8 years for a bag o'shredded cheese

2010-03-03 13:27:46

#1

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma … ing-cheese

A California man has been sentenced to up to eight years in prison for stealing a $3.99 (£2.60) bag of shredded cheese in a case critics say shows the need for reform of the state's criminal justice system and the overcrowded state of its prisons.

Robert Ferguson, who prosecutors say has a nearly 30-year record of convictions for burglary and other offences, avoided a life sentence under the state's controversial "three strikes" law after a psychological evaluation deemed him bipolar and unable to control his impulses to steal, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Prosecutor Clinton Parish said Ferguson had spent 22 of the past 27 years behind bars but had failed to show he could obey the law. A judge sentenced him to seven years and eight months in prison, but he could be eligible for parole in three years.

The ruling came amid critical overcrowding in the California prison system, to which years of tough policies, the "war on drugs" and one of the highest US recidivism rates have contributed. The system held 166,569 inmates in August, but remains so overcrowded nearly 8,000 have been sent to prisons outside the state.

The state's three strikes law, passed in 1994, significantly increased the amount of time repeat convicted criminals serve in prison. It provides 25 years to life in prison for a third felony conviction by an offender with two or more prior serious or violent criminal convictions. As of March 2008, more than 41,000 people were in prison under the three strikes law. A 2005 legislative report estimated the law, including its application to nonviolent offences, added about $0.5bn in costs annually.

With prisoners stacked three-high in bunk beds in gymnasiums and packed into hallways and classrooms, California's prison system is so overcrowded that a series of judges have ruled conditions violate the US constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Last month, a federal judge ordered the state to reduce overcrowding by 55,000, the same week that a state court approved a life sentence for a man convicted of possessing 0.03 grams of methamphetamine.

America's most populous state has been crippled by political discord, unable to close a $20bn budget gap. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a 12% cut in the state's prison budget, to $8.1bn.

Insane innit? Pretty sure locking up people for stupid shit like this in a ridiculously overcrowded prison system is a dumb state of affairs.

2010-03-03 13:31:58

#2

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5649|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/03/california-eight-years-stealing-cheese
Insane innit? Pretty sure locking up people for stupid shit like this in a ridiculously overcrowded prison system is a dumb state of affairs.

He's been in jail for 22 of the past 27 years according to the article. You'd think he would try to avoid committing a crime and ending up back in the same place. Yes, the offense is trivial but you can't ignore the fact that the guy doesn't belong in society.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-03-03 13:36:23

#3

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

true, but also according to the article he's certified with a mental disorder so whatcha gonna do? US prisons are full of people jailed for minor offences and the mentally ill. Also mentioned in the article is jailing someone for life for 0.03 grams of metamphetamine. Just madness tbh.

2010-03-03 13:42:59

#4

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5649|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
true, but also according to the article he's certified with a mental disorder so whatcha gonna do? US prisons are full of people jailed for minor offences and the mentally ill. Also mentioned in the article is jailing someone for life for 0.03 grams of metamphetamine. Just madness tbh.

Has to be a repeat offense. As for what we can do. Not a whole lot. It doesn't matter if a person is mentally ill, the law is the law. People aren't generally sent to prison for minor offenses unless they had prior convictions.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-03-03 13:44:14

#5

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

yep the law is the law. but the law is an ass as someone once said. Just cos it's the law doesn't mean it's automatically right or the best thing. In this case, it's dumb imo, especially given the state of the prison system and crime rates in the US...

2010-03-03 13:55:14

#6

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5649|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
yep the law is the law. but the law is an ass as someone once said. Just cos it's the law doesn't mean it's automatically right or the best thing. In this case, it's dumb imo, especially given the state of the prison system and crime rates in the US...

The vast majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Sending them to Club Med like we do with cable tv, gyms etc plus removing their need to provide for themselves is why they end up back in jail.

