Florida obviously has some pretty "permissive" statutes on the books that would allow someone as evil as Joseph P. Smith to walk the streets, never having spent anymore time in prison than 14 months, for an attempted kidnapping. He could have been sentenced to up to 5 years in prison, but a "scoring" system that judges use to dertermine sentencing didn't add up to enough to put Smith in prison. Instead, he was put on probation for three more years! If in fact the laws are there, the Judges in the system need to ultimately use the full measure of punishment allowed by the law. Otherwise, there will unfortunately be more Carlie Brucia's in this Nation's future.
Mandatory minimum sentences and the three strike rule for violent crime sounds about right to me. Good post.
Funny how all of those liberals in California have had the "3-Strike" Rule for almost ten years now. Furthermore, in California burglary is considered a "serious felony". And, the third strike itself does not have to be a serious or violent felony. Furthermore, the second strike requires the courts to hand down twice the normal sentence. Moreover, there is no "wash out" period: The law says that previous convictions must be counted as "strikes" no matter how old they are - - - even if they happened before the three strikes law was passed. Multiple convictions from a single incident can be counted as multiple "strikes". And, a person sentenced under three strikes can only receive a maximum of 20 percent time off, for good behavior - - - down from a 50 percent reduction of time for good behavior. During the 17 years leading up to 1994 (when three strikes went into effect), the California legislature passed more than 1,000 bills lengthening sentences or defining new crimes. Not surprisingly, these same years showed a six-fold increase in California's prison population--from 19,000 to 126,000. Between 1852 and 1984 California built 12 prisons. In the decade between 1984 and 1994 an additional 16 prisons were built. California and its liberals soft on crime . . . I don't think so!
This is a terrible thing, and the perpetrator is a monster who should face fullest prosecution - and will. What is so sad is that this ill-fated beautiful 11 year old girl was allowed to leave and walk home unattended by the mother of her friend, with whom she had had a sleepover. Something is strange here because on sleepover dates, the parents always discuss pickup/dropoff arrangements.
Mandatory sentences are stupid, because they apply a fixed standard to each individual case. There is no way that some politicians right now can write a law which covers the appropriate sentence for each individual crime, all of which will have entirely different circumstances. You end up with stupid situations where normal people, as opposed to career criminals and deliquents, get 10-20 years for something like a bar fight or sleeping with their 17 year old girlfriend. The 3 strikes law at least tries to avoid one-off problems, especially if only violent crimes are considered. You do not change an entire system because one or two people tasked with implementing that system don't do their jobs properly. If a soldier in the military, or a worker at a corporation makes a screwup, do you change the entire structure of command? Of course not - you fire the perpetrator. Systems, procedures and laws cannot eradicate incompetence. You cannot legistlate against some people being bad at their jobs. Judges are no different. If there is a problem with judges being too lenient, then there is a very simple way to solve it - allow petitions to dismiss judges, or even put them to the popular vote. This way there is an automatic check on stupid judges who hand down ridiculously lenient sentences. There is also a check on judges handing down ridiculously harsh sentences. The system needs more accountability for judge's performance, not more inflexibility. You should not limit a good judge's ability to judge just because a bad judge judges badly.