I don't understand this judge's ruling. Please help.

[level.eleven]

It's like you read what I wrote but didn't understand a word of it, or ignored it. The judge must not have felt that getting beaten everyday by the other inmates was a fitting punishment for his crime. Again, what does the judge have to gain by helping out a FORMER cop? If you can adequately answer that question for me then I'll concede that you have a point.

Whom would you go after is this man set fire to your house?

 

[jsharmon7]

Why didn't this guy get prison:

Work release, probation and restitution for Ox Bow arsonist » Local News » Goshen News, Goshen, IN

Or this guy:

No.

 

[jsharmon7]

Whom would you go after is this man set fire to your house?

I don't understand the question. They convicted the man, sentenced him, and ordered restitution.

 

[level.eleven]

Why didn't this guy get prison:

Work release, probation and restitution for Ox Bow arsonist » Local News » Goshen News, Goshen, IN

Or this guy:

No.

Good for you, you can google. Now, was the ruling in those cases based on the "safety" of the convict? Where they cops?

I can't believe the brotherhood is going to bat for this guy. So cynical now days...

 

[hornadylnl]

Is the INGO LEO who WILL NOT ticket a cop a judge as well?

 

[jsharmon7]

Good for you, you can google. Now, was the ruling in those cases based on the "safety" of the convict? Where they cops?

No they weren't, but you'd probably have an answer to my question if they had been.

I posted those two articles to show that not everybody gets prison time for arson. The judge must have felt that the possibility of daily beatings due to his FORMER profession wasn't fitting for the crime. If that's the case, then alternate punishments must have been acceptable, and a precedent was already set for issuing probation in lieu of prison.

As for the added comment regarding the brotherhood going to bat for this guy: I guess it's easier to keep repeating the same misinformation than it is to think critically. I'm not defending anybody here, I just don't see the big conspiracy. He probably should have gotten prison time in protective segregation, I simply understand why a judge would feel that the informal justice handed out by the other inmates due to the man's former profession may be unnecessary.

 

[level.eleven]

No they weren't, but you'd probably have an answer to my question if they had been.

I posted those two articles to show that not everybody gets prison time for arson. The judge must have felt that the possibility of daily beatings due to his FORMER profession wasn't fitting for the crime. If that's the case, then alternate punishments must have been acceptable, and a precedent was already set for issuing probation in lieu of prison.

As for the added comment regarding the brotherhood going to bat for this guy: I guess it's easier to keep repeating the same misinformation than it is to think critically. I'm not defending anybody here, I just don't see the big conspiracy. He probably should have gotten prison time in protective segregation, I simply understand why a judge would feel that the informal justice handed out by the other inmates due to the man's former profession may be unnecessary.

Why would he have been beaten daily in jail? Additionally.....so what? Do the crime, do the time...right? I wish that cop who gassed the guy to death cares so much about inmates as you do.

 

[Rookie]

If you guys think that it's only the cops who get weak sentences then you need to pay a little closer attention to the criminal justice system in this country. All kinds of people get light sentences for heinous crimes. *Redacted, no need to bring it up again.* If all parties go for it, then that's what the offender gets.

This right here.

I've seen a twenty one year old get six months for raping a fourteen year old girl. My BIL was recently arrested on a class A,B, and D felony. With the prior felonies on his record, he should have gotten a minimum of 40 years. He'll be out in 2013.

The criminal justice system is a joke.

 

[jsharmon7]

Why would he have been beaten daily in jail?

Are you being facetious?

 

[level.eleven]

Are you being facetious?

No.

 

[level.eleven]

This right here.

I've seen a twenty one year old get six months for raping a fourteen year old girl. My BIL was recently arrested on a class A,B, and D felony. With the prior felonies on his record, he should have gotten a minimum of 40 years. He'll be out in 2013.

The criminal justice system is a joke.

Were they arson? Did they set fire to someones home?

 

[jsharmon7]

No.

