The judge probably thought that 5 years for a "victim less crime" was a miscarriage of justice. Especially under a law designed for habitual offenders.
Steve Desjardins wrote: > My experience with the Virginia Judicial System as a juror: > > This case involved a 42 year old man who had been caught hunting > without a license, a misdemeanor. It turns out he had two felony > convictions from his early twenties and had lost his right to have gun, > however; this meant he was also accused of felony gun possession (or > whatever they called it). We found him guilty rather quickly. We then > had to decide on a sentence. The prosecutor informed us that since this > was his third felony the law required a mandatory 5 year sentence. As > it turns out, no one was happy with that since there was no point in > sending this guy to jail and having the state support his family. The > defense attorney then pointed out that despite the law we still had to > come to a unanimous decision. We took the hint. Fifteen minutes later > we came back and declared that we could not come to unanimous decision > about how long a five year term was <g>. The judge declared it a > mistrial and we were done but confused. The judge then asked to see > the jury in his chambers, which I gathered was not typical since the DA > and PD looked stunned. The judge explained to us that we hadn’t > simply wasted our time that morning. The term for the process was > “jury nullification” since we had used our “authority” to > override a law. > > So, at least in this case, the jury decided on a sentence and the judge > made no mention of his ability to overturn us. I’m no lawyer but that > prospect was not brought up. > > > >>>> Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9/2/2007 4:16 PM >>> >>>> > On 02/09/07, John Sessoms, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >> And it's not uncommon for a jury to propose, and a judge to impose, >> punishment for things the defendant wasn't actually convicted of. >> > That's > >> the whole purpose of those charges that get dropped " late in the >> > trial". > > > The jury decides sentence?? Hole moly. We do things different here. > The > judge decides. Besides, juries are notoriously fickle - if I was > guilty, > I'd opt to be tried by a jury. If I was innocent, I would opt to be > tried by a just a judge. > > > >> Bottom line - whether the sentence he gets is fair or not, a >> 50-something year old man who gets involved with a 19 year old drug >> > user > >> and takes pictures of them doing kinky shit is an idiot. >> >> He's ultimately the victim of his own stupidity. >> > > Personally I think that's a bit harsh. Without knowing all the facts > of > the situation - and there's only one person who does - it's too easy > to > be judgemental, especially when we place our own life values into a > situation that pertains to someone else's life. > > I think Bob fell into a set of circumstances - either of his own > making > or not - that became very difficult, and eventually tragic. Life is > all > about choices - and those choices lead to other choices. If you > misjudge > your decisions, then the consequences can be startling to outsiders. > That may not ultimately be stupidity. > > Personally I hope Bob understands the consequences at the juncture he > has arrived at, and now he will be forced into a scenario where he > will > be able to consider the results of his actions, rightly or wrongly, > for > some considerable time. > > And that's just plain sad. > > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
