Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
It's still PRETTY insane
Wait, what? This seems to imply that the issue was not, you know, raping his dog, but that he did it in the wrong hole O_o
I thougt sodomy had been officially decriminalized in Lawrence v Texas? I mean, I suppose if you re-define sodomy to require lack of consent, you could have a go at it, but that's what we have the term "sexual assault" for. What am I missing?
The original meaning of the word is actually "unnatural sex," which could mean... well, anything that can't result in a baby, really. The different interpretations of what it does mean are controversial enough that I've heard people argue that where sodomy (or whatever its Greek/Hebrew equivalent is) is mentioned in the bible, the text actually *means* bestiality. (I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the bible myself to judge if this is true or not.)
Don't feel bad, though. The religious right has made such an excellent job of accusing gays of sodomy that you're not the only person by far who thinks that's the word's only meaning these days.
Less than 2 years for running a pit bull death camp and brutally killing at least eight pitbulls.
What's wrong with this picture?
@10 ... Sigh.
"Vaguely" anti-pit bull? Since when was your anti-pit bull stance "vague"?
One's an apple; one's an orange.
The 15 years mentioned is the maximum sentence the judge is allowed to impose for a person convicted of sodomy, which includes crimes against animals or people (or women, 5280).
What he will be sentenced to, if convicted, will be much less than 15 years, and what he actually serves will likely be less than that.
So, you'll have to wait until he's released to be outraged about the disparity between the length of time he served and the length of time Vick served.
*more facepalm*
Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. The maximum statutory sentence for Criminal Sexual Conduct in the 1st Degree is LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Obviously, his sentence was for something less. And, likely, the time served was less than the sentence.
The statutory maximum for sodomy is 15 years. He won't get that in this case, either. He will be sentenced based on a sentencing grid that, if I'm reading it correctly, provides for a sentence between three and 76 months.
His sentence will be increased substantially by the prior conviction -- prior offenses are generally the greatest determinant of sentence length under most guideline systems (which includes WA, MI, and the feds).
There is some leeway for good lawyering, but that generally only determines where, within a range of a few months, the judge sets the actual sentence.
And, time served introduces a number of variables that have nothing to do with the statutory maximum sentence. Those are determined by corrections, and mostly have to do with behavior while incarcerated.
So it's meaningless to compare 11 years and 15 years. Those two numbers have nothing to do with each other.
I'd argue the privacy grounds should also be extended to anything non-human, because the dog was basically a sex toy. But unfortunately, bestiality, like incest, drugs, and underage sex, is one of those areas where people's instincts overrule their brains when voting or making laws.