Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well, again we here of a police officer commiting a crime and the worst of all molesting a child for 2 years and he gets 30 days what kind of message are we sending to the public oh its okay to break the law as long as you are police officer, he got 30 days and she got a life time of therapy and will never be the same, this is the reason good people do not trust the police cause you never know who is good or who is bad,and i belivie their police officers that are really there to serve and protect the people of this state, let a avgerage person in the public do this and he,s lock up and for alot longer then 30 days, does he have to regester ? it is my oppinion that someone needs to do something about this its out of control if you cant trust the people that are suppose to protect the who can you trust,come on lets do something about this for the people of this state?
_____________
30 days in jail.....WHAT? oh ya thats right , he was a former Vt State Trooper. Wow.......just cant believe...............
___________
Comments? Thoughts?
Personally, I think that it is important that all people are treated equally, and that includes profession. Clearly we all see it far too often, one system for the wealthy and another system for the non-wealthy, and I am not referring to the underserved. I also understand that generally speaking, the more wealthy, the better apt to afford superior legal representation.
I also think that the system, which is supposed to be 'blind', should and has a responsibility to punish an offender based on the crime and not give preferential treatment because an offender has a specific profession; however, I also think there should be exceptions to that as well. In cases such as this one, when an offender holds a public position of trust, and violates that trust in addition to perpetrating a crime, the mere fact that they are in a position of trust, is even more distasteful. This exception should also include teachers, coaches, clergy, and the like.
Most definetely a misscarriage of justice, but on the flip side I was suprised to see a former FL prosecutor sentencd to prison time for accepting pain pills in lieu of payment for legal services now that he is a defense lawyer.
Our legal system is out of control. Just watching some old reruns of to catch a predator last night, guys in Ohio were getting 45 days to 1 year in jail, next episode a guy in California gets 50 to life. Sentencing varies widely not only from state to state but from larger metros to rural communities, e.g. what fetches probation in a metro can= 5 to 15 in a small county with a "hanging" judge.
I believe it is one of the most widely overlooked and disturbing problems in the U.S. today. Equal justice and sentencing guidelines for all, regardless of age, occupation, financial status, etc.
Personally, I think that it is important that all people are treated equally, and that includes profession. Clearly we all see it far too often, one system for the wealthy and another system for the non-wealthy, and I am not referring to the underserved. I also understand that generally speaking, the more wealthy, the better apt to afford superior legal representation.
I also think that the system, which is supposed to be 'blind', should and has a responsibility to punish an offender based on the crime and not give preferential treatment because an offender has a specific profession; however, I also think there should be exceptions to that as well. In cases such as this one, when an offender holds a public position of trust, and violates that trust in addition to perpetrating a crime, the mere fact that they are in a position of trust, is even more distasteful. This exception should also include teachers, coaches, clergy, and the like.
Your outrage is well taken and moreover, very meaningful. However, at the sometime, where is your outrage of for the THOUSANDS of "normal" people, who get no time at all? Yes, THOUSANDS of people commit the same crime, every single day, and walk with no time, no charges, etc. I never see outrage when this occurs.
You are automatically assuming he "got off" because he was a "trooper." In this day and age, cops don't get off for things anymore, except for maybe a speeding ticket and even that is questionable. Police officers are generally slammed harder, for the same offense, you would commit and get away with it. I see it every single day.
Hi Phil306, I agree, strongly, with many of your points, many of them! Without question, there are those 'normal' people walking around, those who have perpetrated many crimes, from non-violent to violent and absolutely nothing happens to them, not only are they not even incarcerated. but not even charged regardless of the evidence and information against them. Unfortunately, I have experienced exactly that; that being a victim of both violent and non-violent crime, and absolutely nothing was done. Operative word: nothing.
I have learned that it is not necessarily law enforcement that drops the ball and/or does not follow through as thoroughly as they perhaps should, but rather, prosecutorial decisions not to move forward. I find that reprehensible. I have also learned that a crime that occurs in one county, with one State's Attorney, may be prosecuted and the same crime[s] in another county, with a different State's Attorney... it will not be prosecuted. Not acceptable in my opinion. I am certainly not referring to something like jaywalking, by any means.
