If true, this is so far outside of a reasonable punishment as to constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment. From what I have read, there were a couple of minor charges , but 15 years of the sentence was for "hate speech." (I so hate that thought crime law , the concept of that law, and the tyrannical wannabes that imposed that law-All it is , is a means to ensure unequal application of the law to "offenders" of a non protected class. ) So if he had purchased the flag himself, and burned it, would he still be guilty of a "crime"?
Raven, I suspect the courts would say that it depended on where he burned the flag. If he did it on his own property, or with the permission of a property owner, out of the view of any major public right-of-way, then it would be protected speech. If he did it in front of a well-known gay-bar or club, then it would be considered an act of intimidation (as well as trespassing).
But that's in a sane-ish world. I have no idea what courts outside of Texas would say.
Ok, well, those flags cost like ten bucks. So misdemeanor theft, and destruction of private property in the amount of ten dollars; that’s say sixty days. Sixteen years? Because of the speech aspect of an otherwise minor crime?
I don't know the whole story, but it sure sounds like a case of overcharging and over sentencing in order to intimidate. Sticks and stones, etc- you know, people get far less time than this for willfully physically hurting another person. It also raises the question of who the prosecutor is that brought such a charge and sentence request. And the judge that imposed it. And was the jury aware of how severe a sentence might be handed out? Or was a plea, taken on even more severe threat?
9 comments:
If true, this is so far outside of a reasonable punishment as to constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.
From what I have read, there were a couple of minor charges , but 15 years of the sentence was for "hate speech." (I so hate that thought crime law , the concept of that law, and the tyrannical wannabes that imposed that law-All it is , is a means to ensure unequal application of the law to "offenders" of a non protected class. )
So if he had purchased the flag himself, and burned it, would he still be guilty of a "crime"?
Some flags are more equal than others.
Raven, I suspect the courts would say that it depended on where he burned the flag. If he did it on his own property, or with the permission of a property owner, out of the view of any major public right-of-way, then it would be protected speech. If he did it in front of a well-known gay-bar or club, then it would be considered an act of intimidation (as well as trespassing).
But that's in a sane-ish world. I have no idea what courts outside of Texas would say.
LittleRed1
I have to wonder if we are getting the whole story here.
Surely not — and likely the guy isn’t a great guy. Still the question matters even if the facts are mixed.
For one thing, he stole the flag, so they could get him on arson. But the "hate crime" aspect was what drove up the sentence.
Ok, well, those flags cost like ten bucks. So misdemeanor theft, and destruction of private property in the amount of ten dollars; that’s say sixty days. Sixteen years? Because of the speech aspect of an otherwise minor crime?
I don't know the whole story, but it sure sounds like a case of overcharging and over sentencing in order to intimidate.
Sticks and stones, etc- you know, people get far less time than this for willfully physically hurting another person.
It also raises the question of who the prosecutor is that brought such a charge and sentence request. And the judge that imposed it. And was the jury aware of how severe a sentence might be handed out? Or was a plea, taken on even more severe threat?
raven, I have the same questions.
Post a Comment