• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Man sees "cruel" face of U.S. justice (GAF - I just don't see the point anymore)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yahoo said:
MIAMI (Reuters) - Quartavious Davis is still shocked by what happened to him in federal court two months ago.

"My first offense, and they gave me all this time," said Davis, a pudgy African American with dreadlocks who spoke with Reuters at the Federal Detention Center in Miami. "Might just as well say I'm dead."

Davis was convicted of participating in a string of armed robberies in the Miami area in 2010. His accomplices testified against him, saying he carried a gun during their crimes and discharged it at a dog that chased them after one of their burglaries. But Davis was not convicted of hurting anyone physically, including the dog.

Davis would occupy no place at all in the annals of crime if not for his sentence. Now 20 years old, he was sentenced to 1,941 months - almost 162 years - in prison without the possibility of parole.


On the day of Davis's interview with Reuters, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that life sentences without parole for defendants under the age of 18 constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" even in cases of murder. Unfortunately for Davis, he was 18 at the time of his crimes.

Nonetheless, Davis's attorney will argue that Davis's sentence to die in prison also constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" on the grounds that Davis is a "first offender," having never before been charged with a crime.

"Just as the Supreme Court recently held that the Constitution bars taking away all discretion from judges in sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment for committing murder," said the attorney, Jacqueline Shapiro, "so also is it cruel and extreme to allow unfettered prosecutorial discretion to force a sentencing judge to impose a life sentence on a teenage first offender convicted of lesser charges."

Davis's unusually long sentence results from a controversial practice known as "stacking," in which each count of an indictment is counted as a separate crime, thus transforming a first-time defendant into a "habitual criminal" subject to multiple sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines.

"Any law that provides for a mandatory term of imprisonment for a 19-year-old first offender that exceeds a century has got to be unconstitutional," said Michael Zelman, the court-appointed attorney who represented Davis at his trial.

Zelman resigned from Davis's case after filing a notice of appeal. If Davis's new lawyer, Shapiro, has her way, the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the issue. The case will be appealed first to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Until then, Davis's story will be a prominent case in point for both sides in an increasingly heated debate, pitting those who would protect society from the prospective dangers posed by serial criminals against those who see the United States - whose overcrowded prisons house fully one-quarter of all the prisoners in the world, most of them black - as a bastion of injustice.

ODD MAN OUT

When he was arrested on December 23, 2010, Davis was an unemployed high school dropout living with an aunt in Goulds, Florida, a poor, predominantly black neighborhood south of Miami.

According to expert testimony at his trial, Davis suffers from a learning disability and bipolar disorder.

At the time of his arrest, he told Reuters, he was living on $674 a month in Social Security disability payments and hoping to get back into school to learn a trade.


On February 9 of this year he was convicted of committing seven armed robberies at fast-food restaurants, a Walgreens pharmacy and other commercial establishments in the Miami area from August to October of 2010.

Davis, who still maintains his innocence, was the only one of the six men charged who went to trial. The others cut plea deals that left them with sentences of nine to 22 years in prison.

As the odd man out, Davis was convicted largely on the basis of his accomplices' testimony, court documents show.

Davis, who was not identified as the group's ringleader, claims he was never offered a plea bargain.


Davis's ex-attorney, Zelman, declined to comment on this point, citing attorney-client privilege.

Prosecutors declined to comment on any aspect of this story.

During the prison interview, Davis was advised by Shapiro not to discuss many specifics about his case.

According to the trial transcript, one of Davis's accomplices testified that he fired his weapon on two occasions - at the dog who chased him and 11 days later outside a Wendy's restaurant they had just robbed. He said Davis traded gunshots with a customer at the restaurant as he and three others sped away in their getaway car.

The accounts of Davis's firing his gun were otherwise uncorroborated.


The armed customer outside Wendy's, Dade County Public Schools maintenance worker Antonio Lamont Brooks, was unable to offer positive identification of the man with whom he exchanged gunfire. But he was uninjured and managed to squeeze off enough rounds from his 9mm handgun to leave one of Davis's accomplices with a bullet wound in his left buttock.

TOUGH PROSECUTORS

It is not clear why prosecutors decided to throw the full weight of the law at Davis.
Florida, though, has a history of "very zealous" prosecutions, according to Marc Mauer, executive director of the Washington-based Sentencing Project, which advocates for reform in the criminal-justice system.

For example, Florida leads in the number of juveniles sentenced to life without parole for lesser crimes than murder, sentences the Supreme Court declared to be unconstitutional in 2010. Florida and other states are now trying to determine how to resentence or grant parole to inmates affected by that ruling.

