Comments on: James Andrew Abernathy, Nonviolent Third Striker

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:48:19 +0000

Anne: not to worry, it didn't pass.

By: Anne

Anne — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:25:02 +0000

Now that pro 66 passed, what can be done to keep criminals like James Andrew Abernathy behind bars, who tortured and beheaded his girlfriends dog….
Anne.

By: Beautiful Atrocities

Beautiful Atrocities — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:27:47 +0000

XRLQ: What 3 strikes reform really means
These are not nice people who are being disproportionally sentenced for a minor mistake

By: The Southern California Law Blog

The Southern California Law Blog — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:41:04 +0000

The Three Strikes Law Imprisons More than Just Pizza Thieves
XRLQ reminds us here why the pending initiative to water down the Three Strikes Law is a bad, bad idea. Here is a snippet: Saturday

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:59:42 +0000

I don't see why that's so odd. The rationale behind the three strikes law is that recidivism is a problem in itself, which does not depend entirely, or even primarily, on the gravity of the last offense when viewed in a vacuum. Thus, it should come as no surprise that that some relatively minor felonies will yield 25-to-life as a third strike, even though they are not punishable by anywhere near 25 years if committed by someone with a clean record. Still, anything that makes judges very uncomfortable makes me at least slightly so. Perhaps a better fix for a future ballot would be a law that mandates 25-to-life when all three offenses are "violent" or "serious," but allows the judge the option of reducing the sentence enhancement to 10 years, without parole or time off for good behavior, if the third strike was not. Prop 66 wouldn't do that; all it would do is take the longer sentence off the table. Actually, that's not quite all that it would do. It would also water down the definitions of violent and serious in a manner that would just "happen" to spring mega-donor Jerry Keenan's son out of prison. :oops:

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:28:49 +0000

The article I read (in the LA Times, I think) quoted the judge as saying he wished there was an alternative – he could count this one as a non-felony and give a lighter sentence – 6 years – or go with the 3-strikes’ 25 to life.

“The sentencing options are just not very good,” Makino said. “I would like to select a sentence in between.”

In general, how much discretion do judges have in setting sentences? I would have thought there’d be more latitude.

I was leaning towards voting for Prop 66, but Abernathy is the poster case for keeping it. He is clearly unfit to live in civilized society. A life sentence is too short. He should live out his days in prison, then be buried out back, within the walls.

For the “it’s just a dog” guy (Vitello), I have nothing but contempt.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:41:22 +0000

That’s possible. I’m pretty sure the challenges focused primarily on the Eight Amendment (cruel & unusual punishment), on the theory that the third strike sentence was excessive in light of the severity of the third strike alone. It was upheld against that challenge. A weenie double-jeopardy argument may be been thrown into the mix as well.

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:17:45 +0000

As I read that article, I didn’t feel that the Times was being particularly favorable to Mr. Abernathy. I was actually expecting to see a stream of crap-charge third strike sob stories rather than this one. Torturing pets to death is among the worst things you can do in many people’s minds. Especially the touchy-feely types that might otherwise fall for sob stories.

BTW, I thought that both the 9th Circuit and the CalSups reviewed 3 strikes on the basis of double jeopardy and found no problem.