I don't think it said she skated on the other charges. I may have to re-read but I think she paid her dues.

 

Paid her dues??? I think not.

 

Wingate said McLemore's guilty plea to making false statements is her sixth conviction. But despite being a repeat offender, Wingate said, she has spent only 10 days in state custody on the state drug charges.

 

"While committing this offense, she was still on supervised released," Wingate said. "While on bond, she tested positive for drugs."

 

One of her six convictions (4 felony) was conspiracy to sell a controlled substance.

This is off topic, but she shouldn't have been in jail for drugs in the first place. It's an addiction! You have to treat drug addicts, not detain them. Now that being said, it is a waste of tax payer's dollars to put her behind bars for 3 years. How someone who is a part of a $3 million mortgage fraud scheme serves less time than someone who lied about $4,367 (food stamps) baffles me.

 

However, if she has to apply for food stamps because she cannot afford food then she shouldn't be able to afford drugs.

 

From my perspective, the purpose of detaining is punishment & not treatment. The same would be true if it's a first offense & there is a fine and/or stiff financial penalty. Treatment is certainly needed, but that is to better the person & work with them to improve their life. But if a person commits a crime, that crime demands punishment of some sort. In this woman's case, a fourth felony demanded imprisonment.

 

I don't disagree with the punishment handed down to her, until you compare it with the mortgage crook. Then it gets out of whack.

From my perspective, the purpose of detaining is punishment & not treatment. The same would be true if it's a first offense & there is a fine and/or stiff financial penalty. Treatment is certainly needed, but that is to better the person & work with them to improve their life. But if a person commits a crime, that crime demands punishment of some sort. In this woman's case, a fourth felony demanded imprisonment.

 

I don't disagree with the punishment handed down to her, until you compare it with the mortgage crook. Then it gets out of whack.

 

Well that's exactly my point. That was her fourth felony. Obviously punishment didn't work and it rarely works when it comes to drugs. They go in prison, get out and go right back in. I would have to disagree with the punishment handed down to her starting from the beginning (only drug use related charges).

Edited November 16, 201114 yr by Know It All
wording

Well that's exactly my point. That was her fourth felony. Obviously punishment didn't work and it rarely works when it comes to drugs. They go in prison, get out and go right back in. I would have to disagree with the punishment handed down to her starting from the beginning (only drug use related charges).

 

The primary purpose of punishment is not transformation, but rather that justice be served. If someone murders fifteen people, you don't put them in prison primarily for the purpose of life change, but rather for them to pay a punishment for the crimes they've committed--for justice to be served.

 

Do you hope they experience transformation? Yes. Do you put programs and people in their path to assist with that transformation? Yes. But their primary reason for being there is that justice be served.

 

I'm understanding you to say that she shouldn't be put in prison because it hasn't worked to transform her in the past. I'm saying that transformation not the primary purpose of prison.

The primary purpose of punishment is not transformation, but rather that justice be served. If someone murders fifteen people, you don't put them in prison primarily for the purpose of life change, but rather for them to pay a punishment for the crimes they've committed--for justice to be served.

 

Do you hope they experience transformation? Yes. Do you put programs and people in their path to assist with that transformation? Yes. But their primary reason for being there is that justice be served.

 

I'm understanding you to say that she shouldn't be put in prison because it hasn't worked to transform her in the past. I'm saying that transformation not the primary purpose of prison.

 

I know the sole purpose of prison is serving justice. I just don't see the logic for sentencing someone who uses drugs (if the charge is non-violent). Justice being served to people who choose to hurt their health. They should go straight to treatment (which should have an extensive plan for each patient).

I know the sole purpose of prison is serving justice. I just don't see the logic for sentencing someone who uses drugs (if the charge is non-violent). Justice being served to people who choose to hurt their health. They should go straight to treatment (which should have an extensive plan for each patient).

 

Because violation of crime demands punishment is why.

 

Now, if you want to debate what is crime and what is not, that's an entirely different matter.

Because violation of crime demands punishment is why.

 

Now, if you want to debate what is crime and what is not, that's an entirely different matter.

 

That's what I was getting at

Well that's exactly my point. That was her fourth felony. Obviously punishment didn't work and it rarely works when it comes to drugs. They go in prison, get out and go right back in. I would have to disagree with the punishment handed down to her starting from the beginning (only drug use related charges).

 

What punishment? 10 days total for all her convictions?

It doesn't say whether either of these were plea deals. A court sentences a defendant to the terms contained in a plea. If they were plea deals, talk to the prosecutor, the judge didn't have anything to do with it. If they were jury trials, talk to the jury.