Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

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