Anonymous wrote:OMG. This is awful but somehow I'm not surprised. Not even a little. DC is the worst.

Anonymous wrote:If rehabilitation is rare. Why are we keeping violent offenders in jail at all. Why not use the death penalty as our punishment of choice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

First, the victims or victims' families are "taken into account" but they absolutely do not get to veto a resentencing. It's entirely up to the judge's discretion.

Second, every time I've heard someone argue in favor of these reduced sentences for rapists and murders, it's the same wording: that they've "proven to be rehabilitated". I'm curious, when someone's in prison for a home invasion and raping a child, how exactly do we prove that felon to be rehabilitated? Is it that they refrained from raping any children while serving their prison sentence?

As far as claims of low recidivism rates for those released, I'd be extremely interested in how that rate is calculated. The arrest rate for rape is something like 1%. The conviction rate is a fraction of that.

Anonymous wrote:They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

Though some of these current cases that would be up for review go back to 80s, this isnt "fixing" 3 strikes and you're out or crack laws. These are murderers or rapists up to age 25, including recent ones under current sentencing, who could apply for release after serving 15 years.
Can you please support that this requires family approval? They have veto if all other conditions are met? Curious about that - not the way justice usually works in our country.

So, some cases are from the 80s. You would agree to review those cases, correct?

First degree rape is life in prison so it would be unreasonable to get out in 15.

Second degree rape is a 20 year sentence so 15 years does not seem unreasonable.

I believe victims statements are always taken into account and should be for all cases.

80s sentencing guidelines are a separate matter. This law is not "about the 80s". It may happen to cover people from the 80s, but if it were about the 80s it would call for resentencing of everyone convicted in the 80s - which it does not.

I dont 100 % know the difference between first and second degree rape..though the description if the defendant the judge refused to resentenced sounds like multiple rape in the first degree (during break ins, at knife point). ..but this law calls for the opportunity to have any crime including murder and first degree rape reduced after 15 years, including release at that point Ibased on factors like the defendants prison record.

Last, the PP said release would be contingent on the victims famy consent. That is different from weighing in. Looking for clarification. I just t believe that the victims family has 100 % veto power in this IRAA act, but if they do I'd like to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

It's so sad and awful that the trend has been towards reduced sentences for violent crime over the years We should have way, way LESS tolerance for it, not more!

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

15 years is not what someone would serve today for the crimes covered by this act, mostly murder - often youth on youth. It's a reflection of Allen's - and our city's approach to youth offenders, now defined by the proposed revised IRAA Act as up to age 25. The fact that he scolded a judge who did not agree in one case of resentencing, shows the pressure he is willing to bring to bear for the 500+ violent offenders who would be up for resentencing.

What you are saying... the resentencing does not reflect guidelines set today? It is less harsh than what is set today? The law states that "resentencing" would follow today's guidelines.

Didn't he "scold" a judge for not following current guidelines?

I think the problem with the new law is that it does not allow the judge to look at the old case. Maybe I am wrong, maybe they are given the old case.

Murder in the first degree is 25 years to life typically, not sure what the typical sentence today for roving armed robbery multiple rape is (including of a child) - but very much hoping more than 15 years. So yes, the opportunity to serve only 15 years for crimes of this magnitude would be considered "light" under todays national standards.
He scolded the judge in a recent resentencing case of a crime committed at age 17, for considering the heinous nature of the crime (multiple violent rapes) in declining to reduce the sentence. So when we say the judge must agree, does it only "count" when they agree with Allen?

So the judge's judgement did not hold up.. Allen mandated the judge change his decision?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

Though some of these current cases that would be up for review go back to 80s, this isnt "fixing" 3 strikes and you're out or crack laws. These are murderers or rapists up to age 25, including recent ones under current sentencing, who could apply for release after serving 15 years.
Can you please support that this requires family approval? They have veto if all other conditions are met? Curious about that - not the way justice usually works in our country.

So, some cases are from the 80s. You would agree to review those cases, correct?

First degree rape is life in prison so it would be unreasonable to get out in 15.

Second degree rape is a 20 year sentence so 15 years does not seem unreasonable.

I believe victims statements are always taken into account and should be for all cases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

Though some of these current cases that would be up for review go back to 80s, this isnt "fixing" 3 strikes and you're out or crack laws. These are murderers or rapists up to age 25, including recent ones under current sentencing, who could apply for release after serving 15 years.
Can you please support that this requires family approval? They have veto if all other conditions are met? Curious about that - not the way justice usually works in our country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

15 years is not what someone would serve today for the crimes covered by this act, mostly murder - often youth on youth. It's a reflection of Allen's - and our city's approach to youth offenders, now defined by the proposed revised IRAA Act as up to age 25. The fact that he scolded a judge who did not agree in one case of resentencing, shows the pressure he is willing to bring to bear for the 500+ violent offenders who would be up for resentencing.

What you are saying... the resentencing does not reflect guidelines set today? It is less harsh than what is set today? The law states that "resentencing" would follow today's guidelines.

Didn't he "scold" a judge for not following current guidelines?

I think the problem with the new law is that it does not allow the judge to look at the old case. Maybe I am wrong, maybe they are given the old case.

Murder in the first degree is 25 years to life typically, not sure what the typical sentence today for roving armed robbery multiple rape is (including of a child) - but very much hoping more than 15 years. So yes, the opportunity to serve only 15 years for crimes of this magnitude would be considered "light" under todays national standards.
He scolded the judge in a recent resentencing case of a crime committed at age 17, for considering the heinous nature of the crime (multiple violent rapes) in declining to reduce the sentence. So when we say the judge must agree, does it only "count" when they agree with Allen?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused... isn't the law to reduce the time served closer to what they would serve if they were convicted today?

They are not given a reduced sentence unless they judge agrees, they have proven to be rehabilitated, had good behavior, have a recommendation from a mental health professional and the victims' families agree.

15 years is not what someone would serve today for the crimes covered by this act, mostly murder - often youth on youth. It's a reflection of Allen's - and our city's approach to youth offenders, now defined by the proposed revised IRAA Act as up to age 25. The fact that he scolded a judge who did not agree in one case of resentencing, shows the pressure he is willing to bring to bear for the 500+ violent offenders who would be up for resentencing.

What you are saying... the resentencing does not reflect guidelines set today? It is less harsh than what is set today? The law states that "resentencing" would follow today's guidelines.

Didn't he "scold" a judge for not following current guidelines?

I think the problem with the new law is that it does not allow the judge to look at the old case. Maybe I am wrong, maybe they are given the old case.