Sunday, January 27, 2008

Revolving Door Justice To Blame For Hovey Street Killings?

The Star's Jon Murray takes an in-depth look today at the criminal record of Ronald "Action" Davis, the man accused of killing two mothers and their infants at a Hovey Street house known for drugs and gambling. Davis had been out of jail only three months when he allegedly carried out the brutal massacre at Hovey Street. At 17, Davis was sent to the boys school for dealing cocaine. At 19, he was convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover cop. He was sentenced to 10 years but after he was released after serving half of his sentence, he was sent back to prison on a conviction for battery and criminal confinement. He was released three years later but thrown back in prison after another arrest a few months later.

Murray notes that Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi referred to the killings as an "act of domestic terrorism." After reading Murray's story, you can't help but ask who is truly the responsible party for terrorizing our neighborhoods. Is it the repeat offenders who keep committing heinous crimes so soon after they are released? Or is it the persons' running our criminal justice system who keep letting out these thugs after they serve such a short amount of their original sentence for repeat crimes who are responsible?

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is just an example of things to come. We have held the hand of the welfare thugs for far, far too long. We aim for rehabilitation, but that never seems to work. While prison is no fun place, American prisons are likely 1,000x better than other countries. Cable TV, three "meals" a day, workout rooms, play time, basketball, etc..

Things will only get worse. If you have no planned for your safety, and the safety of your family, now is the time to do it.

Anonymous said...

Prison is a far, far better place than running wild on the streets.

Anonymous said...

We need sentences to mean something to criminals. Eliminate "good time" credit...and just add prison time for misconduct.

Eclecticvibe said...

Straight from the Indiana Constitution.

Article 1. Section 18. The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.

Hence incarceration instead of treatment for non-violent drug crimes should be mandatory. By failing to reform by treatment, we as a society had a hand in creating these killers. Let's reform our drug policy by ending incarceration for non-violent drug offenses.

Anonymous said...

I beileve in harsh long sentences but anyone who advocates abolishing good time clauses is clueless as to corrections. I even believe in life without parole in cases of super heinous crimes....good time must remain for the remainder of our inmates.

Sarge said...

Habitual violent criminals need to be confined for long periods of
incarceration. Non-violent offenders - can be dealt with much
cheaper within the community. I am not a backer of three felonoes and you get life in prison. Every case is different and must be judged accordingly.
You want to give time off for good behavior and bettering yourself while in prison. A classic example is Hope Rippey. She got a degree in prison and turned her life around. And, good for her and those people at IWP who seen the effort she was making and worked to get her free.
Thugs like the monster who killed the mothers and their kids deserve
no mercy.


Sarge

Anonymous said...

eclecticvibe: There is no such thing as non-violent drug crime. The drug culture is rooted in violence. Hovey ST was a prime example. Get out of the 60's and come to face reality.

Alcohol is no different. The violence in the death last night caused because the liberal democrat judge (wife of former democrat party chairman) let a drunk driver out of jail when all reasonable people would have locked him up. He went right out and, with extreme violence, killed an innocent victim.

We need the judges to put violent criminals in prison!

Hippies need to grow up.

Anonymous said...

It isn't justice that our courts are dispensing and our defense against criminals isn't our criminal court system either. I'd look to elimination of the juvenile courts and/or reduce their age limits down to about the 7th grade, all others do the time for the crime and end this panty-waisted liberal response to criminality.

Anonymous said...

For those who speak of different treatment for non-violent vs. violent offenders I ask you this: how do you identify a "non-violent" offender? If a defendant is before a court for sentencing on an auto theft conviction most people would say he is a non-violent offender. But what if that defendant had prior convictions for aggravated battery and armed robbery? Is he still a non-violent offender for purposes of classification? Just because his current crime did not involve violence or injury to a victim he somehow is now a non-violent offender? The propensity for violence has been demonstrated and we would be fools to believe that it is not still present within that individual.

Eclecticvibe said...

So the hippies that wrote our constitution were wrong on the reformation vs. vindictive justice issue? I'm not stuck in the '60's. I wasn't even born then! I'm stuck in the 1800's with the authors of our state's constitution. We've had anti-drug laws for years, and they did nothing to prevent the Hovey Street murders. I think it's time for a change and new perspectives.

Anonymous said...

Gather round, kids. Settle down now. And no hitting. I'm going to tell you a story about the way that writing instructors seeking to introduce the concept of radicalism into their curricula could hardly do better than to use The Marion County Sheriffs Department's projects as an example. First off, if The Marion County Sheriffs Department can't cite the basis for its claim that it acts in the name of equality and social justice then it should just shut up about it.

