Donna Brock

[Crosby87]

IIRC, both DB and HS had character witnesses speak on their behalf at their sentencing hearing. What exactly is the point of Hope and Donna having character witnesses attend if their sentences carry a minimum mandatory of 15 years and there is absolutely no way the Judge can reduce their sentence? Why bother having character witnesses put in this extra effort if when all is said and done, it doesn't make an ounce of difference? Are the Counselors deceiving their clients and giving them false hope by telling them if they have character witnesses show up and testify in Court, there is a slim possibility they will be granted some leniency in their sentencing? This seems nothing more than a ploy by members of the Justice System.

 

[krkrjx]

IIRC, both DB and HS had character witnesses speak on their behalf at their sentencing hearing. What exactly is the point of Hope and Donna having character witnesses attend if their sentences carry a minimum mandatory of 15 years and there is absolutely no way the Judge can reduce their sentence? Why bother having character witnesses put in this extra effort if when all is said and done, it doesn't make an ounce of difference? Are the Counselors deceiving their clients and giving them false hope by telling them if they have character witnesses show up and testify in Court, there is a slim possibility they will be granted some leniency in their sentencing? This seems nothing more than a ploy by members of the Justice System.

A character witness can make a big difference even if it involves a mandatory minimum because the judge can impose a sentence that is higher than the minimum mandatory, if s/he so chooses. It happened to Tommy.

 

[Crosby87]

A character witness can make a big difference even if it involves a mandatory minimum because the judge can impose a sentence that is higher than the minimum mandatory, if s/he so chooses. It happened to Tommy.

I suppose DB will be next to file an appeal.

 

[krkrjx]

I suppose DB will be next to file an appeal.

Most people who are sentenced to lengthy prison terms file an appeal. It's little more than a formality in many cases. It's probably one reason why people sit so long on Death Row--to allow them appropriate amount of time to go through the entire appeal process.

JMO.

ETA: Hope's Appeal was granted by the appellate court. Tommy has filed a Motion to modify his sentence and a hearing has been scheduled on that Motion; if he is unsuccessful, he will file an Appeal.

 

[dodie20]

A character witness can make a big difference even if it involves a mandatory minimum because the judge can impose a sentence that is higher than the minimum mandatory, if s/he so chooses. It happened to Tommy.

I don't think Tommy's character witnesses had a thing to do with him not getting his minimum. I think it was LE calling him a suspect. MOO.

 

[dodie20]

IIRC, both DB and HS had character witnesses speak on their behalf at their sentencing hearing. What exactly is the point of Hope and Donna having character witnesses attend if their sentences carry a minimum mandatory of 15 years and there is absolutely no way the Judge can reduce their sentence? Why bother having character witnesses put in this extra effort if when all is said and done, it doesn't make an ounce of difference? Are the Counselors deceiving their clients and giving them false hope by telling them if they have character witnesses show up and testify in Court, there is a slim possibility they will be granted some leniency in their sentencing? This seems nothing more than a ploy by members of the Justice System.

You're right & what a total waste of court time. The judge should just state that he has no power to be swayed by these character witnesses, & be done with it. What a farce.

 

[OneLostGrl]

I was surprised that she didn't take her chances with a jury, still can't figure that one out.:waitasec:

I sure woulda..

 

[OneLostGrl]

Just to let you know Debs, this is a post I entirely agree with. I also live in a state which is at war with drug users and dealers. Slaps on the writst don't work. So of course state lawmakes, who are elected by the people, go completely the other way with harsher drug laws and sentencing.

As you pointed out,there is nothing personal about the years Donna Brock received. It has nothing to do with who she trafficed with or if this was her first infraction. It's the law. And she broke it. However, I am sorry she had to learn it the hard way.

I sincerely doubt most of those dealing drugs pause first to look at the score card as to what type of jail time they could be facing if caught. If they did, I would hope that would cause them to stop and not deal. Unfortunately it didn't happen in Donna's case. jmo

Most people like Donna and Ron and Misty "traffic" to fill their own need (Though I do not know enough about Donna to know if she was an addict or not so I can't assume she was). No actual money is being made, it's being passed around between "friends" for a few bucks a pill. Usually by the next day you are already out and are calling the person you sold to the day before looking to "bum a pill". When Misty was selling to the U/C she seemed, to me, a little worried about getting caught.. she even mentioned that she didn't want to get nailed. I know when I was doing it- every- single- time- I was afraid of getting caught- I knew the amount of time I'd be facing.. but the addiction was so strong it didn't matter.. I needed the money from those pills to buy the pills I needed to get through the day. The minds of the people involved in this type of "trafficking" are crippled and jail time is the last thing they are afraid of.. all they care about is having money to get high (and pill highs are cheap) Sometimes getting caught is the best thing that can happen to us.. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. It's just a shame that for some peeople it's a new start at life and for others it's the end of their life. I'm not standing up for any of them... they commited crimes & I'm a firm believer in accountability but the time for this crime just does not fit. Child molesters do less time.

 

[krkrjx]

Most people like Donna and Ron and Misty "traffic" to fill their own need (Though I do not know enough about Donna to know if she was an addict or not so I can't assume she was). No actual money is being made, it's being passed around between "friends" for a few bucks a pill. Usually by the next day you are already out and are calling the person you sold to the day before looking to "bum a pill". When Misty was selling to the U/C she seemed, to me, a little worried about getting caught.. she even mentioned that she didn't want to get nailed. I know when I was doing it- every- single- time- I was afraid of getting caught- I knew the amount of time I'd be facing.. but the addiction was so strong it didn't matter.. I needed the money from those pills to buy the pills I needed to get through the day. The minds of the people involved in this type of "trafficking" are crippled and jail time is the last thing they are afraid of.. all they care about is having money to get high (and pill highs are cheap) Sometimes getting caught is the best thing that can happen to us.. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. It's just a shame that for some peeople it's a new start at life and for others it's the end of their life. I'm not standing up for any of them... they commited crimes & I'm a firm believer in accountability but the time for this crime just does not fit. Child molesters do less time.

WOW, great post!

I also feel the penalty is too high for some trafficking offenses, but only because violent offenders and pedophiles often do less time. I would like to see legislation that allows judges some leeway in some cases involving drug trafficking. But I would not like to see everyone get away with a mere slap on the wrist; drugs are a huge problem and can kill people. On the other hand, so can violence and pedophilia.

What I would like to see is more tiers in the mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking plus allowances for judicial discretion to consider criminal history and other pertinent factors. And we need nationwide mandatory minimums for child molesters and other dangerous offenders.

 

[zadari]

15 years. for selling a pill but a pervert that molests a chld gets less time?? that's just messed up
..no one forces these ppl to overdose.. 15 years to me is too much time when our tax money could be used to house amd execute child killers.. or child molesters. but they usually get parole?? the prisons seem like they are being overcrowded by ppl with drug crimes..and less with really serious. criminals.. phedos get to walk after a cpl years of good behavior but pill pushers are more harmful?? I don't agree with that at all
.ya a few years blood tests urine test hair tests or ankle bracelet.. not 15 years

 

[Searchfortruth]

Most people like Donna and Ron and Misty "traffic" to fill their own need (Though I do not know enough about Donna to know if she was an addict or not so I can't assume she was). No actual money is being made, it's being passed around between "friends" for a few bucks a pill. Usually by the next day you are already out and are calling the person you sold to the day before looking to "bum a pill". When Misty was selling to the U/C she seemed, to me, a little worried about getting caught.. she even mentioned that she didn't want to get nailed. I know when I was doing it- every- single- time- I was afraid of getting caught- I knew the amount of time I'd be facing.. but the addiction was so strong it didn't matter.. I needed the money from those pills to buy the pills I needed to get through the day. The minds of the people involved in this type of "trafficking" are crippled and jail time is the last thing they are afraid of.. all they care about is having money to get high (and pill highs are cheap) Sometimes getting caught is the best thing that can happen to us.. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. It's just a shame that for some peeople it's a new start at life and for others it's the end of their life. I'm not standing up for any of them... they commited crimes & I'm a firm believer in accountability but the time for this crime just does not fit. Child molesters do less time.

Thanks OLG for a great post.

I don't think most people can understand the power of addiction unless they have been there. It's really insane what those under the spell of addiction will do to get their next high. They often risk prison, their own safety and even death, because the power of addiction is stronger than the fear of any of these things.

 

[bessie]

WOW, great post!

I also feel the penalty is too high for some trafficking offenses, but only because violent offenders and pedophiles often do less time. I would like to see legislation that allows judges some leeway in some cases involving drug trafficking. But I would not like to see everyone get away with a mere slap on the wrist; drugs are a huge problem and can kill people. On the other hand, so can violence and pedophilia.

What I would like to see is more tiers in the mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking plus allowances for judicial discretion to consider criminal history and other pertinent factors. And we need nationwide mandatory minimums for child molesters and other dangerous offenders.

But then they wouldn't be mandatory minimums.

What I find most disturbing about man min policies is the fact that they strip the court of its discretionary authority, which is an important layer in our system of checks and balances. With man min, the power in the courtroom swings way over to the the prosecution side, a very dangerous precedent, imo.

One Lost Girl, thank you for another excellent tell-it-like-it-is post.

 

[krkrjx]

But then they wouldn't be mandatory minimums.

What I find most disturbing about man min policies is the fact that they strip the court of its discretionary authority, which is an important layer in our system of checks and balances. With man min, the power in the courtroom swings way over to the the prosecution side, a very dangerous precedent, imo.

One Lost Girl, thank you for another excellent tell-it-like-it-is post.

Not necessarily. I do not want mandatory minimums done away with, just rewritten. For what our players were trafficking, the minimum is 3 years; next tier is 15, then the next is 25 years.

I would like to see 3 years be the minimum anyone can get, but would like to see more tiers above that, i.e., instead of jumping from 3 years to 15, there should be perhaps a 5 years tier, and then a 7 years tier.

That would give judges some discretion, IMO, but still not allow them to let everyone walk free with just a slap on the wrist. If legislators spelled out the criteria that must be met for each tier, I think we would see fewer low-level offenders put away for 15 and 25 years...and more in the 3-7 range.

Judicial discretion is important to weigh other factors and, as you said, to keep the balance of justice on a more even keel. I do not like seeing all discretion removed; nor do I want to see it all restored as some judges really are too lenient, IMO.

I see way too much leniency in courts where I live, with the same offenders charged time after time. LE gets frustrated (and who can blame them!) when they make arrests and the perps are back on the street again to re-offend in no time flat.

 

[dodie20]

Not necessarily. I do not want mandatory minimums done away with, just rewritten. For what our players were trafficking, the minimum is 3 years; next tier is 15, then the next is 25 years.

I would like to see 3 years be the minimum anyone can get, but would like to see more tiers above that, i.e., instead of jumping from 3 years to 15, there should be perhaps a 5 years tier, and then a 7 years tier.

That would give judges some discretion, IMO, but still not allow them to let everyone walk free with just a slap on the wrist. If legislators spelled out the criteria that must be met for each tier, I think we would see fewer low-level offenders put away for 15 and 25 years...and more in the 3-7 range.

Judicial discretion is important to weigh other factors and, as you said, to keep the balance of justice on a more even keel. I do not like seeing all discretion removed; nor do I want to see it all restored as some judges really are too lenient, IMO.

I see way too much leniency in courts where I live, with the same offenders charged time after time. LE gets frustrated (and who can blame them!) when they make arrests and the perps are back on the street again to re-offend in no time flat.

this is actually a good plan, & I agree that some judges are too lenient, & a lot of judges fall for a smooth talker. & then somebody like Hope, who is ill mannered & rough, is disregarded. I have a feeling that Ron's demeanor, is how he got out of so much past trouble. He could talk the talk.

 

[krkrjx]

this is actually a good plan, & I agree that some judges are too lenient, & a lot of judges fall for a smooth talker. & then somebody like Hope, who is ill mannered & rough, is disregarded. I have a feeling that Ron's demeanor, is how he got out of so much past trouble. He could talk the talk.

Giving judges full discretion does not work either just for the reasons you stated. Some people could talk their way out of it and some judges would show favoritism; this kind of thing happens in courtrooms in this country every day.

With tiers at the lower level, the young first-time offender would get 3 years and that could be served as probation...if they mess up, they do time in prison but at least it gives them a second chance!

Mandatory 3 years in prison could be for first-timer who is older, with no priors, or a younger person with priors, etc.

Mandatory 5 could be for subsequent offenses with extenuating circumstances of some sort (minimal priors record, has a job and standing in the community, etc.) The mandatory 7-year level could be reserved for a second or third offense where the person has no job and has a long list of priors (not just drug-related), etc.

Fifteen-year minimum could be for violence during the transaction and for bigger-time dealers, things of that sort. And 25+ would be reserved for the big fish.

My main concern, however, is that for some offenses we allow judges full discretion while for others we allow them none. Even I can see the flaws in that system, and I'm no rocket scientist!

ETA: What I describe above are just my own thoughts on how the laws might be revamped to be more fair and to give those who deserve it a second chance, while holding the worst offenders responsible. IMO, it would not be difficult to have mandatory minimums that make sense.

 

[OneLostGrl]

But then they wouldn't be mandatory minimums.

What I find most disturbing about man min policies is the fact that they strip the court of its discretionary authority, which is an important layer in our system of checks and balances. With man min, the power in the courtroom swings way over to the the prosecution side, a very dangerous precedent, imo.

One Lost Girl, thank you for another excellent tell-it-like-it-is post.

In Connecticut (where my convictions are from) they have added amendments to their man-min's. For a couple of crimes (strangly, iirc, arson) they even allow some or all of the sentence to be suspended. I think there is a lot that could be done to amend the manditory min's while keeping the general idea of 'em in tact. I think it would also help to lessen the IMO over usage/abuse of plea bargains. Why is it that the law cannot see what so many others can? This country, our government is losing the war on drugs.. their guidelines and punishments are just not working. Since the war on drugs began- more and more people are becoming addicted to legal drugs, doctors are our pushers now. I never even had a desire to do illegal drugs! I wish I'd just smoked pot like all my friends did. I got my high from the FDA with legit prescriptions- I trafficked nothing- our government did!

I dunno.. I get so heated with this stuff, I think I'd better stop talking about it. :blowkiss:

 

[OneLostGrl]

Giving judges full discretion does not work either just for the reasons you stated. Some people could talk their way out of it and some judges would show favoritism; this kind of thing happens in courtrooms in this country every day.

With tiers at the lower level, the young first-time offender would get 3 years and that could be served as probation...if they mess up, they do time in prison but at least it gives them a second chance!

Mandatory 3 years in prison could be for first-timer who is older, with no priors, or a younger person with priors, etc.

Mandatory 5 could be for subsequent offenses with extenuating circumstances of some sort (minimal priors record, has a job and standing in the community, etc.) The mandatory 7-year level could be reserved for a second or third offense where the person has no job and has a long list of priors (not just drug-related), etc.

Fifteen-year minimum could be for violence during the transaction and for bigger-time dealers, things of that sort. And 25+ would be reserved for the big fish.

My main concern, however, is that for some offenses we allow judges full discretion while for others we allow them none. Even I can see the flaws in that system, and I'm no rocket scientist!

ETA: What I describe above are just my own thoughts on how the laws might be revamped to be more fair and to give those who deserve it a second chance, while holding the worst offenders responsible. IMO, it would not be difficult to have mandatory minimums that make sense.

I like that! I think that sounds good- fits the crime, IMO.

 

[bessie]

Giving judges full discretion does not work either just for the reasons you stated. Some people could talk their way out of it and some judges would show favoritism; this kind of thing happens in courtrooms in this country every day.

With tiers at the lower level, the young first-time offender would get 3 years and that could be served as probation...if they mess up, they do time in prison but at least it gives them a second chance!

Mandatory 3 years in prison could be for first-timer who is older, with no priors, or a younger person with priors, etc.

Mandatory 5 could be for subsequent offenses with extenuating circumstances of some sort (minimal priors record, has a job and standing in the community, etc.) The mandatory 7-year level could be reserved for a second or third offense where the person has no job and has a long list of priors (not just drug-related), etc.

Fifteen-year minimum could be for violence during the transaction and for bigger-time dealers, things of that sort. And 25+ would be reserved for the big fish.

My main concern, however, is that for some offenses we allow judges full discretion while for others we allow them none. Even I can see the flaws in that system, and I'm no rocket scientist!

ETA: What I describe above are just my own thoughts on how the laws might be revamped to be more fair and to give those who deserve it a second chance, while holding the worst offenders responsible. IMO, it would not be difficult to have mandatory minimums that make sense.

You're definitely on the right track. A more graduated sentencing system makes sense where the weighted variables are experience and prior offenses, rather than the quantity of drugs. As it is now in Florida, a few pills can buy you an extra ten years. So a first time offender, like Donna Brock, starts out with a mininum of 25 years (her attorney was able to plea down to 15), while Joe Blow druggie with a shady past record would face far fewer years because he just didn't have quite as many pills to sell that day.

If the SA had not agreed to reduce the charges, from my understanding of the Florida law, the judge would've had no choice but to impose the minimum 25 year sentence. So the power rests with the SA. Further, if Joe Blow druggie was willing to turn over any of his big fish connections, he stood to have his sentence reduced drastically by offering "substantial assistance". Meanwhile, Donna would've still been staring at 25 years because all she had to offer was a little minnow like Misty Croslin.

I fully appreciate the need for tough policies to fight drug trafficking. The new laws in Florida, however, seem to reward career criminals and leave a lot of room for disparity.

 

[SoSueMe]

My advice to Donna's son is, DO NOT read what posters/bloggers have to say on the internet about your mother! You know your mother and we don't. We know what she was convicted of, but we don't know the reasons behind her actions. You can defend her, you can tells us, but there will still be some who believe what they want to believe, right or wrong.

Personally, I wish the best for you and your family. Healing takes time, so please give it some time.

 

[bessie]

In Connecticut (where my convictions are from) they have added amendments to their man-min's. For a couple of crimes (strangly, iirc, arson) they even allow some or all of the sentence to be suspended. I think there is a lot that could be done to amend the manditory min's while keeping the general idea of 'em in tact. I think it would also help to lessen the IMO over usage/abuse of plea bargains. Why is it that the law cannot see what so many others can? This country, our government is losing the war on drugs.. their guidelines and punishments are just not working. Since the war on drugs began- more and more people are becoming addicted to legal drugs, doctors are our pushers now. I never even had a desire to do illegal drugs! I wish I'd just smoked pot like all my friends did. I got my high from the FDA with legit prescriptions- I trafficked nothing- our government did!

I dunno.. I get so heated with this stuff, I think I'd better stop talking about it. :blowkiss:

Don't get me started on doctors!! :furious: