On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, rex wrote:
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
If you want to look at it a different way, if you are involved with a drug offense and are not using a weapon, you'll get a lower sentence than a full fledged drug crime. It's a step in the right direction - i.e. away from manadatory sentencing of a flat time period for a crime regardless of circumstances.
But Putra got the same sentence she would have gotten had she been convicted on both charges. The fact that she was acquitted meant nothing.
That this is true once, does not make it so in all cases. You also lose sight of the general scheme of things. That the sentence imposed may have the same maximum sentence with sentencing enhancements and a lesser included offense as with conviction of a "great offense" means nothing with regard to the validity of sentencing enhancements. That theft and low level bank fraud have the same penality when theft is enhanced with a "victim was infirm or helpless" or a "firearm was used in furtherance of the crime" could as easily reflect a lack of vigor and spite in the prosecution of bank fraud as it could reflect severe vigor and spite in the prosecution of theft. Please note that the difference between: "But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." and "But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." is subtle at best. Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland