159 year mandatory term for woman

[madmusic]

Ninth Circuit upholds 159-year mandatory term of imprisonment

With thanks to Howard for the tip, I see the Ninth Circuit has today upheld in US v. Hungerford, No. 05-30500 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2006) (available here), a woman's 159-year federal sentence for various robbery convictions. The facts suggest that the defendant was a lesser "Bonnie" who helped her "Clyde" carry out numerous armed robberies. In a concurring opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt notes that the the defendant is a "mentally disturbed woman with no prior criminal record" who "never touched a gun."

Judge Reinhardt's opinion is a fascinating attack on mandatory minimum sentencing, with many notable passages. Here is one such passage:

t is difficult to escape the conclusion that the current mandatory sentencing laws have imposed an immensely cruel, if not barbaric, 159-year sentence on a severely mentally disturbed person who played a limited and fairly passive role in several robberies during which no one was physically harmed.

Too bad for the defendant that she was not also required to wear a sign in public saying "I am a thief," since then there might be sustained opposition from others in the legal academy.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/10/ninth_circuit_u.html

[Poppyseedman]

1. I read the opinion via the PDF link in article

and think she got what she deserved.

159 years is excessive but she belongs in jail for a long time

[madrchsod]

6. a severely mentally disturbed person does not deserve prison

they need to be placed in a facility that deals with people who are severely disturbed, prison is a cruel and unusual punishment for them. to bad this country does not have the compassion nor the will to treat the people who cannot control their demons with a sliver of compassion.

[Poppyseedman]

13. Did you read the opinion?

She does not seem to be severely mentally disturbed based on her actions.

Canfield testified that, after he told Defendant about the
adrenaline rush that accompanied the robberies, “she wanted
to be more involved in the crimes, so she wanted to be—she
wanted to help participate.”

Although her direct participation in these later robberies
was minimal, Defendant did not ask Canfield to stop committing
armed robberies. She accepted the proceeds, knowing
their source, and the proceeds from these periodic crimes provided
the only means the couple had to meet their financial
needs.

They mapped out a strategy to “leave a trail out of town” and then stop. The plan was to rob
an establishment in Butte, Montana, then go to Missoula and
rob another place there “using the same mask and MO” as had
been used in the earlier robberies. They traveled to Butte,
rented a hotel room, and together they scouted possible targets.
They selected an establishment called Gramma’s. When
Canfield went there on July 27, 2002, he decided against robbing
it and instead chose to rob Joker’s Wild.



As noted, Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence underlying her conspiracy conviction. She
conspired with Canfield to commit the whole series of armed
robberies, in a continuous sequence. There is no evidence that
Defendant took any affirmative act to withdraw from the ongoing conspiracy before the four robberies in question occurred. To the contrary, she continued to accept and spend
the proceeds of all the robberies and worked purposefully to
conceal the crimes. She helped actively to plan the Missoula
robbery. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to support
the challenged convictions under the conspiracy liability doctrine
of Pinkerton.

[Eric J in MN]

15. She should be punished. Perhaps she should serve 20 years.

Not stay in prison for the rest of her life.

[madmusic]

8. Did the read the freeper post in the comments, too?

Some funny stuff if not so predictable.

Evidently, the man only got 30 years in exchange for snitching.

[Poppyseedman]

10. No, just read the opinion by the court

That's all that really matter as to the pertinent facts for the case.

I agree the guy got off real easy and needs to get about 100 years added to his sentence.

[madmusic]

12. This part is funny:

Not only is the sentence cruel, it is absurd. It imposes a
term of imprisonment of 159 years, under which Hungerford
would be incarcerated until she reached the age of 208. The
absurdity is best illustrated by the judge’s reading to Hungerford
the terms of supervised release which she would be
required to undergo when she emerged from prison toward
the end of the first decade of her third century. The judge told
Hungerford that “(w)ithin 72 hours of release from custody,”
— in the year 2162 — she must “report in person to the probation
office,” and while on supervised release she must “participate
in substance abuse testing to include not more than
104 urinalysis tests.” He further ordered Hungerford to “participate
in a program for mental health,” and “pay part or all
of the cost of this treatment, as determined by the U.S. probation
officer.”

[madmusic]

16. On second thought, in 2162, when she is released...

They probably won't have urinalysis tests, but will have a computer chip built in that alerts the PO to dirty tests on the spot. The GPS device leads the PO to her, and BUSTED. Or maybe another chip detects drugs and takes control of her mind and she turns herself in voluntarily.

typo

[acmavm]

2. Justice and the legal system have nothing to do with one another.

Anyone who ever gets it into their heads that it does needs to be quickly disuaded of that idea.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. What in the world does a person have to do

to get sentenced to 159 years??

[Rex]

4. So she gets 159 years for being an accomplice and some rich

CEO (that hurt a vast number of people), gets 2 and a half years. No wonder our judicial system is so fucked up. Heaven forbid we dole out punishments to fit the crime. :eyes:

[alarimer]

5. I have a problem with mandatory sentencing guidelines

Though I know nothing about this case in particular. Judges should have more authority in sentencing.

But it does seem as if this sentence is out of line, considering people who kill other people do not get as much time. But then I guess we as a society place more value on property than on human life sometimes.

[rpannier]

7. It's absolutely amazing

You hear from the "law-and-order" types about getting tough on crime.
The US has the largest prison population in the free-world and we feel less-and-less safe everyday.

[meldroc]

9. The judge could have gone a step further...

He alread used the words "cruel" and "barbaric". He could have used the phrase "cruel and unusual" and struck the mandatory minimum sentence down as a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

[madmusic]

11. No can do.

In the opinion, it states they are limited because of SCOTUS rulings. That reasoning is usually based on the court's required deference to the legislative branch and the prosecution (the executive branch). What it amounts to, is that she got so many years because she refused a plea deal. Prosecutors don't like that and will get even with anyone who exercises their right to trial by jury.

This decision is well worth reading for anyone wanting to know what is really going on in our system. The same flaws permeate most state courts as well.

[LostinVA]

14. Nope, SCOTUS rulings won;t let him do so