According to a recent study by the Pew Center on the States, Florida was first, among the 35 states reporting, in increases in time served in its prisons from 1990 to 2009.

In one recent, highly controversial Florida sentencing, Marissa Alexander, an African-American woman in Jacksonville with no previous criminal record, was sentenced to 20 years for firing a pistol twice into the air while trying to ward off an attack by her abusive husband. Denied the protection of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, the 31-year-old mother of three was convicted of aggravated assault, a felony, and given the mandatory sentence for anyone who fires a gun in commission of the felony.

Davis's sentencing has not generated the same degree of public interest.

"THE INSTALLMENT PLAN"

Davis was convicted of seven counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, an offense punishable under the so-called mandatory minimum sentences imposed by Congress since the late 1980s.

Mauer said such sentences have been associated with an 800 percent increase in the federal prison population since 1980.

Davis received seven years for the first of the firearm counts against him and 25 years apiece for each of the six subsequent counts. The law, as written by Congress, requires the sentences to be served consecutively. In prison slang, such sentences are sometimes referred to as "life on the installment plan" or "running wild."

In a report to Congress last October, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal courts, noted that many law enforcement officials, including New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, viewed mandatory minimum penalties as an important "investigative tool" because they provide leverage over suspects and help persuade them to cooperate with the authorities in exchange for lesser charges.

"In addition to their deterrent effect, some policymakers assert that mandatory minimum penalties reduce crime by incapacitating criminals and protecting the public from their potential future offenses," the commission said.

At the same time, it criticized certain aspects of the mandatory minimum laws, observing that the practice of stacking, in particular, can result in "excessively severe and unjust sentences."

Since 2003 the Justice Department has had guidelines in place that discourage prosecutors from stacking in cases where it can lead to excessive sentences.

Yet prosecutors have broad discretion within their jurisdictions to follow their own lights, according to criminal-law experts.

In a statement issued the day after the sentencing, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Wifredo Ferrer hailed Davis's lock-up for life as sending an unmistakable warning to anyone seeking to profit from violent crime.

"We will not allow our community to be overrun by guns and violence," he said.

Although he has no alternative explanation, Davis cannot accept that that is the real reason he will have to die in prison.

"There ain't no justice in the justice system," he said, gazing down at his olive-green prison jumpsuit and beige rubber sandals.

"I ain't going to never accept what happened," he added. "They know what they did isn't right."

Source
 
I never understood the wild variation in sentencing time for criminal cases. Some people go to jail for like 30 years for selling weed and some people do like 2 and a half for murder. It seems totally random.
 
I never understood the wild variation in sentencing time for criminal cases. Some people go to jail for like 30 years for selling weed and some people do like 2 and a half for murder. It seems totally random.
Hmm..I wouldn't say it was "random" there are certain variables that do effect the harshness of sentencing.
 

Verdre

Unconfirmed Member
His sentence is way out of proportion to the crime, but that article seems to be trying to spin it so you wouldn't think this poor, pudgy guy would ever be involved in armed robbery.
 

Kwixotik

Member
I would probably emigrate if my whole family didn't live in the US. Our system is just too fucked to be fixed in my lifetime.

His sentence is way out of proportion to the crime, but that article seems to be trying to spin it so you wouldn't think this poor, pudgy guy would ever be involved in armed robbery.

Why would you, if he has no previous record?
 
162 years is unjust, but I'm not going to weep for a stick-up man who tried to kill a dog.

He didn't even kill it though. How can you give a guy who didn't kill something more jail time than someone who actually killed a human being?

I know everyone has their opinions, but yours is fucked.
 

Alvarius

Banned
He didn't even kill it though. How can you give a guy who didn't kill something more jail time than someone who actually killed a human being?

I know everyone has their opinions, but yours is fucked.
You misread what I said.

I agree with you that the sentence is unjust, and if I were the judge I would've given him a sentence to fit what actually happened. But, personally, I'm not going to waste emotion on a stick-up man who tried to kill a dog.
 

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
I would probably emigrate if my whole family didn't live in the US. Our system is just too fucked to be fixed in my lifetime.



Why would you, if he has no previous record?

As someone who has lived overseas, I hate to break it to you but the justice systems in other nations are just as bad, and in many cases far far worse.
 

Polari

Member
162 years is pretty messed up. I don't really see how a sentence that long benefits anyone, including the state.
 

Alvarius

Banned
I saw what you wrote, it was predicated on the fact though that you didn't feel sorry for someone who tried to kill a dog, yet you feel his sentence is unjust. Take your pick, do you feel sorry or not?
His sentence is unjust, but I don't feel anything about it... because he's a stick-up man who tried to kill a dog.
 
