and you're gang raped by three men. The perps are caught, tried and convicted. They're given 25 years to life, eligible for parole in say, 12 years. In another identical crime, only this time it's a lesbian woman gang raped, the perps are convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. How would you feel? Just curious.

<link>

Was it the same prosecuting attorney too?

I know that I have been a jury member on several cases, and so has my wife and I can say it all depends on who the judge, jury and participants are.

Murderers get anything from six years to life for their crimes. Different circumstances, different trials.

You only linked to the rape trial of the second victim. Could you provide a link to the first victim? There are probably different circumstances that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

ALL rape and murder is a hate crime. The culprits certainly don't love the victim.

The sentences should be consistant...that's why sentencing guidelines. The problem is that Moonbat judges ignore them and go with "Feelings". Personally, i'd like to see them get the death sentence for both.

It punishment should be the same...but, as we know, every judge and jury sees things differently...

1. were charged with kidnapping,
2. carjacking
3. and gang rape in the attack last month in Richmond.
4. Salvador was also charged with being armed with a gun.

I'ld say the 25 years to life with parole in 12 is FAR TO LIGHT to start out with. Only thing missing was murder...which they will commit next time to cover their asses.

Obviously justifying the hate crimes statute IMHO.

Don't like being contrary on this subject, Cotton, but our legal system is not set up to dispense justice that way. If it were, we would not need a judge and jury, only the police and I think we can all see how that would go.

The idea that you would have your day in court to plead your case and have a jury of your peers decide not only your guilt but with the aid of the judge and the law, your punishment for your crimes is implicit in our justice system.

Does the system work everytime? No. OJ Simpson is the definitive example of what can go wrong with our justice system. But the idea that each and every person needs to be judged for their individual crime and the punishment needs to be decided discreetly for each individual is a necessary ingredient of a true and working justice system.

Besides, this whole argument is suspect. While the top poster did cite a particular case where the rapists got a life sentence, he is using a hypothetical case for the heterosexual woman who was raped. There are cases of rape cases against heterosexual women that have resulted in life sentences as well. If the top poster can not reference a parallel case where a heterosexual woman was denied justice, then he really does not have an argument.

On the other hand, I can.

What!!!! You Trigger, going against state's rights? All sentences should be consistant? You mean the death penalty should be the law of the land? You mean every judge should just be a rubber stamp and not consider the facts and circumstances of the case? Well hell, let's dig up old Judge Roy Bean and appoint him Chief Justice of the SCOTUS!

Where is the case of the heterosexual woman whose rapists were given the sentence of 25 years to life? What exactly happened, and what were the circumstance of the trial? Or is that just a hypothetical example? I suppose, hypothetically, a rapist could get off with probation under the right circumstance (and let's face it, the wealth of the defendent is much more important than the sexual orientation of the victim) or they could end up in prison for life.

Your argument is grossly misleading.

Since the perp had a previous record, your not really comparing apples to apples with this case.

The Top Poster was comparing a hypothetical case to this case, and none of that really matters, because each case is it's own individual circumstance.

Each jury is made up of individuals and those individuals have a different set of values than the previous jury. I have been on plenty of juries (I usually get assigned Jury Captain, BTW) and I can tell you that going from one jury to the next is definitely not comparing apples to apples. Then you put in the amount of money invested in the defense, the political climate at the time if the judge and/or prosecutors are elected officials and pretty soon we are talking snowflacke justice.

No two decisions are alike. I suppose we can all agree on that.

I would think that most crimes are committed in indifference.

For most, not knowing or experiencing the victims life or consequences makes it easier to commit the crime.

Most crime is completely deviod of hate.

Hypothetical or not the top poster was correct the sentence was out of line. The jury does not hand down the sentence. So it really doesn't matter the make up there. Unless its for the death penalty the judge hands down the sentence, if you've been on jury duty you should know that.

Here's a link to a case that is basically the same as the one the top poster was referring to. The sentence was six years.


<link>

Each case is different.

There are sentencing guildlines, you point is stupid. You thought the jury had something to say in the sentencing. You were wrong. Judges do.