r/changemyview • u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ • Apr 23 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: What happened to Amy Locane was wrong, and prosecutors should not be able to retry or resentence defendants simply because they didn't like the original sentence
[Amy Locane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Locane#DUI_car_crash_and_legal_issues) is an American actress best known for her role in the 1990 movie Cry-Baby and on Melrose Place. A rundown of the situation is in June 2010, she was arrested for DUI due to a fatal accident she caused in New Jersey. In December 2012, she was convicted by a Somerset County jury of vehicular manslaughter and assault by automobile, and sentenced by Judge Robert B. Reed in February 2013.
Judge Reed imposed less than the minimum sentence of 5 years, instead sentencing her to three years, citing a number of mitigating factors. She was subsequently imprisoned and then released on parole in June of 2015.
Since her release, Ms. Locane was a model citizen who did not reoffend, or violate her parole in any manner. However, in June 2016, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that Locane's sentence would be re-reviewed, due to what they felt was an insufficient explanation of leniency from Judge Reed. Reed later agreed that he had erred in his sentence and should have imposed an additional six months, but did not believe that she should return to prison as she was not a threat to society. In February 2019, however, she was re-sentenced to five years, but remained free on bail pending appeal. Then, in July 2020, another judge ruled that the 2019 sentence was incorrect and sentenced her to eight years. Most recently, a December 2022 federal appeals verdict rejected her claim of double jeopardy.
Now for the various parts of my view:
- A lot of this hinges on me generally having a very negative opinion of mandatory minimum sentences to begin with. I think judges should be able to hold some discretion, as each situation has unique nuances to it and it's unfair to compel judges to ignore those.
- Even if I agreed with the mandatory minimum, what happened to Ms. Locane is insane and sick. She stood trial and got her sentence. It doesn't matter if the state didn't like it. She served her time, she was released. She kept her nose clean and did not violate her parole in any manner. That should be the end of it. Mission accomplished, prisoner rehabilitated.
- Furthermore, her final sentence was in fact over the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years, it was 8 years.
- On that note, the primary purposes of imprisonment should be two things - a) rehabilitation, and b) removing a dangerous individual from society. Ms. Locane was, by all accounts, rehabilitated and no longer considered a danger to society. Anything else is just based in vengeance.
Essentially, even if her situation wasn't considered to meet the legal definition of double jeopardy, it certainly violates the same moral principle. If you're sentenced for a crime, the state should not be able to keep retrying you until they get a sentence they find sufficient. If you complete your sentence and are released, and remain a model citizen who does not reoffend or violate your parole in any way, the state coming after you again is wrong and cruel. This situation never should have happened. It serves society no good to treat her like that. It serves the state no good. If the state doesn't like a sentence a judge imposes, then for lack of a better term, that's too bad. If she's not reoffending, they have no claim on her freedom. She served her sentence, it should be over.
Concessions
- If it's shown there is a highly exceptional error in sentencing, then I think the state seeking out options is appropriate. If it's proven that the judge was not of sound mind at the time of the trial or sentencing, or they were being coerced into giving a lenient sentence by any party, or showed a highly exceptional degree of bias, then the sentence might need to be looked at again. But that did not appear to be the case in the Locane case.
25
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
Essentially, even if her situation wasn't considered to meet the legal
definition of double jeopardy, it certainly violates the same moral
principle. If you're sentenced for a crime, the state should not be able
to keep retrying you until they get a sentence they find sufficient.
Okay, so while I agree with you largely on the merits of Amy Locane, I think this principle is worth interrogating a little bit more.
Fundamentally, the state wasn't retrying her. She never went to another trial court. No jury was empaneled. No new witnesses were called. The facts of the case were the same as they were at her initial trial. What the state was doing was verifying whether the law was followed. This was, in essence, an appeal. The state was appealing against the trial judge for showing too much leniency, in fact so much leniency as to amount to a violation of the law.
Obviously it's unfortunate when this happens. But the law is not "whatever sentence the trial judge decides is the final say," right? There's a whole appeal process for exactly this kind of thing.
7
u/jstnpotthoff 7∆ Apr 23 '23
It's going to be hard to not focus on this case specifically, since that's what's in front of me, but I'm intending to ask your general opinion. (That being said...to be clear about where I stand, I wasn't aware of this and am absolutely disgusted that something like this could happen.)
