3 ms·

You're speculating though. The only 'hard information' that we're going on here is the article that says this: > While petty theft is typically a misdemeanor

by pyre 14y ago

You're speculating though. The only 'hard information' that we're going on here is the article that says this: > While petty theft is typically a misdemeanor charge, > Williams' earlier convictions allowed prosecutors to > upgrade it to a felony. Sounds more like a "pattern of law breaking" argument was used to upgrade it rather than the facts of this particular matter, but again this is just speculation because we're not reading a blow-by-blow account of the trial.

mikeash 14y ago
Again, doesn't matter. He was convicted of felony theft, a serious crime, and sentenced accordingly. To say he was sentenced for stealing a slice of pizza is entirely wrong. Whether the additional factors were threats at the time of the theft or previous crimes or whatever, that's what he was sentenced for.
- pyre 14y ago
  Is it so hard to believe that a prosecutor used the 'stole a slice of pizza' incident as a foot in the door, and pushed hard to upgrade it to a felony just to get a feather in his hat (i.e. as a political power-play)? Would you be singing the same tune if a prosecutor had tried to get him convicted of 'felony jay-walking' and then sent him away for 25 to life? If 2 felony convictions + 1 minor infraction are enough to get you to do hard time, can we really claim that it's a '3 strikes policy?' Though, not a resident of California, I was under the impression that 3 strikes laws were sold to the public under the guise of hard criminals that are repeat offenders. This guy doesn't sound like a hard criminal, so I would venture that this situation is one that violates the intent of the law (or at least the advertised intent that the public was sold on).
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    This got out of hand, so let me try to present another viewpoint. 1) No one deserves to go to jail for 6 years (the term he served) or life imprison, even for intimidation of kids. 2) He wasn't a guy who just took a piece of pizza, he threatened kids and he did so after he committed multiple felonies. 3) The three strikes laws were designed to stop people from continuously committing crimes and getting of easily. The mid 1990s were a tough period for American politicians due to rising crime rates and they tried new stuff. (Basically they did the lean startup movement on criminal prosecution.) 4) If you ask me, the case and situation were misapplied. 5) My original point that this rarely if ever happens in the US still stands. This (pizza lifer) was an obvious injustice and it was fixed. It doesn't happen often, if ever and should not be viewed the way it is. 6) We should never let someone go to jail for 6 years, or even 2 years for stealing a piece of pizza from some kids. IMO the US should seriously look at reducing sentences for many crimes and we should take a hard look at reducing our imprisoned population. 7) Most importantly, The US has not deteriorated to the point of a police state, or anywhere close to it. Part of the reason it hasn't is that American's and international citizens have stood up to the government and demanded that they not violate the constitution. HN/Reddit/others have defeated SOPA, and will defeat other measures like it. Great discussion.

by pyre 14y ago

mikeash 14y ago

Again, doesn't matter. He was convicted of felony theft, a serious crime, and sentenced accordingly. To say he was sentenced for stealing a slice of pizza is entirely wrong. Whether the additional factors were threats at the time of the theft or previous crimes or whatever, that's what he was sentenced for.

pyre 14y ago
Is it so hard to believe that a prosecutor used the 'stole a slice of pizza' incident as a foot in the door, and pushed hard to upgrade it to a felony just to get a feather in his hat (i.e. as a political power-play)? Would you be singing the same tune if a prosecutor had tried to get him convicted of 'felony jay-walking' and then sent him away for 25 to life? If 2 felony convictions + 1 minor infraction are enough to get you to do hard time, can we really claim that it's a '3 strikes policy?' Though, not a resident of California, I was under the impression that 3 strikes laws were sold to the public under the guise of hard criminals that are repeat offenders. This guy doesn't sound like a hard criminal, so I would venture that this situation is one that violates the intent of the law (or at least the advertised intent that the public was sold on).
- wtvanhest 14y ago
  This got out of hand, so let me try to present another viewpoint. 1) No one deserves to go to jail for 6 years (the term he served) or life imprison, even for intimidation of kids. 2) He wasn't a guy who just took a piece of pizza, he threatened kids and he did so after he committed multiple felonies. 3) The three strikes laws were designed to stop people from continuously committing crimes and getting of easily. The mid 1990s were a tough period for American politicians due to rising crime rates and they tried new stuff. (Basically they did the lean startup movement on criminal prosecution.) 4) If you ask me, the case and situation were misapplied. 5) My original point that this rarely if ever happens in the US still stands. This (pizza lifer) was an obvious injustice and it was fixed. It doesn't happen often, if ever and should not be viewed the way it is. 6) We should never let someone go to jail for 6 years, or even 2 years for stealing a piece of pizza from some kids. IMO the US should seriously look at reducing sentences for many crimes and we should take a hard look at reducing our imprisoned population. 7) Most importantly, The US has not deteriorated to the point of a police state, or anywhere close to it. Part of the reason it hasn't is that American's and international citizens have stood up to the government and demanded that they not violate the constitution. HN/Reddit/others have defeated SOPA, and will defeat other measures like it. Great discussion.