Armed robbery is so incredibly dumb. High risk of killing someone or getting killed, and long prison sentence if you get caught. Fast food places don't have much cash either. Burglary and selling drugs would be more lucrative and safer. Also plenty of high school dropouts can find legal jobs.
 

2San

Member
162 years is pretty messed up. I don't really see how a sentence that long benefits anyone, including the state.
Don't prisoners in the USA have to do forced labor? I'm not sure, since it's been a while since I read this.
 

Verdre

Unconfirmed Member
Why would you, if he has no previous record?

I'm not saying "guilty until proven innocent." I'm simply saying that someone's looks have no bearing on whether they could have or could not have committed a crime and I think it's disingenuous to try to play that up in a news article.
 

Slayer-33

Liverpool-2
Did everyone miss this?

Davis's unusually long sentence results from a controversial practice known as "stacking," in which each count of an indictment is counted as a separate crime, thus transforming a first-time defendant into a "habitual criminal" subject to multiple sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines.

What the fuck is that?
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Another missed G-A-F opportunity.

Anyways, this story is another example of the injustice African Americans face.
162 years is pretty messed up. I don't really see how a sentence that long benefits anyone, including the state.
Prison is probably owned by a private entity. Dat US tax paper money.
 

Alvarius

Banned
ONE BILLION YEARS!
image.php
 

Korgill

Member
I would feel bad for him if it wasn't a string of armed robberies. I agree that it shouldn't count as a first offense just because this is the first time he got caught. The OP is very clear that if it was his first and only offense, he would have gotten 7 years if the judge wanted to be hard on him.

Life sucks for a lot of people, get over it and fix it as best you can. Get a gun and try and rob multiple places, be happy you will have the chance to die in prison instead of getting shot trying to run.
 

Kettch

Member
Even scarier than the absurd sentencing is:

As the odd man out, Davis was convicted largely on the basis of his accomplices' testimony, court documents show.

I sure as hell hope there was more evidence for his conviction than the words of those who admitted to the crime.
 

Arment

Member
That is definitely an odd sentence. Usually you get 10 years for a gun charge and 5 for the robbery. I guess if he robbed enough places he'd get more years for the robbery. Not sure.
 
Jailtime should relfect the crime though.

How much jail time do you suggest for armed robbery? Now multiply that by 7. Not to mention jailtime for firing at both a dog and a random customer.

The guy isn't guilty of a momentary lapse in judgement. He's guilty of committing multiple crimes at different times without once thinking better of it. You want to let him off for his first offence, fine. He'll still be held accountable for the other six.
 

DarkFlow

Banned
162 years is unjust, but I'm not going to weep for a stick-up man who tried to kill a dog.
The only people who said he shot the gun are the other dimwits who are trying to get less time. They threw this dude under the bus to save there own ass.
 

legend166

Member
In one recent, highly controversial Florida sentencing, Marissa Alexander, an African-American woman in Jacksonville with no previous criminal record, was sentenced to 20 years for firing a pistol twice into the air while trying to ward off an attack by her abusive husband. Denied the protection of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, the 31-year-old mother of three was convicted of aggravated assault, a felony, and given the mandatory sentence for anyone who fires a gun in commission of the felony.

What. The. Hell.
 
How much jail time do you suggest for armed robbery? Now multiply that by 7. Not to mention jailtime for firing at both a dog and a random customer.

The guy isn't guilty of a momentary lapse in judgement. He's guilty of committing multiple crimes at different times without once thinking better of it. You want to let him off for his first offence, fine. He'll still be held accountable for the other six.

YES!

and avatar quote.
 

DiscoJer

Member
While it was 7 armed robberies, he didn't actually hurt anyone. Even when he fired the gun, it was at the dog chasing him or shooting back at the other guy.

I'm not defending his actions, but there has to be a reason for criminals to not simply kill people (or do extremely bad things). If he gets life in jail, then why shouldn't he have executed every person in those stores? The death penalty, but who knows how much longer that will last, and some might consider that preferable to spending their days locked up.

It's like in the movie Heat. At the first robbery of the armored car, they had to kill one of the guards. Since the penalty for killing more than one person was no worse than killing one, they executed the rest of the guards so as to eliminate witnesses.

Someone like this wouldn't think about something like that, but a hardened, professional criminal would factor it into his crimes. Sentences need not to just simply deter crime, but deter the worst type of crime (murder). By giving the life sentence so much, we've reduced the incentive to not kill people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom