 |
 |
 |
 |
Inside the Fishbowl: Life sentence seems unduly harsh
Deric Rothe
|
The ongoing saga of Eugene “Jake” McBride grabbed our online community by the throat, and caused me to re-examine our role at the Journal.
There were 48 comments this morning on the July 2 article we published about the 29-year-old Auburn third-striker on our Web site.
For a variety of reasons, we missed Jake McBride’s last court appearance and have followed up on the story of the Auburn man who now faces an upper term of 69 years to life after being found guilty of his third strike.
I talked to Loretta Stiles, McBride’s grandmother, by phone last week and assured her we would do our best to fairly portray his plight, even though we missed the court appearance. Stiles feels strongly that “Jake,” as he’s known, has gotten a raw deal.
At my request, veteran Journal reporter Gus Thomson researched court records and interviewed Jake by phone from Placer County Jail for his top-of-page 1 report.
Jake was found guilty of carjacking, auto theft and petty theft with a prior conviction.
Stiles told Gus she believes Jake is “totally not guilty of any of this.”
I am not sure if Jake is guilty or not. What I am sure of is that a life sentence for a 29-year-old who hasn’t killed anyone seems – on the surface – unduly harsh.
Jake doesn’t appear to be the brightest light in the chandelier and he doesn’t come from the upper echelon of Auburn society. But that should not matter.
He deserves a fair trial, competent legal counsel and a punishment, if found guilty, which is fair and just.
Jake returns to court July 18 for sentencing.
I encourage you to read some of the comments on the original story. Some are heartfelt from family members, including younger siblings who claim Jake was repeatedly beaten as a youngster.
Other family members, including Debra Tennant of Grass Valley who had a letter published in today’s Journal, claim Jake is a menace to society and he “deserves every day of his life in prison.”
So far the victims in this case have not been heard from in the Journal, nor has the prosecutor, Doug Van Breen or defense attorney, John Lyman.
We chose to publish what we had and will follow up in a fair and balanced manner, doing the best we can under the circumstances (note: if attorneys are not available to return phone calls, we still publish and keep calling them for future reports.)
Our goal is to get the news out. We might choose to editorialize on this case, especially if the prison sentence is out of line with reality. The proposed upper-term penalty seems unjust but all the facts are not yet known.
What I can promise is we won’t let this important story be swept under the rug.
Our role is to report on stories of interest to the community. The online commenting on this particular case is on the edge. We have allowed some racist inferences and strong opinions to be aired on both sides.
Stories like Jake’s deserve to be told and the three strikes law is in need of further debate to ensure justice is truly served.
If you would like to use your real name and be quoted in the Journal on the Eugene McBride sentencing, e-mail me at dericr@goldcountrymedia.com.
This is a story with legs.
Sidebar: Our cops/court coverage
We do not cover every court case in Placer County. We watch the dockets and pick and choose cases that might be of interest to readers. Sometimes the District Attorney’s Office or local law enforcement agencies tip us off. Other times we get calls from readers, and sometimes defense attorneys or family members inform us about cases of interest.
In the business we call cultivating these relationships “developing sources.”
Developing sources in the law enforcement community and with attorneys representing both the prosecution and defense takes time. Whether it’s an attorney, suspect or victim, it takes time to develop trust between those in the court system and a reporter and/or editor.
As many of you know, we have a relatively new court reporter, Jenifer Gee, who is doing a great job for us. Reporter Jenna Nielsen has taken over the cops/fire beat, which used to be combined with courts and under former reporter Penne Usher.
With Usher’s departure to be closer to her children and pursue other interests, we split the two beats up and are trying a new approach with some young talent.
Click here to read more of Deric's blogs, Inside the Fishbowl
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Unduly harsh? You don't say?
Mr. Rothe, how many times have you been victimized by a criminal with the intent to do you harm?
I also remind you. Jake McBride DID get a fair trial and he was found guilty, ON THREE OCCASIONS. Hence, he now qualifies for Three Strikes.
Deric: I agree, a life sentence is too harsh, when applied to a 29 year old whose 2 priors occurred when he was a teenager. He deserves to be punished, and the public needs to be protected, but neither purpose requires a life sentence. Before 3 strikes, judges had discretion and could weigh the competing interests and issue a just sentence. Not a perfect system, but it's not a perfect world. With 3 strikes, however, judges have virtually not discretion. We might as well let a computer determine the sentence. It's not justice, it's pandering to a bloodthirsty public.
But even if we forget any notion of fairness or justice, and merely look at how our tax dollars are spent, does it make sense to warehouse an entire generation of elderly felons at $50,000 per inmate per year? We don't have enough room in the prisons we have now. How much more do we want to spend on new prisons? I would rather spend the money on schools, hospitals and libraries.
