Close
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #24
    a cool, fancy title hollohas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    6,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irving View Post
    Nope. From the way the way the thread reads, this law is asking for mandatory sentencing for people who are charged. Have there been cases where someone is charged, but not sentenced?
    Wrong. The bill reads:

    CONCERNING MANDATORY SENTENCING PROVISIONS FOR A
    DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A SEX OFFENSE AGAINST A CHILD
    WHO IS FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER.
    You can't sentence people to jail time who are charged but not convicted no matter what crime they are charged with. This law simply asks for a harsher punishment for violating CURRENT law.

    It asked that criminals convicted of sex crimes on children get a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. As a father, I would be surprised if you didn't support that. I don't know what the current minimum sentence is (if there is one) but the more the better when it comes to this crime.

    So again, these so-called Representatives have voted "yes" on a bill that would limit the rights of law abiding gun owners to "protect the kids" however they vote "no" on a bill that would actually protect the kids from proven child rapists by locking them up longer. How does that make sense?
    Last edited by hollohas; 02-14-2013 at 20:00.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •