Did you hear the one about the hobo and the frat boy?

Any time we discuss the appropriateness of a punishment we must first ask ourselves: what purpose does punishment serve in this case? In general, punishment can serve five permissible purposes: incapacitation/incarceration; deterrence; retribution; restitution; and rehabilitation.

<snip>

Likewise, the crime is so unusual that a longer jail term wouldn't really enhance the deterrent effect of the punishment. Grimes, after all, is now a convicted felon, a not inconsiderable burden that he will carry for the rest of his life. For people like him, that's likely enough to deter him and others from committing crimes like this one in the future.

The Oregon State Legislature determined that armed offenders are subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. Is there an exception to the mandatory minimum sentencing statute for frat boys who shoot hobos?

Frat boy or not, the defendant was an armed offender. If the victim had been a child rather than a hobo, this armed offender probably wouldn't be the recipient of a slap-on-the-wrist-is-sufficient mentality.

I'm back to deterrence coupled with retribution.

It seems that this crime is not so unusual after all. Given the admission of others that "messing with bums" was more commonplace than this single event, and the fact the Grimes was the individual who supplied the ammo to at least one other individual who wanted to play the game, leads me to want a stronger deterrent message than 150 days in jail and three years probation -- particularly when there are minimum sentencing guidelines in place.

"I don't think it would do any good for this young man, who has grown up in a sheltered environment," wrote Kurt Sorenson, the School Resource Officer of the Sutherlin Police Department, "to be immersed into a culture of drug abuse and hatred. (Prison)"

JPB wrote:

I'm back to deterrence coupled with retribution.

Who exactly would you be deterring? Grimes? I think his punishment was sufficiently deterrent -- at least it was in the judge's view. The other frat boys? I would tend to believe that they will also think seriously about shooting bums in the future.

As for the retributive value of a harsher sentence, what is it?

JPB wrote:

It seems that this crime is not so unusual after all. Given the admission of others that "messing with bums" was more commonplace than this single event, and the fact the Grimes was the individual who supplied the ammo to at least one other individual who wanted to play the game, leads me to want a stronger deterrent message than 150 days in jail and three years probation -- particularly when there are minimum sentencing guidelines in place.

As I explained in my previous post, the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions don't apply to first-time offenders.

I agree with JPB that deterrence and retribution are two good reasons to throw the book at this joker.

I have remained unconvinced by Joe's arguments for the rectitude of the manner in which the judge has exercised his discretion. I don't deny that the judge has this discretion, or ought not to have it--i argue that is can, and in this case seems to have become, a tool for the protection of privilege. The remark quoted above inferentially suggests that those who have not "grown up in a sheltered environment" are fair game for being "immersed into a culture of drug abuse and hatred." That is a suggestion which disgusts me, and which i do not find consonant with the principles which Americans tout as underpinning our society.

Yes, the other frat boys or anyone else who thinks that shooting at people for sport (or to "mess with them" as it was stated) is an acceptable thing to do. Time will tell, of course, whether the boys in the frat house will switch over to paint balls, spit balls, rubber bands, or give up the practice of messing with bums altogether. You tend to believe the current sentence will be sufficient to prevent shooting, I'd like to see one that prevents "messing".

The key word for me is may. The minimum sentencing provisions do apply to first-time offenders at the discretion of the judge.

<snip>

(b) For felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, impose a lesser sentence in accordance with the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.

Frat boy or not, the defendant was an armed offender. If the victim had been a child rather than a hobo, this armed offender probably wouldn't be the recipient of a slap-on-the-wrist-is-sufficient mentality.

That may be so, but then we don't punish people based upon the crime that they could have committed.

The retributive effect certainly has to do with someone being satisfied that the boy is being severely punished--i think the value of that lies more, however, in the reaction of the working class and the poor to this kind of incident than it does from any personal satisfaction that i may feel at a harsher sentence.

Deterrence would be effected in that it would put others from "sheltered environments" on notice that they cannot expect to have a different, less onerous standard applied to their actions than the children of the working class and the poor.

The retributive effect certainly has to do with someone being satisfied that the boy is being severely punished--i think the value of that lies more, however, in the reaction of the working class and the poor to this kind of incident than it does from any personal satisfaction that i may feel at a harsher sentence.

More than anyone else, i'm pissed at the idiotic joker from the Police Department who actually had the gall to make such a public statement.

Frat boy is still an armed offender. What do the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission say about armed offenders?

Whether the victim is a child or a bum, the crime committed is the same: it's an assault on another person with a dangerous weapon. You are effectively endorsing the view that frat boy's punishment for an assault on another person with a dangerous weapon ought to be mitigated because his victim was a bum. Accordingly, because you value frat boy as a person more than you value his victim as a person, frat boy should not be punished harshly.

I agree with this from two different levels. The value of the retributive effect in the reaction of the working class and the poor in respect to both the value of the safety of the victim as determined by his social class, as well the value of the freedom given to the offender based on his.

"Gee, officer, I just pulled the trigger, I didn't expect to see all this blood and bone fragments over the sidewalk, what the ****, must be somethin wrong with whoever made this fricking gun...."

Well, I don't know the young man and I wasn't at the sentencing hearing, so I can only guess at what kind of risk he is. From the news reports, it sounds more like he was stupid than vicious. The notion that he was "hunting for sport" is just hyperbole, as far as I can tell.

Debra Law wrote:

Whether the victim is a child or a bum, the crime committed is the same: it's an assault on another person with a dangerous weapon. You are effectively endorsing the view that frat boy's punishment for an assault on another person with a dangerous weapon ought to be mitigated because his victim was a bum. Accordingly, because you value frat boy as a person more than you value his victim as a person, frat boy should not be punished harshly.

I neither said nor implied anything about the "value" of the victim or the relative worths of the victim and the defendant. You are totally out of line with this argument, Debra.

Hate to say it... a hundred years ago when people showed kids how to use weapons and kids took rifles out in the field and shot rabbits for dinner, this problem didn't exist.

Why won't the sentence handed down to Grimes deter them equally well?

Well, why should we want him to be "severely punished?"

Do you punish the defendant for the idiotic statements made by one of his character witnesses?

I think you did imply a difference. Debra compared shooting a bum and shooting a child. You then stated that one doesn't sentence based on the crime one "could have committed." That implies that crime would be different.

You may wish that you had not made a distinction, but you have.