Patterico's Pontifications

4/1/2004

Council Winners

Filed under: Watcher's Council — Patterico @ 10:23 pm

The Watcher’s Council is a group of blogs that holds a weekly contest for blog entry of the week. The winning posts are always worth checking out.

This week’s winners were announced here. Congratulations to Hawken Blog for the winning Council entry, Social Security, and Tasty Manatees for the winning non-Council entry, Tax Funded Attacks Against White House Employees.

Until now, I inexcusably failed to inform you of last week’s winners, which were announced here. Congratulations to The SmarterCop for the winning Council entry, 20 Questions I’d Like to Ask John F*** Kerry, and to Smash for the winning non-Council entry, Down the Rabbit Hole.

Dog Trainer” Term Retired

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 9:34 pm

In the spirit of posts like this one, this one, and this one, I have decided to announce that I am retiring the term “Dog Trainer” on this blog. I previously used the term as a pejorative term for the Los Angeles Times. However, the more I read the Times, the more I realize that the folks at the Times are just doing their best to put out an accurate, unbiased publication. Henceforth, you will not see any criticism of the Times on these pages.

Three Strikes Quiz: Question Three

Filed under: Crime,No on 66 — Patterico @ 5:54 am

Today is Question Three of my quiz revealing the hidden details of the absurd initiative to gut the Three Strikes law.

Question One showed how a serial murderer such as the “Night Stalker” can slaughter 13 people — and the amended law will treat him as having only one strike on his record. Question Two showed that Charlie Manson (a man with nine murder convictions) could be paroled, break into your house, order the slaughter of your pet, and threaten to kill you — and end up serving fewer than five actual years in prison under the amended law.

In response, some complained that I was giving examples of people who are so awful that they would never be released from prison anyway. To which my response is: if these mass murderers couldn’t be treated as third-strikers under the amended law, who could?

In Question Three, I will answer these comments more directly, with a real-life example of somebody who committed many horrible crimes and was let out of prison. I will show you how the current law would protect us from such a person, and how the law as amended would likely fail in this basic duty. Finally, I will reveal who this person is. It’s kind of a Paul Harvey segment, only about a vicious criminal.

Question Three:

Our not-so-hypothetical individual suffered a string of arrests for various crimes over the course of several years. His record includes juvenile arrests for burglary, forgery, and motorcycle theft. As an adult, he was arrested for grand theft, public drunkenness, resisting arrest, illegal possession of alcohol, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, trespassing, auto theft, and possession of marijuana. He never served more than one year for any of these crimes.

Now the violence begins.

Within two months of being paroled, defendant abducted a 26-year-old legal secretary and attempted to sexually assault her. She escaped, and defendant was arrested. Defendant faked a suicide attempt and thereby gained admission to a state hospital, from which he escaped. He then went on a four-day crime spree. He broke into the home of a nurse at the state hospital, and beat her on the head with a fire poker. He burglarized an animal shelter and stole a shotgun, which he used to try to kidnap a female bartender, who escaped. He broke into the home of a bank employee, and was arrested while hiding outside that home.

Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 1-to-25 years for the various crimes committed during his crime spree. After serving less than five years of his 1-to-25 year sentence, defendant was again paroled. Within two years, he and an accomplice kidnapped a woman, robbing $6000 from her. (They also committed robberies at a bank, a store, and a restaurant — but authorities did not learn about these crimes until years later.) Defendant received a 16-year sentence for the kidnapping.

All of this took place before the passage of the Three Strikes law. Your quiz question is: at the time he was sentenced for the last kidnapping charge, was the defendant eligible for a life sentence under the Three Strikes law:

a) as currently written?

b) as likely to be amended in November?
(more…)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1738 secs.