Homey1970's picture

Homey1970


Member since 24 February 2013 | Blog

Recent Activity

Comment 13 Jun 2016

By any chance, are these "Baylor donors" the same donors who supported SMU in the 80's?  Must be a north Texas thing. 

#PonyGate meets #BaylorScandal

Comment 09 Jun 2016

That's it CB.  I have no idea what the sentencing precedent for this type of crime, in that jurisdiction has been.  Maybe it was closer to 6 months to a year.  Without that knowledge, I can't make an educated opinion.  I believe it was too lenient but I don't know what the judge was using as a benchmark.  

Comment 09 Jun 2016

What is missing?

I have not seen the entire court record, the motions, the rulings or the opinion.  You selected the most prominent facts and, based on the facts I know, I believe this kid deserved, at least, 5 years.  I think you construed my long winded comment as a defense of this criminal.  It was not.  I was making a critical point of how the lynch mob mentality is so quick to judge every part of this case that they disagree with, to the point of seeking revenge on everyone related to the case (including the criminal's character witnesses).  BTW, after hearing today that this kid was lying to the judge about his pre-college partying/drug use, I think the judge should have sentenced him to a term in prison closer to the max.

 That is the entire purpose of a victim's impact statement, to let the judge know how the crime has impacted the victim and/or their family.  

You are exactly right.  The purpose of the VIS is to communicate the impact of the crime on the victim.  It is not the one and only item used by the judge to set a sentence.  What if, in this case, the victim stated in her VIS that she forgave the criminal and begged the court to do the same.  Would the judge be obliged to sentence this kid to no jail time and a $50 fine?  No.  The judge must consider all evidence, the VIS and the weight of the crime on the community when setting the sentence.  Again, I don't believe the sentence was just but I'm inclined to let the appellate process work in lieu of wishing harm on any party in this case.

  ...and had this guy NOT been a star swimmer from an elite school as Stanford (the judges alma mater BTW) his punishment would've fit the crime.

And, of course, you have proof of this assertion, right?  

Calling the rape of an unconscious woman "20 minutes of action" are not "poorly chosen words"  It's words of a father who thinks his son is the victim.

In this case, I just believe the father was attempting to say something that came out wrong.  There is no rational explanation that would lead me to believe that this father considered his son as the victim in this case.  I believe his intention was not to say "20 minutes of action" (i.e., "20 minutes of getting a piece of ass").  I believe he was attempting to say that he believed his son had lived an honorable life for the first 20 years [albeit, this doesn't seem plausible--but any father that loved his child would try to seek mercy] but threw it all away in 20 minutes.      

Comment 09 Jun 2016

I read through the various comments on this article all day and didn't really want to interject.  However, after getting a sense that the mind set of many posters on this site view EVERY CASE of sexual crimes committed by men against women as being acts that should not be handled by the criminal justice system but rather, through vengeful mobs, bent on removing genitalia, I wanted to speak. The armchair jurists somehow KNOW that a 6 months sentence for ANY sex crime committed by a male against a woman is NEVER enough punishment.  Also, for some reason, people blame a father for making an poorly constructed attempt to defend his convicted son--seriously, would you not make any attempt to defend the character of your child (boy/girl) at sentencing if he/she was convicted of a crime?  I couldn't even blame James Holmes' parents for doing that here in Colorado after the theater shooting trial.  

Before you judge me, I believe my background allows me to voice my opinions on this topic.  I am a husband of a wife who was raped and abused in her previous marriage.  I have two daughters--a 23 year old (who, due to her physical beauty, endures many unwanted "cat calls" and I hate to think of what else [I have worried that she has been assaulted while away at college but is too ashamed to tell me or her mother if it ever happened] and a 16 year old (who has been bullied so much that she has been treated for depression and suicide ideation) AND I have a 21 year old son (who has been so handsome from such a young age, he was "hit on" at the age of 12 by women in their mid-20's b/c [I hope] they must have thought he was much older).  Also, I was a commander of a military unit and had to administratively punish (or refer for charges to a court-martial convening authority) personnel for many offenses--including drunk/disorderly, assault.  Finally, and most pointedly, I was a victim of long term sexual abuse/molestation as a child.  BTW, having been a young victim, I believe I could have developed one of two ways as an adult.  (1) I could have turned that anger towards others and become a predator, or (2) I could have become a vengeful victim, always looking for the "eye-for-an-eye" treatment of sexual predators who were caught.  I developed along the second route in that I believe (specifically) pedophiles deserve the most strict/longest sentences in prisons or mental hospitals b/c I believe pedophiles are, in most cases, unable to be rehabilitated and their recidivism rates are too high--whether their problems are either mental illness or a true "mens rea" towards children.  But when it comes to adult perpetrator against adult victim sexual crimes, I believe there are in some cases, "degrees" of egregiousness.      

