OT: Top recruit collapses in court after receiving three-year prison sentence

[OttoinGrotto]

Hopefully, some time behind bars will get him to disarm some of that behavior.

There's a decent chance it enables it further.

Then what?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Cowtown]

I am a liberal and think this punk should be hung by his toes. Please don't assume people like SBU72 are liberals because that is an insult to me.

A rigidly binary worldview plays much better on the right than on the left.

 

[Moontan]

There's a decent chance it enables it further.

Then what?

Then there will be another victim and he'll do a much longer stint in prison.

He needed to be punished in some way... including jail time. A shorter sentence, or one that was set up for early parole on good behavior might (still) be appropriate. If so, and he complies, he may still have hoops opportunities, starting with a junior college and 2 years of exemplary behavior.

 

[SBU72]

who did you vote for for president: Obama or Nader?

A vote for a specific person for president doe NOT indicate if a person is a conservative or liberal. If that was the case, one should just pull down the party lever and be done with it. As it was, I refuesd to vote for either as neither adquately reflected my views.

 

[orangefan13]

He doesn't belong on any nation media story.
If hes in prison instead of playing basketball oh well so are many other people in prison with less talent.

If its about something like his Faith and being forgiven by God and seeing the light then sure I am all for it.
But, if its about being a criminal in the world who lost a chance to use his talents then oh well.
No offense but I don't want to hear a story of someone who is crying about how sad his life is because of missed opportunity from doing evil.

 

[AlaskaSU]

A vote for a specific person for president doe NOT indicate if a person is a conservative or liberal. If that was the case, one should just pull down the party lever and be done with it. As it was, I refuesd to vote for either as neither adquately reflected my views.

LOL If who you vote for does not count what does? No liberal has the balls to call himself a lib.
As to the other lib that does not want to be labeled as soft on crime. Name a conservative that is soft on crime. There are none. Like it or not, those that feel sorry for the perps are all libs.
As for the third lib that wants to hide in shades of grey. Typical lib rationalization to support irrational policies.
It really is simple, read the Constitution and you might get a clue. Freedom means freedom of opportunity, not gvt. entitlement.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

LOL If who you vote for does not count what does? No liberal has the balls to call himself a lib.
As to the other lib that does not want to be labeled as soft on crime. Name a conservative that is soft on crime. There are none. Like it or not, those that feel sorry for the perps are all libs.
As for the third lib that wants to hide in shades of grey. Typical lib rationalization to support irrational policies.
It really is simple, read the Constitution and you might get a clue. Freedom means freedom of opportunity, not gvt. entitlement.

Alaska, let me spell this out as clearly as I can -

"Tough on crime" is the epitome of a policy motivated by emotion and lack of reason.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

Alaska, let me spell this out as clearly as I can -

"Tough on crime" is the epitome of a policy motivated by emotion and lack of reason.

Failed again in trying to clear something up with a fallacy. You can quote me on that.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Failed again in trying to clear something up with a fallacy. You can quote me on that.

"Tough on crime" is a success in your eyes. Gotcha.

 

[SBU72]

LOL If who you vote for does not count what does? No liberal has the balls to call himself a lib.
As to the other lib that does not want to be labeled as soft on crime. Name a conservative that is soft on crime. There are none. Like it or not, those that feel sorry for the perps are all libs.
As for the third lib that wants to hide in shades of grey. Typical lib rationalization to support irrational policies.
It really is simple, read the Constitution and you might get a clue. Freedom means freedom of opportunity, not gvt. entitlement.

So by your logic, since I voted for neither so it makes me neither a liberal or a conservative?

Actually the consitiution does mean entitlement, not just opportuinty. It means entitlement to equal opportuinties. To the the right to vote, to be treated as an equal, to equal application of the law, etc regardless of race, age, religion or sex. Back to the original discussion, only going on the "facts" presented by the article, the sentance for the crime did not appear to be equal application of the law. Now if there were "facts" not revealed by the article, then the kid may have gotten what he deserved. Like previous convictions, a juve record, etc. But everybody, including the prosecutor, believed the kid did not get a fair shake by the judge. That was what I was presenting.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

"Tough on crime" is a success in your eyes. Gotcha.

No it hasn't. There are too many despicable lawyers willing to earn money from clients they know damn well are guilty. Too many liberal judges. Too few public lashings...well you get the picture don't you?

It sure beats letting everyone off because they had a hard upbringing or a hangnail or sliver in their finger sometime in their life. Accountability works best for me. I had choices. Some were good and I suffered the consequences for others. I found that good choices were the better options. I also saw what other peoples choices gained them. Its called learning and choosing. You get to decide.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

No it hasn't. There are too many despicable lawyers willing to earn money from clients they know damn well are guilty. Too many liberal judges. Too few public lashings...well you get the picture don't you?

It sure beats letting everyone off because they had a hard upbringing or a hangnail or sliver in their finger sometime in their life. Accountability works best for me. I had choices. Some were good and I suffered the consequences for others. I found that good choices were the better options. I also saw what other peoples choices gained them. Its called learning and choosing. You get to decide.

And has mandatory sentencing worked for you as well? Seems like those laws ended up sending a lot of kids away who got caught with a very small amount of crack while their white cousins got a slap on the wrist for larger amounts of coke. At least that's what I've been led to believe.

http://aclu.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000727

Thus, the ABA strongly supports the repeal of the existing mandatory minimum penalty for mere possession of crack. Under current law, crack is the only drug that triggers a mandatory minimum for a first offense of simple possession.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

No it hasn't. There are too many despicable lawyers willing to earn money from clients they know damn well are guilty. Too many liberal judges. Too few public lashings...well you get the picture don't you?

I actually wouldn't list any of those as the main reasons why "tough on crime" policies aren't very effective.

It sure beats letting everyone off because they had a hard upbringing or a hangnail or sliver in their finger sometime in their life. Accountability works best for me. I had choices. Some were good and I suffered the consequences for others. I found that good choices were the better options. I also saw what other peoples choices gained them. Its called learning and choosing. You get to decide.

Not endorsing "tough on crime" policies doesn't imply letting everyone off the hook.

 

[Rossco123]

There actually are Tough.on Crime libs and neocons. (each incarcerated individual cost over $120,000/yr)
The difference is:

The lib is comfortable putting lots of felons away and willingly pays the cost (taxes).

The necon wants the same thing but elects people who "NORQUiSTS" the whole thing.
The big balls keep on chafing ( hummed to; big wheels keep on cherning)

NEITHER are addressing the real problem but I digress.

 

[moqui]

while the rest of y'all debate the criminal justice system, I am going to once again complain about shoddy journalism. the article, which claims Farmer is a "consensus top 100 recruit," is lying - intentionally so, because Eisenberg is yahoo's college bball blogger and knows how to look such things up very easily. I looked at Rivals, Scout, ESPN, PrepStars and Van Coleman's rankings, and Farmer isn't in the top 100 in any of them. you might be able to find one service that has him in the top 100, but the consensus is that he is outside that zone.

The interest that he drew from the programs noted in the article was probably tepid at best - he might have been on their lists as a backup plan if better players fell through; he would probably end up at a mid major or a struggling Big Six program (e.g., DePaul).

the judge is an alum of the OSU law school . . . cynics will wonder what the sentence would have been if Farmer really had been a top recruit and was a serious Buckeye target