How's this for a verdict?

Remove all ads!

I know of criminals who have been paroled with conditions, as you described, who break those conditions, go back to jail for a short time, and then get released again with the same conditions. That's how people rack up literally dozens of violent crime convictions. I know of one fellow with 70 felomy convictions. That's not just crap i suspect he might have done, it's stuff he has done, serious, hardcore crimes, and yet he still keeps getting more chances. When is enough enough? And when do we say that even one time is enough, regardless of the so called mitigating factors?

 

LKD - perhaps Canada's legal system is vastly different from the US - at least it is if it's anything like you describe. The US does have the three strikes and you're out rule, so while there are people with long rap sheets, if they are repeatedly violent criminals they are not being released into society. As for some of the other stuff you mention like rape and murder. If you murder someone your going away for 25 years minimum. The minimum sentence is life with a chance of parole at 25 years. Rape is not as severe, but your still going away for a long time - over a decade in all likelihood.

 

Not here. In fact, as I believe I have mentioned before, we have in some places a magical 2/3 law, which means that if a judge sentences a rapist to 12 years in jail, we invoke some Canadian math, which as I understand it means 12 means 8 -- you only really have to serve 2/3s of your sentence. Is that justice for the victim or the victim's family? And even if you don't care about the victim, because of course no sentence can undo what was done to her, what about protecting the rest of society? He's proven willing to do something horrible, it strikes me as really poor logic to act like he is the same as a regular Joe Blow.

 

Aldeth tFI, the 3 strikes law is only in like 24 states(well according to wiki). My state is one of those but we still have criminals with lengthy records walking around.
A recent one is this guy news story
A list of his crimes,criminal record

Or this gentleman,news story As far as i can tell this guy had way way too many chances.
criminal record

 

what your talking about there is when someone can be eligable for parole, a judge will impose a sentence but state that you could be eligable for parole earlier then the full sentence, applications for parole are dealt with by a parole board which decides whether or not you are safe for release.

I still think you are over exaggerating the situation, or maybe looking at the 'one that got away' which happens with any system.

you think that this guy is a serious offender and danger to the public?

this guy... has been jailed several times, what do you propose for someone who commits minor offences? death?

 

Shoshino did you not read the news story?!? He cut his own grandmothers throat. How the heck can you think he isnt a danger to the public?

As for the 2/3 time thing we have it here & it doesn't just apply to when you are eligible for parole. If you get sentenced here to 18 yrs, your sentence is actually 12 yrs minus time off for good behaviour(which here is 2 days for every 1). You are also eligible for parole when 2/3 of your sentence has been served, which in this case would be as little as 4 yrs with good behaviour.

I could post about this gentleman. Here is his criminal record, notice on his record that view infractions notation?
Thats 50 infractions in a little over 500 days including 9 "sexual acts" & yet they let him out !

[edit] minor crimes shoshino? his last one was

he should have gotten a mandatory 10 years for this at least.

 

dont read news, its often bollocks.

but to note:

this is what he is currently wanted for, let me know when they catch and sentence him for the above list of charges.

possession of a firearm, not that serious in the US, lets bear in mind that airsoft weapons are also covered under 'firearms' and can be charged if carried without certificate.

sexual act is vague, it can cover something as simple as non-consensual voyeurism, or causing another person to watch a sexual act. Im going to work with the comfortable assumption that his 'sexual acts' were not serious as he is not in jail for long periods for said offences.
Im not saying that I think this guy is an angel, but just looking at thw wording of records is not enough information, as these can easily be made to look 'evil'

 

It's too bad that the corporate media doesn't like to sensationalize stories where ex-convicts turn their lives completely around after being given another chance. Who wants to lay money down that I can find a story(s) that can prove just that? And I don't mean just G. Gordon Liddy or Martha Stewart either.

 

The 'sexual acts' are among his 50 infractions while incarcerated. He doesn't seem to have been a model prisoner - wouldn't jump out at you as someone leading the pack for parole consideration.

 

shoshino, there is no "certificate" to carry an airsoft in my state, never has been, never will be. Where do you get that crazy idea? Oh wait, I see you are from the UK. It is completely different over there.
He was in on an 8 month sentence, with good behaviour he could have been out in as little as 2 months. Instead he ended up serving 511 days, Thats 17 months on an 8 month sentence.

