Where's the balance in sentencing?

[Amati]

Something just does not seem balanced about the sentence that was handed down to a city supervisor that stole $419K of what should have been money to support our city government (ie taxpayer's money!).
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/b.../99900204.html
"A Circuit Court judge sentenced a former supervisor for two downtown city parking lot vendors to five years probation this morning for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in parking fees. The judge also ordered Gale S. Bracey to repay the city and the two vendors $419,238."

Compare this to the 2008 case of a Division of Motor Vehicles employee who stole $35K of city money (ie taxpayer's money, again) by accepting “more than 100 bribes in exchange for fraudulently updating registration paperwork, and deprive the city of more than $35,000 in revenue”. He was sentenced to “one year in jail and five years probation. Hamasaki must pay more than $35,000 in restitution.”
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=8912973

$419,000 = zero jail time
$35,000 = one year jail time

It does not make sense to me.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Where's the balance in sentencing?

Judges are given too much discretionary latitude, and have too few legal guidelines to follow in sentencing.

Lawyers must adhere strictly to the law,but judges have latitude above and beyond. They are like little dictators, deciding who will sink and who will swim, and why.

Although they do have some restrictions in commission, sentencing is far too flexible for honest justice.

- Just my stupid opinion, FWIW -

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK- poker face

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Where's the balance in sentencing?

Sentencing should be life in prison for all crimes and use a refined paroling system to release those who actually rehabilitated. That way repeat offenders will be locked away forever and those who actually learned their lesson can go free.

More in prison? Maybe but then again if you were a purse snatcher knowing you could spend the rest of your life in a lockup with murders, rapists and molesters...you'd think twice about doing something stupid enough to warrant life in prison.

I do believe there are those who are locked up for a very long time who have actually been rehabilitated that don't deserve to be locked away any longer.

What good is a rehabilitated prisoner who could go back to work and pay into the tax coffers and pay restitution to their victims when they are being held as a tax liability in prison?

And then there are those repeat offenders that just don't seem to get the message. They should be locked away forever, or at least until they do...get the message that crime is wrong.

When you look at the statue of Lady Liberty, her eyes are blindfolded and she's carrying the scales of justice. Balanced and impartial.

But that's just my thought on this matter.

[Amati]

Re: Where's the balance in sentencing?

Sentencing should be life in prison for all crimes and use a refined paroling system to release those who actually rehabilitated. That way repeat offenders will be locked away forever and those who actually learned their lesson can go free.

More in prison? Maybe but then again if you were a purse snatcher knowing you could spend the rest of your life in a lockup with murders, rapists and molesters...you'd think twice about doing something stupid enough to warrant life in prison.

Giving an automatic life sentence for all crimes .... well... that would perhaps turn the purse snatching into an "also whack the victim on the head with a baseball bat to make sure they don't come running after me". If you are going to get life regardless of the crime, why not escalate your crime to eliminate the witness?