record and weren't willing to consider specific situations. It was pretty black and white for them too. Do you honestly still think this is fair? Yes I was in clear violation of the law my keys were in the ignition they had to be for me to have the CD player on. But to my understanding back then I thought to get a DUI you had to be driving, I had no idea then that it was illegal to have just keys, even though I posed no threat to myself or anyone around me with a turned off car.
Before you condemn someone guilty and worthy of punishment, you should really take into consideration everything else about the person before your willing to cast judgment.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by woady]

Originally posted by gauncents

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

What if this were an ax-murderer or child rapist who escaped after a year, moved to California, married, had kids and didn't commit a crime for 32 years. Would you consider this rehabilitation? Would you want this person sent back to prison?

No, I would not want an ax-murderer running around. It's not fair to compare the two. They are completely different scenarios.

Let me play devil's advocate. So, am I to presume that this woman could be rehabilitated but that a murderer or child rapist could not? The post I quoted indicated that you believed that woman had been rehabilitated, with the only evidence being that she has been law abiding for 32 years. Therefore, any person who committed a crime would then (according to your logic) be "rehabilitated" if they then becoming law abiding citizens for an extended period of time.

I understand the difference in the severity of the crime and that the punishment should fit the crime. I guess I'm a little fuzzy on how the determination is made that a person is rehabilitated. Do we know that she did not use drugs or sell drugs in the 32 years after she escaped from jail? Maybe she just never got caught?

What if a murderer did not commit another murder or a child rapist did not commit another rape in 32 years. Wouldn't they too be "rehabilitated?"

Look, I'm not personally attacking you, I'm arguing the logic of your statements.

Even though this is an old case, she did escape from jail. Certainly, there will be some consequence for this action. I don't know the full details of the case and I don't know how severe of a crime that was committed that put her in jail. Was it possession, dealing? Was this a repeated offense?

Personally, I think 20 years sounds harsh, but I don't exaclty know what put her there. She may never have served 10 years, but she gave up her ability to find out by escaping from jail, creating a new identity and hoping she'd never get caught.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Freenrgy2]

Originally posted by woady

Originally posted by FredT

She committed a crime. She evaded her responsability for that crime by escaping. She needs to finish her sentance period. Its really that simple.

Before you condemn someone guilty and worthy of punishment, you should really take into consideration everything else about the person before your willing to cast judgment.

While you've given us a good description of the events that surrounded your case, we don't have that same information about this person. What exactly was the "drug-related" charge? And I don't believe Fred T was passing judgement by stating that the indvidual should finish their sentence. Perhaps if we knew more about the circumstances we could form a better opinion of this.

She did escape from jail. Whether or not she lived a clean life after this is irrelevant. Is it nice that she did so, yes. Does it change the law? No. Does it commute her sentence? Who knows.

She was to be held accoutable for her actions then, and she will be held accountable for her actions now.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Freenrgy2]

reply to post by gauncents

I'm not an anti drug advocate, but that has got to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Could you explain your reasoning. I am sure you have good reasons, but it would be more effective stating these with reasons along with your opinion. When you are belittling other peoples statements, try not to say something and leave it at that.

BACK ON TOPIC
I guess what we need to ask ourselves is 'What is the point of Prison?'. The answer to this issue lies in ones response. If one thinks prison is for punishment then it would be logical to think she needs to go back, or if prison is for rehabilitation the issue gets more complicated.

I think she should go to prison for a short while and serve some time(not all of her time, i.e. a year or so). 32 years have shown she has been rehabilitated, but she still evaded justice.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

While you've given us a good description of the events that surrounded your case, we don't have that same information about this person. What exactly was the "drug-related" charge? And I don't believe Fred T was passing judgement by stating that the indvidual should finish their sentence. Perhaps if we knew more about the circumstances we could form a better opinion of this.

She did escape from jail. Whether or not she lived a clean life after this is irrelevant. Is it nice that she did so, yes. Does it change the law? No. Does it commute her sentence? Who knows.

She was to be held accoutable for her actions then, and she will be held accountable for her actions now.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Freenrgy2]

That is exactly my point though, you don't know all the details about the other person, all these people saying she should do 5 years 6 mo. whatever parole length. No you people can't say that, she might deserve a week, maybe a year, you don't know you shouldn't judge her. All this talk about ax wielding maniacs? moot point, she never harmed anyone it's a drug charge, not a murder charge. you don't know the specifics of her charge, she might not be deserving of any time at all, to say "someone did a crime, they need to do time" I think is just wrong.

However I disagree I believe that is exactly what FredT meant when he said "it's that simple"

reply to post by woady


Please read my posts in the context they are written. The ax-murderer/child rapist comment was made to discuss the rationale behind what constitutes a person being "rehabilitated" and I was specifically addressing another poster's comment about this. There is no moot point in the context it was written for.

