I don't get this at all....

The prison sentence for Patricia Spottedcrow (no priors) for selling $31 worth of weed to an undercover officer.

Story and a video here... http://www.oklahomawatch.org/story.php?sid=26&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+OklahomaWatch+(Oklahoma+Watch)&utm_content=Twitter

I don't get this at all....

The prison sentence for Patricia Spottedcrow (no priors) for selling $31 worth of weed to an undercover officer.

Story and a video here... http://www.oklahomawatch.org/story.php?sid=26&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+OklahomaWatch+(Oklahoma+Watch)&utm_content=Twitter
This is one of the reasons prisons all across the country are overfilled. A minor crime like this has destroyed countless lives. And the sad thing is, this woman will likely be imprisoned with the hard core prison population with zero chance for parole. She will spend her time trying to stay alive and survive. It's even worse for male prisoners.

The war on drugs is wrong and harmful to society in so many ways.

I looked it up and she had several charges, including felony distribution (2010), felony possession (same year but separateb by months from the distribution) and misdemeanor bad checks (back in 2007). She pled guilty in the felony distribution and the possession charges. The bad check was dropped - looks like it might have been part of the plea.

I am not sure why she was called a first offender - looks like she merely had multiple charges rolled into plea. Ten years sounds harsh but I don't think the news story was giving the straight goods. She pled for a reason.

I agree with everything except how much time she will do. I'm guessing she may do 1-2.5 years unless there is a statutory minimum I am unaware of. Now is actually a pretty good time to go to prison for a non-violent crime - they are setting prisoners free left and right.

A Robinson hooker with prior violent and non-violent convictions and two prison stints pled guilty to her part of an armed robbery and only served less than two years of her 5-6 year sentence (can't remember the exact sentence). Several other individuals (men and women) I have followed are only serving 1/4 - 1/3 of their time.

I looked it up and she had several charges, including felony distribution (2010), felony possession (same year but separateb by months from the distribution) and misdemeanor bad checks (back in 2007). She pled guilty in the felony distribution and the possession charges. The bad check was dropped - looks like it might have been part of the plea.

I am not sure why she was called a first offender - looks like she merely had multiple charges rolled into plea. Ten years sounds harsh but I don't think the news story was giving the straight goods. She pled for a reason.

Where are you finding this? I did an OSCN and got nothing but some traffic citations and small claims. Not even this particular conviction.... odd. DOC is down right now.

Where are you finding this? I did an OSCN and got nothing but some traffic citations and small claims. Not even this particular conviction.... odd. DOC is down right now.

Kingfisher docket.

I looked it up and she had several charges, including felony distribution (2010), felony possession (same year but separateb by months from the distribution) and misdemeanor bad checks (back in 2007). She pled guilty in the felony distribution and the possession charges. The bad check was dropped - looks like it might have been part of the plea.

I am not sure why she was called a first offender - looks like she merely had multiple charges rolled into plea. Ten years sounds harsh but I don't think the news story was giving the straight goods. She pled for a reason.

Wasn't the felony distribution this charge that she is serving time for? The additional possession was when she was sentenced and they found a joint on her? Bad checks? Give me a break, that's not a criminal record.

She blind pled assuming she'd get a much lighter sentence. I'm still seeing nothing to justify a 10-yr sentence. 30-60 days maybe - 10yrs? No way.

bbatesokc - didn't you at one time film prostitutes in order to get parts of town cleaned up? Were you not responsible for sending numerous victimless non-violent criminals to jail? I thought I remember reading one time that you said the neighborhoods where this activity took place was the victims. Did you change your mind?

Wasn't the felony distribution this charge that she is serving time for? The additional possession was when she was sentenced and they found a joint on her? Bad checks? Give me a break, that's not a criminal record.

She blind pled assuming she'd get a much lighter sentence. I'm still seeing nothing to justify a 10-yr sentence. 30-60 days maybe - 10yrs? No way.

I don't know if this was a blind plea or not - where does it say she expected a lighter sentence? My experience is that a blind plea on these types of charges doesn't happen unless there is more to the tale.

