I suspect her time on the "outside" will be short

[Steff]

:headshake

http://www.wral.com/news/5248073/detail.html

 

Woman Charged In 1995 Slaying Released From Prison

Melanie Gray Sentenced For Death Of Danny Pence

 

POSTED: 6:55 am EST November 4, 2005

UPDATED: 9:21 pm EST November 4, 2005

 

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Melanie Gray was 14 when she helped kill a Wilmington student in 1995. On Friday, she walked out of prison, but she may also go down as one of the most troublesome inmates ever.

 

During her time in prison, Gray racked up close to 120 infractions. Most were things such as fighting, gambling and stealing. The most recent one was on Oct. 11 for disobeying orders.

 

State Department of Correction officials said Gray may have the most infractions of any inmate.

 

Gray was sentenced to prison for her role in the death of 17-year-old Danny Pence. Pence was at Wrightsville Beach when Gray and her former boyfriend Todd Boggess, kidnapped him in 1995.

 

Gray and Boggess drove him to a remote, wooded area of Durham County, where Boggess beat him and left him for dead.

 

Investigators say the pair committed the crime to take Pence's Ford Mustang.

[kapkomet]

WTF? Why do people like this get let go?

 

So it's going to take another person DEAD for her to go back behind bars. Sick.

[Mercy!]

WTF?  Why do people like this get let go?....

Because they've served their sentence?

[Steff]

Because they've served their sentence?

 

 

 

Ahhh.. the PC response... would it be the same if it was your dead family member she beat the s*** out of over a car..?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Ahhh.. the PC response... would it be the same if it was your dead family member she beat the s*** out of over a car..?

 

 

Remember this thread when people start getting upset about manditory sentencing guidelines.

[Balta1701]

Remember this thread when people start getting upset about manditory sentencing guidelines.

For every person like this one, who is let out too early, there is another person who does their time and genuinely reforms who is kept in too long.

 

There's a reason I dislike mandatory sentencing on all levels: sometimes, a mandatory sentence is too long for a crime committed (i.e. 3 strikes kicking in on a drug possession charge or something like that), and then on the other hand, there's cases like this, where the sentence was clearly mandated to be too short.

 

I'm in favor of giving more power to judges, juries, and parole boards in these matters. Rather than mandating durations, why can't each one be evaluated on a case by case basis? We're already trying and imprisoning people on a case by case basis.

[southsider2k5]

For every person like this one, who is let out too early, there is another person who does their time and genuinely reforms who is kept in too long.

 

There's a reason I dislike mandatory sentencing on all levels: sometimes, a mandatory sentence is too long for a crime committed (i.e. 3 strikes kicking in on a drug possession charge or something like that), and then on the other hand, there's cases like this, where the sentence was clearly mandated to be too short.

 

I'm in favor of giving more power to judges, juries, and parole boards in these matters.  Rather than mandating durations, why can't each one be evaluated on a case by case basis?  We're already trying and imprisoning people on a case by case basis.

 

Is it? What kind of recivitism rates are we talking about for violent offenders? For Sexual predators? For child abusers?

 

Isn't 120 offense enough to know that this woman probably isn't going to be able to handle freedom? If not, how many times does it take?

[Mercy!]

Ahhh.. the PC response... would it be the same if it was your dead family member she beat the s*** out of over a car..?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If people choose to start thread after thread about awful people doing awful things just so everyone can make post after post agreeing what awful people they are, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with those who immediately want to turn a neutral response such as I made into something personal, Steff.

 

I responded to Kap’s question with what I thought was an obvious answer. If you want to post flamebait instead of discuss ideas, go annoy someone else, please.

 

Call me old fashioned, I guess. I believe people get tried, convicted, serve their sentence and get let out. God Bless America, eh? The hard fact is that 98% of the people now in person WILL get out – including most that we consider Lifers.

