Deleted
I have made 0 posts
Right now I'm Offline
I joined January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 21:41:42 GMT -6
I was just reading something on this I found curious perhaps someone could explain to me "The prison term Watkins handed down was the minimum allowed by law. Batey, 22, must serve all 15 years." Is this something based on the states these two separate cases happened in? I'm not sure I quite understand how one place can give someone 6 months and then in the same country another carries a minimum of 15 years for the same crime? The Judge in this case has a history of doing this with offenders and it seems it's "rich win" "poor lose" or "brown skin you lose." There is a pettition against him being raised but it won't do any good. That aside this is kind of a head scratcher for me Brock Turner: "The 20-year-old from Dayton, Ohio – who was convicted of three felonies, including assault with intent to rape – faced a maximum of 14 years in prison."Watkins: "The prison term Watkins handed down was the minimum allowed by law. Batey, 22, must serve all 15 years." So in one state you must hand out at LEAST 15 years for the crime of rape and in another you can only have a MAX of 14 years for rape? That seems like a pretty extreme difference for min/max mandatory time
|
|