Anyone that doesn't know whom I'm talking about:The Bandit said:How about a little more info so people know what you're talking about.
Can I add e?dcbogey said:Anyone that doesn't know whom I'm talking about:
a) never read a newspaper
b) has a memory disorder
c) is a moron
d) all of the above
![]()
For most - that would be covered by a combination of b and c, unfortunately.gramage said:Can I add e?
e) knew the story but forgot the name of the person involved.
The reason that there is a "2 for 1" rule for pre-trial time is that you cannot earn time that counts towards parole until after you have been convicted. Makes more sense now, huh?gramage said:For those like me that forgot who she was.
Shame time before final conviction counts as time served (forget the truly stupid fact that it counts double, which only benefits the guilty) it would be nice if she spent 7 years in jail from right now after all this crap.
Well thats a reason at least but certainly not one that should work on a two to one scale and I don't know that I want time served before conviction benefiting the guilty.oagre said:The reason that there is a "2 for 1" rule for pre-trial time is that you cannot earn time that counts towards parole until after you have been convicted. Makes more sense now, huh?
I remember the story, but forgot her namedcbogey said:Anyone that doesn't know whom I'm talking about:
a) never read a newspaper
b) has a memory disorder
c) is a moron
d) all of the above
The LoLRus said:I remember the story, but forgot her name
I guess that makes me a moron then![]()
gramage said:Well thats a reason at least but certainly not one that should work on a two to one scale and I don't know that I want time served before conviction benefiting the guilty.
But they were guilty at the time they served it, we just hadn't proven it yet. They were considered innocent during their trial but time served should take into account the actual guilt.serviceman said:2 for 1 does seem fair as they were not guilty when they served the time. We are supposed to be considered innocent before proven guilty are we not?
I see your point, perhaps it's because of the right to a speedy trial, the longer you have to wait, the less your sentence will be. NOT saying I agree with this, but there is some logic to it.gramage said:But they were guilty at the time they served it, we just hadn't proven it yet. They were considered innocent during their trial but time served should take into account the actual guilt.
Maybe I'd be less bothered by this if we didn't also have as a policy near-automatic parole at 2/3rds your sentence. But when you combine both those facts with how slow trials are we aren't keeping criminals off the street nearly as long as our already kinda soft sentencing indicates we should.
Actually "right" to a speedy trial does factor in to this, I had not considered that. Given that I would respect 2 for 1 AFTER a certain point regardless of guilt, I just wouldn't start from day 1 as this statute does.serviceman said:I see your point, perhaps it's because of the right to a speedy trial, the longer you have to wait, the less your sentence will be. NOT saying I agree with this, but there is some logic to it.
There is no 2 for 1 statute.gramage said:Actually "right" to a speedy trial does factor in to this, I had not considered that. Given that I would respect 2 for 1 AFTER a certain point regardless of guilt, I just wouldn't start from day 1 as this statute does.