Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Really!?
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=71347		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Really!?
Ignoring the fact that he was 18, there is no way he should get that much time for a first offense unless there were multiple murders and even that may be a stretch. Considering it was at the prosecutor's discretion to "stack", I can't help but believe race and political ambition played a role here. Disgusting!

MIAMI (Reuters) - Quartavious Davis is still shocked by what happened to him in federal court two months ago.

"My first offense, and they gave me all this time," said Davis, a pudgy African American with dreadlocks who spoke with Reuters at the Federal Detention Center in Miami. "Might just as well say I'm dead."

Davis was convicted of participating in a string of armed robberies in the Miami area in 2010. His accomplices testified against him, saying he carried a gun during their crimes and discharged it at a dog that chased them after one of their burglaries. But Davis was not convicted of hurting anyone physically, including the dog.

Davis would occupy no place at all in the annals of crime if not for his sentence. Now 20 years old, he was sentenced to 1,941 months - almost 162 years - in prison without the possibility of parole.

On the day of Davis's interview with Reuters, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that life sentences without parole for defendants under the age of 18 constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" even in cases of murder. Unfortunately for Davis, he was 18 at the time of his crimes.

[Related: High Court ruling gives hope of freedom for some]

Nonetheless, Davis's attorney will argue that Davis's sentence to die in prison also constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" on the grounds that Davis is a "first offender," having never before been charged with a crime.

"Just as the Supreme Court recently held that the Constitution bars taking away all discretion from judges in sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment for committing murder," said the attorney, Jacqueline Shapiro, "so also is it cruel and extreme to allow unfettered prosecutorial discretion to force a sentencing judge to impose a life sentence on a teenage first offender convicted of lesser charges."

Davis's unusually long sentence results from a controversial practice known as "stacking," in which each count of an indictment is counted as a separate crime, thus transforming a first-time defendant into a "habitual criminal" subject to multiple sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines.

"Any law that provides for a mandatory term of imprisonment for a 19-year-old first offender that exceeds a century has got to be unconstitutional," said Michael Zelman, the court-appointed attorney who represented Davis at his trial.

Zelman resigned from Davis's case after filing a notice of appeal. If Davis's new lawyer, Shapiro, has her way, the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the issue. The case will be appealed first to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Until then, Davis's story will be a prominent case in point for both sides in an increasingly heated debate, pitting those who would protect society from the prospective dangers posed by serial criminals against those who see the United States - whose overcrowded prisons house fully one-quarter of all the prisoners in the world, most of them black - as a bastion of injustice.

ODD MAN OUT

When he was arrested on December 23, 2010, Davis was an unemployed high school dropout living with an aunt in Goulds, Florida, a poor, predominantly black neighborhood south of Miami.

According to expert testimony at his trial, Davis suffers from a learning disability and bipolar disorder.

At the time of his arrest, he told Reuters, he was living on $674 a month in Social Security disability payments and hoping to get back into school to learn a trade.

On February 9 of this year he was convicted of committing seven armed robberies at fast-food restaurants, a Walgreens pharmacy and other commercial establishments in the Miami area from August to October of 2010.

Davis, who still maintains his innocence, was the only one of the six men charged who went to trial. The others cut plea deals that left them with sentences of nine to 22 years in prison.

As the odd man out, Davis was convicted largely on the basis of his accomplices' testimony, court documents show.

Davis, who was not identified as the group's ringleader, claims he was never offered a plea bargain.

Davis's ex-attorney, Zelman, declined to comment on this point, citing attorney-client privilege.

Prosecutors declined to comment on any aspect of this story.

During the prison interview, Davis was advised by Shapiro not to discuss many specifics about his case.

According to the trial transcript, one of Davis's accomplices testified that he fired his weapon on two occasions - at the dog who chased him and 11 days later outside a Wendy's restaurant they had just robbed. He said Davis traded gunshots with a customer at the restaurant as he and three others sped away in their getaway car.

The accounts of Davis's firing his gun were otherwise uncorroborated.

The armed customer outside Wendy's, Dade County Public Schools maintenance worker Antonio Lamont Brooks, was unable to offer positive identification of the man with whom he exchanged gunfire. But he was uninjured and managed to squeeze off enough rounds from his 9mm handgun to leave one of Davis's accomplices with a bullet wound in his left buttock.