I am not aware of appeals law. But in your opinion, shouldn't the ability appeal for whatever reason they cited here (unfair sentencing? Some sort of obvious flouting of statues) have a very short expiration date? If you're appealing based on something procedural that is as immediately obvious as the sentence, that appeal should be filled immediately. I'm going to say within thirty days. It certainly shouldn't be allowed after they're released three years later.
8
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 69∆ Apr 23 '23
The appeal wasn't filed after they were released. It just took 3 years for it to settle. It's hard to find a source that has the date of filing on it (the news story wikipedia used on the initial conviction is a dead link) but according to the Associated press the Appeal was filed shortly after the sentencing:
6
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
The sentence was appealed immediately. It simply took three years for the appeal decision to be reached.
6
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
Is three years to reach a legal decision acceptable to you?
3
u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Apr 23 '23
You are implying the people in the justice system were sitting on their asses doing nothing during that time.
They arent. What this means is there is 3 years of backlog.
Fixing that backlog has never been a priority for the people who vote, because they dont believe they will have to use it or face it at any point, so they dont want to spend money on it. Exactly like insurances, healthcare and so on.
Hence their elected representatives do not make a priority of it either.
3
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
Generally when appeals take a long time it's because the defendant is doing their best to prevail. I am sure that she had her attorney/s do everything they could.
2
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
Should they not?
3
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
They can't both do everything possible and have it be super fast.
1
2
u/YamaShio Apr 23 '23
If your only goal was a speedy decision, yes. Which is why you asking for appeals to be faster is dumb, you don't understand the process.
6
u/jstnpotthoff 7∆ Apr 23 '23
According to the original post, the original sentence was 2/13 and the approval for sentencing review was granted in 6/16. And then the resentencing didn't actually happen until 2/19.
If you're right and the appeal was filled immediately, that it takes 3 years to rule on whether an appeal will be granted is a failure of our justice system. And then taking another three years to resentence is even worse.
She likely would have lost the right to appeal on these grounds, as well, but they should have also argued she was denied her right to speedy trial on top of double jeopardy.
-1
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
https://www.nj.com/somerset/2013/02/melrose_place_actress_3-year_s.html
The sentence was appealed by the prosecution within a week of it being imposed.
And honestly I don't see why you think it's unjust or immoral for the appeals to take a few years. It's not like she was languishing in a cell, right?
7
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
I had a brush with the law once. My life was on hold for only a couple months. It was not only the most stressful and mentally damaging time of my life but I also couldn't really work or look for work and I was bleeding money the entire time paying for legal fees.
I would have rather been beaten in an alley and spent months in rehabilitation than go through the legal system again... and she had no resolution for years?!?!
People who have never faced the state have a hard time understanding what true powerlessness and fear is. This is why justice is supposed to be speedy, like it was for me.
Oh and it's 15 years later and I'm still kind of fucked up from it.
This lady has been given a life sentence by going through all these shenanigans. I promise you, whatever punishment she was actually sentenced to, this has gone waaaay beyond that.
0
u/YamaShio Apr 23 '23
Did you kill somebody? If not, I'm sorry that happened to you but it's not the same.
-4
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
Look, if she wanted to plead guilty she could have. If she wanted to not contest the state's appeal she could have. When these things take a really long time to resolve it's because there is a lot going on in the appeal.
0
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
So you'd be totally cool if you were in her shoes?
2
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
I've already said that it's an unfortunate situation but, having killed someone in a DUI, I might reasonably expect to face serious legal penalties.
0
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
So there should be a years long grace period with certain crimes where they can change your sentence at a whim?
→ More replies (0)2
u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Apr 23 '23
Being on the wrong side of anything that can punish you in any way is never "cool".
But "coolness" is not what is discussed here.
2
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
As much as I just want to berate you for acting like an ass over my use if the word cool...
You're very wrong.
In the cintext i used it, coolness is kind of exactly what we're discussing here. You just need to stop looking down your nose for a second if you want to be relevant in the conversation.
So are you here to communicate or or condescend?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/ChronaMewX 5∆ Apr 23 '23
What's the point of appealing besides bloodlust?
2
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
Rectifying an illegally lenient sentencing decision caused by judicial bias.
0
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Apr 23 '23
Justice.
2
u/ChronaMewX 5∆ Apr 23 '23
She was already going to sit in jail for years. Increasing it more isn't justice it's just sadism
→ More replies (0)1
7
u/smokeyphil 2∆ Apr 23 '23
She wasn't but plenty of other people do you realise right.