If you agree, read on. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially The Marion County Sheriffs Department's selfish form of it -- is. There is no place in this country where we are safe from The Marion County Sheriffs Department's cultists, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack.

Be always mindful that I want nothing more -- or less -- than to catalogue The Marion County Sheriffs Department's swindles and perversions. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of The Marion County Sheriffs Department's odious recommendations, I am unable to decide; that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. Nevertheless, you may want to consider that The Marion County Sheriffs Department is trying to force onto us the degradation and ignominy that it is known to revel in just to prove it can. But I digress. This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about its wanton behavior but about the way that I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, maladroit world run by wretched fribbles. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, The Marion County Sheriffs Department labels everything that conflicts with its way of thinking as mindless propaganda.

Anonymous said...

I like that, 7:21.
It would acyually be funny if it wasn't true!

Anonymous said...

eclecticvibe: You are WRONG!

We have sufficient laws that should have prevented the Hovey ST murders...liberal judges who keep allowing criminals loose on the streets to kill and/or victimize are the cause of the problems. We need to send these criminals to prisons that keep the rest of society safe!

Get rid of the liberal judges...(like the democrat wife of the former
democrat party chairman, who was listed as "not qualified" as a judge by the bar association).

Soft (Democrat) judges make HARD CRIMINALS...

P. S. You said you are living in the 1800's, it might be time to realize that society is more violent now that anyone alive in the 1800's could have imagined. Grow up, eclecticvibe!!!

D said...

7:21, you wrote a huge amount of words, yet you didn't say a damn thing. What exactly is the point you're trying to convey?

Anonymous said...

1:25...don't mind him. He slept with a Thesarus last night, and is trying to impress.

I read it twice, and got nothing. Zip. Zero.

Former editor here...and that was a bunch of tripe. It started out with great promise though.

Eclecticvibe said...

1:39pm Anon

"P. S. You said you are living in the 1800's, it might be time to realize that society is more violent now that anyone alive in the 1800's could have imagined. Grow up, eclecticvibe!!!"

I disagree. I'll bet Indiana in the 1830's was much less subject to the rule of law than Indianapolis today. When was the last lynching in Indiana? Or maybe we can ask the Native Americans about violence in the 1800's. I'm no backer of Democrat judges, so if these judges aren't following the law, let's vote against them by all means. However, I think our current system of laws is flawed and unconstitutional. If you feel this is a juvenile opinion, I support your right to say so; however, I have to disagree with you.

Anonymous said...

It is with extreme disgust that I write this letter and say what will undoubtedly be considered belligerent by some of my peers. Nonetheless, it must be stated that anyone who questions D's warped view of the world is a threat to his tottering sense of reality. Let's review the errors in D's statements in order. First, D is basically a bad person. His arguments are so full of holes that one cannot help but think that he relies on stichomancy to "prove", inter alia, that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. How does he deal with this fascinating piece of information? He absolutely ignores it. Let me recite the following phrases as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward towards increased ability to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue: oligophrenic ex-cons; unstable anarchists; Chekism; D's coadjutors; D. My point is that by turning proletariats loose against us good citizens, D has erected a monument to denominationalism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been "created". "Excreted", "belched", "spewed", and "spat out" are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of D. I wish such people would wake up and realize that D claims that the future of the entire world rests in his hands. That claim is preposterous and, to use D's own language, overtly brain-damaged. No history can justify it.

D's commentaries are merely a fig leaf that hides his efforts to force us to do things or take stands against our will. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but I am astonished by how little integrity and good judgment he possesses. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that D has the manners of a pestilential galoot. But did you know that when workable solutions to a problem elude you, sometimes it helps to ratchet up our level of understanding? He doesn't want you to know that because he had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, D gave us recidivism, academicism, and blackguardism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since D somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization.

You can sum up D's manuscripts in one word: corrupt. D's projects are pockmarked with ignominious separatism and other assorted ills, but, as you know, I stand by what I've written before, that if D's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, he wouldn't consider it such a good idea to usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Do D's fairy tales appear reasonable to anyone other than neo-disingenuous pickpockets? This can be answered most easily by stating that D is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of conscienceless speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list! Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that it is probably safe to assume that D's ignorant attempts to debunk myths often lead to the perpetuation of them.

Anonymous said...

eclecticvibe: In the 1800's just how many drive-by shootings were there?

How many times when involved in illegal drugs did thugs break into homes to kill 2 women and 2 infants in the 1800's?

Come to reality, eclecticvibe! This is 2008.