4 Officers shot near Lakewood WA

[Osteomata]

circmand,
Clearly our debate suffers from the blending of issues. You have repeatedly included events (failures by law enforcement or prosecutors in 2004 and 2009) into the argument for which I have made no defense. I have only defended the situation Hucakabee (and I am NOT a fan of the man) faced in a clemency hearing in 2000, and by extension, the power of governors to grant clemency, commute sentences, and in very special cases, grant pardons. You can continue to pretend that I somehow defend the errors made in 2004 (failure to revoke parole) and 2009 (granting bail), but I did not. You can even continue to pretend that I consider child rape a minor issue.

Back to the actual issue: The period of the crimes for which he first went to prison was 1989 to 1990, not 1979 to 1990. 18 months not 11 years. The assault did not include a weapon, you are repeatedly mistaken. I suspect that it is the seperate firearms possession that is leading you to believe this.

The molestation occured nineteen years later, or if you prefer, eight years after parole.
You repeatedly insist on including crimes that NO ONE could have predicted into the debate about Hucakabee's clemency decision, unless you believe in miraculous phychic power. Your statements on this have been consistant and either stated outright or implied as is directly possible that this incident is Huckabee's fault and he was either foolish or weak or in violation of some sort of ill-defined will of the people or the law. And you have provided no information that changes the actual facts in the incident: He had a juvenile defendent, with crimes limited to burglery, robbery, non-weapon assault, and an earlier possession charge. He had served 11 years of a 108 sentence. The sentence was in excess of the average for first incarceration for these types of crimes. He was recommended for clemency, Huckabee granted it, which only made him eliglible for, but not guaranteed parole . The parole board voted 5-0 to grant parole.

And I think the part that gets me the most, is you want to make this case the standard by which all sentences are judged. That we must pretend like every parolee is a likely child molester and cop killer, so no one can be granted parole. We already have the highest percentage of our populatin in prison in the world. How much higher would you like it to go?

[Ldub]

OK, now he's got the last word...next?...

Couldn't you two accomplish the same futile goal by emailing each other?

Many of the rest of us don't feel the need for any further enlightenment.

[circmand]

No matter how clearly I make my point you still seem to not understand it or change what I say to make your point valid.
* The original most serious of the several crimes commited was good enough for 20 years. So while 108 years was too severe 11 years the time he served was not severe enough.
* Commuting his sentence allowed him to get out in 11 years Mistake One and yes no one could know a violent felon would commit another crime despite the fact it almost always happens.
*while on parole he rapes a child. He is given bail instead of incarceration Mistake two. Who could predict a violent felon who is on parole who rapes a child might commit another crime? I think by now most people can predict the answer to this.
* This violent felon murders 4 police officers and goes on the lam. Friends and family assist in helping him. he is finnaly gunned down in an arrest. wow a cop killer gunned down by police who could predict that. Huge sums of money spent in the man hunt who could predict that?

So since we cant read the future we ask ourselves was the proper decision made by the one person who was allowed to over rule a jury and a judge? Well the one made allowed a violent and deragnged criminal who had 6 arrests on his record to be freed before he spent 11% of his sentence in prison, he raped a child and murdered 4 people. Had the decision been to keep him in jail would any of this have happened? No!

So since we can not read the future we have to chose from two different methods. One protects the felon and allows him out and one that protects society and keeps him in prison. You would put society at risk I would put the criminal in jail. Given that the felon was shot to death even he would be better off still alive and in prison that shot dead by police and having 8 of his friends and relatives going to prison for aiding and abeting his escape. Frankly I do not see anyone better off in the methos you prefer we use please show me who is better off by us releasing violent felons who statistics show have a very high rate of recidivism.