And I thought Texas" criminal courts were corrupt

Texas can't hold a candle to Florida.

Consider the case of Joe Sullivan, a mentally impaired boy convicted of sexual battery, largely on the testimony of two accomplices, both of whom were older than Sullivan, who each were rewarded for their testimony by given light sentences, one of them in a juvenile court. Sullivan, however, was sentenced to life in prison without parole. He was 13 years old at the time.

Or consider the case of Terrance Graham, a learning disabled teen born to crack-addicted parents. He was on probation in connection with a burglary when he allegedly participated in a home invasion. He was not convicted of the crime, but was sentenced to life in prison without parole for violating his probation. He was 16.

Two teenagers, both mentally challenged, both of whom need stern adult supervision and, yes, some time in prison. But for the Florida courts to decide these two are not capable of rehabilitation is barbarous, violates every standard of human rights known to mankind and is a clear violation of the eighth amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

Fortunately, there is hope. The Supreme Court heard the cases of Sullivan and Graham Monday. Hopefully the justices will reason that children who commit non-violent crimes should not be sentenced to life in prison with no hope of parole.

Is Madoff's sentence justified?

The Jobsanger blog presents an excellent argument that the 150-year sentence given to 71-year-old Bernie Madoff for bilking millions of dollars out of unsuspecting fools was excessive:

"Being sentenced to 150 years is the same as being sentenced to life without parole -- for theft, a non-violent crime. Many murderers, rapists, kidnappers and child molesters aren't sentenced that harshly.

"The moral of this story is that stealing from the rich is obviously the most serious crime a person can commit in our capitalist country. If he had stolen from poor or working class folks, even hundreds of them, he would have been sentenced to 10 or 12 years and been eligible for parole after serving half of it (and probably gotten that parole).

"Personally, I believe the person who steals from poor or working folks commits the greater crime. That criminal is probably stealing money that is needed for food, rent, car payment or a child's medical care or education.

"Madoff refused to take less than a million dollars, and these fools begged him to take their money. They were greedy. They believed his stories of huge returns, and took their money out of safe investments so they could make a killing. This wasn't their food or rent money. It was investment capital, and none of them will go hungry without it.

I've always believed the old adage that says if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. These people knew that adage, but they still let their greed get the best of them. And now they're mad. They're mad because he made them look like the fools they really are.

"I'm not saying Madoff shouldn't be punished. He's a criminal and should pay the price for that. But is 150 years fair? Should his non-violent crime be punished more harshly than the sentences received by violent criminals?

"Lady Justice is supposed to be blind, but this case shows us that is not true. In America, it is far more serious to commit a crime against the rich, than to commit a crime against working folks."

Does anyone else see a judicial discrepancy here?

In sentencing an 18-year-old with "profound mental disabilities" to 100 years in prison for fondling his 6-year-old neighbor, the Lamar County (Paris) judge in the case allegedly said: “In the state of Texas, there isn’t a whole lot you can do with somebody like him.” I guess this Dallas County jury, which gave no jail time to an 18-year-old with no mental disabilities who held a gun to a 17-year-old girl's head and forced her to perform oral sex on him, hadn't heard "In the state of Texas, there isn’t a whole lot you can do with somebody like him.”