 

I guess my response to your sarcastic ad homimen would be to ask what would you recommend that the state have done differently in this PARTICULAR case? Or what would you recommend that the victim’s family do? Be waiting with a shotgun when she leaves prison? I can’t tell what you intended with your response other than to make a gratuitous insult to a fellow poster.

[Texsox]

Remember this thread when people start getting upset about mandatory sentencing guidelines.

 

Aren't you the one that doesn't like to pay for prisoner's room and board? Why would you support a position that requires offenders, who a parole board deems safe to be let out, to stay longer at tax payer's expense?

 

Let's let Judges judge and let politicians politic. Isn't that the GOP way? Keep the judicial out of the legislature, shouldn't the legislature stay out of the judicial?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Aren't you the one that doesn't like to pay for prisoner's room and board? Why would you support a position that requires offenders, who a parole board deems safe to be let out, to stay longer at tax payer's expense?

 

Let's let Judges judge and let politicians politic. Isn't that the GOP way? Keep the judicial out of the legislature, shouldn't the legislature stay out of the judicial?

 

 

Unfortunately the parole board screwed up big time in this case. Habitual offenders need to spend more time behind bars. Those convicted of serious crimes on the order of Murder 1, Rape and Child molestation need to have a date with ol sparky set up.

[kapkomet]

If people choose to start thread after thread about awful people doing awful things just so everyone can make post after post agreeing what awful people they are, I have no problem with that.  I do have a problem with those who immediately want to turn a neutral response such as I made into something personal, Steff.

 

I responded to Kap’s question with what I thought was an obvious answer.  If you want to post flamebait instead of discuss ideas, go annoy someone else, please.

 

Call me old fashioned, I guess.  I believe people get tried, convicted, serve their sentence and get let out.  God Bless America, eh?  The hard fact is that 98% of the people now in person WILL get out – including most that we consider Lifers.

 

I guess my response to your sarcastic ad homimen would be to ask what would you recommend that the state have done differently in this PARTICULAR case?  Or what would you recommend that the victim’s family do?  Be waiting with a shotgun when she leaves prison?  I can’t tell what you intended with your response other than to make a gratuitous insult to a fellow poster.

Oh brother.

 

First, please stop it with the "martyr" posts. I'll just leave that there.

 

And second (to the issue of the thread), if a person is in clear violation of "jail conduct", they shouldn't be out - period. The system's messed up, and it needs to be fixed. Steff's response was exactly as it appeared, not an attack on you. What if your family member were a victim of a person like this? Oh, you'd just say, "that's the system, that's ok, they served their time". Baloney. In this PARTICULAR case, it's demonstrated that this person cannot conduct herself in normal society, so (call me old fashioned) that should be a pretty simple answer, right? I guess not. :rolly

[Balta1701]

Is it?  What kind of recivitism rates are we talking about for violent offenders?  For Sexual predators?  For child abusers?

 

Isn't 120 offense enough to know that this woman probably isn't going to be able to handle freedom?  If not, how many times does it take?

That's exactly my point with that post, 2k5.

 

This person clearly belongs in prison. They have not been rehabilitated. But because her time in prison has come to an end, she's being let out, despite the fact that she's not able to rejoin society.

 

This is where the judgement of someone out there should come into play. Clearly this case is one where the offender shoudl not be getting out of prison. But I'll guarantee you that if I looked for long enough, I could find a person who committed the exact same original crime as she did. Now, let's say we had both these people...1 behaves well in prison, 1 commits 120 additional offenses. Now, if they both received 12 year sentences, would you be comfortable releasing both? I don't think I would either.

 

Now, on the other hand, let's say that the judge instead followed the new mandatory guidelines for that crime. Would you say that both this person and the one who was a model inmate for 12 years deserve to stay in prison for an additional 18 years or so? This person could clearly use some extra time. The other person wouldn't deserve it.

 

There needs to be a human factor in analyzing these in a case-by-case basis. That way, you don't end up with psycopaths running around because their jail term ended, but you also can try to limit the amount of people who genuinely reform who get stuck in prison for life.

[kapkomet]

Bingo.