Well...inmates are arrested by police officers. As a result, most of them tend not to like police officers. When they find out this guy is a former officer, who may have helped put some of them in there to begin with, they will most likely not want to be his friend. In fact, inmates have been known to gang beat former officers who end up in jail. The judge must know this and feared for the former officer's safety. He must have also felt that the added danger and likelihood of increased violence wasn't fitting for the crime he committed. Since others have gotten probation for the same offense, and the former officer would be in greater danger than most, the judge must have felt that probation was more fitting than jail. You and I apparently disagree with the judge, but it doesn't mean he didn't have a valid point in deciding the way he did. The difference between you and I is that I see why the judge made his decision and you fume over special treatment for the king's men.

 

[level.eleven]

Well...inmates are arrested by police officers. As a result, most of them tend not to like police officers. When they find out this guy is a former officer, who may have helped put some of them in there to begin with, they will most likely not want to be his friend. In fact, inmates have been known to gang beat former officers who end up in jail. The judge must know this and feared for the former officer's safety. He must have also felt that the added danger and likelihood of increased violence wasn't fitting for the crime he committed. Since others have gotten probation for the same offense, and the former officer would be in greater danger than most, the judge must have felt that probation was more fitting than jail. You and I apparently disagree with the judge, but it doesn't mean he didn't have a valid point in deciding the way he did. The difference between you and I is that I see why the judge made his decision and you fume over special treatment for the king's men.

Yeah, call me crazy, but I think all men are created equal and should be judged accordingly.

If I set fire to your house, I go to jail.

If you set fire to my house, you are a free man.

 

[Fargo]

Prosecution had to agree to it. They did.

No, the prosecution does NOT have to agree to it, and in fact per the story did not agree to it and argued that the guy should go to prison.

It looks like the guy pled guilty to 2 counts of D felony arson under IC 35-43-1-1(d).* He must have pled open to the court rather than entering a fixed plea bargain with the prosecution otherwise there would have been nothing to argue.

That means that both sides get to argue what sentence he should get but it is ultimately solely up to the judge what sentence is imposed.

While I have never practiced in front of Judge Hawkins, he does have a reputation for being somewhat defense sympathetic and for not giving very harsh sentences.

I personally am of the opinion that people that light apartment complexes on fire should go to prison for a long time and I don't really care what profession they are. However, this happened in Marion Co. which does things very differently from most of the rest of the state and so it doesn't really surprise me.

This sort of thing is why I choose to no longer live in Marion Co.


Best,

Joe

*It does appear that lighting an apartment complex on fire would qualify as a B felony under IC 35-43-1-1(a). However, for what ever reason apparently Terry Curry didn't want it prosecuted that way.

 

[Rookie]

Were they arson? Did they set fire to someones home?

You're kidding me, right? Is burning down a house worse than rape to you?

 

[level.eleven]

You're kidding me, right? Is burning down a house worse than rape to you?

Personally? I would rather be raped than have all of the fruits of my labor, my time, minutes subtracted from my life, in essence, my life taken from me.

Yes. I am strong enough mentally to recover from rape. Taking everything I own, leaving me with nothing, and allowing the perp to walk would damage my life more.

 

[KG1]

Personally? I would rather be raped than have all of the fruits of my labor, my time, minutes subtracted from my life, in essence, my life taken from me.

Yes. I am strong enough mentally to recover from rape. Taking everything I own, leaving me with nothing, and allowing the perp to walk would damage my life more.

Wow. Good thing you're all talking in hypotheticals here. I'm sure there are plenty of actual rape victims out there that would not agree with you.

 

[level.eleven]

Wow. Good thing you're all talking in hypotheticals here. I'm sure there are plenty of actual rape victims out there that would not agree with you.

Double post.

 

[level.eleven]

Wow. Good thing you're all talking in hypotheticals here. I'm sure there are plenty of actual rape victims out there that would not agree with you.

Thus the selection of the word, personally.

Do you have anything to add about the OP? Should cops be allowed to walk for setting fire to your house because they would be abused in prison?

 

[level.eleven]

What does a cop have to do to go to jail? If setting fire to my home doesn't do the trick, what does it take for these judges? Apartment complexes seem to be insufficient.