TOUGH PROSECUTORS

It is not clear why prosecutors decided to throw the full weight of the law at Davis.

Florida, though, has a history of "very zealous" prosecutions, according to Marc Mauer, executive director of the Washington-based Sentencing Project, which advocates for reform in the criminal-justice system.

For example, Florida leads in the number of juveniles sentenced to life without parole for lesser crimes than murder, sentences the Supreme Court declared to be unconstitutional in 2010. Florida and other states are now trying to determine how to resentence or grant parole to inmates affected by that ruling.

According to a recent study by the Pew Center on the States, Florida was first, among the 35 states reporting, in increases in time served in its prisons from 1990 to 2009.

In one recent, highly controversial Florida sentencing, Marissa Alexander, an African-American woman in Jacksonville with no previous criminal record, was sentenced to 20 years for firing a pistol twice into the air while trying to ward off an attack by her abusive husband. Denied the protection of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, the 31-year-old mother of three was convicted of aggravated assault, a felony, and given the mandatory sentence for anyone who fires a gun in commission of the felony.

Davis's sentencing has not generated the same degree of public interest.

"THE INSTALLMENT PLAN"

Davis was convicted of seven counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, an offense punishable under the so-called mandatory minimum sentences imposed by Congress since the late 1980s.

Mauer said such sentences have been associated with an 800 percent increase in the federal prison population since 1980.

Davis received seven years for the first of the firearm counts against him and 25 years apiece for each of the six subsequent counts. The law, as written by Congress, requires the sentences to be served consecutively. In prison slang, such sentences are sometimes referred to as "life on the installment plan" or "running wild."

In a report to Congress last October, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal courts, noted that many law enforcement officials, including New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, viewed mandatory minimum penalties as an important "investigative tool" because they provide leverage over suspects and help persuade them to cooperate with the authorities in exchange for lesser charges.

"In addition to their deterrent effect, some policymakers assert that mandatory minimum penalties reduce crime by incapacitating criminals and protecting the public from their potential future offenses," the commission said.

At the same time, it criticized certain aspects of the mandatory minimum laws, observing that the practice of stacking, in particular, can result in "excessively severe and unjust sentences."

Since 2003 the Justice Department has had guidelines in place that discourage prosecutors from stacking in cases where it can lead to excessive sentences.

Yet prosecutors have broad discretion within their jurisdictions to follow their own lights, according to criminal-law experts.

In a statement issued the day after the sentencing, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Wifredo Ferrer hailed Davis's lock-up for life as sending an unmistakable warning to anyone seeking to profit from violent crime.

"We will not allow our community to be overrun by guns and violence," he said.

Although he has no alternative explanation, Davis cannot accept that that is the real reason he will have to die in prison.

"There ain't no justice in the justice system," he said, gazing down at his olive-green prison jumpsuit and beige rubber sandals.

"I ain't going to never accept what happened," he added. "They know what they did isn't right."

(Editing by Lee Aitken, Douglas Royalty, Prudence Crowther and Jim Gaines)
Author:  Big Chicagoan [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
It would seem like his co-defendants got concurrent sentences while he got consecutive sentences.
Author:  conns7901 [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Got fucked by his boys.
Author:  Mr. Reason [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Don't commit armed robbery and you won't be sentenced to almost 162 years, regardless of the circumstances. But what do I know?

It's always been my contention, if we, as a society, are serious about stopping gun crimes, we must start severely punishing those who use guns to commit crimes. Pretty simple, no?

Violent criminals need to populate our prisons, not the non-violent ones.

Everyone in prison is innocent.
Author:  badrogue17 [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Mr. Reason wrote:
Don't commit armed robbery and you won't be sentenced to almost 162 years, regardless of the circumstances. But what do I know?

It's always been my contention, if we, as a society, are serious about stopping gun crimes, we must start severely punishing those who use guns to commit crimes. Pretty simple, no?

Violent criminals need to populate our prisons, not the non-violent ones.

Everyone in prison is innocent.

Agree, well said.
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Very few people would choose to take 170 years instead of 9. I'm curious about why he was the prosecutor's target.

