Your second post was posted before my first post and came up after it.

You wrote: “This clown gets LIFE for robbing a liquor store.”

Since life is the maximum allowed sentence where he didn’t kill, you seem opposed to his sentence. That would certainly imply you thought the punishment too harsh. Further, by saying he robbed a liquor store rather than robbed a person working at a liquor store, you seemed to imply people working in such places weren’t as important as real people.

AND
“What if Alexander was 18, would that 33.5 years be appropriate?”

Nope, but he isn’t so the question doesn’t come into play, just as if he had done it at the age of 13 doesn’t come into play because he wasn’t. This is where the word “moot” actually fits.

AND
“Three counts of sexual battery with great force, burglary of a dwelling with a battery, and aggravated battery with great bodily harm done to one of your loving roommates, is that OK by you?”

Nope, I think what he did was bad and the punishment good. His future roommates will likely enjoy his company, though.

David for turnabout

My second post SHOULD have explained “my beef”. Where exactly did I express opposition to the liquor store sentence? Let me help, NOWHERE. So your last ramblings are moot. As for your other justification, just a bit ridiculous.

What if Alexander was 18, would that 33.5 years be appropriate? He would only be 51 or 52 if he served all the time, plenty of time to repeat. Three counts of sexual battery with great force, burglary of a dwelling with a battery, and aggravated battery with great bodily harm done to one of your loving roommates, is that OK by you?

I’m done here.

When a 58 year old finishes serving a 33.5 year prison sentence, he will be 91 or 92. He’ll probably be harmless by then, assuming he lives that long. Staph infections in prisons kill many, fellow prisoners kill a few either intentionally or via communicable diseases, assorted illnesses associated with aging kill most.

The Supreme Court forbids death sentences when nobody is killed, so this is probably as good as it gets.

I’m also a bit confused as to your opposition to giving a life sentence to a repeat felon using a weapon in the commission of a robbery. He’s proven himself dangerous and unwilling to reform. Unless you think he should be allowed to commit armed robbery when the victim is somebody working in a liquor store, I don’t see where your beef is there either.

David for loving roommates

This clown gets LIFE for robbing a liquor store.

And they call it justice.