Tuesday, December 17, 2013

70 years for stealing Christmas lights?

The KHOU headline reads "Woman sentenced to 70 years for stealing Christmas lights." Absurd. Texas needs to amend its habitual offender statute so that it's not triggered by low-level offenses.

Wags in the comment section snarked that her problem was she didn't suffer from "affluenza."

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Here's a story with a more complete account of her prior offenses. KHOU misreported the bit about her most recent conviction being for stealing Christmas lights. That episode was related to jurors at sentencing, but the 70 years was issued for stealing a weed whacker and a power washer from someone's garage.

MORE: From Paul Kennedy at The Defense Rests.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Robotic judges love the term 'habitual', even for non violent offenders.

Lee said...

Tough on crime means expensive on crime. Now the taxpayers have to put up with this woman for decades....Sad.

Phelps said...

Her previous offenses include solicitation of murder and injury to a child. She's not the person we want as a poster child for runaway sentencing.

Also, it's wasn't just the Christmas lights. She was picked up on that because she was recognized as being on the tape when she was burglarizing another home.

We should leave this one alone.

Anonymous said...

"she was recognized as being on the tape when she was burglarizing another home"

Also stealing their Christmas lights, FWIW. Actually sounds like she may be mentally ill.

Lee said...

"solicitation of murder and injury to a child" you say?

....Weald the damn cage shut.

Anonymous said...

Why do you continually put "headlines" where you insinuate that large sentences are assessed for apparently minor crimes. You know very well that when a jury or judge sentences someone, they take into account not just the most recent crime the defendant was convicted of, but also their previous criminal record and other crimes they have committed. Please stop.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

7:58, stealing Christmas lights is a minor crime. California recently amended their three strikes law so that minor offenses couldn't count toward draconian sentences. We should do the same with Texas' habitual offender statute.

If you're offended by what you read here, no one forces you to visit.

Anonymous said...

The typical response--can never admit you are wrong and you didn't respond to the legitimate criticism. Stay classy.

Phelps said...

I believe that a Just penal system can only have two goals -- to either rehabilitate, or to remove the danger posed by a criminal from society. I believe that any other aim is unjust.

This woman is beyond rehabilitation. She was committing horrific crimes against society before she reached her majority (having solicited murder at 17) and continued to violate the rights of people all around her, abusing children, assaulting people, and stealing habitually from her neighbors.

This woman is beyond rehabilitation. Society owes her no sort of license to "accept the punishment" and then go free to continue it. Had she shown any rehabilitative behavior, I could see leniency, but at this point, she is simply a habitual rights violator. She belongs in jail, permanently.

Anonymous said...

She was not sentenced to 70 years for stealing Christmas lights. She was convicted of Burglary of a Habitation. She also had previous felony convictions, one being Solicitation to commit murder. The jury also heard evidence of unadjudicated crimes she committed--which including the stealing of the Christmas lights. Sounds like she got off light with only 70 years.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

9:26, in the body of the (very short) post I said the sentence was based on the habitual offender statute, not just this offense. It's not "legitimate criticism" to ignore that acknowledgement then criticize me for not making it. Get over yourself.

9:53, from what I've seen since posting this (the KHOU piece didn't include much detail) the solicitation of murder conviction was when she was 17. She's now 43. These sorts of cases are precisely why California voters recently reformed their three-strikes law to eliminate its use when the third offense was not a serious or violent crime. The cost-benefit analysis makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Your Post:
"70 years for stealing Christmas lights?
The KHOU headline reads "Woman sentenced to 70 years for stealing Christmas lights." Absurd. Texas needs to amend its habitual offender statute so that it's not triggered by low-level offenses."

Let's break it down:
70 years for stealing Christmas lights--UNTRUE
Triggered by low-level offense--UNTRUE


rodsmith said...

you were doing so good 9:23 till you got here!

"The jury also heard evidence of unadjudicated crimes she committed--which including the stealing of the Christmas lights."

sorry at that point you and the judge lost it. Under our constitution use something you haven't been convicted of is a no-so. No matter what the govt fucktards on the bench now say.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@10:26, first, you ignore the question mark and the fact that I was reacting the KHOU headline.

Second, according to more detailed stories, the instant case stemmed from stealing Christmas lights and a weed whacker. Not exactly Al Capone, this one.

Phelps said...

These sorts of cases are precisely why California voters recently reformed their three-strikes law to eliminate its use when the third offense was not a serious or violent crime. The cost-benefit analysis makes no sense.

I differ with you there. Burglary is a serious crime. You violate someone's right to privacy, you violate their right to property, you vandalize their home by sending up the crime rate and devaluing their property, and you terrorize the family, taking away their sense of safety.

Burglary is a serious crime, and deserves serious punishment.

Anonymous said...

Stealing a sandwich only gets you three years.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Funny, 10:41, since stealing a burrito apparently only gets you up to a year. But then that's in federal court.

Anonymous said...

three stricks and your out is cruel punishment for they wanted to give my son 99 to life for stealing a dvr from walmart yes he has priors but none violent never tryed to hurt anybody and would help you if he can has a good heart, but has a drug problem so should these people get locked up throw away the key believe me they are not all bad people just have an addiction, get tuffer on the meth & crack dealers that steams most of the theifs & family violence. they are total differant when they use this poison these people need help dont lock them up for life for such minor offences

Anonymous said...

Please do your research. While video of the theft of Christmas lights was shown to the jury, the crime for which she was convicted was breaking and entering in a completely different incident.

Whether or not you think the punishment is too severe, you are pushing a discussion on false information.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Yes, 3:24, I relied on the KHOU account which was incorrect. The comments above you clarified that at some length. S%#t happens.

Anonymous said...

There is no excuse for 70 years for stealing Christmas lights. None.