The Mike Vick case... am I a life nit?

[djoyce003]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't poach deer or commit violent acts against people, so I think I'm in the clear, but thanks for the heads-up.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't just accept things because "it's the law." Your example makes no sense, so I don't just blindly accept it. I think violent people should get more jail time than deer poachers, and if the law is set up that way, it's stupid and should be changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

No...what you are saying is that since you disagree with the law he shouldn't be punished at all because crimes that YOU think are more heinous weren't punished as severely.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you on whether or not YOU think the crime he committed is worse than any other crime on the planet. He is being sentenced according to the guidelines laid down for the laws he broke, period. Get over it. These are things he should have considered when he decided to act like a gigantic piece of [censored]. You ARE in the minority. This is a democracy and our laws tend to reflect the overall values of the voting population, which this law most assuredly does. He's lucky i'm not the judge because I'd throw the book at him.

As for your comment on the bank thing. It's quite common for the feds to only charge you with one crime and try you on that one. I'm not a lawyer but I believe other items can be brought in at sentencing that can swing sentencing from the minimum to the maximum. Extenuating circumstances, aggravation, etc. Kind of the reason that sometimes they try a known serial killer with one crime and get the death penalty for that one crime and never try him for the others. See how that works?