They're told when to eat, sleep, workout etc. People become dependent on that lifestyle and can't adjust to life outside of it. So, they either go back to stealing to get by or they go out and steal because they want to go back to jail. Frankly, life is easier inside of our jails than it is outside of them, is there any wonder people commit crime?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-03-03 13:56:19

#7

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5550|foggy bottom

i would never call our prisons club med. prison is bad. gang rape is bad. solitude is bad. being stabbed by toothbrushes is bad

ruisleipa wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
Insane innit?
why do you bother? If yuo have nothing of interest to say please don't post.

quit trolling

you asked a question I gave a response

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-03-03 13:57:08)

Tu Stultus Es

2010-03-03 13:56:46

#8

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

JohnG@lt wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
yep the law is the law. but the law is an ass as someone once said. Just cos it's the law doesn't mean it's automatically right or the best thing. In this case, it's dumb imo, especially given the state of the prison system and crime rates in the US...
The vast majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Sending them to Club Med like we do with cable tv, gyms etc plus removing their need to provide for themselves is why they end up back in jail.

They're told when to eat, sleep, workout etc. People become dependent on that lifestyle and can't adjust to life outside of it. So, they either go back to stealing to get by or they go out and steal because they want to go back to jail. Frankly, life is easier inside of our jails than it is outside of them, is there any wonder people commit crime?

I see what you're saying in some respects but...are you actually arguing people commit crimes becasue they WANT to go to prison?

2010-03-03 14:06:02

#9

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5649|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
yep the law is the law. but the law is an ass as someone once said. Just cos it's the law doesn't mean it's automatically right or the best thing. In this case, it's dumb imo, especially given the state of the prison system and crime rates in the US...
The vast majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Sending them to Club Med like we do with cable tv, gyms etc plus removing their need to provide for themselves is why they end up back in jail.

They're told when to eat, sleep, workout etc. People become dependent on that lifestyle and can't adjust to life outside of it. So, they either go back to stealing to get by or they go out and steal because they want to go back to jail. Frankly, life is easier inside of our jails than it is outside of them, is there any wonder people commit crime?
I see what you're saying in some respects but...are you actually arguing people commit crimes becasue they WANT to go to prison?

Yes in some cases. In others, prison doesn't act as a deterrent because they've been there, experienced it, and view it as a sort of vacation So even if they get caught, the consequences aren't that bad.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-03-03 14:07:11

#10

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6788

mini mod

the "US" and "California" are not interchangeable.
jail sucks, prison is higher education for crooks.

2010-03-03 14:07:51

#11

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

eleven bravo wrote:
wow. I contributed and youre telling me to GTFO. how have you not been banned yet?

saying 'no' isn't contributing.

JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes in some cases. In others, prison doesn't act as a deterrent because they've been there, experienced it, and view it as a sort of vacation So even if they get caught, the consequences aren't that bad.

alright, but those few aside, if we accept that happens, the main question is should people be jailed for years for incredibly minor offences? I'd say no, again given the parlous state of affairs in the US prison system. And yeah I know the US isn't California but the same law is in place in other states isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. Even more so if jail is 'higher education' for criminals...?

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-03 14:10:33)

2010-03-03 14:13:10

#12

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5649|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
wow. I contributed and youre telling me to GTFO. how have you not been banned yet?
saying 'no' isn't contributing.

JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes in some cases. In others, prison doesn't act as a deterrent because they've been there, experienced it, and view it as a sort of vacation So even if they get caught, the consequences aren't that bad.
alright, but those few aside, if we accept that happens, the main question is should people be jailed for years for incredibly minor offences? I'd say no, again given the parlous state of affairs in the US prison system. And yeah I know the US isn't California but the same law is in place in other states isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. Even more so if jail is 'higher education' for criminals...?

Every state has it's own judicial system and punishes as it sees fit. California, for all the talk of it being a 'liberal' state, has some of the most draconian laws on the books along with mandatory prison sentencing.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-03-03 14:14:53

#13

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

JohnG@lt wrote:
Every state has it's own judicial system and punishes as it sees fit. California, for all the talk of it being a 'liberal' state, has some of the most draconian laws on the books along with mandatory prison sentencing.

so the same thing wouldn't happen in other states? I didn't realise states had such different laws. Always figured some things like speed limits or something could change but life sentencing and so on would be the same everywhere. Well, california's system is fucked up then imo...

2010-03-03 14:17:48

#14

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6788

okay, jail = misdemeanors and non violent felonies < one year time sentenced
prison = violent or repeat felonies > one year sentenced

jail=/=prison

the laws are strictly state by state, the Feds have their own system. (Club Fed, witness protection, etc)

California enacted a three strikes law. Homie violated it. GG Homie, hope the cheese was worth it . . .