Now, on to your comment. I believe Fred T was giving his opinion of what should happen. She was already judged over 32 years ago in a court of law and found guilty of the crime she was accused of. She was then sentenced in accordance with the legal statues at that time which indicated that she was to serve a prison term of 10 to 20 years.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Please read my posts in the context they are written. The ax-murderer/child rapist comment was made to discuss the rationale behind what constitutes a person being "rehabilitated" and I was specifically addressing another poster's comment about this. There is no moot point in the context it was written for.

Now, on to your comment. I believe Fred T was giving his opinion of what should happen. She was already judged over 32 years ago in a court of law and found guilty of the crime she was accused of. She was then sentenced in accordance with the legal statues at that time which indicated that she was to serve a prison term of 10 to 20 years.

Yes I know he was giving his opinion, That's why I was arguing it. I said I disagree and he shouldn't form his opinion so black and white, and gave an example why. Then you said that's not what he meant and I disagreed, and now your saying it's his opinion? argue with continuity

Okay she was sentenced 32 years ago, the punishment doesn't always fight the crime is my point, and in order to give appropriate sentences you should consider each individual case, which means knowing all the details, not cookie cutter sentences.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by gauncents

 

I'm not an anti drug advocate, but that has got to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Could you explain your reasoning. I am sure you have good reasons, but it would be more effective stating these with reasons along with your opinion. When you are belittling other peoples statements, try not to say something and leave it at that.

BACK ON TOPIC
I guess what we need to ask ourselves is 'What is the point of Prison?'. The answer to this issue lies in ones response. If one thinks prison is for punishment then it would be logical to think she needs to go back, or if prison is for rehabilitation the issue gets more complicated.

I think she should go to prison for a short while and serve some time(not all of her time, i.e. a year or so). 32 years have shown she has been rehabilitated, but she still evaded justice.

The person had said that a Drug Crime is victimless. That is what I am referring to.

Or perhaps you have never seen the aftermath of a meth lab blowing up and burning and killing children.

Or perhaps you have never heard of a pregnant crack addict.

Anyway back on topic...

I'm starting to feel a little different if what she said is true. She said her lawyer told her to plead guilty and she would get probation and if that's true and she got 10 to 20 in prison for doing what her lawyer said to do then It's kind of wrong. I'd like to hear from the prosecutor of that case if they are still around and get everyone's story. Was there a plea bargain deal or not? Here's a video of her telling her story to a reporter. Behind the glass

Originally posted by woady

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Please read my posts in the context they are written. The ax-murderer/child rapist comment was made to discuss the rationale behind what constitutes a person being "rehabilitated" and I was specifically addressing another poster's comment about this. There is no moot point in the context it was written for.

Now, on to your comment. I believe Fred T was giving his opinion of what should happen. She was already judged over 32 years ago in a court of law and found guilty of the crime she was accused of. She was then sentenced in accordance with the legal statues at that time which indicated that she was to serve a prison term of 10 to 20 years.

Yes I know he was giving his opinion, That's why I was arguing it. I said I disagree and he shouldn't form his opinion so black and white, and gave an example why. Then you said that's not what he meant and I disagreed, and now your saying it's his opinion? argue with continuity

Okay she was sentenced 32 years ago, the punishment doesn't always fight the crime is my point, and in order to give appropriate sentences you should consider each individual case, which means knowing all the details, not cookie cutter sentences.

Not to belabor this, but you are the one who needs to know what you indeed said. I quote your previous post to Fred T:

By this statement alone I can already tell you're a person that has never been tried and prosecuted ever in their life before. If you did i imagine you would have a different position on this. You probably wouldn't judge things so black and white.

So, I argued the point you made with regards to judging. Again, I stated that I believe he didn't judge, but gave his opinion. And it certainly doesn't appear that you approached Fred's post from the position that he was only giving his opinion.

If she had a crappy lawyer and thought the punishment was unfair, she should have appealed. Again, how can any of us judge her when she has already been judged? Sure, 32 years have passed, but what has been resolved because of this? Are we to start a trend that it is o.k. to escape from prison and, as long as you keep your nose clean, we will forget the whole thing. If she would have served the maximum sentence of 20 years, she'd have been free for the last 12 years. Oh, I know, the whole romance, marriage and kid thing. Yes, she made a life for herself by perptrating a lie. Whose really going to suffer now: that's right, the huband and children who never knew. So, her escaping from jail, in effect, has brought further pain and suffering to people who might never have known such.

My argument is not with the sentence (which I do believe was harsh, although I would like to know more) but with the opinion of those who feel that the law should be bent in her favor because she's been rehabilitated. Escaping from jail is pretty black and white. From this aspect, at least, she can expect to serve some time.