I don't know if this was a blind plea or not - where does it say she expected a lighter sentence? My experience is that a blind plea on these types of charges doesn't happen unless there is more to the tale.

I got to that assumption based on this quote "Because neither had prior criminal records and the drug amount was low, they took the gamble of entering into a blind plea before a judge, meaning they pleaded guilty with no prior sentencing arrangement" and my experience seeing offenders with clean records "throwing themselves on the mercy of the court" with a blind plea. My understanding is all they were willing to offer her was 2 years to do. Guess that sounds like a pretty good deal now.

Odd thing is, in Oklahoma CO arrests with this small amount are often never even filed.

bbatesokc - didn't you at one time film prostitutes in order to get parts of town cleaned up? Were you not responsible for sending numerous victimless non-violent criminals to jail? I thought I remember reading one time that you said the neighborhoods where this activity took place was the victims. Did you change your mind?

Kerry, once again not letting the facts get in the way of a good story...... "at one time" - try pretty much full time since 1996. "Were you not responsible for sending numerous victimless non-violent criminals to jail?" Yep. But the ones I sent to jail were only there for 4-9 hours on average. Just long enough to be processed. Certainly not 10 years. I follow all my cases and none have EVER received more than 30 days and that was only because of multiple prior convictions and/or multiple active criminal charges. The average woman convicted of prostitution receives a deferred or suspended sentence or however many days in jail they happened to sit there before making bail or being OR'd out.

"I thought I remember reading one time that you said the neighborhoods where this activity took place was the victims? Did you change your mind?" Yep. I still say that. What's your point? I believe there is personal responsibility for one's action, but 10 years for $31 worth of weed and a bad attitude is not 'justice' for the community.

Do you think the short (4 to 9 hour) jail stays are having a positive impact on prostitution, or are they just viewed as a minor inconvenience by the women? Out of curosity, how long should prostitutes get sent to jail for? I assume it should be long enough to make crime not pay.

What does the average prostitute make a day and how many days do they work between arrests? Divide that by the minimum wage and you find out how many hours that is. Divide that by 40 and you get how many weeks they should be in jail. Then tack on some time more to pay society back. So if a prostitute make $30,000 per year a conviction should result in no less than 100 weeks in jail. She would be better working for minimum wage. If you allow crime to pay people will choose it as an occupation.

Do you think the short (4 to 9 hour) jail stays are having a positive impact on prostitution, or are they just viewed as a minor inconvenience by the women? Out of curosity, how long should prostitutes get sent to jail for?

Depends on the prostitute. It really doesn't matter for sake of this argument. That 4-9 hours isn't a criminal sentence, its the time it takes to process an individual (which is ridiculous if you ask me) that hasn't even been charged with a crime. If they were arrested for no insurance, shoplifting, assault or any other crime with a bond it would take 4-9 hours before you can get out.

As for "how long should prostitutes get sent to jail for?" Each case is individual, anywhere from 0-12 months depending on priors, etc.

As for "how long should prostitutes get sent to jail for?" Each case is individual, anywhere from 0-12 months depending on priors, etc.

Is this the best use of our criminal justice system? We are all aware of how overfilled our prisons are. Why continue to add to the cost of our legal system with petty crimes like prostitution? Why not legalize it and confine it to state regulated brothels?

I got to that assumption based on this quote "Because neither had prior criminal records and the drug amount was low, they took the gamble of entering into a blind plea before a judge, meaning they pleaded guilty with no prior sentencing arrangement" and my experience seeing offenders with clean records "throwing themselves on the mercy of the court" with a blind plea.

Hmm. I went back and must be overlooking the mention of a blind plea. I did see on the video where she expected a light sentence (which implies a blind plea or bad attorney - or someone dishonest because you hear that claim all the time from people in jail).