2010-03-03 14:18:06

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5649|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Every state has it's own judicial system and punishes as it sees fit. California, for all the talk of it being a 'liberal' state, has some of the most draconian laws on the books along with mandatory prison sentencing.
so the same thing wouldn't happen in other states? I didn't realise states had such different laws. Always figured some things like speed limits or something could change but life sentencing and so on would be the same everywhere. Well, california's system is fucked up then imo...

Some states have the death penalty. Some don't. Some send you to prison for 20 years for a dimebag, some slap you on the wrist. Stuff like murder and rape will get you a life sentence across the board.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-03-03 14:27:49

#16

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6833|Texas - Bigger than France

ruisleipa wrote:
true, but also according to the article he's certified with a mental disorder so whatcha gonna do? US prisons are full of people jailed for minor offences and the mentally ill. Also mentioned in the article is jailing someone for life for 0.03 grams of metamphetamine. Just madness tbh.

According to the article he's certified bipolar.

According to a jury he's guilty.

That's a major difference.

Are you arguing that people shouldn't go to jail for breaking the law or the punishment should be different?

BTW, that's one of the issues I'm torn about - on one hand, people shouldn't be convicted based on past crimes, but on the other hand - quit fucking breaking the law and see where that gets you instead.

I say build more jails, since California is looking for more jobs.

2010-03-03 14:30:54

#17

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6923|949

Unfortunately Rus it seems you fail at understanding our sentencing guidelines here in California. He wasn't sentenced to 7 years for stealing a bag of cheese, he was sentenced for being a gross repeater. The state has seemingly decided that he is unable to obey the law, as evidenced by multiple incarcerations for myriad offenses. We have what is referred to as a 'three strikes' law, where the state can give multiple felons increasing jail time - a play on the "three strikes and you're out" rule from baseball. It is controversial to say the least, with many people feeling it does not go far enough in punishing offenders (we have ridiculous recidivism rates in California) and many arguing that it goes too far (being able to go back and charge offenders with felonies for prior criminal behavior that were originally charged as misdemeanors in order to satisfy the three strikes sentencing guidelines).

People complained (often loudly) a few decades ago for prison reform because our jail system was overcrowded, and what we got was revised and relaxed sentencing guidelines. Another faction argued that these reduced sentences let out gross repeat offenders, and used instances of repeat criminals caught for violent crimes like rape and murder as examples. Thus what we have is a sort of ebb and flow every thirty years or so of reduced sentencing followed by stricter sentencing. Unfortunately one must make an effort to understand the system here before simply reading a headline and thrusting it out upon the public as evidence that us Californians are backwards cold-hearted bastards.

Rus, what do you suggest the punishment should be for a person that has shown time and time again a wanton disregard for the law? Personally I don't think locking a person up for 7+ years (with possibility of parole after 3) for repeated stealing is a good idea at all, but I clearly understand the logic in doing so.

2010-03-03 14:36:11

#18

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6833|Texas - Bigger than France

JohnG@lt wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Every state has it's own judicial system and punishes as it sees fit. California, for all the talk of it being a 'liberal' state, has some of the most draconian laws on the books along with mandatory prison sentencing.
so the same thing wouldn't happen in other states? I didn't realise states had such different laws. Always figured some things like speed limits or something could change but life sentencing and so on would be the same everywhere. Well, california's system is fucked up then imo...
Some states have the death penalty. Some don't. Some send you to prison for 20 years for a dimebag, some slap you on the wrist. Stuff like murder and rape will get you a life sentence across the board.

I thought drugs were in there with murder and rape re: across the board.

One more thought re: across the board. I thought that it was three felonies and you're out, which was the 1994 law change in the article. I think they brought that up to explain why the prisons were overcrowded, not why the cheese stealer got eight years. IMO the article was a little light "dude got eight years for bag o' gratin", so they added a whole bunch of crap to heighten the tone. Another example of over-reporting.

But on the other hand, from now on I'm going to point at people when I get pissed at them, stare and yell "CHEESE STEALER", followed by "WHAT? DON'T LOOK AT ME LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT".

