• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Maybe our justice system is broken.. can you believe these sentences?

That six years is 6 to life. He'll likely serve quite a bit more. As for the wife, she made a deal to testify against the husband. If they couldn't convict the husband without her testimony, that's how it works. Then again, I don't understand why spousal privilege would not have prevented this arrangement.

Husband is a white supremacist, according to other articles.
 
Assuming they drugged her to abuse her, then used the drugs to finish their kill.
I would treat this as premeditated murder.
 
eelw said:
It doesn’t prevent her from testifying against him. Just that the courts can’t force her to. If out of free will, she’s allowed to throw him under the bus.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Either spouse may invoke the privilege against the other.

It's probably that Utah only has the communications version of the privilege, not the testimonial kind. The communications privilege only protects communications. So she couldn't testify to anything he said, but she could testify to what she saw him do. In states where the testimonial privilege applies, you cannot testify at all against a current spouse.
 
Not a good example. Wife gets 0-5 years after a plea bargain and serves 4 years 2 months. Husband gets 6 to life. Do the math.

I think you'll find that sentencing always works this way in Utah.
 
Meanwhile Crystal Mason gets 5 years for an accidental vote.
5d77ed002300001005512b48.jpeg
 
Absolutely horrible. The case. The sentences. Whether or not it's Utah law, in sure there are individuals who have gotten much worse for doing a lot less.
 
eelw said:
It doesn’t prevent her from testifying against him. Just that the courts can’t force her to. If out of free will, she’s allowed to throw him under the bus.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure woolfe9998 is aware of the limitations since he is a lawyer.
 
Weaker cases may end in plea bargains or lesser charges than seem appropriate. It's not just about what likely happened, it's about what evidence you have to convince a jury with.

In general, though, our system is far too punitive for society's benefit.
 
interchange said:
Weaker cases may end in plea bargains or lesser charges than seem appropriate. It's not just about what likely happened, it's about what evidence you have to convince a jury with.

In general, though, our system is far too punitive for society's benefit.
Click to expand...
We seem very punitive for most "minor" things, but then it seems like a lot of murders don't get that much punishment. The real problem is just the vast unevenness in sentences.

I was watch some CourtTV thing (for like 10 minutes while on a business trip), it was supposed to "funny" and "shocking" court moments. There was a black guy being sentenced by a judge for what sounded like minor assault. The judge gave him 18 years, and the defendant got upset and was saying "18 years for that? 18 years? You've ruin my kids life" and they judge just instantly said "Obviously you aren't actually remorseful, I am changing the sentence to the maximum of 28 years!" It was absolutely disgusting, absolute power trip of the white judge that couldn't take seeing a black man upset. Shit like that shouldn't be allowed.
 
I don't think we're not punitive enough to be honest. Many white collar crimes, police crimes, political crimes are all extremely damaging to society but get a slap on the wrist comparable to other crimes. And there's the discriminate application of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't, which largely is a matter of wealth and privilege. A friend of mine told me a story of how he was busted with weed whilst driving intoxicated when he was 18 but because his dad knew the DA his dad made it go away. Society doesn't even talk about these phantom cases, things that just go away because someone knew someone or had connections. I wouldn't mind if we took a page out of south Korea's playbook from time to time.
 
Sunburn74 said:
I don't think we're not punitive enough to be honest. Many white collar crimes, police crimes, political crimes are all extremely damaging to society but get a slap on the wrist comparable to other crimes. And there's the discriminate application of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't, which largely is a matter of wealth and privilege. A friend of mine told me a story of how he was busted with weed whilst driving intoxicated when he was 18 but because his dad knew the DA his dad made it go away. Society doesn't even talk about these phantom cases, things that just go away because someone knew someone or had connections. I wouldn't mind if we took a page out of south Korea's playbook from time to time.
Click to expand...
white collar crimes are harder to prove intent, sadly.

"oh you mean i started a worldwide economic crisis by selling high risk mortgages as great investments with low risk? ohhhh i'm so sorry, how could i have possibly known it would go this bad? no one could have predicted this, and i was only trying to help the market and be a good capitalist in the process!"
 
Fenixgoon said:
white collar crimes are harder to prove intent, sadly.

"oh you mean i started a worldwide economic crisis by selling high risk mortgages as great investments with low risk? ohhhh i'm so sorry, how could i have possibly known it would go this bad? no one could have predicted this, and i was only trying to help the market and be a good capitalist in the process!"
Click to expand...

And yet they're much more destructive ... hmmm.
 
interchange said:
In general, though, our system is far too punitive for society's benefit.
Click to expand...
It is not just that it is too punitive, it is that we are highly punitive and do next to nothing to rehabilitate.
Punishment alone will never solve a problem, it must come with corrective measures.
If we were to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment we could probably cut most of our sentences in half, and have much less recidivism, leading overall to a significant drop in crime.
 
SMOGZINN said:
It is not just that it is too punitive, it is that we are highly punitive and do next to nothing to rehabilitate.
Punishment alone will never solve a problem, it must come with corrective measures.
If we were to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment we could probably cut most of our sentences in half, and have much less recidivism, leading overall to a significant drop in crime.
Click to expand...

But that's not "tough on crime" and thus not what people vote for. Never mind the US is the most incarcerated country in the world by a lot, and the science shows high sentences with no rehabilitation do nothing to reduce crime (the opposite actually).

I don't see this country ever changing in that aspect. Although tossing out ridiculous drug laws is helping a little.
 
HomerJS said:
Kinda like the attack on Jan 6. If the attackers had been BLM is there any doubt 100x as may people would have been shot.
Click to expand...
You noticed that in Tucker Carlson's 'Report' on the footage of the Jan 6 insurrection he keeps talking about a 'peaceful protest with just a few people acting poorly'. Notice how different that is from how they report the BLM protests. In those a few people acting badly means the entire protest should be treated with the harshest possible response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top