I'm sorry Mr. Rothe, but anyone who has 2 strikes before they reach the age of 29 has a serious problem. I can empathize with his horrible childhood and I blame his family for that. But he is what he is now. Whether he did this crime or not, he is going to seriously hurt someone someday, and at some point he needs to be accountable for what HE has done. You can make excuses until you're blue in the face but the fact is he has victimized people for a long time. And I personally don't want to be his next.
Gulliver:
Might I recommend that you do some research on the three strikes law before you mislead the general public on its application? Since the Romero decision, judges have virtually unfettered discretion in three strikes sentencing decisions. Judges more often than not choose to ignore, or "strike" prior serious or violent prior convictions and instead sentence defendants to determinate, or non-life, sentences. Your statement that "judges have virtually not [sic] discretion" is just not true. The only limit on a judge's discretion is prior case law, which allows judges to ignore prior convictions for defendants who fall "outside of the spirit of the three strikes law." That covers almost every defendant with prior serious or violent felony convictions who, say, steal a candy bar or possess a little drugs. True, in the first few years of the three strikes law, there were defendants who were sentenced to life for minor crimes, but their sentences have largely been overturned since the Romero decision was announced by the Supreme Court.
So the presiding judge in this case will be able to evaluate all of the evidence of the current case, and that of Mr. McBride's priors, and take all of that into consideration when deciding whether Mr. McBride falls "outside of the spirit of the three strikes law." I hope you have learned something, and if you feel otherwise, please observe what actually happens in criminal courts here and in other jurisdictions to learn more.
Don't you understand? According to 'Big Left', it's much more productive and easier to perpetuate a lie than it is to rebut the truth. It's out of the official handbook.
gulliver, have you ever been the victim of a crime?
chestbrockwell: My information is based on discussions with my friends, who are former prosecutors and criminal defense specialists. If you can help me with a citation to Romero, I'll read it and if you are right I will say so.
MRex21. Did I do something to offend you? My skin is thick enough not to suffer serious insult, but even a mosquito can be annoying when it is sufficiently persistent.
The last post under Joszef Pelikan was really mine. Joszef Pelikan is my son, who didn't log off earlier today. Anyway, MRex21, please direct your venom at me, not Joszef Pelikan
Gulliver, you forgot to change your name back from Josef_Pelikan.
Gulliver,
Why don't you read People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 113 Cal.4th 497, followed by People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148. You are a gentleman for seeking knowledge.
My son!?!?!?
Haaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaahaaaaaa
Wow. Thanks!! That was funny.
I am kind of thinking...Why didn't I think of that!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Geeez, I think I wet my pants! Wow. Too funny.
And I suppose that the coincidence of UhHuh and Skeptic screwing up and posting on each other's threads was just a ..errr..coincidence as well??!?
I think it just gets hard to run four or five different names on this site.
RSV_T: You are an idiot! You think you are funny but you are not.
Signed,
Skeptic
Ooops.
My son Skeptic just posted and forgot to change the name.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
Man...my sides are hurting. Gotta shut it down or I will wet my pants...again!!!
Wow..Too funny.
See you Josef-Gulliver-Ron-Dummy
RSV_T: Uh Huh ans Skeptic are two different people and have never been guilty of "screwing up and posting on each other's threads. And yes, you are an idiot.
chestbrockwell: You are correct that a sentencing judge, after Romero, has some discretion to strike a prior conviction. The discretion is not, however "unfettered" and the trial judge must carefully document the basis of his/her exercise of that discretion, and that discretion, per Williams, is subject to close appellate review. Bottom line, however, is that you are mostly right and I was mostly wrong in saying that a sentencing trial judge has no discretion to disregard a prior strike. So thanks for correcting me. It will be interesting to see what the judge actually does in the McBride case.
gulliver, please answer my question.
Considering the above comments I'm pretty sure I'll be attacked for my opinion, but here it is..... I think a life sentence is too harsh in this case. I think 20 years would be sufficient, and that this young man could be rehabilitated. He's not a rapist, or murderer, or child molester. In my opinion I think that he definitely deserves some real prison time, just not the rest of his life. Now if he had murdered, molested or raped anybody I would absolutely be all for locking him up for the rest of his days. I think his victims will find some way to replace whatever was stolen, and be able to move on with their lives knowing that he will be doing prison time. I am in no way condoning what he has done, and I am not asking to be attacked for my opinion. So maybe we can all act as adults and allow people to express their opinions without name calling, wetting your pants and getting so off track. Happy 4th of July everyone.....and don't drink and drive!
Mrex21: OK, I will humor you and answer your question. Yes I have been a victim of a crime. So what? Is being a crime victim supposed to give me some special insight or standing to comment on the subject?
stellablue: I agree. Thanks for your sanity and humanity.
