Another case of dumbass mand-mins: Man receives 15 years for stealing box of Lucky Charms

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Florida Cereal Stealer Gets 15 Years in Prison
A Florida man gets 15 years in prison for stealing a $4.99 box of Lucky Charms

Here's an example where the punishment doesn't quite seem to fit the crime.

A Florida man was sentenced to 15 years in prison Monday for stealing a $4.99 box of Lucky Charms and a $1.59 can of evaporated milk. Remember, we said he was a cereal stealer, not a serial killer.

Last time we checked, those pots of gold and blue diamonds were made of marshmallows, not real jewels. It's not like he kidnapped or killed the creepy little leprechaun.

The judge threw the book at Mark Anthony Griffin because he was a "prison releasee reoffender," a weird way of saying he had been in jail before. The Lakeland Ledger reports Griffin was convicted in 2007 of burglary and grand theft.

Griffin is a homeless man, and while that doesn't make what he did right, it's hard to imagine that crime, which amounts to around $7 with tax, is worth the thousands of tax payer dollars it will take to house him in a state penal facility.

The judge who sentenced Griffin seems to agree, but said he was bound by the law to give the reoffender the mandatory minimum.

"Personally, I think the money could have been better spent in treatment rather than incarceration for 15 years, but that is not my decision," Bartow Judge Donald Jacobsen said. "It seems to me that treatment would be a far better resolution of this."

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Cereal-Stealer-Gets-15-Years-in-Prison-63628647.html

[KrazyHorse]

How much time do you get for stabbing somebody?

[loinburger]

Remember, we said he was a cereal stealer, not a serial killer.

He deserves fifteen years for spawning this atrocity.

[rah]

I think the sentence was more of a liberal do gooder thing.
The man was homeless before but now has a roof over his head and gets 3 square meals a day.

[Zkribbler]

If 15 years was the "mandatory minimum," this sounds like a Florida version of the 3-strikes law.

Over the years, the definition of burglary has expanded for "the breaking and entering in the nighttime of a dwelling place of another with the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein" to entering into any building with the intent to commit a crime. Therefore, his entering into a store with the intent to steal Lucky Charms is a felony.

Three felonies and you're an habitual felon. You go away for a long time.

Writing for the plurality in Ewing, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor analyzed the serious problem of recidivism among criminals in California, applied rational basis review, and concluded:

We do not sit as a "superlegislature" to second-guess these policy choices. It is enough that the State of California has a reasonable basis for believing that dramatically enhanced sentences for habitual felons advances the goals of its criminal justice system in any substantial way … To be sure, Ewing's sentence is a long one. But it reflects a rational legislative judgment, entitled to deference, that offenders who have committed serious or violent felonies and who continue to commit felonies must be incapacitated.

[Elok]

Yeah, if they hand out sentences like that, it won't be long ere they have prisons like CA's too. In the meantime, I think it'd be a tossup whether I'd rather be in jail or homeless. Some prisons might have a slightly higher risk of assault, especially of the sexual variety, but the risk of death would be way down. The loss of freedom might be bad, but a homeless guy's only free to shuffle around and sleep on his choice of park benches anyway.

[SpencerH]

It seems to me that the fault lies with the prosecutor, or perhaps they are also bound by law to prosecute in such a situation?

[loinburger]

In the meantime, I think it'd be a tossup whether I'd rather be in jail or homeless.

I know a few people who have been (or are) homeless and who have also been in jail/prison, and to a (wo)man they prefer homelessness.

[Space05us]

The loss of freedom might be bad, but a homeless guy's only free to shuffle around and sleep on his choice of park benches anyway.

I feel bad for you not being able to see how homeless people experience a great deal more freedom than the rest of us.

[rah]

Working above Union station in Chicago, I can't walk out of building without running into a homeless person. They're either acting totally out of it, begging or trying to find a warm place to sleep. That is their life. I don't see any freedom there. Unless it's freedom to experience hardship then die. Not the type of freedom that I'm looking for.

No one should have to experience that.

[Blaupanzer]

Judges not able to exercise their judgement, prosecutors who must prosecute instead of spending a little petty cash, people who think prison is better than being waywardly lost. Obviously treatment is in order. He won't get it in prison. I know the law is not really about justice, but wow is this the ugliest possible outcome for trivial activity I've heard this month.

[rah]

He'd be unlikely to get treatment anywhere. Agreed that that is the real problem.

And yes, while the judges hands may have been tied, the prosecutors probably weren't.

[Asher]

I think the sentence was more of a liberal do gooder thing.

I think you mean it was a pun.

[rah]

I refuse to acknowledge that pun.

[loinburger]

The loss of freedom might be bad, but a homeless guy's only free to shuffle around and sleep on his choice of park benches anyway.

I feel bad for you not being able to see how homeless people experience a great deal more freedom than the rest of us.

Do you have first or second hand experience with homelessness, or are you speaking theoretically?