26 years to life in prison for cheating on an exam

Story in the local paper this week about a man who was caught taking the written portion of the drivers license exam for his illiterate cousin. He had two non-violent burglary convictions from nearly 20 years ago, one as a juvenile. . . and so, on California's '3 strikes' law, he was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison for taking his cousin's license exam.

I remember back when we had a constitution, there was something about cruel and unusual punishment.

 

"A federal appeals court upheld a prison sentence of 26 years to life Monday [...]. Santos Reyes was convicted of perjury [...]. Reyes was caught using a crib sheet on the test in September 1997 [...]."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/30/BAG3H40CA31.DTL

 

Miracles do happen!

About 3% of our population commits around 87% of our crimes.

When we start locking up our felony-recidivists, we will find that our crime rate miraculously drops.

 

California had a law about extra sentences for repeat offenders back in the 1950's. It was found to be unconstitutional. Something about the Fifth Amendment disallowing double jeopardy (Extra punishment for the same offense) Apparently it's back? Obviously, it's been reworded.

 

I dunno.

Having been seriously injured and partially disabled after three car wrecks involving

1) an anglophone illegal alien using someone else's license shared by extended family (ran stop and turned into oncoming traffic, causing head-on collision);

2) a non-anglophone illegal alien who fled the scene (no license; at est. speed of 80-85 mph rearended me stopped on interstate; 6 car pileup; relative showed up to scream at state trooper for being bigoted against particular non-anglophone, non-Roman-alphabet ethnic group because it was the other cars' fault for being stopped in rush-hour traffic);

and 3) a non-anglophone with own license (whoever took the written test for her) who claimed, through a police interpreter, that it was our fault because she was in a hurry (head-on collision across 3 lanes of traffic);

if you can't read the damn test because you can't read, or can't read English or Spanish or whatever other languages such tests are administered in, or you can't read street signs or tell colors apart on stop lights, or if you're helping someone drive on a fake license, or colluding in such things, and you're stupid enough to do it in a state with such laws as 3-strikes, while possessing a criminal record, well, multumesc foarte mult for the nice job on them license plates. I have to have someone else install them for me now, but they shore look purty.

And, no, I'm not a fan of 3-strikes laws per se. Legal ritualism seems silly.

 

99.9% of the population will never be convicted of one felony, much less two. I doubt that society will miss this guy.

Anyone who has two strikes should simply leave California.

 

In order to actually get convicted of a felony, the suspect's record has to (even in the liberal haven of Massachusetts) show a clear pattern of criminal behavior, and also show little or no chance of rehabilitation. Trust me when I tell you, that person has a major record of arrests and convictions. I'll wager a fair amount of money on it.

I'll withold comment on someone illegally taking a driving test for their illiterate relative, and the inherent dangers that presents, and simply say that "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

 

The 3-strikes law has been abused. This sounds like it might be an example. If he has had a clean record for the past ten years or so then I'd have to agree that this guy was one example of such abuse. The intent was to get habitual criminals off the streets not punish law abiding citizens. On the other hand, he's also guilty of stupidity. He should have either left California or been paranoid about picking his nose in public.

 

Well, I would not say that he lived a clean life over the last 20 years (even though he had no arrests during that time). He simply hadn't been "caught" for his other crimes. In this instance, he was caught. In law enforcement, we often joke that only the dumb ones get caught.

I run a "targeting & tracking" program for juvenile recidivists who are loose in the community. I have kids who have up to 10 or 12 felony convictions (or more ). These are the kids that the public never hears about (let's hide them in the closet). Most of my children make a very smooth and swift transition into the adult criminal justice system, either at the age of 18 or earlier, if they are adjudicated as an adult.

 

Randy Miller wrote:

> 99.9% of the population will never be convicted of one
> felony, much less two. I doubt that society will miss this guy.

 

A year or two ago a local minor was convicted of theft and 3 counts of probation violation. His sentence was probation. What lesson he learned isn't clear to me. I guess next time he will be convicted of 4 counts of probation violation.

An Edmonton driver was convicted on his 17th impaired driving offence. He got 2 years in jail which translates into 8 months probable time, 16 months maximum time unless he kills someone in jail. I think the maximum sentence is 7 years.

3 strikes and your out. Fine with me. For people who refuse to be rehabilitated, protection of society is needed.

 

To MarkIsreal:

I'm not sure I understand your point. The same voting rules apply regardless of race. It's unfortunate that proportionally blacks commit more felonies than whites but that's the way it is.

And it's not like felons of any race lose sleep over not having the right to vote.

 

I wouldn't say more black commit felonies. I have a feeling that more blacks are caught committing felony crimes than whites. There is also the possibility that certain members of society also have better "representation" when they go to court. Case in point, the retarded black gentleman that was executed in Texas a while back for Murder. I doubt that his state appointed lawyer truly took the time to look into his case and get the sentence reduced. I could be wrong, I don't have all of the details.

 

The three strikes you're out laws of California seem a bit brash. Nonetheless, California has always been innovative and at the forefront for setting precedents in criminal law.

 

Randy Miller wrote:

> To MarkIsreal:

That's a very common error. "Israel" has "a" before "e", if you please.

> I'm not sure I understand your point.

I was simply correcting your false assertion that "99.9% of the population will never be convicted of one felony". What I cited shows the figure must be lower than 98%. (How much lower, depends on how many convicted felons have not been disenfranchised). And in some communities, it's as low as 75% -- meaning that nearly everyone has a friend or relative who's a convicted felon.

It's not that rare. What about Bill Clinton's brother? What about George W. Bush's DUI?

 

"Human Rights Watch and co-authors of the report - Sentencing Project - estimate that 3.9 million Americans, or one in 50 adults, have currently or permanently lost the ability to vote because of a felony conviction."

Ok, assuming these numbers are correct (the authors give no authority on how they arrived at this figure), 98% of Americans will never be convicted of one felony much less three.

A simply DUI in most states is not a felony.

The California crime rate fell dramatically after the three strikes law was passed due largely to getting these guys off the streets.
(To be politically correctly, mostly guys with some gals.)

 

Randy Miller writes:

> 98% of Americans will never be convicted of one felony

Wrong again: the 2% is disenfranchised felons, not all felons.

 

History of his actions showed contempt for the law and society. The chain of events in this instance could have led to dire consequences on the road. Thankfully, the authorities have had him removed.

 

I know for a fact that a first offense drunk driving charge in Maine (where Bush was arrested) is a misdemeanor (my brother is a Deputy Sheriff in Maine).

I can't think of any states where it's anything other than a misdemeanor, and I doubt that there are any states that classify it as a felony.

 

OK, thank you, it was a misdemeanor.

Morally, do you think drunk driving is less bad than taking somebody else's driving test?