I have learned that some state's attorneys prefer being 'politicians' and prefer 'slam dunks' rather than representing their county[ies] in representing 'the state vs..', which they were duly elected to do -- hold an offender responsible and accountable for breaking the law.
Grrrr, this is one conversation that fuels my fire [smile] and I am sure, that I am not the only victim who has experienced the same frustrations and ire.
And, thanks for letting me vent - I do that often [smile] when it comes to this conversation. It boils down to, once again, accountability and that accountability is not only on the offender to pay the price for his crimes, but accountability on a prosecutor for NOT ensuring the offender does pay for that crime[s].
Your outrage is well taken and moreover, very meaningful. However, at the sometime, where is your outrage of for the THOUSANDS of "normal" people, who get no time at all? Yes, THOUSANDS of people commit the same crime, every single day, and walk with no time, no charges, etc. I never see outrage when this occurs.
You are automatically assuming he "got off" because he was a "trooper." In this day and age, cops don't get off for things anymore, except for maybe a speeding ticket and even that is questionable. Police officers are generally slammed harder, for the same offense, you would commit and get away with it. I see it every single day.
I know my outrage is for those who are falsely accused and railroaded by a justice system that could care less about innocence or guilt. Once you are accused, you may as well be convicted..unless you have money,position/power and are actually guilty apparently..then you get off.
My outrage is to injustice, whether it is a wrongly accused person or a person who escapes any kind of punishment and accountability and is guilty.
If this were true, where is the posts, from YOU, about innocent civilians being charged and convicted with crimes. No where to be found. Which, shows your bias. Your bias is against law enforcement.
IF, you were even keeled, you would be posting about ALL persons who commit crimes and got "light" sentences. You are not. You are only posting in regards to police officers which, again, shows your obvious bias.
I do get angry when there are cases when, w/out hesitation, an offender gets off with a light sentence - or even less of a light sentence. I believe I have included posts throughout the Forum, not solely w/in True Crime Forum.
I also think it is egregious when an innocent person is convicted of a crime and/or did commit an offense; however, there were a myriad of reasonable and extenuating circumstances that should have, by any reasonable person, especially one sitting on a jury, mitigated that crime.
Am I perhaps a little bit biased with law enforcement officers, yes, I admit that I am and for a myriad of reasons as well. One being, and I know there are some incredibly terrific, thorough and caring officers, I know that, that I believe an officer, just like a firefighter and anyone in the public eye who must have and certainly should have, the public's trust and those in that type of profession, is expected to reflect, in some way, higher standards.
I also know how very dangerous it is, especially these days, to be a law enforcement officer. I also have learned, and very much the hard way, that there are law enforcement officers who work very very hard, put together a very very solid case and sends it up to the prosecutor who opts to either not proceed with the case, pleas it down to an insult [depending upon the case] and how almost insulting that can be to those officers who have worked so hard.
I know, first hand, how frustrating it is to have an offender get away with all crimes, including violent crimes, regardless of the compelling evidence. My offender did.
I also know there are innocent people in prison who have been lodged there for years and finally someone listens to them, begins to investigate [and many times, they are law students who take on case/cause -- there was such a documentary on the other night - nearly 20 years an innocent man sat in prison wrongfully. I think that is simply stellar! when an innocent person can finally be released.
Then we can take, as an example, the horrible Brooke Bennett case in Vermont. Had her uncle [previously in prison] had the sentencing he rightfully deserved, perhaps his niece would have been spared the horrors she suffered, and her horrible death.
And lastly, perhaps what could help in this ongoing discussion and debate [as many others have strong opinions of their own re: sentencing, pleas, when not to make a plea, minimum-maximum sentencing mandates, good time served qualifications and the like .... legislators, rather than creating new laws and statutes in, too often, a reactive measure, start thinking in a proactive manner. I would certainly rather see sensible legislation when our governing bodies think things through a whole lot more, add a few "what if's" before passing a bill.
When the horrors of the Brooke Bennett case came to light, many of our leaders scrambled to pass legislation concerning this type of case -- it would not have changed what happened to Brooke Bennett, unfortunately, and that is why, too often, legislation review/amendments are made. Why not attempt to do it right the first time?
Out of curiosity, do you think bench trials are better than jury trials - at least for what could be a better judicious outcome on a defendant?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