I learned, in criminal law class during law school, that there are many reasons why we have a criminal justice system in America.  Not one of the reasons is (or should be) vengeance.  Punishment?  Yes.  Deterrence? Absolutely!  But punishment and vengeance are not synonymous.  The proportionality of the sentence should be in line with the crime.  In the Stanford case, the criminal/perpetrator was intoxicated and the victim was intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness.  Yes, we should never blame the victim but, the impairment and altered judgment brought on by alcohol should have some impact on the determination of mens rea with respect to the perpetrator.  Hasn't alcohol always been thought of as a way for people to "loosen up and relax" while alone at home after a long day at work or at social gatherings (Ohio Stadium is allowing it now, so that's cool, right?)--granted, not to the point of allowing our scruples to be thrown out the window and allowing us to sexually (or physically) assault someone.  The ability of alcohol to relax our inhibitions should have some bearing on the criminal's conduct and his/her sentence.  I think of it in the same sense as a drunk who decides to leave a bar and drive home, where he/she crashes head-on into a car and kills a family of 5.  That person made the (criminally wrong) impaired choice to drive drunk but in being sentenced, would a judge be expected to punish that person to the same level of a convicted premeditated [1st degree] (or "road rage" [2nd degree]) murderer who used a large vehicle to ram someone off the road, intentionally killing the targeted person and other occupants of his/her car?  In this Stanford case, I believe that the jail (not prison) sentence was too lenient but I was not privy to all of the facts in this case.  The victim impact statement has some bearing but shouldn't have enough weight to overcome sentencing precedent.  The perpetrator who assaulted me as a child was never arrested/prosecuted but if I would have had the opportunity to give a VIS, I would have said many of the things that the Stanford victim said--and I probably would have asked for the perp's  genitalia too.  Does that mean, I (or any victim) should have the final say on sentencing?  No.  (BTW, I just helped my 16 year old daughter complete her VIS for a bullying prosecution and we concluded the VIS by asking the sentencing authority to apply a "just but fair sentence")  However, I do know that the Stanford rapist will have no "normal" life from here on out.  The lifetime "registered sex offender" status will do more harm to that person than any prison sentence ever will...applying for a job, looking for housing, etc...it will always be there in his face.  

With respect to the criminal's father's defense of his son, I can't imagine my son committing a crime...he has a 3.95 GPA, is planning to attend law school next year, has been dating his high school sweetheart for 5 years, has OCD (he gladly admits to it--he's a clean freak) and even calls himself an uninteresting person b/c he washes his car for fun and never goes out partying--come to think of it, he has no friends except for his girlfriend--he truly is a "homeboy".  However, if my son committed the most vile crime--murder, I would still defend his character that I know so well.  In the Stanford case, I can't blame this criminal's father from making a faulted effort to defend his son prior to sentencing (by using the poorly chosen words in describing the rape/assault as 20 minutes of "action" or something to that effect).

Showing a vengeful mentality over social media is a right our Constitution permits but using the internet to conduct a second trial of people or calling for a judge's impeachment/removal based on his/her rulings that appear to be established in precedent is not the mark of a society that is respectful of our Constitution.  If, in fact, the judge's sentence is "unjust," let the appellate process work.  Thank you.     

Comment 01 Jun 2016

EXACTLY!

Hayes has no right to self defense since he pursued Smith (which in and of itself was legal--to obtain Smith's vehicle info) but then (based on evidence that I believe was made public) he hit Smith's vehicle (unlawful), left his vehicle (with a loaded firearm on his person, BTW) (probably unlawful in N.O.) and confronted Smith.  I don't live in Louisiana but I live in a "Stand Your Ground" state and my state's law do not allow for this defense in a situation like this.  Even though you might try to use this defense in Hayes' case, you'd have a very hard time getting a sympathetic jury to buy it--especially in N.O., where Smith was a hero to many.  In fact, I believe Smith had the only right to stand his ground as it appears as though Hayes was the only one of the two who left his vehicle with a firearm in hand and Smith, after exchanging words, was returning to his vehicle in order to secure his firearm (did Smith have reason to believe his life was in danger?).  At that point Hayes put 8 in Smith's back.   

Additionally, unless Smith's wife was silhouetted behind Smith (or was making a move for Smith's firearm), Hayes has absolutely no defense in her shooting.