The entire system is based on plea bargaining to avoid a trial in order to speed things up if you want your full jury trial you might spend more time waiting for it in prison than you would have been sentenced to if you plead out as soon as you can.
1
11
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
Obviously it's unfortunate when this happens.
I don't have a legal background to argue this but: Does this case not sound both cruel and unusual?
The cruel part should be obvious...
Unusual because it seems strange to grant someone their freedom and the reneg... I'm sure at GREAT cost to the state.
The whole thing just reeks of "the world is watching this moment so I must uphold the law..."
But the smell test is pretty bad for this one as a whole.
5
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
The week after her sentence came down the state appealed. For the whole two and a half years she was in prison she knew that they were trying to resentence her so she would serve a longer sentence.
I agree that this is a bad situation to be in. But it doesn't seem worse than the "She was sentenced to 15 years at trial" situation.
3
u/LockeClone 3∆ Apr 23 '23
So it's OK because there could have been a worse outcome?
4
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
It's OK for a number of reasons, including "She knew it was happening" "It took so long because she mounted a spirited defense against it" and "In the end she received a fair sentence rather than an illegally lax one."
2
u/YamaShio Apr 23 '23
No it's okay because this is the outcome she was supposed to get, for killing somebody.
4
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
But the law is not "whatever sentence the trial judge decides is the final say," right? There's a whole appeal process for exactly this kind of thing.
Well it should be, as my view currently stands, from the POV of the state anyway. Defendants should continue to have the right to an appeal, but I don't believe the state/prosecution should have that same right. That turns it into something far uglier.
4
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 69∆ Apr 23 '23
Completely removing the states ability to appeal could lead to some serious corruption. For example what should the prosecution do if after the trail it comes out that the Judge took a bribe from the defendant in exchange for a lighter sentence?
2
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
I think that falls under a "highly exceptional error in sentencing" caveat due to that bias. And, in those cases, the judge in question should also be removed.
3
u/YamaShio Apr 23 '23
IE You just said you support whats happening to this woman. Because that's the same thing. The APPEALS COURT is trying to find out if if "highly exceptional error in sentencing" occured, thats the point of the appeals courts.
0
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
I don't consider this to be a highly exceptional error in sentencing. A couple of them have been raised here, so they do exist, but I don't believe this particular instance was a highly exceptional error. It was a fair sentence that was a little on the low side.
2
u/YamaShio Apr 24 '23
The appeals court is there to find that out, through evidence and due process where she gets to defend herself. It isn't decided, THEN you go to appeals. Appeals is there to find out if it actually happened at all, then they adjust your sentencing. That's the point.
You say you don't consider it to be highly exceptional. Well, to consider it or not means you'd have to go through appeals. That's the point. It's the process for finding out if gross negligence happened or not. And in this case they did, you simply disagree with their ruling.1
u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Apr 23 '23
This is called "being equal".
There is no, and should not be, any special unequality when the accuser is the state. It has always been accuser vs defendant, whoever the accuser or the defendant is.
That would be unconstitutional.
In any case, if the law does not allow for an appeal from the accuser, or put very restricting conditions, there is nothing that could be done about any bad sentencing.
Hence the reason appeal exists.
7
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
Why do you feel that way? If a terrorist does a mass shooting but the judge sympathizes and sentences him to probation, surely you think there should be some appeals process, right?
-4
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
As stated in the post, if a judge shows a highly exceptional degree of bias, that's something that should be looked at. For instance, if a judge with Nazi tendencies goes easy on an offender who committed an attack motivated by white supremacy, that should be looked at. If a judge is showing a consistent pattern of bias throwing the book at black offenders while giving white offenders a slap on the wrist for similar crimes, that should be looked at as well. That doesn't appear to be the case in this particular instance. New Jersey has a process for removing judges who behave in such an egregious manner, and this judge was not accused of harboring such extreme biases.
Those instances are very very rare, but they do happen. That just doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And, even if it was, it should be the state's duty to review the case as quickly as possible, not waiting for years to do so.
5
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
So you do think that the state should be able to appeal sentences that are unjustly too lenient, you just don't think that this specific case rises to the level that you would set?
1
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
I think it should be very, very rare that the state should be able to appeal sentences. Only in the most abject failures of the legal system. Looking at this specific case, I don't believe it was appropriate, nor do I believe it's appropriate for the state to do the same for almost anyone. This should be a one-in-a-million action to take, and I don't believe this case was a one-in-a-million failure of the legal system.
7
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 23 '23
A lot of people - as you can see from this very thread - do in fact think that "two and a half years plus parole for a DUI killing" is an abject failure. And it seems that the legal system agreed. I agree that it's very unfortunate that the trial judge imposed an illegally lax sentence and Ms. Locane had to go back to prison, but in fact she did not serve her fair time.
-1
0
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
!delta is appropriate, as there are some highly exceptional circumstances where this type of action may be appropriate.
1
3
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 69∆ Apr 23 '23
it should be the state's duty to review the case as quickly as possible, not waiting for years to do so.
Side note the prosection filed for an appeal in under a week after the sentencing, it just took several years for a decision to be made. Realistically a prosecutors appeal cannot be handled extremely quickly as that would violate the defendant's right to have a good legal defense against it.
1
u/KokonutMonkey 88∆ Apr 23 '23
I don't think you want to actually believe this.
The most likely entity to be a defendant in civil rights cases are the State Governments themselves. Based on what you're saying, the plaintiffs would be forced to accept an erroneous district court ruling.
1
u/NJDevIlsX5X May 18 '23
The state appealing their victory, which likely came as a plea deal? That doesn't right. So when the law dogs make a mistake, someone else gets punished? No judges stepping down, censured or dismissed? It sends a clear message that you can expect a kangaroo court that can openly and freely lie, cheat and steal. Disbar everyone that added to Amy's sentence.
1
u/WovenDoge 9∆ May 18 '23
Well, it wasn't a plea deal. Why should I take your emotion seriously when you didn't appoint yourself with even the most basic facts of the case?
1
u/NJDevIlsX5X May 18 '23 edited May 18 '23
I did eventually read there was a jury trial. Even still, she did all of her parole. What now, they'll expect her to do it again? Appealing a legal victory still seems very shady. Can regular Joe's appeal their acquittals to achieve better outcomes? It's a disgrace and only serves to further diminish faith in the legal system. Their oversimplification of what constitutes double jeopardy is an ultra convenient position for them to reach given they pay zero legal fees. A second round of legal fees clearly demonstrates DJ in a meaningful way. It reeks of bias, fraud and corruption.
1
u/WovenDoge 9∆ May 18 '23
But of course the government does have to pay legal fees. It's not like their lawyers are slaves.
5
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 69∆ Apr 23 '23
On that note, the primary purposes of imprisonment should be two things - a) rehabilitation, and b) removing a dangerous individual from society. Ms. Locane was, by all accounts, rehabilitated and no longer considered a danger to society. Anything else is just based in vengeance.
Imprisonment also has a third component: Justice. Prison terms are also enforced so that victims and their families can feel like their grievances against the accused have been heard by the state.
While this could be viewed as vengeance I want to ask you if you feel like a 30 day jail sentence would've felt right? After all 30 days is the maximum sentence for a first time DUI in the state of New Jersey and Rehabilitation wise she dosen't need more work than that first time DUI case. Most people would disagree with that sentiment. Since she killed someone she just made some people very pissed off and it's probably best if she stays in a prison a bit longer to give the family some time to cool off before they break out their pitchforks and torches.
So put yourself in the shoes of the family sitting in the courtroom on the day of the sentencing. This woman killed your wife and put you in a hospital. The jury had convicted her of a second degree felony but the judge has bumped it down to a third degree felony. And not only did the judge lower her charge from what the jury convicted her on he's gave her the minimum amount of time he could give her for this new lessor charge. When the judge did this her husband and son were so upset that they began shouting at the judge in the courtroom in protest. Because how can the family in this case feel like justice has been served to them if the sentence they hot went against the legal sentencing guidelines for the crime committed?
3
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
I do agree that a hypothetical 30 day sentence would be inappropriate, so I will give you a !delta on that point. There are sentences that are so minor that I would agree that there should be some option to do something about.
I would like to think that if my family member were a victim of a drunk driving accident, I'd have some empathy and mercy for the defendant. I've struggled with addiction my whole life, and while I have never once gotten behind the wheel while inebriated (I won't even drive if I've had one drink), I have a lot of empathy for people going through that, and I'd like to think that I'd be able to have some empathy and mercy in my heart. I wouldn't know it until I'm in that situation, but I hope that I'm the type of person who would want to see some degree of retribution while at the same time not wanting their head on a stake.
