American justice-life in jail for an unwanted kiss!

with 9 previous convictions for sexual assault seems fair to me. plus as was said, the 3 strikes rule is aimed at habitual offenders.

Life might be a bit hard - having said that I am not sure if he would have stopped if the neighbour would not have walked in.

kearnsr wrote:

The 3 strikes have to be 3 felons dont they? And as far as I'm aware a felon is more step above say petty crime.

i.e stealling a loaf of bread isnt a felon
stealing $100m probably is

Not true in the States. The Economist reported a case in California where a person who had two prior convictions and then stole a loaf of bread was sent to prison for life under their "3 strikes and you're out law." When an appeal was made for cruel and unusual punishment, the sentence was not overturned but held and the lad is still in prison for life. During the appeal, it was reported that this lad was unemployed, unskilled, had exhausted his unemployment benefits, and was attempting to feed his family with the bread. Stealing is wrong, but life imprisonment for a loaf of bread?

Oh, you might also want to visit their Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics site, if you think that all is fair over there. For example, a person of African heritage has a 1 in 3 chance of being convicted of a crime in their lifetime. Reminds me of that old Clint Eastwood movie called "Hang em' High." You might also look at their execution rate over there. It is very high and compares with China and other less developed countries where civil rights need great improvements.

Justice is the "best that money can buy" over there. If you do not believe that, compare the value of a loaf of bread to the sentence that the Enron executives will get for stealing millions of dollars?

Now back to the case in question. It is claimed that he had nine (9) prior convictions. You really have to research something like this before assuming that these 9 convictions were in fact 9 separate incidents. If you read their newpapers online, you will quickly realise that when someone is charged over there, the prosecutors will charge a suspect with every conceivable charge to ensure a conviction and the maximum sentence. Yes, this person may have committed nine separate acts, then again, he may have only committed one and was charged with multiple offenses.

Now, if the reports are correct, it appears that this person committed an assault on a woman, which was more than a "kiss," and should be tried accordingly. And if I had stumbled upon the act while it was in progress, and the woman cried for help, I would have probably climbed off my horse and punched the offender in the "kisser."

Stekelly wrote:

Well , they're not being fitted up so they're obvioulsy commiting more crimes. People will look at people from Tallagth as being more liekly to be arrested at some point. I know it's not going to be me because I don't cmmit crimes, those who do, bring it on themselves.

This may or may not be the case. People with money can hire expensive lawyers to defend them and often get off, whereas, those who have to rely on a public defender do not. Putting the issue of race aside (which may be a factor over there because blacks are poorer than most whites), look what happened to OJ Simpson that was reported in the world press. He had the "dream team" defense that cost millions of dollars in fees. He was charged with killing two people (one of them his former wife). He was acquitted on the felony charge of murder, which would have earned him the death sentense or life imprisonment, but was convicted on the civil court case and required to pay damages (money again, not a sentence).

Yes, I agree, that felons should be punished, but there are serious differences in terms of how people are treated over there in terms of their wealth. The rich often go free, get a lesser sentence through "plea bargaining," or whatever, while those who cannot afford an expensive attorney do not. Do you really think that the Enron executives who stole millions will get the same sentence as the "kisser" or the guy who stole the loaf of bread in California?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the issue in the OP was questioning the severity of the sentence, not if the offender should be punished?

Sangre wrote:

Or being arrested more OR being convicted more harshly OR being tried more harshly.

Nah, its because black people commit more crimes.

In the States, you might be right... Then again, have you ever heard of "racial profiling?" This is where law enforcement focuses on persons of a certain race more closely than persons of other races (and this does happen in the States). When this occurs, it would account for an increase of a certain race being picked up on crimes (which they commit) with a higher frequency, when compared to non-targeted races (who may also be commiting crimes).

I have one piece of anecdotal evidence (which, is obviously not scientific) from a friend of mine who lives in the States in a very white community. He is a bright, young black, originally from Jamaica, who works as a researcher at a univerwsity and has a Ph.D. degree. To my knowledge, he has never committed a crime, other than getting a parking ticket or two (which he promptly paid). When visiting the States, I personally experienced him getting pulled over on more than one occasion and being harrassed by law enforcement (while they paid no attention to me, being white). Was this racial profiling of an innocent person?

anyone concvicted of nine prior sex offenses should be in prison for life anyway

this was just the final straw and its fairly obvious that the neighbours appearance stopped something horrific occuring