[Mercy!]

Oh brother.

 

First, please stop it with the "martyr" posts.  I'll just leave that there.

 

And second (to the issue of the thread), if a person is in clear violation of "jail conduct", they shouldn't be out - period.  The system's messed up, and it needs to be fixed.  Steff's response was exactly as it appeared, not an attack on you.  What if your family member were a victim of a person like this?  Oh, you'd just say, "that's the system, that's ok, they served their time".  Baloney.  In this PARTICULAR case, it's demonstrated that this person cannot conduct herself in normal society, so (call me old fashioned) that should be a pretty simple answer, right?  I guess not.  :rolly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh sister…..

 

What is this a tag-team? I answer you, Steff makes a wise-acre response. I respond to Steff, I get you.

 

It should be pretty obvious that a martyr I never was, nor will be.

 

If you'll notice your response turned the post around to what you say *I* would do if I were the victim of a similar crime and then answer with a Baloney! What sort of argument is that? Stick to the subject and YOUR OWN opinions why don’t you and there’d be less fights. Or if you prefer the fights, do it with someone else is all I’m saying.

 

You’re just mad because you’re so dependent on expensive gasoline. :rolly

[kapkomet]

Oh sister…..

 

What is this a tag-team?  I answer you, Steff makes a wise-acre response.  I respond to Steff, I get you.

 

It should be pretty obvious that a martyr I never was, nor will be.

 

If you'll notice your response turned the post around to what you say *I* would do if I were the victim of a similar crime and then answer with a Baloney!  What sort of argument is that?  Stick to the subject and YOUR OWN opinions why don’t you and there’d be less fights.  Or if you prefer the fights, do it with someone else is all I’m saying.

 

You’re just mad because you’re so dependent on expensive gasoline. :rolly

Why don't you re-read the whole thing? If it was YOUR acquantance that was the victim of the original crime, you'd just say "eh, she did the time"... THAT was Steff's question, and I was reinforcing that - because your insinuation was that "meh, they served the time" was pretty shallow. Obvious, yes, but shallow, hence why the topic was brought up in the first place.

 

And in case you hadn't noticed, it's my right to butt in any conversation I want. I'll let you figure that out on your own.

[Texsox]

If we begin to set prison terms based on what the victim or the victim families believe is fair, be prepared for a huge increase in the prison population and a huge tax cut to pay for it all. So any of the "what would you do if it was someone you loved" arguments is just not realistic.

 

Since she committed the crime at 14, could it be possible she was sentenced as a juvenile and had a number of years tacked on? Could it also be she was rebelling at being locked up and may just lead a straight and narrow life to avoid going back? I'm guessing, like most here, that isn't the case and she will violate some parole restriction and wind up back out.

 

We really don't want to be tough on crime in this country. Saddam was tough on crime and we're spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives, to make it stop.

[Mercy!]

Why don't you re-read the whole thing?  If it was YOUR acquantance that was the victim of the original crime, you'd just say "eh, she did the time"... THAT was Steff's question, and I was reinforcing that - because your insinuation was that "meh, they served the time" was pretty shallow.  Obvious, yes, but shallow, hence why the topic was brought up in the first place.

 

And in case you hadn't noticed, it's my right to butt in any conversation I want.  I'll let you figure that out on your own.

I don’t need to re-read it, but I did. I see you changed your wording. It wasn’t “acquaintance” it was my “family”. And I didn’t “insinuate” anything. I made a statement of opinion. About The Thread Topic.

 

With each post you continue to personalize this discussion, now labeling my original contribution to this thread as “shallow.” That is, you’re making a value judgement about me, the poster, not debating the topic at hand. I’m sorry to be so repetitive, but this just is really basic stuff about civil discourse.

 

Of course you don’t have to follow “my” rules. But I hope you’ll understand if I continue to point out your misbehavior.