Edit: So it's okay for white collar criminals and drug kingpins to get slaps on the wrist because they didn't commit a violent crime? Of course those people ruin more lives than that KID ever could. Same with pedophiles.
Author:  jimmypasta [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
If Charles Manson can get a parole hearing,why can't this guy? He should get 1 year of prison for every crime committed. One year for every crime he was carrying a deadly weapon. One year for discharging the weapon. After it's all aded up,give him a parole hearing after one third is served. It doesn't mean he is getting out,but some guys do rehabilitate themselves in prison.
Author:  conns7901 [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
Very few people would choose to take 170 years instead of 9. I'm curious about why he was the prosecutor's target.

Edit: So it's okay for white collar criminals and drug kingpins to get slaps on the wrist because they didn't commit a violent crime? Of course those people ruin more lives than that KID ever could. Same with pedophiles.


I'm all for the execution of white collar criminals....
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
No argument he about him getting jail time. The number of years is obviously the issue for me. To basically take the life of an 18 that didn't physically harm anyone is dumb.
Author:  Mr. Reason [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
Very few people would choose to take 170 years instead of 9. I'm curious about why he was the prosecutor's target.

Edit: So it's okay for white collar criminals and drug kingpins to get slaps on the wrist because they didn't commit a violent crime? Of course those people ruin more lives than that KID ever could. Same with pedophiles.

So, you would consider pedophilia to be non-violent? Interesting...
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
conns7901 wrote:
Makaveli wrote:
Very few people would choose to take 170 years instead of 9. I'm curious about why he was the prosecutor's target.

Edit: So it's okay for white collar criminals and drug kingpins to get slaps on the wrist because they didn't commit a violent crime? Of course those people ruin more lives than that KID ever could. Same with pedophiles.


I'm all for the execution of white collar criminals....


I'm not saying that but we vote for many of these people every year.
Author:  spmack [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.
Author:  conns7901 [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Makaveli wrote:
Very few people would choose to take 170 years instead of 9. I'm curious about why he was the prosecutor's target.

Edit: So it's okay for white collar criminals and drug kingpins to get slaps on the wrist because they didn't commit a violent crime? Of course those people ruin more lives than that KID ever could. Same with pedophiles.


I'm all for the execution of white collar criminals....


I'm not saying that but we vote for many of these people every year.


You may not, but I am...
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Mr. Reason wrote:
Makaveli wrote:
Very few people would choose to take 170 years instead of 9. I'm curious about why he was the prosecutor's target.

Edit: So it's okay for white collar criminals and drug kingpins to get slaps on the wrist because they didn't commit a violent crime? Of course those people ruin more lives than that KID ever could. Same with pedophiles.

So, you would consider pedophilia to be non-violent? Interesting...


No. I was saying they generally get slaps on the wrist.
Author:  Big Chicagoan [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
No argument he about him getting jail time. The number of years is obviously the issue for me. To basically take the life of an 18 that didn't physically harm anyone is dumb.


Not that he didn't try to harm someone.
Author:  Chus [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
spmack wrote:
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.


That's my middle name.
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
spmack wrote:
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.


:lol: :lol: Agreed. I bet she thought it was cute. How can you get a decent job with a name like that?
Author:  Big Chicagoan [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
spmack wrote:
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.


:lol: :lol: Agreed. I bet she thought it was cute. How can you get a decent job with a name like that?


He is half the man Octavious is.
Author:  conns7901 [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
spmack wrote:
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.


:lol: :lol: Agreed. I bet she thought it was cute. How can you get a decent job with a name like that?


About five years ago a parent told me he gave his three kids "white" names so they would have a shot in the interview process when they were older.
Author:  312player [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
The sentence is retarded and so is the judge...I have no problem with long sentences for armed robbery but this is a joke..will never hold up to an appeal.
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
conns7901 wrote:
Makaveli wrote:
spmack wrote:
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.


:lol: :lol: Agreed. I bet she thought it was cute. How can you get a decent job with a name like that?


About five years ago a parent told me he gave his three kids "white" names so they would have a shot in the interview process when they were older.


My son has a gender neutral and race neutral name and my daughters have race neutral names. That crossed my mind even when I was 21-24. Many people throw resumes in the garbage because of your name. If you want to go crazy with a name I don't know why people don't just use the middle name. That kid's middle name is probably Michael.
Author:  badrogue17 [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Appropos of nothing, just saw a blurb that so far 12 people have been shot tonight and its only 930. Nice little city we have here.
Author:  Makaveli [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
It's 9 o'clock, do you know where your guns are?
Author:  Big Chicagoan [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
My son has a gender neutral and race neutral name and my daughters have race neutral names. That crossed my mind even when I was 21-24. Many people throw resumes in the garbage because of your name. If you want to go crazy with a name I don't know why people don't just use the middle name. That kid's middle name is probably Michael.


