Ex-Cop gets Jail Time

[Sand]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24725536/

 

Basically its a cop who stole from people, abusing his authority to conduct "police" raids on homes then, with his partners, robbing them. He got 102 years prison time, 82 of it was mandatory because of 4 firearm convictions due to laws passed in Congress. Now does this crime warrant such a hefty sentence?

Edited May 20, 2008 by Sand

[Pope]

I doubt ex-cops even make it that long through prison.

[Volourn]

Not that I'm approving of what he did; as the guy is obviously scum. But 102 years is a tad much. It's hard for actual murderers to get even near that much. Then again, he's not only a criminal; but he abused his police pwoers which makes it worst.

 

I'd personally give him 20 years with possibility of parole after 10. No less than 10 for sure, and no more than 25. Afterall, if he got 25, he'd be 60.. And, since he no longer will be a cop once he's out of prison, it be much ahrder for him to commit the type of crimes he was committing so his trheat factor to the public isn't as high as it could be.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Volourn

[Sand]

He did this multiple times, Volourn. He was making a career out of robbing people at gunpoint and using his authority as a form of protection for himself and to intimidate others. Mind you I would love to see tougher sentincing on murderers but I feel that his sentence was just right due to what his job was and how he committed these crimes.

[Hurlshort]

I agree with Sand. With great power comes great responsibility.

[LadyCrimson]

I agree w/the idea that abusing his position of social trust/authority/power makes the crime more deserving of longer punishment. Add to that the multiple occurrences (which would make me, personally, want to convict him for each known charge) and the sentence terms can pile on - it's not like he committed only one offense to be judged/sentence on, but many multiples, each of which may carry it's own sentence term.

 

Ferguson's sentence was so severe because he was convicted of four firearms charges which carry a mandatory sentence of 82 years in prison

I don't know what a 'firearm charge' entails, but that appears to be the main reason for his massive sentence term, according to that article.

Edited May 20, 2008 by LadyCrimson

[Volourn]

I don't know when it courred; but for whatever reason it's at the point wher epeople actually think 20-25 years in prison is getting off 'light'. Seriously, 25 years in prison, and he'll be coming out a 60 year old man.

 

Jail is about punishment; but it's also about protecting society too hence why it's possible to keep certain folks in prison longer than what they're actually sentence for if there's evdience that they ar eliable to repeat their crime.

 

Let's look at the situation. the guy is 35. He abused his police pwoers, and did a lot of awful stuff. he deserves punishment. If you go by logic, 25 years in prison, he'll come out at 60, he'll no longer be a cop, and his threat level to repeat his level of crimes will be very minimized. Putting him in prison for 100+ year is over doing it, and is not suitable punishment and doesn't serve the public at all.

 

Why don't we just make the sentence 500 years, and call it even. It serves the same thing as the 100+ year thing. L0L

[LadyCrimson]

All good points, but for me the issue is more that if you did multiple crimes that can be charged/sentenced individually, you can't escape 'ridiculous' length terms without a judge going "well, 100 years is unreasonable, lets shave off/ignore several of his crimes/convictions to reduce that number."

 

And I think the reason long sentence terms are often considered "light" is simply because so often, even with such sentence, the criminal gets out of jail for one reason or another before half of the sentence is over, sometimes even with 'mandatory' and 'no chance of parole' wordings - maybe especially for non-lethal crimes.

Edited May 20, 2008 by LadyCrimson

[Sand]

Exactly, Lady Crimson. If 1st degree robbery had a mandatory sentence of 5 years, and you did this crime on 5 different victims you should be punished for each of those times, for a total of 25 years. Each count needs to be added to the sentence if one is convicted on each count, and each sentence served consequently, not concurrently.

[Hurlshort]

You can basically count on serving half the sentence you are given, unless you do something really bad in jail.

[Sand]

Unfortunately. The really need to ditch the Parole System.

[Volourn]

"Each count needs to be added to the sentence if one is convicted on each count, and each sentence served consequently, not concurrently."

 

Meh. There's a counter argument to that. Perhaps you should serve your time from the moment youa re convicted. If you are charged, and convited of 5 counts of the same crime and they're all occured at the same time you should serve them all at the same time.