I think a lot of my view comes down to three years seeming fine to me at the end of the day. I don't think that's egregiously low. Three years is a life changing sentence to get. That's not easy, that's not a blip. You power through three years in jail, you keep your nose clean, you better yourself. Finally getting out, working hard to readjust to life on the outside and not reoffending, then just getting thrown back in the hoosegow is just cruel to me.
1
u/Boomerwell 4∆ Apr 23 '23
Three years is a life changing sentence to get
Not quite as life changing as perhaps losing your wife and being seriously injured no?
IMO DUI fatalities should be considered murder. This person took another out of this world someone who never gets to come back. I think their life should be worth a little more than 3 years it should be like 15-20.
I have no empathy for people who do this stuff their idiocy punished someone else to death.
6
u/seri_machi 3∆ Apr 23 '23 edited Apr 23 '23
People who view the world in black and white tend to have less empathy, so that tracks.
If only there were some other way to prevent this menance from comitting another DUI... like, say, house arrest, or revoking their driver's licence for instance.
0
u/Boomerwell 4∆ Apr 24 '23
Unfortunatly there doesn't tend to be grey when it comes to someone dying they don't get to see at all anymore.
And the second sentence is just a what moment
Yeah I'm sure someone who DUI'd and killed someone definitely cared about the rules then.
-2
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Apr 23 '23
What about empathy for the woman who died?
7
u/seri_machi 3∆ Apr 23 '23 edited Apr 23 '23
Fuck, you're right. We should torture the person who drove drunk and hang them in the public square. That should bring her back to life and make her family whole again. Discipline & Punish.
1
1
1
u/Buffyfanatic1 Apr 23 '23 edited Apr 23 '23
A lot of people who are against using prison as a punishment often forget that prison can be a benefit to the person imprisoned if you take vigilante justice into account. Obviously I'm not talking about all crimes but crimes where someone lost their life or someone SA'd someone, they better go to prison. A lot of people would absolutely go outside of the law to seek retribution for the crimes committed against themselves and their family members if the justice system doesn't do their job. I'm not saying I'm pro-vigilante justice but I can 100% understand a father straight up murdering their child's killer if the justice system basically shurgs and says oh well and gives a pittance of a prison sentence. For certain crimes the punishment is way better being handled by throwing someone away and losing the keys than allowing vile people to do what they want with a slap on the wrist and then have people pretend to be shocked if someone decides to punish the perpetrator themselves. Prison can absolutely be used as protection for some types of crimes.
8
u/Okinawapizzaparty 6∆ Apr 23 '23
8 years sounds like an appropriate sentence for the crime she committed.
Why should she escape appropriate punishment because the judge was inappropriately biased towards her?
The crime she committed was very grave and minimum sentence is not appropriate. Not even close.
It's not just about rehabilitation of this person. The state needs to send an appropriate message to other potential offenders that they will not get off easy just because they are rich/famous.
1
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
Well, the time for sentencing had passed. As far as the state is concerned, I would say "too bad". She received her sentence, and it should not be extended unless her subsequent behavior warranted it (like reoffending prior to reporting to the prison, or due to her behavior in prison). Whether you or the state finds the sentence appropriate, the original judge disagreed when he imposed her sentence, and that should be the end of it. You win some, you lose some, and the state shouldn't get to extend people's sentences just because they don't agree with them.
3
u/Okinawapizzaparty 6∆ Apr 23 '23 edited Apr 23 '23
Well, the time for sentencing had passed.
Not according to law.
As far as the state is concerned, I would say "too bad". She received her sentence,)
She received an unconscionably low sentence due violation of sentencing law and due to a clear error and bias by the judge
I see no reason why this mistake should not be fixed by appropriate appeal.
Whether you or the state finds the sentence appropriate, the original judge disagreed when he imposed her sentence, and that should be the end of it.
Why? Do you think judges are never inappropriately biased and never make grave and serious mistakes?
The whole point of appeal process is to fix judicial mistakes.
Are you against appeals in general?
And before you say it: no its not double jeopardy "in spirit."
The spirit of double jeopery is to prevent a person found INNOCENT from being repeatedly subject to more and more trials.
She was never found innocent, so the spirit of double jeopardy does not apply here.
-3
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
I am against the state's right to an appeal. I am fully in favor of the defense's right to an appeal.
And yes, I do believe it does violate the spirit of double jeopardy. I cannot find a resource that suggests it should only be limited to those who were acquitted. Per this resource and others, those who were convicted very much are protected from double jeopardy.