2010-03-03 14:38:05

#19

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6813|...

I guess it would seem silly if it were the only thing the guy ever did. Typically if you are a chronic offender it takes only small infractions to put you back in. Perhaps instead of prison we should send them to the utopia of Finland.

Last edited by jsnipy (2010-03-03 14:38:30)

2010-03-03 15:07:17

#20

Chou: Member; +737|7081

By keeping this man off the streets for a long period of time, his mind will be set to a different pattern of thinking and if it's long enough to drive him tired, he will learn from the process.

2010-03-03 15:14:06

#21

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6820|Global Command

I think shorter amounts of time in much harder conditions are the key.

If the guy had had to break rocks for 14 hours a day the first time he went in he may never have had to go back.

2010-03-03 15:20:34

#22

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6958

ATG wrote:
I think shorter amounts of time in much harder conditions are the key.

If the guy had had to break rocks for 14 hours a day the first time he went in he may never have had to go back.

I agree, but the ACLU would have a field day.

2010-03-03 20:01:27

#23

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,057|7062|PNW

I sure feel safe now that he's behind bars. It's not like they're letting anyone WORSE out...are they?

/sarcasm

2010-03-03 20:45:27

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6696|North Carolina

If the guy is mentally ill, throw him in a padded room, not a jail cell.

2010-03-03 21:41:20

#25

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

Pug wrote:
According to the article he's certified bipolar.

According to a jury he's guilty.

That's a major difference.

Are you arguing that people shouldn't go to jail for breaking the law or the punishment should be different?

BTW, that's one of the issues I'm torn about - on one hand, people shouldn't be convicted based on past crimes, but on the other hand - quit fucking breaking the law and see where that gets you instead.

I say build more jails, since California is looking for more jobs.

I wouldn't always trust a jury to determine a man's mentla condition would you?

I'm arguing the punishment should be different, and that often people shouldn't be sent to jail - so both in fact.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Unfortunately Rus it seems you fail at understanding our sentencing guidelines here in California.

...

Thus what we have is a sort of ebb and flow every thirty years or so of reduced sentencing followed by stricter sentencing. Unfortunately one must make an effort to understand the system here before simply reading a headline and thrusting it out upon the public as evidence that us Californians are backwards cold-hearted bastards.

Rus, what do you suggest the punishment should be for a person that has shown time and time again a wanton disregard for the law? Personally I don't think locking a person up for 7+ years (with possibility of parole after 3) for repeated stealing is a good idea at all, but I clearly understand the logic in doing so.

No I understood the reason he was sentenced. I read the article. The headline was just a catchy one, that's all.

Never said anyone in cali was a clod-hearted bastard. Don't put words in my mouth.

Thank you for explaingin the situation, I am now more well-informed than I was. I don't have a magic answer to the problem, but I'm certain there are thousands of people locked up in California (and the USA as a whole) who probably 'shouldn't' be there - for example for minor marijuana convictions. The three strike rule is stupid. The three strikes could be for grievous bodily harm or for stealing three bags of cheese. Should the first go to prison? Probably. Should the second? probably not. Even if he was a repeat offender and tried to steal 30 bags of cheese, he shouldn't necessarly go to prison.

jsnipy wrote:
I guess it would seem silly if it were the only thing the guy ever did. Typically if you are a chronic offender it takes only small infractions to put you back in. Perhaps instead of prison we should send them to the utopia of Finland.

What kind of a dumb response is that? What's your point? What has Finland got ot do with anything? Are you jealous?

ATG wrote:
I think shorter amounts of time in much harder conditions are the key.

If the guy had had to break rocks for 14 hours a day the first time he went in he may never have had to go back.

Amazingly you might have a point ATG.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I sure feel safe now that he's behind bars. It's not like they're letting anyone WORSE out...are they?

/sarcasm

Exactly - wouldn't they have to let someone else out who could be a much bigger danger to society than this guy to fit him in?

Turquoise wrote:
If the guy is mentally ill, throw him in a padded room, not a jail cell.

Well a padded cell might be a bit OTT but some medical help perhaps.

BF2S Forums 8 years for a bag o'shredded cheese

ruisleipa wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ATG wrote:

Pug wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

ATG wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer