Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Jeff Lebowski]

[Moliere]

Mandatory sentencing, three strikes laws, etc. are a travesty. Maybe this episode will help wake some people up.

I was told today by a lawyer that one reason mandatory sentencing was implemented was because of inconsistencies of sentence lengths among racial divides. I guess African Americans on average got longer sentences than whites, or maybe it's better to say judges were more lenient on whites. If that's the case, then getting rid of them might be another racial issue but I really

[Jeff Lebowski]

I was told today by a lawyer that one reason mandatory sentencing was implemented was because of inconsistencies of sentence lengths among racial divides. I guess African Americans on average got longer sentences than whites, or maybe it's better to say judges were more lenient on whites. If that's the case, then getting rid of them might be another racial issue but I really

African Americans are far more likely to get convicted for the same crimes so I would say on average they suffer disproportionately from mandatory sentencing.

Isn't it typically law-and-order conservatives pushing for harsh sentencing laws?

[Topper]

I was told today by a lawyer that one reason mandatory sentencing was implemented was because of inconsistencies of sentence lengths among racial divides. I guess African Americans on average got longer sentences than whites, or maybe it's better to say judges were more lenient on whites. If that's the case, then getting rid of them might be another racial issue but I really

That is not my recollection why mandatory sentencing was introduced during the Reagan era. The mandatory sentencing guidelines came down in reaction to very inconsistent sentencing within the federal system for the same crimes. There were a number of seemingly outrageous results where people convicted of heinous crimes were not given any time. Reagan wanted to be known for being tough on crime and hence these guidelines came into law. It is important to point out they exist at the federal level, and may exist in states to varying degrees.

I agree with JL the outcome severely impacts disadvantaged minorities. However, I am uncertain if that statistic applies to convictions within the federal system. In the state systems, it is definitely true.

[Topper]

After checking quickly for the purpose of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, my memory appears to be reasonably accurate.

The Guidelines are the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.[3] The Guidelines' primary goal was to alleviate sentencing disparities that research had indicated were prevalent in the existing sentencing system, and the guidelines reform was specifically intended to provide for determinate sentencing. This refers to sentencing whose actual limits are determined at the time the sentence is imposed, as opposed to indeterminate sentencing, in which a sentence with a maximum (and, perhaps, a minimum) is pronounced but the actual amount of time served in prison is determined by a parole commission or similar administrative body after the person has started serving his or her sentence. As part of the guidelines reform in 1984, parole on federal level was abolished.

The federal effort followed guidelines projects in several states, initially funded by the United States Department of Justice, and led by Jack Kress and his research team during the late 1970s. The first sentencing guidelines jurisdictions were county-wide, in Denver, Newark, Chicago and Philadelphia. Statewide guidelines systems were next established in Utah, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Washington, and Delaware, before the federal sentencing guidelines were formally adopted in 1987. Given that the vast majority of criminal sentencing is done at the state level, the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association have each recommended such systems for all the states, and nearly half the states presently have such systems, although significant variations exist among them. For example, Minnesota's Sentencing Guidelines Commission initially sought consciously not to increase prison capacity through guidelines. That is, Minnesota assumed that the legislature should determine how much would be spent on prisons and that the sentencing commission's job was to allocate those prison beds in as rational a way as possible. The federal effort took the opposite approach. It determined how many prisons would be needed and Congress was then essentially required to fund those beds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ing_Guidelines

Here is one source that says the disparity exists even within the federal system.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...bmission_0.pdf

[wuapinmon]

There is no parole for federal crimes? Holy shit.

[cowboy]

The Bundy's have turned into the Al Sharpton of western ranchers. They need to go away. What's really sad is that it takes away from what appears to be a travesty of justice in this case. If this is typical rangeland, 130 acres will feed 13 cows for one month. At the federal grazing rate, the fire amounted to a loss of income of approximately $108 over the two year time period it would be out of production. Ironically, fire is often utilized to rid range of invasive and brushy species, enabling the grasses to be more competitive, so the fire may have actually benefited the land. For this, the feds have decided to send two people to prison for 5 years.

This is obviously not about arson. The feds have a burr under their saddle and are out to get these guys for some reason, and arson was easy. It may be a Capone-type case, where they are cheating the BLM by putting more cattle on the range than they are allowed, etc., or it could be that the Hammonds are refusing to acquiesce to government attempts to buy their private lands as Bundys allege. I did some very minor witness work on a lawsuit against the BLM that ultimately went to the SCOTUS where the BLM harassed landowners incessantly because the landowners refused to grant an access easement to the BLM. The SCOTUS ruled that ranchers cannot sue the BLM for harassment because it would "open the floodgates" for suits by ranchers against the government. I get along pretty well with our current federal range cons, and we work well together, but federal lands interspersed among private ground is a PITA. As a rule, most of the springs and water are held privately, while the dry uplands are federal, yet the BLM and FS can control both federal and private lands unless the private land is fenced separately. For example, we own the majority of the rangeland we run cattle on, but the BLM controls how many we can run, when we can turn them in, and when they have to come home unless we want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars building fences between our public and private grazing lands. If a rancher is unlucky enough to get a range con that has a chip on his shoulder or is anti-livestock grazing, he can make life miserable at best, and cost ranchers thousands of dollars in lost grazing at worst. Now that ranchers have no recourse, anyone who gets in a pissing match with the BLM will lose.

Anyway, back to the case in hand, there is obviously no reason to put these two people in prison for what they have been convicted of. Unless they are bad eggs and guilty of some sort of grievous crimes that the feds can't prove, these guys are getting railroaded and this is a total miscarriage of justice.

Oh, and Bundy and his followers are idiots.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Cowboy with the mic drop.

Excellent post.

[Topper]

The Bundy's have turned into the Al Sharpton of western ranchers. They need to go away. What's really sad is that it takes away from what appears to be a travesty of justice in this case. If this is typical rangeland, 130 acres will feed 13 cows for one month. At the federal grazing rate, the fire amounted to a loss of income of approximately $108 over the two year time period it would be out of production. Ironically, fire is often utilized to rid range of invasive and brushy species, enabling the grasses to be more competitive, so the fire may have actually benefited the land. For this, the feds have decided to send two people to prison for 5 years.

This is obviously not about arson. The feds have a burr under their saddle and are out to get these guys for some reason, and arson was easy. It may be a Capone-type case, where they are cheating the BLM by putting more cattle on the range than they are allowed, etc., or it could be that the Hammonds are refusing to acquiesce to government attempts to buy their private lands as Bundys allege. I did some very minor witness work on a lawsuit against the BLM that ultimately went to the SCOTUS where the BLM harassed landowners incessantly because the landowners refused to grant an access easement to the BLM. The SCOTUS ruled that ranchers cannot sue the BLM for harassment because it would "open the floodgates" for suits by ranchers against the government. I get along pretty well with our current federal range cons, and we work well together, but federal lands interspersed among private ground is a PITA. As a rule, most of the springs and water are held privately, while the dry uplands are federal, yet the BLM and FS can control both federal and private lands unless the private land is fenced separately. For example, we own the majority of the rangeland we run cattle on, but the BLM controls how many we can run, when we can turn them in, and when they have to come home unless we want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars building fences between our public and private grazing lands. If a rancher is unlucky enough to get a range con that has a chip on his shoulder or is anti-livestock grazing, he can make life miserable at best, and cost ranchers thousands of dollars in lost grazing at worst. Now that ranchers have no recourse, anyone who gets in a pissing match with the BLM will lose.

Anyway, back to the case in hand, there is obviously no reason to put these two people in prison for what they have been convicted of. Unless they are bad eggs and guilty of some sort of grievous crimes that the feds can't prove, these guys are getting railroaded and this is a total miscarriage of justice.

Oh, and Bundy and his followers are idiots.

Thank you for the explanation of the case. This is consistent with several cases involving range land in Nevada. For what it's worth, my father was a gentleman rancher for forty years, so I've heard how disputes with the BLM do not go well for the ranchers all of my life. The Bundys are not well-regarded in their own localities.