Chandos tR, there are many(well maybe not many) people that have turned their lives around after serving a prison sentence. A couple of the guys that work at the warehouse with me are ex-cons, as is one of the preachers at my church. They are some of the best people I have ever known. On the other hand, our company hired a few others that started stealing stuff in their first week. Thew difference was that they ones that turn themselves around are usually the first or second offenders, not the habitual criminals.

 

I thought the 3 strikes law was a federal law (signed by Clinton). I didn't realize it was hit or miss depending on where you live.

It is if you've ever been convicted of a felony before. Simply being in possession of a firearm is illegal - reagrdless of what you were intending to use it for.

Well, yeah. That seems almost self-evident. Anyone can screw up and make a bad decision once, especially when they're young, but if you've been running afoul with the law for the last 20 years, chances are you're not going to suddenly turn over a new leaf.

 

with his sexual acts quite possibly being pi$$ing in the street, and a mix of profane language, refusing a breath test and the majority being disobeying an order, his list of infractions are minor, one of my door staff has a worse list then that.

I dont know the laws as they are for each individual state, but I do know that the definition of 'firearm' varies, as does the law for carrying them in some states it is legal to both carry and display a firearm.

your complaining because he served a longer sentence?

 

I had a DUI when I was a young man. The thing that I remember most clearly from the DUI classes I was forced to take was that statistics show most of us in that class would be repeat offenders and most of the repeat ofenders would do it again and again. Only s small percentage of violators are one-time offenders.

 

Pissing in the streets of jail?

Anyway, no. It's defined as follows:

But, who cares. I think the larger idea here is not to guage the level of severity of the infractions he committed while incarcerated (that's probably moreso an internal matter for the prison, unless some of his infractions were actually criminal), but to consider his infraction record in general while in prison within the context of him being suitable for parole or not. The fact that he was apparently very problematic on the inside with his 50 infractions (quantity being more or at least just as significant here as quality) should cast serious doubt on the likelihood of him being troublefree on the outside. Often parolees are described as having "spotless" records. It means they made a sustained effort while in prison to behave themselves, which only reflects well on their frame of mind and thus their suitability for parole. This guy not so much.

 

Shoshino, sorry I didn't make it clear that all of those infractions where will he was a prisoner. So all of those "sexual acts" were against other inmates.

 

I didnt realise that the infractions were comitted while in jail, this information has however strengthened my argument as even consentual sexual acts between inmates are an infraction while incarcerated.
Like I said earlier, there isnt enough information in a file to make a sound judgement about a person. My record looks terrible, in my line of work you can get arrested regular as people accuse you of robbing them, beating them or sexually assulting them often, and as such all of these arrests appear on your recordm its only when reading indepth that you see that Ive never acutally been charged for any of it.

 

Again shoshino, sorry I didnt make it clear but these are DoC records that only show crimes for which you have been convicted. notice each shows the conviction date.

 

I am aware of that, these are infractions comitted while incarcerated, what Im saying is that the records dont display details of each count, for example, tampering with a lock could be as simple as stuffing a foreign object inside so a guard cannot immediately open it with a key, disobeying an order could be as simple as "stand over there", "f**k off". and sexual act could be a consentual act between 2 prisoners, the list is not enough for a rational free thinking person to condem a person when coming from the prison system, the modus operandi of each count is not available.

 

The details of all his convictions and incarceration infractions would certainly be available to the parole board. The convictions - listing and details - are public record and available to anybody, easily obtainable via a criminal history check. The prison infractions probably are too, being as they're listed on the public DoC site, but you'd probably have to FOIA the records from the prison to get the details. The parole board would doubtless have them at their fingertips though, so they're certainly not flying blind on these matters.

Also, criminal convictions (for which Pugh is incarcerated - BURN UNINHABITED BUILDING, FELONY B&E, etc.) are public record. Arrest records for which there is no conviction are not. So there is no need to attempt to assess which parts of his public criminal record are true. All of it is, because he's been convicted of it all.

As for the infractions while incarcerated, all of them are against prison rules, regardless of whether or not you think they are 'serious business.' That means he broke the rules 50 times while in prison. In prison you don't enjoy the same liberties as free people. You have to obey the rules, and they are very strict rules because you're dealing with a population consisting entirely of criminals.

So, even in Shoshino's best case scenario, how does a convicted criminal stuffing a foreign object inside a lock so a guard cannot immediately open it with a key (against the rules) or disobeying an order and telling a guard to "f**k off" (against the rules) or having consensual sex with another prisoner (against the rules) reflect positively on his potential for being a trouble-free parolee? I think that's what the original contention was here - that he should never have been paroled in the first place to commit additional crimes.