Current Events > 12 years a slave for having a cell on jail.

(+) Yeah! (+)

No, what I suggest is illegal by the BS laws of men

---

Yeah 12 years is a long stretch, but there's no way on God's green earth he's done time before and not known cell phones are contraband. Still, even getting caught with a knife doesn't get you 12 years in most places.

I think MS is a mandatory 85% too but that could only be violent or drug offenders

---

Bad_Mojo posted...

No, what I suggest is illegal by the BS laws of men

Terminate on Sight?

---

cjsdowg posted...

The fact that he asked the CO to charge for it clearly shows that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
---

The punishment obviously doesn't fit the crime. Injustice in an unjust system. Reading the law, it's pretty clear this was not the intended result, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentionally general.

---

Dont want to go to jail? Then dont break the law. What we feel bad for burglars now?

---

You've got to understand that the law itself is kinda meaningless. It's more of a social thing. The powers that be just get away with what they can get away with and it's up to us make sure they don't

---

Crono99 posted...

That's the thing. He was sentenced to 7 years back in 2001 for the burglary.

This cell phone thing got him a sentence almost twice as long.

Oh yeah, and MS's correctional system is so fucked up they stay on lockdown.

---

Absolutely disgusting how after a man does his time for his mistakes, a cop gets off on theirs for their mistake and the man gets 12 years over a fucking cellphone.

Doesn't help we got bootlickers allowing this society to continue like this, because you can't change tradition

---

This is an absolute travesty and beyond bullshit. It should be vacated and the intake officers fired. Either incompetence for missing the phone, or blatant abuse for allowing it in to set the guy up. This isn't acceptable and I hope there's some attorneys willing to take it up

---

Crono99 posted...

Why didn't they give him the lowest possible sentence? Why 12 years, which is close to the maximum? That's the thing. The appeals just looked at it and they were like "well, he technically committed the offense, and the law says 3 to 15 years so 12 falls within that... oh well, nothing we can do"

Was he a repeat offender? If so the courts probably decided he wasnt worth leniency.

---

Whoever gave him that sentence should be thrown in prison

---

Prismsblade posted...

Was he a repeat offender? If so the courts probably decided he wasnt worth leniency.

There shouldn't even be a 12 year sentence for such a minor crime. People have gotten less than that for crimes like rape.