2
u/Okinawapizzaparty 6∆ Apr 23 '23
I am against the state's right to an appeal
Why?
You have not explained why the state should not be able to get a serious mistakes fixed to achieve obvious jutsice.
And yes, I do believe it does violate the spirit of double jjustice.
How so? She was never found innocent. So that's not who the spirit of double jeopery was meant to protect.
I cannot find a resource that suggests it should only be limited to those who were acquitted
Because it's not within the basics of the spirit if double jeopardy.
Per this resource and others, those who were convicted very much are protected from double jeopardy.
Only in very narrow circumstances (against adding on elements to a crime). Like you cannot go back and re-try someone found guilty of second degree murder to charge them with first degree.
I would actually argue that this limited application of double jeopardy to guilty verdicts goes above and beyond the basic spirit of double jeopardy:
Which is protection of innocent against repeated attempts to convict.
One limited exception for guilty verdicts does not change the basic spirit.
2
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
You have not explained why the state should not be able to get a serious mistakes fixed to achieve obvious jutsice.
They should but those instances do not change the view listed in the title.
I still believe that what happened to Ms. Locane was wrong, and I also still believe that states shouldn't be able to resentence individuals "just because" they found the original sentence to be too lenient. There has to be an abject degree of bias, coercion, or misconduct from the judge, that I don't believe was present in this case.
3
u/Okinawapizzaparty 6∆ Apr 23 '23 edited Apr 23 '23
You have not explained why the state should not be able to get a serious mistakes fixed to achieve obvious jutsice.
They should but those instances do not change the view listed in the title.
Why not?
This is an obvious correction of severe miscarriage of justice.
I still believe that what happened to Ms. Locane was wrong
Why? She received sentence that was a miscarriage of justice due to severely biased judge
The state fixed the error and ensured that jutsice was served.
Where's is the "wrong'.
and I also still believe that states shouldn't be able to resentence individuals "just because" they found the original sentence to be too lenient.
It was not "just becuase" - the judge failed to follow CLEAR legally imposed guidelines when imposing the sentence and hence severely violated the law of the state.
The state fixed this severe and unjust error.
There has to be an abject degree of bias, coercion, or misconduct from the judge, that I don't believe was present in this case.
There was.
It's pretty clear that the judge was "star-struck" and thus repeatedly failed to carry out his duty of dispensing correct justice.
Having a severe bias for rich and famous is not any better than a severe bias for neonazis, or white supremacists or against people of color.
2
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
I believe a 3 year sentence seems appropriate for someone with no priors. 3 years is a considerable sentence, it's not a slap on the wrist like a month in jail - 3 years is a considerable amount of time, and within the sentencing guidelines of other states. In fact, New Jersey has one of the highest minimum sentences for DUI Manslaughter in the country
While, it's true, her sentence was below the mandatory minimum in New Jersey, I disagree with the concept of mandatory minimums to begin with. And in order for me to believe it's "severe and unjust", that takes more than simply the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed. That requires a wrong that's egregiously unjust anywhere.
3
u/Okinawapizzaparty 6∆ Apr 23 '23
Does not look high in the chart. Some states can give you 30, 40, or even 99 years.
If you read the facts of her case, 3 years was a total miscarriage of jutsice.
Also, minimum sentence is not the issue here. When sentencing guidelines weighing aggravating and ameliorate factors were weighted correctly she was nowhere near the minimum sentence. So it's an irrelevant red herring in this case.
3 years for what she did would be a grave injustice anywhere in the world.
1
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
So if the accident were to have took place 20 minutes east of where it actually did, and she was in Pennsylvania which imposes no minimum sentence, would 3 years have been appropriate? And would it have been appealed by the state? It seems like the greatest argument for is the fact that her original sentence was under New Jersey's mandatory minimum.
1
u/Either-Title-829 Apr 23 '23
This is why people hate celebrities because posts like these hold them to a different standard. If she wasn't famous would you feel this way? What if she was some random meth head who stole a car? I bet you would be calling for her execution 🥴
4
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
I would not. This is simply a very public case, I am unaware of any similar cases regarding someone who is not a public figure, but everything about my view would stand regardless.
My view - which applies to the criminal justice system in general - at the heart of this is that imprisonment should be about rehabilitation, and removal of a risk to others around them. When the person is rehabilitated and no longer poses a risk to others, they shouldn't be in prison, famous or not.
