reply to post by DarthFazer
I find this case interesting, for the paradoxes it presents, if not for any other reason.
A number of points stand out to me, and I would like to list them.
1) This most recent offense, committed by the convicted woman, does not warrant such a harsh penalty as the one that has been handed down.
2) The woman should not have been at large, and therefore able to commit this offense, since reason suggests that she should have still been in jail
on the "solicitation to commit murder" issue, which I assume refers to some awful murder for hire plot, in which she was previously involved. I
think it is fair to say, that if society wishes to be rid of people who would kill for money, such a crime ought to come with a mandatory whole life
3) But, whether she should have been in jail already or not, the fact remains that the sentence imposed in this case has very little to do with the
crime that was being prosecuted that day, and more to do with the fact that the defendant had priors, and (perhaps understandably) was seen as never
having paid for them appropriately.
While I personally value justice ABOVE law, because justice is pure by nature, and law is corrupt by necessity, the law must stand if it is to be
considered important by people. Governments, and societies may have their priorities mixed up where law and justice are concerned (frankly, murderers,
child molesters, gangsters and the like ought to be terminated upon capture in my book, and all law does is get in the way), but if they are going to
insist on a love of the law, then surely that law must be followed!
The sentencing judge should know better than to hand down a sentence like this for a charge of this comparatively minor sort, because that will
merely leave an opening through which the defendant could at some point remove herself from incarceration, before a sensible term has been completed.