[kapkomet]

I don’t need to re-read it, but I did.  I see you changed your wording.  It wasn’t “acquaintance” it was my “family”.   And I didn’t “insinuate” anything.  I made a statement of opinion.  About The Thread Topic.

 

With each post you continue to personalize this discussion, now labeling my original contribution to this thread as “shallow.”  That is, you’re making a value judgement about me, the poster, not debating the topic at hand. I’m sorry to be so repetitive, but this just is really basic stuff about civil discourse.

 

Of course you don’t have to follow “my” rules.  But I hope you’ll understand if I continue to point out your misbehavior.

Who do you think you are? I'm supposed to get a lecture from YOU? GMAFB.

 

Acquaintance, family, you, who the hell ever, a PERSON YOU KNOW. You really like to twist s*** around to make yourself look right and good and wholesome. Again, get real. I see you like to play mind games to divert the real issue. It's quite cute. Let's all have a Mercy! cheer. Awwwwwwwwwwwwww. And the point was about the post - the post was shallow, until you once again had to play martyr and make yourself look like a "message board victim". Guess what? You'll lose this battle in the long run, thanks for playing.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don’t need to re-read it, but I did.  I see you changed your wording.  It wasn’t “acquaintance” it was my “family”.  And I didn’t “insinuate” anything.  I made a statement of opinion.  About The Thread Topic.

 

With each post you continue to personalize this discussion, now labeling my original contribution to this thread as “shallow.”  That is, you’re making a value judgement about me, the poster, not debating the topic at hand. I’m sorry to be so repetitive, but this just is really basic stuff about civil discourse.

 

Of course you don’t have to follow “my” rules.  But I hope you’ll understand if I continue to point out your misbehavior.

 

 

LMFAO!!!!

 

 

You show up here and start provoking people and then you want to give a lecture on civil discourse and try to point out other peoples "misbehavior"?! OMFG!

 

 

I dont know whether you realize it or not but you've just shot to the top of the charts as Soxtalk's funniest poster.

 

Edited November 8, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Mercy!]

Who do you think you are?  I'm supposed to get a lecture from YOU?  GMAFB.

 

Acquaintance, family, you, who the hell ever, a PERSON YOU KNOW.  You really like to twist s*** around to make yourself look right and good and wholesome.  Again, get real.  I see you like to play mind games to divert the real issue.  It's quite cute.  Let's all have a Mercy! cheer.  Awwwwwwwwwwwwww.  And the point was about the post - the post was shallow, until you once again had to play martyr and make yourself look like a "message board victim".  Guess what?  You'll lose this battle in the long run, thanks for playing.

Unless I'm mistaken (and I'll admit I could be ) the "real issue" is the discussion of various topics of interest to the people who post here. Care to try to do that? Or would you continue to like to make me your topic of conversation? I'm saying, I'm not interested in that. But if you choose to persist............

[mr_genius]

Unless I'm mistaken (and I'll admit I could be  ) the "real issue" is the discussion of various topics of interest to the people who post here.  Care to try to do that?  Or would you continue to like to make me your topic of conversation?  I'm saying, I'm not interested in that.  But if you choose to persist............

 

 

It seems as if you are the one trying to make yourself the topic of conversation. Just an observation.

[kapkomet]

It seems as if you are the one trying to make yourself the topic of conversation.  Just an observation.

Brilliant! But you're wrong.

 

Since I'm making it so personal, I'm done playing for tonight. It's been fun. :rolly

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It seems as if you are the one trying to make yourself the topic of conversation.  Just an observation.

 

 

Like I said earlier. Starved for attention and angry at the world. Its unfortunate that life is kicking her ass and she feels the need to vent about it here.

[Texsox]

Isn't it interesting that when we have a well spoken liberal that can hang with Nuke and Kap, she gets attacked. Once again, liberals don't stand a chance around here. :headshake

[kapkomet]

Isn't it interesting that when we have a well spoken liberal that can hang with Nuke and Kap, she gets attacked. Once again, liberals don't stand a chance around here.  :headshake

That has nothing to do with it and you know it.