 

The way i see it punishment should fit two criteria. Fair and reasonable. It may be FAIR to sentence to prison for these crimes for that long; but 100+ years is simply unreasonable under these circumstances as I illustrated above therefore it spits in the face of the spirit of law.

 

 

"The really need to ditch the Parole System"

 

Wrong. The parole system is fine itself. It just need some twinks. It's to make sure you arne't keeping people in prisoner needlessly. of cours,e it's not always easy to tell when someone should actually be paroled, or not...

[Rosbjerg]

I think it's rather ridiculous to give sentences that far extend a persons lifespan. It would be simpler to just imprison him for life, without the finite number.

 

But I think he deserves it, not only did he abuse his power - he has undermined the basis of his position - the people have to be able to trust the police. He has destroyed alot doing this, not only did he financially hurt innocent people, he probably traumatized a few as well. Maybe they won't call the cops next time, which could be disasterous.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The police should face harsher sentences than ordinary people when they commit crimes. I'd say take the punishment an ordinary person would have got for the same crime and double it. This sentence looks a little steep for someone who didn't actually commit murder, though.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think the system of sentence that both you americans and us swedes have is a bit strange. Reason and logic dictates that the punishment must be relative to the crime and unless youve killed a whole bunch of people and eaten their brains for breakfast, theres no way that you deserve 82 friggin years in prison.

[thepixiesrock]

The police should face harsher sentences than ordinary people when they commit crimes. I'd say take the punishment an ordinary person would have got for the same crime and double it.

 

That's kind of ridiculous. I mean, it could potentially be alright if it's only increased in a case where they are using thier police status to cause harm to someone under the guise of being a police officer.

 

So for example, if a cop beats someone using the fact that they are a cop to ge tthe drop on them and gain an advantage, like if they are searching someone and start beating them or questioning someone and start beating them, or soemthing like that, then yeah. If the cop just starts assaulting someone, like, maybe his wife is having an affair with some guy, or he gets in some bar fight, or he just likes beating people up, and the other person doesn't even know they are a cop because the guy is off duty or soemthing, then no, there shouldn't be a larger sentance or penalty, because he wasn't using his copness get gain some sort of advantage over someone.

[Kelverin]

I think the system of sentence that both you americans and us swedes have is a bit strange. Reason and logic dictates that the punishment must be relative to the crime and unless youve killed a whole bunch of people and eaten their brains for breakfast, theres no way that you deserve 82 friggin years in prison.

I wonder if the friends and families and the victims themselves would agree with you, or god forbid if it happened to you, let him fry and save the taxpayers some money. Unless of course he can be rehabilitated

[~Di]

When a police officer uses his position of authority to rob, extort, commit basically home invasion and kidnapping, all with the use of a firearm... and has multiple convictions to boot, then I'm all for the maximum sentence. Police officers should be held to a higher standard, just as those who commit crimes against police officers are held to a higher standard.

[Volourn]

"I wonder if the friends and families and the victims themselves would agree with you, or god forbid if it happened to you, let him fry and save the taxpayers some money."

 

The law is not about revenge or street justice. And, there's a reason why we have court systems - so people don't need to play vigilante. In fact, last i check, it's illegal to do so. Not neccessarily always immoral, though...

[Yuusha]

When a police officer uses his position of authority to rob, extort, commit basically home invasion and kidnapping, all with the use of a firearm... and has multiple convictions to boot, then I'm all for the maximum sentence. Police officers should be held to a higher standard, just as those who commit crimes against police officers are held to a higher standard.

I agree. The thought of a police officer robbing/extorting the very ones they were supposed to protect sickens me.

[Gorgon]

He should get more than If he were not wearing a badge while robbing so many people. The sentence amounts to life in prison, so it doesn't matter if its 82 or 1000 years. In my opinion he should be given the possibility of parole when he too old to contemplate doing anything like that again.

[Aram]

For 40+ armed home invasions he should get such a sentence. For 40+ armed home invasions taking advantage of the constitution-ripping powers we let police officers have, and the people's fear of them, he should be taken out back and shot. As if it wasn't bad enough that criminals have staged false no-knock raids--now the real ones are? He's betrayed the people's trust in a very dangerous way and he should be punished severely for it.

[Sand]

Wow. More people agree with me than I thought there would be.

[Volourn]

People can be vengeful.

[Kelverin]

People can be vengeful.

Which this guy will find out first hand in prison.