Apparently folks don't have much to do today accept ridicule each other. Put each other down. On the one day we celebrate our independence we should be more concerned about our young men who are still serving in iraq for the freedom to have justice. No it isn't a perfect system however it has it's good points and the system was created by people who believed in america and protecting it's people. God Bless america and all of you out there who appreciate the fact that you have the right to state your opinion freely despite it's content.
Gulliver,
Your reading of those opinions is correct. Again, I am impressed by your open mindedness. The bigger question for me is this: what leads people who know they have been convicted of two or more prior strikes to engage in serious felonious conduct? It's not like the three strikes law is a secret. And it is not like committing a carjacking is just a benign mistake. If a person is not deterred from committing serious felonies knowing that they will be subject to life in prison when caught, what is left for society to do. Reading the posts from the main story, I can understand the family dynamic that spawns an individual like the subject of the article. Unfortunately, the government can do little to disrupt that cycle of dysfunction. No, the police, CPS, and Probation/Parole cannot swoop in like Superman and mediate/educate/counsel/repair everything that is wrong in Mr. McBride's universe, nor are they to blame for where he is today. You can't blame public schooling for not teaching Mr. McBride that decisions to commit serious felonies lead to harsh results. On this day of celebrating independence, I guess the bottom line is that we are each individuals who reap the rewards of making right decisions and sometimes suffer the consequences of making poor ones.
What a travesty. People seem to have no concern for one another any more.
This man may have been beaten and had a terrible child hood. Where were the authorities and the school. He evidently had no nurturing nor structure or any thing in his child hood. His IQ is not what it should be maybe because of genetic or beatings.
Any way there must be some way to place this man in confinement to keep him from being a menace to himself and others but the sentence he received is way out of line. He needs help, and needs to be monitered but locking him up for a long time is not going to help him or society.
I do not have answers but three strike law should be changed. It is not fair and some one has to kill three times to get locked up for good?
I am hoping the young man gets the help he needs.
I hope he spends the rest of his natural life in prison pining over the life he could have had if he hadn't chosen to victimize other people.
You pro-criminal/slap-on-the-wrist idiots disgust me. 'Big Left' indeed.
Pathetic.
Eugene Mcbride has not been charged with a crime in 10 years, not since he was 18 or 19, he will be 30 this monday. If you don't have money to defend yourself on any crime in auburn, you are in serious trouble, Now if you murder 4 people and bury 2 of them alive, and rape the mother in auburn and you are here ILLEGALLY you are double dipped, you get life in prison, and when you are 45 years, even tho it was Murder 1 premeditated Should have been death. However we don' t have information on illegal. Just like the illegal women who is accused to shaken the baby to death, we don't know if she has done this before in her country, WHITE GUILT.
As far as DEBRA making her comments from grass valley, She is not a family member, I don"t know where she comes from, Must be somebody living on welfare with too much time. She obviouly isn't computer savy or has time to write to auburn journal. THATS NOT WHAT WORKING PEOPLE DO.
You're trying too hard Loretta. You may want to rest a bit.
MREX21 YOU REALLY NEED A HOBBY OR ANOTHER JOB
This can be an interesting forum for discussion, except when it degenerates into name calling and non-sensical, off-topic posts.
Ms. Stiles, you keep making vague references to other cases. I'm not sure if others on this board know what you're referring to, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm familiar with the shaken baby case, but what does that have to do with your grandson? How does any other case have any relevance whatsoever?
So he hasn't committed a crime in ten years. Big whoop, throw him a party. I've never committed a crime in my entire life.
The point made by chestbrockwell is an excellent one. What would make a person who knows they already have two strikes against them go out and engage in further criminal behavior?
The only problem with the life sentence for these scumbag career criminals is that WE THE PEOPLE have to pay for these idiots! I love the idea of outsourcing to Mexico!
The truth is that although this young man has not been charged/convicted of any crimes in 10 years or so doesn't mean that he hasn't been committing crimes.
If he tried to carjack me...well, we wouldn't be in court that's for sure!
Three strikes and your out...should be you get to work the fine off... and learn a trade......pay back everyone and learn your lesson. If the crime is to bad then work the rest of your life for 60 hours a week 6 days per week...just like us out here in the supposed "freedom of society" have to do. Since when is it acceptable for anyone breaking the law to just loose their freedoms...the lawyers love this one and protect this law....just like the blood sucking leaches love our skin.
Clearly the current law enforcement and judicial systems are not working and not benefiting anyone..no benefit to the victims.. or the criminal...or the tax payer... who by the way might be better off in jail the way it is now....no more money worries and every benefit known to man for free behind bars!