Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MrSmittie

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 22
91
General Off-Topic Board / Re: mandatory minimums: yay or nay?
« on: April 11, 2006, 05:27:40 AM »
Sorry db, I was sick and in bed all day on Monday. I would agree with what sno says, I would stop making illegal U-turns. As I stated earlier, i am more inclined to support minimum sentencing for more serious crimes. On the other hand, if someone is a career criminal and has shown no evidence of change after having served time, then he/she should receive a stiffer penalty for "smaller" crimes - i.e. "stealing 16 steaks". When people repeatedly exhibit blatant disregard for the law even after they have been caught and penalized, they stakes should go up. When my own children mis-behave, they are punished. If they continue to do so, their punishment becomes more severe even if the subsequent offense is lesser than the first. It is the behavior that is being addressed more so than the individual action. My system intends to correct the unacceptable social behavior, and hopefully prevent future bad acts -though this does not always work. At minimum, it does prevent them from that child during her punishment period. It is in the hands of the actor, whether or not he/she makes a decision to change.


92
General Off-Topic Board / Re: mandatory minimums: yay or nay?
« on: April 09, 2006, 11:20:30 PM »
I think that minimum mandatories are a good thing, in moderation.  I agree that they should only be imposed for serious offenses (murder, terrorism, rape, sex crimes against children, etc).  However, with lesser offenses, I don't see a problem with allowing some discretion and flexibility for the judge.

 I'll buy that.

BTW - Dude, I wish you were going to the same school I'm planning on. After read many of your posts, I think were on the same (or similar) page as far as our philosophies on "why LS".


To all, I've enjoyed this discussion. I gotta turn in, though, cause 3:30am comes pretty quick on Mondays. Peace to all, and I look forward to further discussions.

93
Law School Admissions / Re: THE SUB 150 CLUB...WE DESERVE A THREAD!
« on: April 09, 2006, 11:15:11 PM »
First, I must say what an awesome post this is.  I'm always impressed when super-competitive people can still find time to be respectful and supportive of each other.

I am not a sub-150, although my over all numbers are not that impressive (2.56/152).  Still, I've been accepted to 4 schools and have decided on the T4 Widener University in Wilmington, Delaware. 

I would like to address the issue of the value (or non-value) of attending a T3 or T4 school.  If anyone is basing their decision to go to law school solely on money, then they are a fool.  Is there a lot of money to be made as a lawyer?  Absolutely.  However, there are other, more lucrative ways to make money.  My brother, for example, graduated high school twenty years ago, started a trucking business with his friend in 1990 and made over $300K last year.  My other brother, also a high school graduate, got promoted to Sgt. at the County Jail where he works as a CO and brought home about $80K last year and, in 13 more years, will have ensured a 75% pension and full health benefits for him and his wife for the rest of their lives.  Not a bad set-up for two un-educated guys like my brothers.

I was on a similar path until a few years ago.  I was working in an Applebees and was going through the process of becoming a store manager.  With bonuses, I was looking at pulling down about $50K.  Not bad for a single guy of 27 (at the time).  Then 19 guys from the middle east slammed airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field outside of Pittsburg, PA.  When my reserve unit got called up, I had to go guard prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (not nearly as horrible as the media portray, by the way.).  While doing this, I realized that I should do more with my life then just sling burgers and fries.  Upon getting back from Cuba (my navy reserve time was up), I got a job with my brother at the jail.  I made decent money, but it opened my eyes to the legal process and inspired me to go back to college and complete my degree (come on May 7!).  It also inspired me to go to law school, which I will begin in August.

My point (long winded as it may be) is this:  If money were my sole motivator, I never would have left the restaurant business.  Had I stayed, I probably would have been a GM by now and been pulling down @ $80k per year.  I'm going to law school because, when its done right, the law is about the greatest thing that mankind has ever given itself and I will be damned honored to take part in that.  Maybe because I've sworn an oath before, but when I raise my right hand and take the oath upon entering the bar, I'm going to do so with the full cognizance that I am obligated to use the law to further society and the United States of America; not my own, individual bank account.  I'm not sure what form my practice will take, but my overall goal will be the same.  I would hope that everyone who goes to law school would have the same goal (I realize that most don't), because we all are being given a gift.  Certainly, a law degree is owed to none of us.  Therefore, we are all obligated to the furtherance of the profession.

In this light, I cannot see how investing in a law degree is not valuable, no matter what school's name is on the masthead of the diploma.  A degree from Widener may not be as initially valuable, in terms of the degree holder's income, as, say, a Notre Dame grad's.  However, if both practice their craft with honesty and integrity, then both have added something to the profession and, in deed, to our nation.  I'd say that's pretty valuable.

I think this should be the CREDITED Response!

94
General Off-Topic Board / Re: mandatory minimums: yay or nay?
« on: April 09, 2006, 11:10:51 PM »
Bad idea.

I encourage people to read the following book:

http://www.lifeontheoutside.com/

Why are we supposed to feel bad about this? Did she not break the law by selling illegal drugs?

Smittie, have you read the book? Perhaps you should.
And yes, because the punishment does not at ALL fit the crime. As for serving as a deterrent, most of the people affected by mandatory minimum drug laws don't even know those laws exist.

Nope, and maybe, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Do you really think they wouldn't break that law if the knew about the minimum sentencing? Maybe, I'm pessimistic, but I doubt it makes much difference whether or not they know how much time they would get if they were caught.

I know this may seem over-simplistic, but if it IS the law, then we should either obey it, or work to change the law. BUT, until the law is changed, we should adhere, or accept the consequences of breaking it.

Are you traing to be a PA, Smite?

Not out of the question, but I am also interested in PD - maybe even trial advocacy. I'm just saying that people should obey the laws -regardless of the penalty - or work to change the laws BEFORE they break them. If someone is guilty of a crime they should pay the penalty that is prescribed.  I know this analogy might be flawed, but I would love to pay under $2 for a gallon of gas 0- unfortunately the price is much higher, so that is what I must pay. Is it fair? NO!, but it is what it is, and unless I change work to change the price BEFORE I buy it, then I must pay what is being charged even if I do not know that price before I begin to pump.

Indeed, some penalties are severe for the crime, buit that is the system we have. In the end, I guess I support minimum sentencing more for violent crimes than for the so-called victimless crimes, )i.e. - prostitution, personal drug USE, etc.) I am also definitely against police entrapment and coercion. I have not read this book and am not fully informed of the circumstances, but nevertheless, I do not think this or any other case is reason ebnough to do away with mandatory sentencing. There are probably (my guestimate) far more cases of people getting off too easy for destroying the lives of other people.

Interesting debate though.

95
Under-rating is definitely underated.

---

What about Costco, Sam's club , etc?

96
General Off-Topic Board / Re: mandatory minimums: yay or nay?
« on: April 09, 2006, 10:52:23 PM »
I used to be a reporter.

I covered a case where a guy was accused of armed robbery, false imprisonment and allegedly did this all with a shotgun.
Well, the jurors acquitted the guy of robbery because they did not believe the witnesses (a bunch of really seedy people, seriously). However, they believed his partner in crime who swore that the guy had a shotgun.

The partner in crime sold the guy out and got 2 years probation.
Long story short, this alleged shotgun (that was never produced in court, that no one showed any evidence that he had)  added 10 years to his sentence. This guy, which all the evidence shows simply got in a fight and slapped someone, is now serving 17 years in prison.

IMO something is wrong with that.

I agree, something was wrong in this situation, but I do not think that something is mandatory minimum sentencing. I would rather lean toward the problem as being with the jury, not the sentence.

97
General Off-Topic Board / Re: mandatory minimums: yay or nay?
« on: April 09, 2006, 10:50:30 PM »
Bad idea.

I encourage people to read the following book:

http://www.lifeontheoutside.com/

Why are we supposed to feel bad about this? Did she not break the law by selling illegal drugs?

Smittie, have you read the book? Perhaps you should.
And yes, because the punishment does not at ALL fit the crime. As for serving as a deterrent, most of the people affected by mandatory minimum drug laws don't even know those laws exist.

Nope, and maybe, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Do you really think they wouldn't break that law if the knew about the minimum sentencing? Maybe, I'm pessimistic, but I doubt it makes much difference whether or not they know how much time they would get if they were caught.

I know this may seem over-simplistic, but if it IS the law, then we should either obey it, or work to change the law. BUT, until the law is changed, we should adhere, or accept the consequences of breaking it.

98
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Hottest TV Lawyer
« on: April 09, 2006, 10:33:36 PM »
Agreed, I keep trying to get my wife to pick up a pair at the $0.99 store or Wal-Marty, but she thinks I'm wierd. Okay, so maybe I am. ;D

99
General Off-Topic Board / Re: mandatory minimums: yay or nay?
« on: April 09, 2006, 10:31:24 PM »
Bad idea.

I encourage people to read the following book:

http://www.lifeontheoutside.com/

Why are we supposed to feel bad about this? Did she not break the law by selling illegal drugs?

100
Way Over!

---

Sushi

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 22