Yeah forget that guy spending $2M over the next 40 years vs getting this man effective help is a great plan.
Smith filed for a psychological evaluation in March, which said "may be incompetent to stand trial based on the numerous conversations with Lindsey, his history of mental illness, the strange occurrence and irrational conduct that caused his arrest, and letters that were sent to counsel filled with biblical references, conspiracies, delusional beliefs, and illogical conjecture."
However, Smith said Lindsey was deemed competent by the evaluation and judge.
I love the stealth edit quote of my post. If you are going to edit a quote at least make it obvious. And yes mental illness is also painful. He could have walked, but made a really poor choice.
In the article he was evaluated and deemed competent to stand trial. Just because you think he is suffering from mental illness, doesn't make it so.
Honestly your post makes no sense. Time served vs. losing at trial would have resulted in the same result the time he spent in jail waiting for the case to go to trail. If the DA was really concerned about punishment for the crime then the DA would have offered a plea deal that included additional time above the time he had already served. Also since this guy already had felony convictions it isn't like getting a felony on his record was really necessary to ensure he had to say to he was a convicted felon.The DA didn't offer him time served because they thought it's what he deserved
[*]They offered it because they believed he would accept the plea and avoid the possibility of losing the case altogether thus allowing a guilty man to go unpunished.
A jury found him guilty and the appropriate sentencing by the courts was 40 years. Dude gambled and lost.
Using that logic, all a DA has to do is collude to jack up sentences to the point where a plea deal is the only effective choice an accused has, regardless of actual guilt. I realize that many courts use plea deals this way, at least combined with understaffed, overworked public defenders. But, I think that we have to acknowledge that the rhetorical question, "are you a betting man?", has no place in our court system. This case merely shows the absurdity that the legal system has become in many places.The DA didn't offer him time served because they thought it's what he deserved.
They offered it because they believed he would accept the plea and avoid the possibility of losing the case altogether thus allowing a guilty man to go unpunished.
A jury found him guilty and the appropriate sentencing by the courts was 40 years. Dude gambled and lost.
I don't think plea bargains are necessarily due to fear that they won't get a conviction. Cynical me believes that they are more a result of laziness on the part of DAs - or at least, a means to keep their caseload manageable. Taking a case to trial takes a shitload of work, compared to walking into a room and saying, "hey, how about we make you this offer."Time served also carries the title of being a convicted felon. So he wouldn't get off Scott free.
And the DA doesn't set the sentencing guidelines. That is determined by the court and has zero input from the DAs office. A plea of guilty also removes the possibility of the defendant filing a civil suit if they are found not guilty.
Bottom line is the DA had fears of losing the case if it went to trial, as they do with any trial. A plea of guilty removes that possibility.
In no sane system would there ever be the choice of saying I'm guilty and walking free or saying I'm not guilty and getting 40 freaking years. If you deserve 40 years how in the hell can they justify giving him the option of going free or the opposite if they give him the option of going free how in the hell can they justify a 40 year sentence as being necessary or just?
Seriously though does 19 months time served vs. 40 years really make sense to you? Its going to cost millions to keep this guy locked up for the next 40 years for something the prosecutor was prepared to let him out of jail that day for.
It's impossible to know. But I'm curious how this would have panned out had he been rich. Maybe a plead down to a lesser charge that would not have marked him for life perhaps.
It's impossible to know. But I'm curious how this would have panned out had he been rich. Maybe a plead down to a lesser charge that would not have marked him for life perhaps.
Oops, fixed it sorry about that.
Competency only refers to in theory he understands what is going on and is able to assist. In reality that bar seems to be pretty damn low. It does NOT mean he is free from mental illness.
Seriously though does 19 months time served vs. 40 years really make sense to you? Its going to cost millions to keep this guy locked up for the next 40 years for something the prosecutor was prepared to let him out of jail that day for.
What it shows is that the legal definition of "competent to stand trial" and actually being competent to stand trial aren't the same thing. The defendant's actions prove he was not competent. The case was open & shut with him not having a prayer of being acquitted.
We've seen the same thing before. The most astounding examples being inmates being forced to take their anti-psychotic meds so that they're sane enough to be executed. There was the whole unabomber episode where the evaluating psych was forced to find the defendant competent yet managed to put the death sentence off the table by pointing out that the defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic.
Just because he does something stupid doesn't make him incompetent. By your standard the Colorado Shooting victims would also be considered mentally incompetent for persuing a case that had no chance of success and last I heard they will have to pay the court legal expenses of Cinemark to the tune of $699,000 dollars.
What it shows is that the legal definition of "competent to stand trial" and actually being competent to stand trial aren't the same thing. The defendant's actions prove he was not competent. The case was open & shut with him not having a prayer of being acquitted.
We've seen the same thing before. The most astounding examples being inmates being forced to take their anti-psychotic meds so that they're sane enough to be executed. There was the whole unabomber episode where the evaluating psych was forced to find the defendant competent yet managed to put the death sentence off the table by pointing out that the defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic.
Using that logic, all a DA has to do is collude to jack up sentences to the point where a plea deal is the only effective choice an accused has, regardless of actual guilt. I realize that many courts use plea deals this way, at least combined with understaffed, overworked public defenders. But, I think that we have to acknowledge that the rhetorical question, "are you a betting man?", has no place in our court system. This case merely shows the absurdity that the legal system has become in many places.
White collar crime: seize their assets and leave them penniless (or whatever amount seems reasonable for whatever white collar crime they committed, but at least 50% of their net worth, if it's something willful that victimizes other people. And, follow the money. If they gifted their relatives, wife, or someone a new house with the money, it should also be seized.
Even if you can afford a lawyer, if there is even a 5% chance you'll get convicted, you are better off taking the plea. Prosecutors know that and get innocent people to take plea bargains all the time.Seriously, if you are innocent and can not afford a lawyer for a prolonged trial so you have some absurdly overworked public defender who spends an average of 15 minutes on each of his clients cases and the DA says you can either do 18 months or go to trial with this public defender and if you lose you get 50 years. Either a person deserves 18 months or 50 years, now I can understand knocking maybe a third of the time off for a plea deal but over 3,000% more time is just an obvious abuse of the system.
While the guy is definitely stupid or seriously mentally ill, it does highlight just how retarded our justice system is. In no sane system would there ever be the choice of saying I'm guilty and walking free or saying I'm not guilty and getting 40 freaking years. If you deserve 40 years how in the hell can they justify giving him the option of going free or the opposite if they give him the option of going free how in the hell can they justify a 40 year sentence as being necessary or just?
Yes three servings of slop and sleeping next to a man with nothing to lose is much better than what we endure.3 square meals and cable. Probably living better in prison than as a free man.