Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the IRAA law allows for resentencing after 15 years no matter the nature of the crime. This is what Allen would like extended through age 25. Since 2016, about 12 under age 18 murderers and 2 rapists have been released through the first IRAA act he legislated. The judge that Allen excoriated declined to revisit the sentence of a 17 year old convicted of a series of violent home invasions with a group of friends, in which he committed multiple rapes at knifepoint- of a married couple, of roommates (they attacked a house and a group of young women sleeping on multiple stories) and of course a woman and her 9 year old daughter who they happened upon at home, attacking both. Allen's complaint was that the judge considered the nature of the crime over the defendants jailhouse behavior in declining to reduce his sentencing. Hence, the Posts point today that the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters would also qualify under this proposed IRAA 2 Act.

Hey people, the judge declined to release that offender early. Sooooo....wouldn't that mean that the law is working the way it's supposed to work?

Why would Allen write him a nasty letter in that case, which he did.

My guess is that Allen knew something about this young person that led him to believe that he was rehabilitated. Since I haven't seen the petition I don't know what the situation was with this person and whether Allen was correct or not. But regardless, the judge still makes the decision - not Charles Allen - and the law worked the way people on this thread want it to work.

Anonymous wrote:FAMM strongly supports the DC Second Look proposal. We are releasing and promoting this video today to help build support in the district and to applaud the council members who are backing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=596MgO77dT4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the IRAA law allows for resentencing after 15 years no matter the nature of the crime. This is what Allen would like extended through age 25. Since 2016, about 12 under age 18 murderers and 2 rapists have been released through the first IRAA act he legislated. The judge that Allen excoriated declined to revisit the sentence of a 17 year old convicted of a series of violent home invasions with a group of friends, in which he committed multiple rapes at knifepoint- of a married couple, of roommates (they attacked a house and a group of young women sleeping on multiple stories) and of course a woman and her 9 year old daughter who they happened upon at home, attacking both. Allen's complaint was that the judge considered the nature of the crime over the defendants jailhouse behavior in declining to reduce his sentencing. Hence, the Posts point today that the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters would also qualify under this proposed IRAA 2 Act.

Hey people, the judge declined to release that offender early. Sooooo....wouldn't that mean that the law is working the way it's supposed to work?

Why would Allen write him a nasty letter in that case, which he did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The democrat felon fetish needs to end

Free country.
Move to a more conservative area nobody forcing you to live in Montgomery County.

DC COUNCIL.

My bad my bad same difference.
Don't get why folks get so bent out of shape about the laws and leanings of an area they ain't nobody forcing them to stay in.
Pack your shit and move to Buttcrack, Wyoming if you don't like how things are going here nobody's stopping you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This month the DC City Council will vote on Allen's proposal to deeply reduce sentencing for the under 25 crowd in DC, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. According to the Washington Post editorial board's comments today--both recent mass shooters would have been eligible under this proposal.

Oh puh-lease, the criminal has to have been in jail for at least 15 years and they have to convince a judge that they have changed. The prosecutor gets to argue against early release. Do you not trusts the judges to have common sense? If so, make that argument but stop acting like there are not checks and balances here. I'm really tired of people describing this proposal as if Allen wants to set murderers and rapists free on the streets instead of sending them to prison. It's extremely irresponsible, bordering on hystrical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There are various justifications for criminal punishment, troll. Specific deterrence is one. That means incarcerating a convict to prevent him or her from committing another crime. DC does not have the death penalty.

You're calling me a troll, but I am asking a serious question. Evidence shows that criminal activity peaks at age 25, then begins to fall precipitously. Evidence also shows that long sentences are not a deterrence for juvenile crime (which is what we are talking about).

Wrong. Juvenile crime is crime committed before age 18.

Furthermore - Deterrence is just one reason for jail. Another point of jail is removing dangerous people from society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the IRAA law allows for resentencing after 15 years no matter the nature of the crime. This is what Allen would like extended through age 25. Since 2016, about 12 under age 18 murderers and 2 rapists have been released through the first IRAA act he legislated. The judge that Allen excoriated declined to revisit the sentence of a 17 year old convicted of a series of violent home invasions with a group of friends, in which he committed multiple rapes at knifepoint- of a married couple, of roommates (they attacked a house and a group of young women sleeping on multiple stories) and of course a woman and her 9 year old daughter who they happened upon at home, attacking both. Allen's complaint was that the judge considered the nature of the crime over the defendants jailhouse behavior in declining to reduce his sentencing. Hence, the Posts point today that the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters would also qualify under this proposed IRAA 2 Act.

Hey people, the judge declined to release that offender early. Sooooo....wouldn't that mean that the law is working the way it's supposed to work?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Either the judge has a say or doesnt. The PP said the judge needs to agree. Sounds like the judge didnt agree. At that point got a nasty gram letter from Allen. Do judges make the call under this legislation, or does Allen?

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.

Anonymous wrote:So the IRAA law allows for resentencing after 15 years no matter the nature of the crime. This is what Allen would like extended through age 25. Since 2016, about 12 under age 18 murderers and 2 rapists have been released through the first IRAA act he legislated. The judge that Allen excoriated declined to revisit the sentence of a 17 year old convicted of a series of violent home invasions with a group of friends, in which he committed multiple rapes at knifepoint- of a married couple, of roommates (they attacked a house and a group of young women sleeping on multiple stories) and of course a woman and her 9 year old daughter who they happened upon at home, attacking both. Allen's complaint was that the judge considered the nature of the crime over the defendants jailhouse behavior in declining to reduce his sentencing. Hence, the Posts point today that the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters would also qualify under this proposed IRAA 2 Act.

Anonymous wrote:This month the DC City Council will vote on Allen's proposal to deeply reduce sentencing for the under 25 crowd in DC, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. According to the Washington Post editorial board's comments today--both recent mass shooters would have been eligible under this proposal.