I'm just saying, he only stole a damned plane. Who cares? It's not like he hurt anyone. He let all the passengers leave the plane. They never even knew he was hijacking the plane.

And, the article doesn't say who he robbed. He could have just knocked over a couple liquor stores.

Because of these things, I submit to you that he is nothing like the al-qaeida hijackers.

To me, it boils down to -- 'how valuable is a plane'. I don't think stealing a plane is worth 20 years. I think people who think that are just mystified by the glamor of the mysterious airplane. "Oohhh.. he pulled a gun at 35.000 feet! Lock him up!". I mean, someone pulls a gun on the ground, he doesn't get 20 years. Why should it be any different if he's way up high?

There is the kidnapping part, though. I guess it would be fair to give him whatever the penalty is for kidnapping.

To clarify the facts for the "no harm, no foul" philosophers, here's an excerpt from The Washington Post:

I think the deterence factor will weigh heavily in this case. American felons on the lamb just can't be hijacking airliners to escape to Cuba, and return years later as model citizens and be treated leniently when convicted. I just don't think the legal system has any appetite for this criminal behavior.

I'll keep y'all posted.

In July 1971 Critton was involved in a bank robbery in New York City in which he served as the lookout and during which $11,000 was stolen. One of his four accomplices was killed, a second was wounded and two other suspects surrendered.

When Critton was 24 he made pipe bombs with other members of black liberation group the Republic of New Africa, according to police reports.

Write your congressman. In the USA it's a mandatory minimum sentence for air piracy. Long before 9/11.

Yeah.. I kind of figured it was the law. I'm just saying I don't agree with it.

You do make good points, though. We can't have people stealing planes all the time.

Then you failed to appreciate the wider aspect of that point. First, I am not jumping to conclusions on such trivial information. I am still asking what facts apply to what reasons for jail terms. I am far from reaching conclusions. To conclude now would only be a knee-jerk, emotional response.

Take this example from juju2112:
IOW jail time must be applied as a deterent for others. That is but one reason. Another is that maybe 100 people were kidnapped (maybe even worse by using a violent weapon to threaten life). That is also unacceptable behavior (although facts are not fully available), so unexceptable that forgiveness alone is not reasonable.

How's this for another reason. The only reason he led a responsible, reformed life was threat of being caught and serving jail. If jail did not remain as a deterent for some many years, then would he have modified his life? Therefore threat of jail must have always been an option for him and for others.

Then there is the problem with consistency. Five years is too short since marijuana dealers do that kind of time. However Five years is too long since that is the term for murder. I don't see many here addressing that issue meaning that very little information exists (plus we apparently don't know all details such as new information about bank robberies) to yet even consider an opinion.

Any decision at this point would only be emotional. That position should be obvious.

I'm not one to rush to judgment and I abhor trial in the media, which has become a national pastime.

But, in the Critton case under discussion we are dealing with a post conviction situation. The crime is known and guilt has been established and is not in dispute.

The issue that I wanted to get some discussion going about, is the extent to which a subsequent apparent "model citizenship" should impact sentencing.

There are many examples such as Sara Jane Olson, who pleaded guilty to the charges against her, and argued for leniency in sentencing based on her "soccer mom" lifestyle since the crime.

In the current Skakel trial, guilt has not been established as the case is still before the jury. Hypothetically though, IF he is found guilty, what impact on sentencing should be his otherwise model citizenship?

If model citizenship is exculpatory, why bring charges against upstanding citizens for alleged crimes of the distant past?

For many crimes there are applicable statutes of limitation, for public policy reasons. For crimes serious enough that there is no limitation period for bringing charges, there will often be an issue whether an upstanding life after crime confers some immunity from either prosecution or punishment, or ameliorates the sentence, and to what extent.

These are public policy issues that people should form some opinion on, whether intellectual or emotional. Emotional opinions are worth considering to form public policy. It is interesting to measure the emotional impact of these issues as well as the intellectual analysis. Hopefully, this discussion might let us know how people feel about these issues, not just what they think about the issues.

The poll is an unscientific way of weighing the thoughts and sentiments expressed in the words of the posts. It's a bit unfortunate that these polls don't allow folks to reigister a change of opinion as the discussion influences their thoughts and feelings on the topic.

Some might say that they haven't given the concept enough thought to form an opinion on the issue. That's fine. Perhaps, discussions such as this might start such a thought process. Perhaps not - and that's OK, too.

What you mention here is something I feel strongly about. I try very hard not to say that I know something when I know that I don't. So, I hesitate to form an opinion just for the sake forming an opinion.

It is an important issue, though. I'm the same way on the death pentalty, though. There are so many factors involved that I just don't know how I stand.

But like I said, I lean towards 5 years. I can't <i>believe</i> someone voted life without parole!

Critton sentencing
 

The sentencing hearing was yesterday.

Defence lawyer Irving Andre asked for a sentence of three to six years; crown counsel Mark Saltmarsh said Critton should serve 10 to 12.

The judge will pass sentence next Wednesday.

As pointed out by tw, there are many factors that will be taken into account by the judge passing sentence.

Remorse is typically one of those factors.

How does a reformed and rehabilitated person get before a judge in a sentencing hearing and not have "apologize" on his To Do List?

That not said, he just might get tenure in that new teaching position.

I don't agree with you on that. I didn't come to my decision saying, "Awww! He's become such a good person! Let's be light on him!"

I read the story and took various factors into perspective, did a little websurfing, and came to my decision. Logically, rationally. If YOU don't think you can do that at this point, then that's you.

At the same time, if more info were to come to light, I reserve the right to change my mind. The only thing we don't really know, IMO, is what is actually going through Critton's mind.

I'm curious as to exactly what he said. Maybe at this point, he didn't feel it appropriate to apologize.

It's not easy to get a transcript of Critton's exact words at his sentencing hearing, but here are the observations of one reporter who was present. And another.

Only because "lethal injection" wasn't on the list.

On the HB Sliding Scale of Justice, kidnappers fall into the same category as child molesters, rapists, and telemarketers.

Fer crissake, the man hijacked an airliner with a pistol and a hand grenade, and then kidnapped the flight crew and forced them to fly to Cuba against their will. Hello?

The fact that he managed to keep his nose clean for 30 years while he was a fugitive from justice doesn't, in any sense, mitigate the seriousness of the original offense. If anything, it calls into question any of those claims he's making about "remorse" and "accountability". If he were truly remorseful, why didn't he step forward long ago and face up to what he had done?