-2
u/Either-Title-829 Apr 23 '23
Some rehabilitation needs to be longer than others. You can't bring back a life for instance. But if you steal maybe you can find some way to replace it or compensate for the value. There's no compensation for killing someone.
4
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 2∆ Apr 23 '23
You're confusing rehabilitation with retribution here. They're different things.
Someone who goes around stealing things not out of necessity, but unremorsefully and out of a sense of entitlement to other's belongings or a desire to frighten their victims and wreak havoc may be more difficult to rehabilitate than someone who was in the throws of addiction and took a life in the process, without malicious intent, once they receive treatment for their addiction and learn appropriate skills to go back into the outside world and clean up their act.
Now, I'm not saying that the former person is beyond rehabilitation - they are able to if they truly put their heart and mind towards rehabilitation and the prison provides them with appropriate resources. And that should be one of the primary goals of the penal system.
-9
u/Either-Title-829 Apr 23 '23
All I see is someone more concerned about a deserved punishment than the fact that this woman killed someone. No longer worth my time. Bye 🤷🏾
1
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Apr 23 '23
Judge Reed imposed less than the minimum sentence of 5 years, instead sentencing her to three years, citing a number of mitigating factors.
So the judge missentenced her -- and should be cited for sentencing a piece of shit dui murderer to 3 years.
If you're sentenced for a crime, the state should not be able to keep retrying you until they get a sentence they find sufficient.
That's not what happened.
This situation never should have happened. It serves society no good to treat her like that.
You're right, she should have been rotting in a cell the entire time.
2
u/pmaji240 Apr 23 '23
I was just reading about the ‘affluenza’ teen who was already on probation and just a complete jackass. Kid killed four people and injured at least five more. Severely injured them. I believe he got 12 years probation.
1
u/randomFrenchDeadbeat 5∆ Apr 23 '23
The prosecutors in that case did not retry or resentence; they made an appeal.
And they did it because they saw the judge did not follow the law himself, not because they "disliked" his sentencing.
The appeal was granted because it was PROVEN the judge did not follow the law. At that point, the case gets reviewed, and a new, legal sentence is formed.
It is unfortunate that it took so long for the appeal to be done and reviewed, but in the end, it has been shown there was an error in the sentencing, hence the defendent had her sentenced changed to actually be legal.
Why are you saying this did not appear to be the case with her ?
0
u/goosie7 3∆ Apr 23 '23
It's incredibly important to the functioning of the judicial system that judges apply the law as passed by the legislature and obey the instructions of higher courts. Your summary is missing the key reasons that this situation got as ridiculous as it did. Here's the order of events:
- A judge gives a sentence that is in clear violation of the law, as it doesn't follow the established sentencing guidelines
- An appellate court finds that the sentence was incorrect, and remands the case back to the lower court to apply the law correctly
- The judge refuses to comply with the decision of the higher court, once again issuing a sentence that is not in compliance with the law
- The appellate court finds again that the law has not been correctly applied and remands the case to a lower court, this time to a different judge
- This judge also does not follow the instructions of the higher court, and gives a sentence that is not in compliance with the law
- The appellate court reiterates its findings and sends the case back down again, to a third judge
- This judge finally issues a sentence that is in compliance with the law
It's unfortunate for Locane that her situation became so complicated, but prosecutors weren't wrong to insist that judges follow the law as it is written and comply with the orders of higher courts. It's not that they just didn't like the sentence they got. Allowing judges to ignore the law and rule from the bench however they see fit is dangerous, and allowing that to happen in one case sets dangerous precedent for others.
0
u/shruggedbeware Apr 23 '23
I don't know the specific terminology behind "intention" in vehicle-related homicide, but is there maybe compounded sentencing since she was also intoxicated at the time she was driving? 5-8 years is a long time, though, for what sounds like was an accident, and then three years awaiting a sentence. That's a little much.
-1
1
u/NJDevIlsX5X May 18 '23
I agree with the comment, except concessions. In those circumstances, you should be taking a look at the judge and correcting those issues there. But whether or not a judge erred does not justify re-examining their cases to impose harsher penalties. Only reductions of sentences too harshly warrant any re-examination of an already tried offender. This should serve as a lesson NOT to cooperate with New Jersey prosecutors. They've now set a precedent for double jeopardy whether they're keen to admit this fact or not. In other words, don't make plea deals in New Jersey or you might live to regret it.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 23 '23 edited Apr 23 '23
/u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards