Did Booker T recieve a just sentence?

[Paul Diaz-Berrio]

I´m currently reading From Prison to Promise. So far it´s a very enlightening book and I am very impressed with Booker T´s writing skills. Even if he´d had help, he teamed up with a good person who showed him how to put interesting and thoughtful words on paper. I found the initial disclosure of the legal case most intruiging. I would like to explore it on this thread.

To give everyone who hasn´t learned of this, and to remind those who do and give them a clearer picture of the matter, Booker T spent 19 months of a 5 year sentence for the Wendy Robberies. The affair seemed to be a regular, serious issue that half a decade would behind bars would hopefully solve, but it turned out to be more grave.

Booker T was given a number of choices that would have had a big impact on his life. He could either go before the judge and accept his verdict, or he could go to trial. The following could have happened had he done either with complete honesty...

1. If Booker had gone before the judge, he could have confessed to all 12 of the robberies that he took part in, which would have incarcerated him for 60 years, with a 50% reduction for good behaviour.

2. He could have faced a jury and been sentenced to any amount of time from between 5-99 years, with an estimated time of 10-50 years.

Now, fate had something else in store for Booker. One of his elder sisters got him a top notch lawyer, who worked with the prosecution well enough to come up with a plea bargain that would allow Booker to plead guilty to only two of the robberies. This resulted in Booker getting the previously mentioned five year sentence. The nine months he´d already spent nine months in jail helped reduce the sentence, as it counted as time served.

Now, Booker T wasn´t gotten off the hook (no pun intended), but he didn´t endure the legal punishments that he would have hadn´t it been for his older sister. If it wasn´t for her, Booker would probably have been released some time last year, had he been on good behavior. I doubt he´d have gone to trial, as he might still be in prison and would have been released some time in 2037.

Who here thinks his plea bargain was fair and who thinks he should have faced the music, gone before the judge and taken the 60 year jailbird reservation, or tried to prove his innocence through trial and become a five decade veteran?

 

[bullyballmm]

hmm, this is a tough one

On the one hand, he should have fronted up to all charges, as anyone should. The only time someone shouldn't is when they agree to give information on people who committed more serious crimes in exchange for a lighter sentence.

But on the other hand, I think that 60 years for some robberies is an excessive punishment. So I don't think he should have gone to jail for that long of a time.

 

[Giggityfish80]

Unless someone died during the robberies i can't fathom what justifies any sentence of 20 to 50 years. In the uk murderers don't even get half that you'd more likely get 10 to 15 for tax evasion

 

[The Sheik]

19 months seems reasonable... but then again, he was robbing Wendy's, so he was doing the world a favor.

 

[Paul Diaz-Berrio]

After due consideration of the facts, I say Booker T made the right choice. The plea bargain proved to be reasonable, as he went on to become the beloved wrestler we all came to love, both as a face and as a heel. Had justice been served, we'd never have seen Harlem Heat, the spinaroonee, or the very book I'm reading. A legacy was born from a reduced conviction and sentence, so I feel that there are times when we can make exceptions for people. Booker was one of them.

19 months seems reasonable... but then again, he was robbing Wendy's, so he was doing the world a favor.

Oh, why do you think so?

 

[Doxo]

Considering that Texas' penalty for armed robbery is 2-20 years, and Booker did this twelve times, theoretically he would go in for anywhere from 24 years-life, so 60 is pretty fair. However, let's look at it a different way. Let's say this was an in and out thing, Booker points the gun at the cashier, the cashier immediately pays with no further threats or violence, and he bolts. Theoretically, this would provide him with his lowest price of two years. However, you also can't forget about the repeat felon bonus. So if it's as clean as possible, robbery, +2 years, robbery, +3 years (thus five for the plea deal), robbery, +4 years, robbery, +5 years, robbery, +6 years, ect. This would put him in prison for 90 years. Now let's say we cap out the repeat bonus to... say... five. That would give him 54 years. Hell, even if you take out the repeat bonus itself, you can give him 24, but if that's the case then you'd have to assume one is 2.5 since there's no expositions, giving him 30 years.

There's a lot of ways you can look at it, but there's two very important factors here to think about. 1) Booker's crimes of twelve armed robberies was more fucked up then some give credit for. 2) Even if he got bent over the stool and given the worst punishment imaginable, he still wouldn't have been in the jail that long. That lawyer that Booker got ripped him off. Even a cheap rookie lawyer could've gotten a plea deal that easily, it's like the first thing you learn in law school! Trials are super expensive for the government, prisons are super expensive as well. The government wants to waste as little money on the trials and send people to as little jail as possible. If Booker took the 60 year route and gotten a public defender for free, they would've offered him a plea deal for like, five crimes (say... ten-fifteen years turned into five with probation realistically) and he'd be in the exact same spot we know him as today.

 

[Solid Snake]

If someone points a gun at another person, even if they don't pull the trigger, the intent still has to be there to the outside eye. Even if he never intended on firing the gun, he still pointed it at 12 different people (possibly more, I don't know the full story) so in that case, I think he got off easy.

On the other hand, had he served more time, it may have hardened him and he may have ended up coming out only to go back in again. I really don't know which way to look at this. He turned his life around at least. Not everyone that gets off easy does. I think the majority don't for things like this.

 

[Jacob Fox]

The vast majority of convictions in American courts are done through plea bargains. DAs tend to want higher conviction rates rather than long sentences. It's cheaper for tax payers to not go to trial and reduce prison sentences.

Booker's experience is actually pretty typical of the American justice system. In all honesty, the book is probably portraying it as more of an amazing experience than it actually was. In fact, a public defender would have likely got him the exact same deal.

Booker obviously is a much different person than he was back then. So, it's obviously good that he wasn't put behind bars for decades at the expense of tax payers in a criminal justice system that rarely reforms anyone.

 

[Paul Diaz-Berrio]

Considering that Texas' penalty for armed robbery is 2-20 years, and Booker did this twelve times, theoretically he would go in for anywhere from 24 years-life, so 60 is pretty fair. However, let's look at it a different way. Let's say this was an in and out thing, Booker points the gun at the cashier, the cashier immediately pays with no further threats or violence, and he bolts. Theoretically, this would provide him with his lowest price of two years. However, you also can't forget about the repeat felon bonus. So if it's as clean as possible, robbery, +2 years, robbery, +3 years (thus five for the plea deal), robbery, +4 years, robbery, +5 years, robbery, +6 years, ect. This would put him in prison for 90 years. Now let's say we cap out the repeat bonus to... say... five. That would give him 54 years. Hell, even if you take out the repeat bonus itself, you can give him 24, but if that's the case then you'd have to assume one is 2.5 since there's no expositions, giving him 30 years.

There's a lot of ways you can look at it, but there's two very important factors here to think about. 1) Booker's crimes of twelve armed robberies was more fucked up then some give credit for. 2) Even if he got bent over the stool and given the worst punishment imaginable, he still wouldn't have been in the jail that long. That lawyer that Booker got ripped him off. Even a cheap rookie lawyer could've gotten a plea deal that easily, it's like the first thing you learn in law school! Trials are super expensive for the government, prisons are super expensive as well. The government wants to waste as little money on the trials and send people to as little jail as possible. If Booker took the 60 year route and gotten a public defender for free, they would've offered him a plea deal for like, five crimes (say... ten-fifteen years turned into five with probation realistically) and he'd be in the exact same spot we know him as today.

Thank you very much for sharing this information. I will find it very enlightening and useful for my future novels about crime. The math is complex and varies widely depending on the circumstances of a crime.

I would like to ask you what "concurrently" means. Booker T was given a two five year sentence to run concurrently. Could you please explain what this means?

 

[Doxo]

Thank you very much for sharing this information. I will find it very enlightening and useful for my future novels about crime. The math is complex and varies widely depending on the circumstances of a crime.

I would like to ask you what "concurrently" means. Booker T was given a two five year sentence to run concurrently. Could you please explain what this means?

It means instead of serving a total of ten years, he's only in prison for five years since he's serving both sentences at the same time. Just another trick we use to keep people out of jail for long periods of time

 

[Pop Tatari]

He was given the harsher sentence of being HHH bitch ::

 

[Zardnaar]

Plea deal+ decent lawyer.

 

[Paul Diaz-Berrio]

It means instead of serving a total of ten years, he's only in prison for five years since he's serving both sentences at the same time. Just another trick we use to keep people out of jail for long periods of time

I can understand that. If I was living in the US, I wouldn't feel too comfortable about some of my tax dollars going to pay for the reform of people who might or might not come out better people, and, if what I read is true about a low percentage of people changing their ways and the rest reoffending, I'd feel my money wasn't well spent. Booker T, however, proved to be an exception and he did build a better life, so for some, there is hope after all.

So, for what he did, according to him, Booker T spent nine months in jail and nineteen months in prison. That adds up to a total of 28 months served. In the eyes of the law in the US, how is this generally considered as time served for a dozen robberies with guns that had no ammunition in their magazines?

 

[Doxo]

I can understand that. If I was living in the US, I wouldn't feel too comfortable about some of my tax dollars going to pay for the reform of people who might or might not come out better people, and, if what I read is true about a low percentage of people changing their ways and the rest reoffending, I'd feel my money wasn't well spent. Booker T, however, proved to be an exception and he did build a better life, so for some, there is hope after all.

So, for what he did, according to him, Booker T spent nine months in jail and nineteen months in prison. That adds up to a total of 28 months served. In the eyes of the law in the US, how is this generally considered as time served for a dozen robberies with guns that had no ammunition in their magazines?

I'd say pretty well.

Also, our prisons have nothing to do with that low rate, that's societies fault. An ex con can never get a good job, since employers are paranoid that they might steal from them, or be aggressive, it be unreliable, or be unresponsible, or break things, or intimidate people, ect. Because of that, most ex cons can't get anything more than minimum wage, and that's if they're lucky. Most people don't want to be friends with them, also afraid about all the stuff previously mentioned too. So let's say you're in a scenario where you make little to no money, barely able to scrap by, you have nobody who loves or cares about you, and the only thing you're good at is crime. Of course you're going to go back to a life of crime!

It's sad, really. People are always pricks, so that'll be harder to change, but that's why I support the Ban the Box movement. It's mandatory for ex cons to tell their employers about their past by checking a box saying "I'm an ex con" on all their applications, and the majority of employers will throw away any application with that box ticked. If you get rid of the box, you have a much better chance for an ex con to get a well paying job, prove they aren't monsters anymore, thus earning the trust of more people, thus becoming a good member of society and lowering crime. [HASHTAG]#BanTheBox[/HASHTAG] people!

 

[Zardnaar]

I can understand that. If I was living in the US, I wouldn't feel too comfortable about some of my tax dollars going to pay for the reform of people who might or might not come out better people, and, if what I read is true about a low percentage of people changing their ways and the rest reoffending, I'd feel my money wasn't well spent. Booker T, however, proved to be an exception and he did build a better life, so for some, there is hope after all.

So, for what he did, according to him, Booker T spent nine months in jail and nineteen months in prison. That adds up to a total of 28 months served. In the eyes of the law in the US, how is this generally considered as time served for a dozen robberies with guns that had no ammunition in their magazines?

Sending people to prison often has the opposite effect due to reasons stated above. Often they come out worse than what they went in.