Judge orders woman adopted as baby deported to Mexico

[Peikko 1,575]

Are you conveniently forgetting what you posted earlier? Not trying to bend the facts at all yourself, were you?

Trafficking does not need to involve organized crime. It is a serious crime in its own right. If she pleaded guilty to lessen her sentence, she was not well advised. That doesn't excuse her from committing the crime in the first place. The consequences of her actions still rest on her own head.

No. Drug trafficking is engaging in the transportation and distribution of illegal substances with the intent of profiting from the sale and distribution of said products. Stealing someones purse that contains prescription drugs does not amount to trafficking, regardless of whether or not she was charged with that crime. You intentionally attempted to portray this women as a danger to society. She is nothing of the sort.

[SuperDuper! 230]

No one is asking you to feel sorry for her, least of all the woman herself. However, to be treated fairly and humanely is something we have come to expect. Conveniently, acting humanely seems to only apply to US citizens for some posters which is far from what the US stands for.

It's also good to be BETTER, not BITTER.

BOING!

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

You have to look at all the mitigating circumstances, including the fact that she has children. She's already served time in prison. The judge is deporting her over a technicality, ignoring the repercussions that this will cause to her and her family. It's a sad day in America when we rip families apart when it serves no purpose.

i've read the mitigating circumstances. that she has children has no bearing on the fact that she did wrong, that she procrastinated, and what you call a technicality is (gasp) the law.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No. Drug trafficking is engaging in the transportation and distribution of illegal substances with the intent of profiting from the sale and distribution of said products. Stealing someones purse that contains prescription drugs does not amount to trafficking, regardless of whether or not she was charged with that crime. You intentionally attempted to portray this women as a danger to society. She is nothing of the sort.

Not sure if you are familiar with the US legal system but basically they try to throw every charge they can at someone to pressure them into a plea deal. Its not exactly the most fair system in the world. (Though much better than Italy's lol)

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

No. However, being able to identify fake from real guns has nothing to do with what you postulated. Being able to create a sense of fear in the victims during the course of a crime quite rightly should elicit a stiffer sentence, but having the ability to carry out the threat of violence because you are actually carrying a weapon versus not being able to should elicit different sentencing as well.

When that's all tidied away, a person who carries out a pathetic crime in order to draw attention to his plight should be treated completely differently to someone who's intention is to commit a crime for personal gain. Nuance in law is absolutely necessary in order to correctly deal with those who commit crimes, anything else causes needless problems all the way around, not least in incarcerating people who would better serve society alternatively occupied.

yes, i'm sure there's some sympathy to be had for those who carry out armed robbery to draw attention to their plight. like surely there's no better way than that to get attention!

there is no nuances involved here except for those you conveniently happen to see. if someone points a toy gun at a cop, that person gets shot - and it's justified. point a toy gun during the commission of a crime, it's armed robbery. point a toy gun at someone carrying concealed, and odds are there will be a funeral.

pure and simple - because the one that it's being pointed at thinks it's real - and for someone with the right health condition, it could be fatal. the ante gets upped then from armed robbery to murder. and yes, that's happened before too.

[Peikko 1,575]

yes, i'm sure there's some sympathy to be had for those who carry out armed robbery to draw attention to their plight. like surely there's no better way than that to get attention!

there is no nuances involved here except for those you conveniently happen to see. if someone points a toy gun at a cop, that person gets shot - and it's justified. point a toy gun during the commission of a crime, it's armed robbery. point a toy gun at someone carrying concealed, and odds are there will be a funeral.

pure and simple - because the one that it's being pointed at thinks it's real - and for someone with the right health condition, it could be fatal. the ante gets upped then from armed robbery to murder. and yes, that's happened before too.

People who are experiencing high levels of stress rarely act rationally, that's the point that you seem to keep missing, over and over, and over and over again.

Intent is not some high brow abstract intellectual nonsense, it is key to evaluating the dangers posed to society by criminals and the reality of their recidivism. The likelihood of being able to rehabilitate someone who has commuted a criminal act should be one of the main determining factors in the sentencing decisions and the prison system should be geared toward putting responsible citizens back out on the streets once their sentence is finished, not pathetic, institutionalized ne'er do wells who stand no chance of operating in society without re-engaging in criminal activity. Under those conditions there are obviously some people who would never gain freedom again, as well as high volumes of people who would be punished then rehabilitated.

Of course, if you believe that justice is about lauding it over those who make poor choices once they get caught (generally for blue collar crimes of course) then cheering on pointlessly punitive sentencing and promoting the idea that jails are recepticles for worthless trash who deserve no better then these types of decisions seem logical I suppose.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

She was charged with theft - she stole another woman's purse. The purse contained prescription drugs. She plead guilty and was convicted of both theft and drug trafficking (outrageous), even though she didn't try to sell off the prescription pills. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

It doesn't matter that she didn't try to sell them off. She was in possession of drugs that weren't hers. The assumption is she was GOING to try and sell them.

For instance, with marijuana or other such drugs if you're caught with a small amount you will be charged with possession, if you're caught with a large amount they assume your purpose is to sell them/it. Some drug traffickers know their business well. If the limit is 25kgs, they will carry 24kgs. If the limit is 100 pills, they will carry 95. Just enough to be under but still take enough stock to sell.