One thing that struck me was that she insisted she and her mother absolutely didn't have a record. That wasn't true, at least on her account. What came through loud and clear was that she saw nothing wrong with what she was doing or that she was exposing these kids to that sort of lifestyle. She just didn't get it. The notion that incarcerated parents are the cause of more children growing up to be incarcerated struck me as idiotic. By that reasoning, we should just let parents be criminals and having children is a ticket to stay on the outside. I am not saying drug users shouldn't get treatment or that all should go to jail - but this woman is a hard case. It was generational. I am not crying any tears for her although I feel terrible for her poor children who had the bad fate to be saddled with this woman. She mentions her husband in the beginning of the video but he apparently isn't even around the kids - probably isn't even their dad, if she is like so many druggies.

She is up for parole in 2014 and I expect she'll get out. The idea what she is going away for ten years for $31.00 is a dishonest half truth aimed to get people riled up. With the least amount of effort, she'll be out at that time.

This woman NEEDS to be incarcerated - she said it herself - she just didn't get it - had no idea. Whether a year or two years or three, I don't know - I haven't seen the sentencing report. But I know from experience that she needs a wake up call. And she NEEDS to be supervised when she gets out or she will slide right back into it and take the kids with her.

No matter what, that woman was going to go to jail for this offense. If she had gotten a light sentence, she still would have gone to jail, I'm betting. And the kids would have suffered by her actions and her choices. We can complain about the system being too harsh or disagree with the length of the sentence - but this woman was a trainwreck and the courts didn't cause her life to be a hellhole for her kids - she did that.

Is this the best use of our criminal justice system? We are all aware of how overfilled our prisons are. Why continue to add to the cost of our legal system with petty crimes like prostitution? Why not legalize it and confine it to state regulated brothels?

You mean like Amsterdam?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/07/city-to-close-some-brothels-pot-cafes/



AMSTERDAM | The city unveiled plans Saturday to close brothels, sex shops and marijuana cafes in its ancient city center as part of a major effort to drive organized crime out of the tourist haven.

The city is targeting businesses that “generate criminality,” including gambling parlors and the so-called “coffee shops” where marijuana is sold openly. Also targeted are peep shows, massage parlors and souvenir shops used by drug dealers for money-laundering.

“I think that the new reality will be more in line with our image as a tolerant and crazy place, rather than a free zone for criminals,” said Lodewijk Asscher, a city council member and one of the main proponents of the plan.

Is this the best use of our criminal justice system? We are all aware of how overfilled our prisons are. Why continue to add to the cost of our legal system with petty crimes like prostitution? Why not legalize it and confine it to state regulated brothels?

Legalize and regulate in the USA as a solution is a myth when dealing in particular with street level prostitution and many non-public prostitutes.

Hmm. I went back and must be overlooking the mention of a blind plea. I did see on the video where she expected a light sentence (which implies a blind plea or bad attorney - or someone dishonest because you hear that claim all the time from people in jail).

One thing that struck me was that she insisted she and her mother absolutely didn't have a record. That wasn't true, at least on her account. What came through loud and clear was that she saw nothing wrong with what she was doing or that she was exposing these kids to that sort of lifestyle. She just didn't get it. The notion that incarcerated parents are the cause of more children growing up to be incarcerated struck me as idiotic. By that reasoning, we should just let parents be criminals and having children is a ticket to stay on the outside. I am not saying drug users shouldn't get treatment or that all should go to jail - but this woman is a hard case. It was generational. I am not crying any tears for her although I feel terrible for her poor children who had the bad fate to be saddled with this woman. She mentions her husband in the beginning of the video but he apparently isn't even around the kids - probably isn't even their dad, if she is like so many druggies.

She is up for parole in 2014 and I expect she'll get out. The idea what she is going away for ten years for $31.00 is a dishonest half truth aimed to get people riled up. With the least amount of effort, she'll be out at that time.

This woman NEEDS to be incarcerated - she said it herself - she just didn't get it - had no idea. Whether a year or two years or three, I don't know - I haven't seen the sentencing report. But I know from experience that she needs a wake up call. And she NEEDS to be supervised when she gets out or she will slide right back into it and take the kids with her.

No matter what, that woman was going to go to jail for this offense. If she had gotten a light sentence, she still would have gone to jail, I'm betting. And the kids would have suffered by her actions and her choices. We can complain about the system being too harsh or disagree with the length of the sentence - but this woman was a trainwreck and the courts didn't cause her life to be a hellhole for her kids - she did that.

Tulsa World mentions the blind plea (that's where my quote came from).

Where are you getting this assertion she has a criminal record? I looked over the Kingfisher docket and there was no prior record I could find. She had been charged with writing a bad check but it was dismissed without cost. A dismissed charge is not even close to being a record. Even an active charge is not a criminal record. The other two charges are what she is serving now. Again, no prior record.

Did she have a bad attitude? You bet. Is that a crime? No way.

Again, 1-12 months would have been more than enough for a first time offender. I personally say, give her a suspended sentence and if she truly didn't get it then she'd be arrested again, violate her paper and given the time to do.

You mean like Amsterdam?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/07/city-to-close-some-brothels-pot-cafes/


Kerry, why do you only post part of the story that supports your position? The headline states:


Amsterdam closing some brothels, pot cafes

Some Kerry, not all. Hey Kerry, some corporations are corrupt like Enron. But if I used your logic, I'd just say ALL corporations are corrupt. See how silly you look when you do that?


Legalize and regulate in the USA as a solution is a myth when dealing in particular with street level prostitution and many non-public prostitutes.

It works in numerous countries around the world and in Nevada. Putting street prostitutes in prison solves nothing and overcrowds our prisons, just like marijuana laws do. No solution to any problem is perfect, but doing the same failed thing we have been doing for the last 100 years has yet to work. Maybe after another 100 years those street walkers will get the message perhaps?

At the very least, leagalizing brothels will generate tax revenue, and help relieve prison overcrowing to a small degree. Required regular medical check ups of the prostitutes will reduce disease. It's 100% better than what we are doing right now.

It works in numerous countries around the world and in Nevada.

Actually, IMO, Nevada is a perfect example of why it won't work in the USA. Even with legalized prostitution Nevada still ranks as one of the top states for illegal prostitution arrests. At the very least it proves most people involved in prostitution (regardless of willingness) have little regard for following the law.


It works in numerous countries

"Works" is a matter of opinion and perception.


At the very least, leagalizing brothels will generate tax revenue, and help relieve prison overcrowing to a small degree.

Prostitution is already taxed (income tax). Even those that run fronts pretending to be legal escort services get prosecuted all the time for not paying taxes. As for prisons - give me a break, the number of women who go to prison for prostitution is statistically insignificant.


Required regular medical check ups of the prostitutes will reduce disease.

Yet another reason legalization and regulation will not effect street level prostitution. Exactly what do you think those that test positive for diseases are going to do - go to work at WalMart? Not to mention these checks don't look for every STD, just the most common and deadly. Also, these tests are only monthly or even further apart - meaning dozens to hundreds of men would be exposed between checkups.

I agree something should be done, but thinking most convicted hookers go to prison for hooking is a myth and so is thinking legalization will do more good than bad.

My first step would be to decriminalize private, consensual prostitution and focus on public and forced.

I guess this has officially hijacked the the thread - sorry.

Oklahoma Jury's just need to be better educated of there rights.

Fully Informed Jury Association
http://fija.org/

My first step would be to decriminalize private, consensual prostitution and focus on public and forced.

It's your thread to hijack, no need to apologize.

Now, with this line quoted above, you have essentially agreed with my position. Legalize or decriminalize - either way stops much of the waste of law enforcement and judicial resources. But the fact that decriminalization collects no tax revenue is the difference and the problem.

Forced prosititution is an entirely different issue involving human rights and a victim.

Consensual prostitution is a victimless crime, just like someone posessing and smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home. It's a waste of law enforcement resources enforcing either.

Did she have a bad attitude? You bet. Is that a crime? No way.

You are trivializing what I meant when I said she didn't get it. Bad attitude is one thing. Snotty, rude, angry, that sort of thing. Happens all the time and it isn't a crime. But it is up to the court to decide how best to deal with a specific problem, within reason, and when you have a woman dealing in the presence of her children and who, even months after being incarcerated, insists it wasn't a problem - I can see why the judge thought it was important to get the woman's attention. She came into court when she was busted for felony possession with pending felony distribution charges. She ended up with a conviction, apparently, for selling $31.00 worth of drugs. How she got 10 years for that, I don't know. But it raises enough flags that I simply don't buy her poor me story, especially when she pled guilty and never let this go to trial. I wonder if she appealed. If she didn't, this story is done. She screwed herself and her kids, either way you look at it, whether she spent 6 months behind bars or three years.

bbatesokc - didn't you at one time film prostitutes in order to get parts of town cleaned up? Were you not responsible for sending numerous victimless non-violent criminals to jail? I thought I remember reading one time that you said the neighborhoods where this activity took place was the victims. Did you change your mind?

Victimless? WTF is wrong with you?

Spottedcrow and her mother, 50, were offered plea deals of two years in prison, she said. But she was afraid of her mother going to prison because of her poor health.

Because neither had prior criminal records and the drug amount was low, they took the gamble of entering into a blind plea before a judge, meaning they pleaded guilty with no prior sentencing arrangement. Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://209.184.242.1/news/article.aspx?subjectid=487&articleid=20110220_11_A1_CUTLIN556620&allcom=1

You know, I am really, really disappointed that not only did you not include this link from Tulsa - but even though the question of a plea was specificaly discussed and questions raised, that you didn't see fit to enlighten us that the woman first turned down a two year sentence. Really - that is sorta slimy to go to bat insisting the woman in some sort of good faith went for the blind plea and got screwed but didn't mention this part of the story.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://209.184.242.1/news/article.aspx?subjectid=487&articleid=20110220_11_A1_CUTLIN556620&allcom=1

You know, I am really, really disappointed that not only did you not include this link from Tulsa - but even though the question of a plea was specificaly discussed and questions raised, that you didn't see fit to enlighten us that the woman first turned down a two year sentence. Really - that is sorta slimy to go to bat insisting the woman in some sort of good faith went for the blind plea and got screwed but didn't mention this part of the story.

Would you have me post every link regarding a specific topic - are you not capable of doing your own Googling?

I guess you missed the part when a plea was first brought up in this thread and I said, "My understanding is all they were willing to offer her was 2 years to do. Guess that sounds like a pretty good deal now."

I don't get your point - she obviously refused the 2 year offer and blind pled because she felt she'd get a better deal with a blind plea - duh. Sounds like the blind plea saved grandma and got daughter 10yrs. Both were equally culpable yet one goes home to continue being a bad influence on the kids and the other goes to prison.

Yes, you eventually got around to mentioning the first plea offer but not on the front end. Instead, you started this whole thread with the comment:


I don't get this at all....

Clearly you knew more than you let on because you DID understand. And when you first mentioned the blind plea, you didn't mention the first plea she rejected. One of my law professors used to call those "happy facts" given to support a premise - amounts to cherry picking what you mention. And the moral of this story is that I need to independently check everything you write because you don't think giving the whole story is important. Shame on me for assuming you would. Live and learn.

Yes, you eventually got around to mentioning the first plea offer but not on the front end. Instead, you started this whole thread with the comment:



Clearly you knew more than you let on because you DID understand. And when you first mentioned the blind plea, you didn't mention the first plea she rejected. One of my law professors used to call those "happy facts" given to support a premise - amounts to cherry picking what you mention. And the moral of this story is that I need to independently check everything you write because you don't think giving the whole story is important. Shame on me for assuming you would. Live and learn.

You make less sense as you go along. The fact she was offered a plea doesn't in any way change my opinion that I don't get how in the hell a judge sentenced someone to 10-years for selling $31 worth of weed while the sidekick granny got to go home. Does that opinion just not register with you? What the F does it matter that she was offered a plea? Unless the plea she turned down was for no time, I fail to see its relevance.

The fact they were both offered 2 yrs to do and the blind plea resulted in only one getting time shows the plea offer is fairly irrelevant.

Lastly, FYI, I hadn't read the Tulsa World article until after I posted this thread and was doing additional research. I only learned of the story through a post by a lawyer friend named Josh Welch and his post only referenced the link I originally posted. Regardless, other than spewing some illogical B.S., you haven't pointed out why you think a plea being offered is so crucial. Pleas are offered and rejected every day.

You make less sense as you go along. The fact she was offered a plea doesn't in any way change my opinion that I don't get how in the hell a judge sentenced someone to 10-years for selling $31 worth of weed while the sidekick granny got to go home. Does that opinion just not register with you? What the F does it matter that she was offered a plea? Unless the plea she turned down was for no time, I fail to see its relevance.

The fact they were both offered 2 yrs to do and the blind plea resulted in only one getting time shows the plea offer is fairly irrelevant.

You were implying that this was all just odd and the poor woman was victimized by the system. Fact is, the case was being treated like any other case was treated and she rolled the dice instead of taking a reasonable offer based on the charges. It was idiotic on her part. Once the facts came out - the actual charges and the fact that she turned down a plea, the whole thing made sense. You were insisting it was all a mystery and it wasn't.

You were implying that this was all just odd and the poor woman was victimized by the system. Fact is, the case was being treated like any other case was treated and she rolled the dice instead of taking a reasonable offer based on the charges. It was idiotic on her part. Once the facts came out - the actual charges and the fact that she turned down a plea, the whole thing made sense. You were insisting it was all a mystery and it wasn't.

Ha! You think an offer of two years to do on $31 worth of weed for a person with no criminal record is "like any other case." You are out of your mind.

So, in your opinion, a person shouldn't turn down a plea deal if they think it is unreasonable? Sounds like you had one hell of a law professor.

Ha! You think an offer of two years to do on $31 worth of weed for a person with no criminal record is "like any other case." You are out of your mind.

She was charged with felony distribution and felony possession. SHE said she was convicted based on selling $31.00 worth of drugs in the home (and had one of the kids go get change). If that doesn't raise a question in your mind about the actual charge and actual facts, what can I tell you? She also had pending charges for bad checks.

And btw, her mother, Ms. Starr, according to the Tulsa article, also plead and:


On Sept. 23, Starr received a 30-year suspended sentence and five years of drug and alcohol assessments. Nearly a month later, Spottedcrow was sentenced to 10 years in prison for distribution and two years for possession, to run concurrently. She will be up for parole in 2014.Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://209.184.242.1/news/article.aspx?subjectid=487&articleid=20110220_11_A1_CUTLIN556620&allcom=1

Do you honestly believe this grandmother with an allegedly "clean" record got a thirty year suspended sentence for selling $31.00 of pot? Do you really?

She was charged with felony distribution and felony possession. SHE said she was convicted based on selling $31.00 worth of drugs in the home (and had one of the kids go get change). If that doesn't raise a question in your mind about the actual charge and actual facts, what can I tell you? She also had pending charges for bad checks.

WTH? What are you even saying? Every media report published I've read gives the same story she does and I haven't read that the prosecution is giving a different story - undercover cops bought $31 worth of weed and she was charged with distribution. She was dumb enough to have a joint on her in the courtroom and she caught a felony possession charge. The pending bad check charges were dismissed without costs and wouldn't have even been brought up at trial. What is your point? All of this is open and on the table.

I said early on she could have been given some time - but are you seriously saying 10 years is reasonable? Exactly where the line have been in your mind - 11yrs, 15yrs, 20yrs, life?

I'm saying that she should have taken the original plea. And I am saying I don't buy the story she is telling. Is this on appeal?

And btw, her mother, Ms. Starr, according to the Tulsa article, also plead and:

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://209.184.242.1/news/article.aspx?subjectid=487&articleid=20110220_11_A1_CUTLIN556620&allcom=1

Do you honestly believe this grandmother with an allegedly "clean" record got a thirty year suspended sentence for selling $31.00 of pot? Do you really?

You're delusional aren't you? What makes you think any different? She was given a sentence based on a criminal charge, based on a probably cause affidavit - a charge that was covered by the media. "Alleged" clean record. Hello, its a public record and appears pretty clean.

I'm saying that she should have taken the original plea. And I am saying I don't buy the story she is telling. Is this on appeal?

Why take the original plea? Based on what? No reasonable person would expect to be sentenced to 2 yrs for $31 worth of pot. Hello, we had two cops off duty in OKC participate in what DA Prater described as a drive by and he said "they want to act like gangbangers, then we will treat them like gangbangers." But, guess what? Charges dropped if they'd simply quit their jobs at OCPD. Kept their CLEET licenses, kept any retirement benefits, got paid to sit at home for over a year and get their records cleared. Oh, and one just bought the Marble Slab in Bricktown.

So, cops can shot at citizens while off duty and expect to get nothing and women with no criminal record should expect to do 2-10 years for selling $31 worth of pot. RIGHT.......

She got a bad pre-sentencing report that she could have considered before taking a blind plea. Not only that, but she showed up with pot in her pocket when she went to her sentencing (she also ended up pleading to that). I think reducing it down to a 31 dollar charge and pretending the rest of the situation doesn't matter (including pleas, other circumstances) is a great strategy if someone wants to inflame people who think drugs are okay and that woman with kids shouldn't go to jail.

As the judge said (but you didn't mention), this was generational - the grandmother was involved. A woman with four children who involves them in selling drugs and who shows up to be sentenced for drug distribution and possession with drugs in her pocket (who claims she doesn't do drugs, no less) is not someone I am going to get all that excited about a tough sentence. Moreover, according to the judge, she was flat out lying that this was a small time operation. According to the judge, this was a pretty big drug operation (again, not mentioned by the ones playing the violin). If you want to believe the criminal's version, go ahead. But chances are, once they had enough to bust her, they aren't going to leave those kids in that situation just to be able to "catch" her with more. I say, good for them.

Granted, that doesn't explain why granny has them, now. I guess that was granny in the video.

Yeah - it was a HUGE operation, so much so they could only come up with a charge based on buying $31 worth of pot. If it was so huge, why was there no EVIDENCE of a huge operation? Oh yeah, the judge said so and judges are so unflawed (well except the Oklahoma ***** Pump Judge and the most recent one facing charges that amount to child trafficking).

Is this the best use of our criminal justice system? We are all aware of how overfilled our prisons are. Why continue to add to the cost of our legal system with petty crimes like prostitution? Why not legalize it and confine it to state regulated brothels?

I got to agree with Joe Daddy on this one. This seems way out of line for what is nothing more than a misdemeanor in some states and pretty much ignored in others.

Yes, Mugs, it does seem extreme but the fact is, the court has access to the pre-sentencing report and we don't. Additionally, the media is reporting this as a $31.00 sale but not saying where they got that information - from what I've seen, the criminal is a liar so I'd take anything she said with a grain of salt. Moreover, the charges were felony charges, not misdemeanor. Further, the grandmother got THIRTY YEARS - common sense says there is a lot more going on than $31.00. On top of that, the woman, who claims she doesn't have a drug problem, showed up at the sentencing with drugs in her pocket.

I didn't see mention of an appeal and wonder if that is coming, giving the length of the sentence. No one is claiming this was excessive based on sentencing guidelines but I would be interested in what a lawyer who does criminal law has to say about that.

Wow, good thing Penny aint a judge. We'd be spending half our budgets on jails and prisons.

Seriously Penny, how can you not say that this isnt an unfair punishment. We pay to incarcerate this lady for 10 years over a small pot charge and possibly some lying (your assertion)? Thats what, a quarter million dollars? Its a joke to have such a severe sentence for such a small, non violent crime.

It's really simple, If you don't want to go to jail, don't do anything illegal that might put you there.

Sounds like a real bright character. But like sammy davis jr sang "dont do the crime if you cant do the time".

It's really simple, If you don't want to go to jail, don't do anything illegal that might put you there.

