Marijuana.com

urania3

I am still interested in knowing how parole is double jeopardy.

__________________

Why is it that we cannot face the simple truth? Religion is at best unsubstantiated superstition. (Massimo Pigliucci)

 

dedbr

... Say a person is sentenced to prison for having several plant's, and the weight of these plant's were over what's called the bulk amount; that's why he was in prison. He get's out and is on parole, he is urine screened and test's positive for marijuana, which would be a misdemeanor. He could be re-sentenced to more time in prison on the original crime, even tho it had nothing to do with the original crime.
I know, I hear ya, he broke the law again. But, here in Ohio, in '96, they determined that it was "double jeopardy" because he was being sentenced for the same crime twice.
So, having been found to be illegal in Ohio, state lawmaker's had to come up with an alternative. In session it was called the "Crime Bill", and it increased penalties for most crimes, because that was basically what parole was anyway, but lightened the law's in other way's, like with herb.
What the "Crime Bill" basically did was legthened sentences and got rid of the word "parole" from the Ohio Correction's system. Instead of parole they use the word's "Post Release Control". Guy's like me come up with these catchy little phrases. Same sh*t,we used to say in the word business, just a different label on the can.
So what they did was legislate a word out of existance. Happen's all the time. It's called political correctness.

(Dedbr peek's out of the bunker...)

Gotta keep your head down. They might legislate us out of existance...

Ded

__________________
"Starry, starry night, Paint your pallet blue and gray, Look out on a summers day,
With eyes that know the darkness of my soul, Shadows on the hills, Sketch the trees and the daffodils, Catch the breeze and the winter chill, In colors in the snowy linen land......"

Vincent.... Don Mclean


Posting Guidelines!

killer12382

Is it really double jeopardy as his release from prison was conditional based on a set of standards the parole board set for that person. The guy was given a choice: Finish out your sentence or be released early and obey our rules that we set for you. Now it would be double jeopardy if they caught him with a joint after he had finished his entire sentence and then decided to go after him again on the original charge that got him sent to prison in the first place.

killer12382

Correction on my last post.

"He could be re-sentenced to more time in prison on the original crime"

Now that would be wrong. At worst they should only be able to make him finish his original sentence.
Sorry dedbr.

dedbr

That was .....civil!

In the case of the Ohio supreme court, I believe you have raised the argument that was presented by the opposition, but of course the justices didn't rule that way, they ruled that indeterminate sentencing was "double jeopardy."
The case that was used as the precedent, I believe, was the case of a man who was re-sentenced for the same charge that he was put in prison for twenty year's before. If that isn't cruel and unusual punishment, they don't need the word's in the Constitution. His original sentence was only one to five year's.

( Dedbr stand's back and look's at the clean, white bunker.....)

Killer, I've got a bunker pass for ya if you keep playin' nice!

Ded

 

killer12382

Okay, lets play a game of "What if".
Lets say this guy gets convicted of a crime and gets sentenced. While in jail, his cracker jack lawyers get the verdict overturned and the judge orders a new trial. This new trial goes the same way as the last trial and he loses. The original judge in the case didn't throw the book at him the first time. This new judge has a differnent opinion of this guy. Question: Do you think he is bound by the sentence of the first judge or can he apply a new sentence? Is it a case of "You pays your money and you takes your chances"?

dedbr

"New Trial" usually mean's just that. The only difference is that the reason for the new trial will be a questionable action in the previous trial or testimony or evidence that will not be allowed in the new trial.
The new judge is not supposed to prejudice himself by having any contact with the previous trial, so he would not know the previous sentence.
That's the way it's supposed to work, anyway....

It is a case of "Paying your quarter and taking your chances"...

( Dedbr pick's up his Hookah hose...)

I ain't no genius...but what I know's, I know's.... ..F. Lee Bailey? Nah...I'm just..

Ded

urania3

Forget "what ifs".

I thought the idea of the revised statues was to promote "truth in sentencing": the prison term imposed by the judge in open court is the prison term the offender will serve.

Also, to which Ohio court case do you refer? State v. Gustafson (1996)?

dedbr

Your right about this, and in theory it sound's good, but in practice here's how it work's.

They elimate parole, which the offender has no choice about, and institute Post Release Control, which is parole with a different name, and which they make the offender agree to as part of the plea agreement. So they still have parole, just under a different name,and since the offender agree's to it as part of the plea agreement, it's no longer against the supreme court ruling.

Between the supreme court ruling and the new law's enactment, they were still using the old plea bargaining law's,but when they offered the agreement, and it was accepted, they made the offender sign a paper saying he was not offered a deal , since it was now illegal to offer this deal in the first place!

How is it possible you say? I have no idea about that one, and I'll probably catch hell for this statement, but that's the way the legal system work's sometime's. It's sad but true.

Of course, a lawyer would say that there must be time allowed for adjusment's that must follow court decision's like this, but does that mean that the law must be broken until they figure out how to do that?

( Dedbr pull's out the criminal code's for Ohio book....)

I try and keep up with it,because it's these self same law's that can affect us as far as our right's, too. I don't trust them just because of slick stuff like this...

Ded

urania3

Parole with another name is not going to fool the supreme court. Either it's unconstitutional or not. First parole is unconstitutional, then it's OK if consented to. People are still paroled in Ohio; SB2 does not apply to crimes committed before July 1, 1996. So how is it still constitutional for those instances?

And I'd still like to know which Ohio Supreme Court case you keep refering to.