Why did your son need a gender neutral name? You aren't one of those parents who don't let there kids know what sex they are until they are old enough to choose, are you?
Author:  Mr. Reason [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Makaveli wrote:
spmack wrote:
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.


:lol: :lol: Agreed. I bet she thought it was cute. How can you get a decent job with a name like that?

As I understand, he went by Fred.
Author:  Crystal Lake Hoffy [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Mr. Reason wrote:
Don't commit armed robbery and you won't be sentenced to almost 162 years, regardless of the circumstances. But what do I know?

It's always been my contention, if we, as a society, are serious about stopping gun crimes, we must start severely punishing those who use guns to commit crimes. Pretty simple, no?

Violent criminals need to populate our prisons, not the non-violent ones.

Everyone in prison is innocent.


You may see statistical improvements with regards to reduction in crime figures, but you wont be able to stop gun crimes. You have to give a better option to the people committing the crimes.
Author:  Mr. Reason [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Crystal Lake Hoffy wrote:
Mr. Reason wrote:
Don't commit armed robbery and you won't be sentenced to almost 162 years, regardless of the circumstances. But what do I know?

It's always been my contention, if we, as a society, are serious about stopping gun crimes, we must start severely punishing those who use guns to commit crimes. Pretty simple, no?

Violent criminals need to populate our prisons, not the non-violent ones.

Everyone in prison is innocent.


You may see statistical improvements with regards to reduction in crime figures, but you wont be able to stop gun crimes. You have to give a better option to the people committing the crimes.

How about cutting off the hand they held the gun with?
Author:  spmack [ Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
conns7901 wrote:
Makaveli wrote:
spmack wrote:
His mother should go to jail for naming him Quartavious.


:lol: :lol: Agreed. I bet she thought it was cute. How can you get a decent job with a name like that?


About five years ago a parent told me he gave his three kids "white" names so they would have a shot in the interview process when they were older.

One of the first conversations I have with a potential Mrs Spmack is what would she name her kids...and if they are names like Quartavious, then she's not the one for me.

And I agree with that parent...I think I mentioned that my first born son will be named Zachary, after the guy from Wheaton. :D

Nathaniel is also a name under consideration.....
Author:  sinicalypse [ Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Image
Author:  Crystal Lake Hoffy [ Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Really!?
Mr. Reason wrote:
How about cutting off the hand they held the gun with?


I'll leave that as an open option.

Bear with me, I have a point in this.

The FBI had a stat that some 80% of crime is related to gang activity. The number is probably higher than reality as I assume they are not asking every criminal "was this because you are in a gang?". Law enforcement has been targeting gang activity for many years now. If 80% of crime is related to gang activity, law enforcement obviously is not working very well. And while no officer will come out and say this, why would you want it to work to perfection? The police receive huge amounts of funding to fight gangs via drug enforcement. On top of this funding, confiscation during search and seizure provides another large stream of revenue. Officers want job security. Do we fund for more officers? I tend to think more does not always equal less, but Im not an expert. I will go with an assumption that the answer is no.

You mentioned stricter penalties. This I can agree with; however, I just don't know to what end. Do we just lock up everyone in prison? Looking at some statistics, the US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Looking up some stats on this, as a country, we spend $60 billion a year on prisoners and prisons. I agree with Michelle Alexander's claims that the reason for this increase in incarceration is the length of time for mandatory minimum sentences; however, I also believe that the people committing the crime have to be held accountable for their actions. But again, to what end are we going with this? Do we reduce sentencing? No, I don't think so. You have to keep deterrents in place.

So, we can't assume increased law enforcement will result in reduced gun crimes. We can't assume increased incarceration and sentences will result in reduced gun crimes. What is the other option(s)?

Perhaps if people really do want to be in gangs, we give them a few states where they can be relocated to. Build decent housing and separate the gangs in a tribal fashion. Each gang gets their piece of territory. They get their own economy how they see it. If they want to base it on drugs, they can. If they want to kill one another, they can. Obviously this would take a lot of time, ground rules, etc.

There is probably a better option than that? I am just getting frustrated with the common responses of more law enforcement and more prisons. I would love to hear better ideas.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/