catbirdseat Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 In the Seattle Times local news section yesterday (12/16/03), there were two articles on the first page. The first one was about a geoduck smuggler who got 14 years for poaching clams in Puget Sound. Granted, he was doing it on a grand scale to the tune of 200,000 lbs of clams. The second article was Nicole Brodeur's column, "Baby raped: Will justice be served?" She reviewed a story that was in the news last month about a man who raped his girlfriend's two-month old baby girl. The man got six months in jail versus the standard 10 year penalty because he pleaded guilty. "Court officials stress that this impropably light sentence has nothin to do with the fact that (the man's) father heads the Washington State Department of Corrections." Poach clams- get 14 years. Rape a baby- get 6 months. Does that sound fair? Quote
scrambler Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) You're making my brain hurt. Could it be just an artifact of how laws are enacted? When the punishment for transgression is determined, do lawmakers take out a big book of all laws and punishments to compare? Yes, the punishments are disproportionate and sends the wrong message when you compare the two side by side. Crimes against children are particularily heinous yet we place a premium on human life over the ecosystem. I may hate my mother in law but damn she's a human and she's better than a slimey clam even 20,000 of them. Personally I don't believe it's productive to compare these two offenses. It just reinforces the idea that the world is hopelessly unfair. Edited December 17, 2003 by scrambler Quote
rbw1966 Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 I bet that baby raper will walk out of that jail after six months--assuming he can walk--a very different person physically. Cons dispense their own sense of justice to pedophiles. Sick bastard. Quote
sk Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 the world is hopelessly unfair. this is not justice. rbw1966 I hope you are right Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 17, 2003 Author Posted December 17, 2003 The two cases represent the extremes of harshness and leniency. I only presented them side by side because they happened to appear together on the same page in the newspaper. Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 17, 2003 Author Posted December 17, 2003 Now here are the articles. Read them, if you feel like it, and decide if the particulars of each case justifies the sentences. Geoduck Case- 14 years Baby Rape - 6 months Quote
RobBob Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 Funny, I read the geoduck thing in a trade paper. In two different cases recently, two guys will do time for illegally importing undersized spiny lobsters. The Feds come down very hard in illegal seafood busts. I'm glad you ended up with Nicole Brodeur (touchy-feely liberal that she is)...she used to write for the Raleigh paper. I discovered she was in Seattle, seeing an article she wrote about climbing on Baker with Ed Viesturs. (I figured with her last name that her hubby played hockey for the Hurricanes in NC.) Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 17, 2003 Author Posted December 17, 2003 I am no fan of Brodeur. She seems like a lightweight to me. I don't imagine guys like trask and fairweather are too fonder of her. Quote
scrambler Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 I see inequity everywhere. Maybe our system of crime and punishment is fucked especially with our practice of trading expediency (time & cost savings) by plea bargaining in place of handing out the harshest sentences. I'm willing to believe that the judge has discretion to decide the particulars of sentencing within the guidelines set by law. He looks at the particularities of the crime, migitating and attentuating circumstances. Robbob also indicated that one of the crimes is a violation of Federal law, which could carry severe consequences. So maybe we should revisit the issue whether white collar criminals get lenient sentencing for crimes that affect a large number of people, e.g., devastation of 401(k)s in the Enron scandal or the Saving & Loan scandals of the 80's. These are not violent crimes or crimes against innocent children but damned I'd be pissed if they wrecked my parents retirement and caused them to live their 'golden years' in poverty and misery. Should these crimes be treated similar in punishment to that exhibited for blue collar crimes? Quote
allthumbs Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 most judges are pedophiles, alcoholic, fagots, coke heads, and whore mongers show me a judge and i'll show you a corrupt kunt Quote
RobBob Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 hmmm...I never really reflected on it. But now that trask mentions it, as a kid I spent a lot of time at a hunt club where several local judges hunted. I've seen judges take & eat illegal species, heard them joke about sampling drug evidence, observed them shitfaced, etc. I think trask has a point. Quote
scrambler Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) They're fallible creatures subject to human foibles. Maybe we should replace them with flawless machine intelligence. Or have the judges follow a rigid system of religious law that decrees punishment such as having one's penis loped off for putting it in the wrong place. Or neutering the subject by chemical castration then putting the eunuch to work in slave labor camps to produce cheap goods for the good folks. Edited December 17, 2003 by scrambler Quote
allthumbs Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 How about punishment befitting the crime, rather than the plea bargains, payoffs, and under-the-table bullshit so in vogue these days? What a concept, eh? Quote
scrambler Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 Yeah my posts are sometimes facetious rather than all serious and shit all the time. What would be appropriate punishments for the above crimes? I don't know but what I would like to see is that the guilty are treated the same so that a celebrity who commits a crime is not afforded leniency. ...So all persons are treated similarly for the same crime excluding mitigating and attentuating circumstances. Quote
scott_harpell Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 most judges are pedophiles, alcoholic, fagots, coke heads, and whore mongers show me a judge and i'll show you a corrupt kunt when i was 13, i caddied for a coke head judge at the country club. crazy fucker... i think he was also a pedophile cause he kept trying to get me drunk when there was a tournment and fre beer was at every tee... thank god for my naturally high tolerance, or I would end up like some of you wackos. Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 17, 2003 Author Posted December 17, 2003 We shouldn't make laws based on exceptions. You have to look at what represents the rule. Case in point, in a story that I saw on the TV news last night, a young woman gets pregnant and takes the abortion pill RU486. She got an infection and died. Her parents are suing the government to take the drug off the market. It doesn't matter that 150,000 women have taken the drug safely in this country. It was the hospital's fault for sending her home with a Tylenol, rather than examining her properly. Quote
allthumbs Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 no more plea bargains cut and dried justice hang 'em high Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 17, 2003 Author Posted December 17, 2003 So trask, you probably think that it was a mistake to offer Gary Ridgeway a deal to avoid execution in exchange for leading investigators to all the bodies he stashed? Quote
Fairweather Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 I am no fan of Brodeur. She seems like a lightweight to me. I don't imagine guys like trask and fairweather are too fonder of her. I refuse to buy, read, or be within 50 feet of either Seattle rag. I read The News Tribune exclusively. I am unfamiliar with Brodeur....but her name sounds kinda' French. BTW Catbird, aren't you stealing Ken Schram's editorial line? I watched him address this very issue last night. I do, however, agree with you both. Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 20, 2003 Author Posted December 20, 2003 I just saw on the evening news that the man was sentenced to four years. The judge thought that the sentence recommended by the prosecutor was too lenient considering the man had a prior conviction of masterminding the robbery of an armored car. Given that, I'd say that four years is still too lenient. Quote
marylou Posted December 20, 2003 Posted December 20, 2003 most judges are pedophiles, alcoholic, fagots, coke heads, and whore mongers show me a judge and i'll show you a corrupt kunt I'll be sure to pass on this pearl of wisdom to the woman my father is married to. She is an attorney and a judge. I guess in your eyes she must be all of the above. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.