I'm really surprised that you ask such a question--because such characters as frat boys like him might think the possible thrill of taking pot shots at "hobos" would be worth the price of some probation and community service, especially given that most people who commit criminal activities usually do so in the belief that they won't themselves be caught. However, that misplaced confidence might weigh less with those who consider that if they are caught, they might do five years of hard time.
Because of the nature of his crime, and especially because of his callous attitude, inferred from his behavior after the incident. Besides, you are playing a rhetorical game here, ignoring that my call for his sentence to be severe is predicated upon a conviction on my part that he suffer as much as anyone else convicted of an offense under the same relevant statutes, who didn't grow up in a "sheltered environment," and whose circumstances did not afford him the opportunity to trot out a string of middle class character witnesses. Frankly, i get a picture of an arrogant and overbearing frat boy, and that as much as anything else makes a severe punishment seem attractive to me.
Of course, were you willing to suggest that no other person convicted of offenses against the same statutes ought to be severely punished, then i'd admit the equity of not severely punishing this boy.
Subsequent news reports indicate that "hunting for sport" is precisely what he was doing as well as aiding others in the endeavor by providing them ammo. I'll concede stupid, but I'm staying with vicious. Stupid, coupled with vicious does not pull on my leniency strings.
DrewDad wrote: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.
Of course the crimes would be different. In an earlier post, I asked Setanta: "I agree that everyone should pay the same price for the same crime. But then, what crimes are identical?" Let me answer that rhetorical question: no crimes are identical. If the defendant in this case went out tomorrow and shot the same hobo in the same leg with the same gun, it still wouldn't be the same crime. A principal difference, for instance, would be that Grimes wouldn't be committing his first offense the second time around. And that has nothing to do with the "value" of the victim and everything to do with the defendant.
I have no idea what the circumstances would be if Grimes had shot a child instead of a homeless person, because that would be a different crime. But it wouldn't be a different merely because the identity of the victim was different. It would be different because it would be a different crime.
My point was that we don't, as a society, judge defendants based upon the crimes that they could have committed. Grimes wasn't charged with murder because he could have killed his victim, and I'm sure you'd say that it would be unjust to have a system that did that.
What a mastubatory little argument.
DrewDad wrote:What a mastubatory little argument.
What a limp and flaccid retort.
joefromchicago wrote: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.
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.
The crime is the same regardless of the identity of the victim...
And, Joe did imply that that the substitution of a different victim somehow makes this a "different crime."
Joe's argument was effectively this: Inasmuch as the defendant didn't shoot a child, he shouldn't be punished as if he shot a child. Accordingly, it does appear that there is a weighing process going on that bases the appropriate punishment on the relative worth of the defendant vs. the relative worth of the victim.
Grimes has been charged with assault in the second degree, a Class B felony, and unlawful use of weapon, a Class C felony.
Former OSU student and former member of Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity, Joshua Grimes, pled guilty on Monday to charges of unlawful use of a firearm and assault in the third degree.
gets 40 months
A Southeast Portland teenager was sentenced Wednesday to 40 months in prison for his part in a gang-related shooting on a MAX train on Halloween.
Damien Christopher Rouse, 17, was prosecuted as an adult for the shooting near Northeast 122nd Avenue and East Burnside Street. He pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a firearm and no contest to attempted second-degree assault.
Rouse was set to go to trial last month, but a prosecution witness did not show up. Rouse decided to accept a plea agreement before the witness was found.
Is it the same crime, or not?
No, of course they're not the same.
The two then went to a room overlooking the alley, Grimes saying there was a "hobo out there." At that point Grimes shot and hit Sanderson.