yepthatsme
Master
I have heard this on WIBC and channel 13 about James Merritt pushing to increase the minimum sentencing for violent crimes from 5 to 20 years. This caught my attention and while I can understand why many people would think this is a good idea, I'm afraid that it removes the power from the judicial system to treat each crime individually. This article mentions violent crimes, but I have heard that it might apply to a firearms only crime. If so, it does nothing to deter the brutal Westfield crime and if not, then what would define a violent crime? I think taking the power of sentencing from the courts to decide on each crime individually is the wrong thing to do. I just think that mandatory sentencing cannot properly address all situations and it would be better to leave sentencing decisions up to the courts. If it is the courts that are the problem, then fix the courts, not increase minimum sentencing. Just my
Affidavit: Westfield suspect told friend he killed two women - 13 WTHR Indianapolis
"After a rash of violent home invasions by suspects with violent priors, Merritt says he will push for tougher minimum sentences for violent crimes, from five years to twenty years. He points to the 2010 downtown shooter who wounded nine and got two years in jail. "Not acceptable," Merritt said. "We have got to crack down on violent crime.""
Affidavit: Westfield suspect told friend he killed two women - 13 WTHR Indianapolis
"After a rash of violent home invasions by suspects with violent priors, Merritt says he will push for tougher minimum sentences for violent crimes, from five years to twenty years. He points to the 2010 downtown shooter who wounded nine and got two years in jail. "Not acceptable," Merritt said. "We have got to crack down on violent crime.""