Whether you like it or not the law is basically rules. The rules state she had enough of a drug that wasn't hers to be convicted of trafficking... thems the breaks.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

No. Drug trafficking is engaging in the transportation and distribution of illegal substances with the intent of profiting from the sale and distribution of said products. Stealing someones purse that contains prescription drugs does not amount to trafficking, regardless of whether or not she was charged with that crime. You intentionally attempted to portray this women as a danger to society. She is nothing of the sort.

But how do YOU know she didn't steal the purse after seeing the woman fill up on her prescriptions? How do YOU know the sole purpose wasn't to obtain the drugs to sell them?

Whether you like it or not the woman was in possession of drugs, an amount of which was sufficient for a trafficking charge as opposed to possession. She could not prove her intent was not to sell the drugs therefore she is charged with trafficking.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[Peikko 1,575]

Not sure if you are familiar with the US legal system but basically they try to throw every charge they can at someone to pressure them into a plea deal. Its not exactly the most fair system in the world. (Though much better than Italy's lol)

I have no first hand experience of it, no, nor do I want any.

It does however seem from an outsiders point of view to be heavily skewed towards over punishing blue collar crime while turning a blind eye to other types of criminal act and demonizing those who engage in crime as subhuman. Of course, that is a bit of an exaggeration

But how do YOU know she didn't steal the purse after seeing the woman fill up on her prescriptions? How do YOU know the sole purpose wasn't to obtain the drugs to sell them?

Whether you like it or not the woman was in possession of drugs, an amount of which was sufficient for a trafficking charge as opposed to possession. She could not prove her intent was not to sell the drugs therefore she is charged for trafficking.

I know because of how the article is written. IF the woman had been some hard arsed druggy we would know all about it, and then some.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Yep. She didn't know that her adoptive parents never naturalized her until immigration got involved. She's 38 and has been living in American since she was 5 months old.

What complete trollop. At some stage of this womans life she would have been asked to prove her citizenship. She has no proof of her citizenship. I'm sure at some stage of her life she realised she wasn't a USC.. but we don't know that for sure. All we have is what is stated in the article

Her parents didn't get her naturalized nor did she when she had the chance. By the time she tried to get citizenship as the spouse of an American, she was already in trouble with the law.

This statement makes it appear both she and her parents knew she wasn't really a USC.

I know because of how the article is written. IF the woman had been some hard arsed druggy we would know all about it, and then some.

You're assuming this woman wasn't on her way to becoming one. Every criminal has a beginning. Are you saying we should take a soft stance and give the benefit of the doubt when someone commits a crime for the first time because "they're not a hard assed" criminal.. yet?

[Peikko 1,575]

What complete trollop. At some stage of this womans life she would have been asked to prove her citizenship. She has no proof of her citizenship. I'm sure at some stage of her life she realised she wasn't a USC.. but we don't know that for sure. All we have is what is stated in the article

This statement makes it appear both she and her parents knew she wasn't really a USC.

You're assuming this woman wasn't on her way to becoming one. Every criminal has a beginning. Are you saying we should take a soft stance and give the benefit of the doubt when someone commits a crime for the first time because "they're not a hard assed" criminal.. yet?

No, I'm not assuming anything. IF there was any evidence at all that she she heading down a bad path the article would have reflected that.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What complete trollop. At some stage of this womans life she would have been asked to prove her citizenship. She has no proof of her citizenship. I'm sure at some stage of her life she realised she wasn't a USC.. but we don't know that for sure. All we have is what is stated in the article

This statement makes it appear both she and her parents knew she wasn't really a USC.

You're assuming this woman wasn't on her way to becoming one. Every criminal has a beginning. Are you saying we should take a soft stance and give the benefit of the doubt when someone commits a crime for the first time because "they're not a hard assed" criminal.. yet?

We never really know all the facts from an article so its all just assumptions in the end. But at the end of everything, I believe its wrong to deport someone to a third world country that they don't know. This woman would be better off getting 20 years in US prison then spending 2 years in Mexico.

[Peikko 1,575]

We never really know all the facts from an article so its all just assumptions in the end. But at the end of everything, I believe its wrong to deport someone to a third world country that they don't know. This woman would be better off getting 20 years in US prison then spending 2 years in Mexico.

No, but generally speaking if there is dirt to be found a journalist will find it, if only because that sells more copy. The fact that there is little in evidence is for one of two reasons, that there is none, or that if there is any it's not widely known - less than likely with people who are poor.

20 years for purse theft? Or 20 years for having been adopted by US citizens and not naturalizing?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, but generally speaking if there is dirt to be found a journalist will find it, if only because that sells more copy. The fact that there is little in evidence is for one of two reasons, that there is none, or that if there is any it's not widely known - less than likely with people who are poor.

20 years for purse theft? Or 20 years for having been adopted by US citizens and not naturalizing?

The 20 years just represents a period of severe punish to show a comparison of what she will experience in Mexico. IMO if I was judge, jury and executioner, I would say she deserves something like 180 days in prison and on the Federal side a fine of something like 4,000 dollars to acquire legal status.

[Peikko 1,575]

The 20 years just represents a period of severe punish to show a comparison of what she will experience in Mexico. IMO if I was judge, jury and executioner, I would say she deserves something like 180 days in prison and on the Federal side a fine of something like 4,000 dollars to acquire legal status.

Right, that makes sense.