Abolish Mandatory Minimums
In a huge travesty, Marissa Alexander has been sentenced to a mandatory minimum 20 years in prison. Roland Martin writes on cnn.com:
If you are the most hardened law-and-order person in the world, even you should have some compassion for Alexander, the Jacksonville, Florida, woman who has been struck by the ridiculous Florida law known as 10-20-life.The law requires anyone convicted of an aggravated assault when a firearm is discharged to serve a minimum of 20 years in prison with no regard to extenuating circumstances.
Alexander says that on August 1, 2010, her husband went into a rage and tried to strangle her after reading some text messages she sent to her ex-husband. She fled the family home, got to the garage and realized she didn't have her keys. Fearing for her life, she says she grabbed a gun and went back into the home to retrieve her keys.
She says her husband threatened to kill her, and to keep him at bay, she fired a warning shot into a wall.Why was she charged, convicted and sentenced? Because State Attorney Angela Corey, the same prosecutor leading the Trayvon Martin case, said the gun was fired near a bedroom where two children were and they could have been injured.
Did the bullet hit the children? No. Did Alexander point the gun at her husband and hit him? No. She simply fired a warning shot, and according to Florida's shameful law, that's enough for a minimum 20-year sentence.
...The 10-20-life policy has no business in the laws of Florida or any other state.
Judges should have the discretion to consider a variety of factors in sentencing, and I have no doubt had this judge been given flexibility, Alexander wouldn't be going to prison for 20 years.These types of injustices are common in our legal system, and it is necessary for everyone with a conscience to stand up and decry these so-called legislative remedies that end up as nightmares.
I blogged about this previously here.
There should be some sort of mandatory minimum. There are too many walking one person crime waves that are on the streets when they should be doing 20 to life at age 22.
But the judge should have some discretion, that they have to write in the opinion, why this particular case is the exception and does not deserve the minimum.
This case is an exception to the rule. The odds of her discharging a firearm in such a situation would probably never happen again.
I think 20 years is a little too harsh for this particular charge regardless. In a third offense, yes, as a first offense, no. But when you look at this: Quincy man gets probation for incident involving gun outside tavern:
The guy was a felon already, illegally possessing a gun, drinking, and carrying, going after an ex-gf. He gets probation?
I don't straight out support minimums, but there is, and has been too much abuse both ways. I could support minimums with an ability to appeal the sentence, but not the crime. Judicial ability to ignore them with cause. Review of sentencing. There are many possibilities.
Unfortunately we don't have more judges on the stand like Judge W. Wyatt McKay. "Get this scum out of here."
Jim P. at May 14, 2012 12:09 AM
She fired a gun at best recklessly, and it's shameful she had the book thrown at her.
Sorry, can't agree with the "shameful". Perhaps a mite overkill, or even I might go with "excessive".
But there is no shame attached.
Especially not in this case where the "facts" don't add up. She shot a gun to threaten someone, and without any regard to where the bullet might land.
Damn straight, book her Danno.
Unix-Jedi at May 14, 2012 5:19 AM
We had criminals getting off virtually unpunished because of bleeding heart liberal judges. Instead of the legislatures doing their jobs and impeaching the judges, we got minimum sentencing laws.
The laws are doing exactly what they are intended to do - ensuring the guilty do not go unpunished. Call this collateral damage.
You want the legislators to do their job, and remove the judges who don't do theirs? Dream on.
MarkD at May 14, 2012 5:19 AM
I still see this more as a problem of charging a warning shot as an assault, and excessive anti-gun foolishness; than a minimum sentancing problem. Though there is a problem of minimum sentancing if the definition of the crime is so vague to be meaningless.
Joe J at May 14, 2012 8:22 AM
You know, there's another way to look at this:
"Yeah, we had a fight. Then the crazy bitch went out into the garage, got a gun, then came back into the house and started busting caps!"
Twenty years is about nineteen years too long, though.
Steve Daniels at May 14, 2012 8:45 AM
State Attorney Angela Corey strikes me as one of those politicians for whom conviction rate is the only thing and means everything. That may sound good to some people until you realize that she picks and chooses cases based on that, not based on any notions of justice. It seems that these types of prosecutors are the ones whose convictions end up being the rightful target of innocence projects.
Joe at May 14, 2012 10:12 AM
Warning shots in Florida are considered "use of deadly force." There's a certain problem with warning shots, especially in densely populated areas. What goes up, must come down. So, ride your painted pony to jail, lady. She fired three warning shots with her own kids present. Did she have the sense to angle her shots away from the direction of her children? Good for her children. Not so good for anyone who happens to have their person or property in the direction she did aim.
That said, perhaps the twenty year minimum is excessive...but would it be if she'd actually hit someone? Should we then only sentence those who fire "warning shots" if they inadvertently hit someone? So, if you don't hit anyone with your warning shot, that makes it okay, huh?
Patrick at May 14, 2012 2:04 PM
To elaborate what I said earlier, because I just know someone's going to ream me, "What are you? Stupid??? How dare you say warning shots are 'use of deadly force'?"
Just to be clear, it's not my personal opinion. It's the law.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/warning-shots-----a-hidden-danger-to-those-using-self-defense
Patrick at May 14, 2012 2:06 PM
Hey!
Don't be stupid here. Do you know what you call a bullet that misses your target, when you were trying your best to kill someone?
A warning shot.
Radwaste at May 14, 2012 3:30 PM
Read this and tell me if you still want to defend Alexander.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss
Philip Ngai at May 14, 2012 4:04 PM
one report says 3 shots not one, another says they were fired skyward not sideway, one report says her kids were home, not one report I've read mentions evidence of strangulation or her husband being charged with anything.
Lots of room for doubt.
Add in that had seh really feared for her life she whouldnt have gone inside for car keys but taken the gun and called the cops from her neighbors.
No reports of them living in a rural area where the nearest neighbor was so far away as to require car travel.
That being said, both she and her husband say she wasnt attempting to acctually shoot him.
Ahe should have been charged with x counts of recklessness, x = ((shots fired) by (number of people in the house -1))
Which if it was 3 shots and her two kids would have been 9 counts, I'd have given her 6 months and 5yrs probation and given dual restraining orderes between the parents
lujlp at May 15, 2012 11:01 AM
Just read the PDF.
Given the apparent angle by which the first bullet missed I would have charged her with attempted murder. 20yrs might be too much, but if the info laid out in that PDF is correct its isnt too much by that much
lujlp at May 15, 2012 11:07 AM
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Corey-on-Alexander-Case-Get-your-facts-straight/7NJ4O8lAKU6qwCl3hzFyTQ.cspx
If a jury convicts a woman in misandric america, obviously it cannot be wrong. On the other hand, if it convicts a man, there is a good chance of it being wrong
Redrajesh at May 19, 2012 9:00 PM
Leave a comment