In general I agree - but where is the line that defines "punishment" vs "abuse of power."

Wow, good thing Penny aint a judge. We'd be spending half our budgets on jails and prisons.

Seriously Penny, how can you not say that this isnt an unfair punishment. We pay to incarcerate this lady for 10 years over a small pot charge and possibly some lying (your assertion)? Thats what, a quarter million dollars? Its a joke to have such a severe sentence for such a small, non violent crime.

No, I wouldn't do this to everyone so don't twist what I am saying. What is interesting to me is how the ones up in arms give NO credence to the judge (who saw the whole situation and the pre-sentencing report) AND ignore the charges, but take this criminal at her word - no matter how odd it sounds.

For what it's worth:

It appears there is no appeal pending by Spottedcrow, though that's not a huge surprise. Appeals arising from guilty pleas, blind or otherwise, are rather rare.

The 31.00 of pot actually came from two separate sales, two weeks apart. Children were present for at least one sale, which is what prompted the additional count.

The granny received a majorly lengthy suspended sentence, which almost no one seems up in arms about.

Ten years is a lot, but sales are different from possession, and attitude of the offender about the crime does get included in the pre-sentence report.

And, whatever anyone thinks of softer illegal substances, showing up for sentencing , on a blind plea no less, with a stash in the pocket is WAY STUPID, however small the stash may be.

In general I agree - but where is the line that defines "punishment" vs "abuse of power."

The punishment of prison time is not really going to benefit the community in this case. She would be better off on house arrest or supervised probation. If she continued to use and distribute then put her in prison for a long time.

The punishment of prison time is not really going to benefit the community in this case. She would be better off on house arrest or supervised probation. If she continued to use and distribute then put her in prison for a long time.

Agree!

The punishment of prison time is not really going to benefit the community in this case. She would be better off on house arrest or supervised probation. If she continued to use and distribute then put her in prison for a long time.

For pot? Kinda wasted time and effort IMO.

For pot? Kinda wasted time and effort IMO.

Aren't you worried that all of the pot smoke will cause global warming? LOL

I see she has a FaceBook page now.... http://www.facebook.com/Spottedcrows

And to think that a parent who lives across the street from a school is perfectly free to hold a lighited cigarette in one hand and hold a can of beer in the other, while sitting on the front porch watching children play in the front yard with no fear of getting arrested. OR am I wrong on the beer part?

Weed is a gateway drug....beer and cigarettes are not. At lease thats what our wonderful leaders tell us.

Weed is a gateway drug....beer and cigarettes are not. At lease thats what our wonderful leaders tell us.

Mother's milk is a gateway drug as I have never met an abuser who did not start with it first.

KFOR News Channel 4 is doing an update on this case in a couple of minutes....

Here's the feature story that just aired this afternoon. http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-woman-gets-12-years-for-30-of-pot-20110518,0,2171777.story

Yeah, I saw that last night on Channel 4. I think it's ludicrous!

Yeah, I saw that last night on Channel 4. I think it's ludicrous!

Josh has hired me to do some work on the case. We'll see where it goes.

One thing that struck me was that she insisted she and her mother absolutely didn't have a record. That wasn't true, at least on her account. What came through loud and clear was that she saw nothing wrong with what she was doing or that she was exposing these kids to that sort of lifestyle.

So other parents can drink alcohol and/or smoke cigaretttes in front of their little kids while I know of no law that could rescue those kids from such a deplorable lifestyle.

I was kinda surprised to read in the paper where the parents of an Enid Okla. state rep. got busted for growing marijuana. That can mean 2 years to life and a $20,000 for under 1000 plants. Maybe when Oklahoma's overly harsh laws against marijuana hit close to the heart of these legislators, like when their closest relatives get busted, they can be inspired to change Oklahoma senseless laws against marijuana. I don't see what's so bad about growing marijuana as long as underaged children don't get involved in it, because health experts believe smoking tobacco is more harmful to one's health. Many years of research have shown that marijuana does not cause lung cancer.