[SeattleUte]

I wish we could just ignore the Bundys. I don't find them very interesting. I think the press is very cynical in that they portray them negatively but the Bundys are nothing more than a figment of the press' attention. Why is the New York Times running multiple front page stories about this? (The answer, of course, is that the New York Times cares only about eyeballs.) Law enforcement no doubt will figure out a way to disarm them and get them in custody. Then there's a civil and criminal litigation system to deal with whatever laws they've broken. People commit greater crimes all over America every day. This event, this "story" (to the extent it is one), is not very important. I wish we could just stop feeding these trolls with guns. Note that this is just a wish; there's nothing to be done about it as it's part of the price of capitalism and a free press. But I hereby announce that I don't give a shit about the Bundys. They're stupid and boring.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wish we could just ignore the Bundys. I don't find them very interesting. I think the press is very cynical in that they portray them negatively but the Bundys are nothing more than a figment of the press' attention. Why is the New York Times running multiple front page stories about this? (The answer, of course, is that the New York Times cares only about eyeballs.) Law enforcement no doubt will figure out a way to disarm them and get them in custody. Then there's a civil and criminal litigation system to deal with whatever laws they've broken. People commit greater crimes all over America every day. This event, this "story" (to the extent it is one), is not very important. I wish we could just stop feeding these trolls with guns. Note that this is just a wish; there's nothing to be done about it as it's part of the price of capitalism and a free press. But I hereby announce that I don't give a shit about the Bundys. They're stupid and boring.

You clearly haven't been following the Bundy story very closely.

[SeattleUte]

You clearly haven't been following the Bundy story very closely.

This isn't going to end up any other way than the Bundy group behind bars and losing all their property, or, less likely, dead. If they get killed it will start being an interesting story, but that will largely depend on how it happens. The press has tried to be fair about their grievances but even most other ranchers disagree with them. Their grievance is banal and stupid. This story does not deserve a hundredth of this attention, is my point. It's a dumb story that is simply feeding on itself. I don't find Mormon rednecks at all interesting. There aren't even any deviant sexual acts being reported. I guess I can see why they embarrass you, but that's not interesting either. Mormons have fanatical elements and roots. That's not news.

[imanihonjin]

This isn't going to end up any other way than the Bundy group behind bars and losing all their property, or, less likely, dead. If they get killed it will start being an interesting story, but that will largely depend on how it happens. The press has tried to be fair about their grievances but even most other ranchers disagree with them. Their grievance is banal and stupid. This story does not deserve a hundredth of this attention, is my point. It's a dumb story that is simply feeding on itself. I don't find Mormon rednecks at all interesting. There aren't even any deviant sexual acts being reported. I guess I can see why they embarrass you, but that's not interesting either. Mormons have fanatical elements and roots. That's not news.

Meh....pretty much any group has to have fanatical elements and roots to survive the test of time. Not your best troll job.

[Katy Lied]

Yes, I think that having a fanatical element that disregards what the Leaders say, and Leaders that condemn the fanatical element is just a sign that Mormons are part of the mainstream. Just another sign that we've arrived into conventional acceptance, like being the focus of a Broadway Play, and a high degree of knowledge about garments and the WOW.

I look forward to a renaissance of Mormon literature, just like the Catholic revival 1850-1950 featuring Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, and GK Chesterton.

[Green Monstah]

This isn't going to end up any other way than the Bundy group behind bars and losing all their property, or, less likely, dead. If they get killed it will start being an interesting story, but that will largely depend on how it happens. The press has tried to be fair about their grievances but even most other ranchers disagree with them. Their grievance is banal and stupid. This story does not deserve a hundredth of this attention, is my point. It's a dumb story that is simply feeding on itself. I don't find Mormon rednecks at all interesting. There aren't even any deviant sexual acts being reported. I guess I can see why they embarrass you, but that's not interesting either. Mormons have fanatical elements and roots. That's not news.

"No S&M? No thanks!"
-SeattleUte 1/16/16