Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IndyStar)   If you have 19 aliases and have been arrested for theft 32 times, crying in court won't help you   ( divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

6327 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2005 at 3:45 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

33 Comments     (+0 »)
2005-04-08 04:56:49 PM  
Ron Mexico?
2005-04-08 05:00:12 PM  
2005-04-08 05:03:31 PM  
"I don't do those things no more," Tripp insisted. "I was on heroin. I didn't know no better."

Wow, even when she speaks she spells words incorrectly.
2005-04-08 05:04:23 PM  
Oh crap, I didn't see the "know" in there, just the "no". I'm an idiot. I don't know no better...
2005-04-08 05:07:38 PM  

Crap! You beat me to it.
2005-04-08 05:07:55 PM  
>>"Ma'am, I don't make decisions based on how hard people cry," Heimann said. "I base my decisions on the facts of the case."<<

I like this judge .
2005-04-08 05:09:01 PM  
SMart enough to change her name 19 times....and that was when she was high!
2005-04-08 05:09:07 PM  
Pulls on my heart strings just a little but if she did the crime, she can do the time. If she had gone to jail she would have been out by now with good time.
2005-04-08 05:09:41 PM  
heh, hymen
2005-04-08 05:17:19 PM  
Honestly though, the 8 year "habitual offender" sentence is bullcrap. The justice system is supposed to work by punishing people for specific deeds they committed, not by who they are. Michael Jackson, for instance -- everyone knows he is fooked in the head and likes little boys. But he can't be sentenced to jail on the basis of his sexual preference alone; only if he commits acts like feeding alcohol to minors and anus-touching can he be incarcerated.

If I were her I'd get a good consistutional lawyer for the appeal. Indiana's sentencing laws seem pretty discriminatory, and therefore cruel and/or unusual, to me based on what's stated in this article.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
2005-04-08 05:19:51 PM  
If she had wanted to prove that she was reformed, she would've turned herself in. She knew she was doing the wrong thing, but didn't care to correct the problem.
2005-04-08 05:20:52 PM  
Sorry, just have to do it.

2005-04-08 05:24:39 PM  
It is obvious the woman was forced to a life of crime thanks to this horrible economy and the racist policies of the Bush administration. I'm surprised Cheney didn't come down and slap her around personally. He has been known to do that.
2005-04-08 05:30:19 PM  

"The justice system is supposed to work by punishing people for specific deeds they committed, not by who they are."

Wrong. Who told you that? The legal system is whatever the law says it is. Punish. Vindicate cultural values. Rehabilitate. Deter. These are all valid reasons for the penal system to exist. What is the relative weight given to each, though? Who knows. I defy you to find in the state criminal code (yours, mine, the one referenced in the story, whichever) where is says "and the purpose of this disposition is to [fill in the blank]". It doesn't. It just kills me when people say "the law is supposed to..." Bottom line: it settles issues that people can't settle between themselves. Don't like the way it does it? Run for office or stay as far away from the courts as you can.

2005-04-08 05:33:04 PM  
11 years is a little harsh. At 55 it's a lot harsh.

According to the article she hasn't been arrested since '92 (and yes, I know that is obvious). A guy was charged in the string of robberies along with her and his charges were dropped. Testified against her?

Anyway, it's another f*cking waste of resources and life. Lets start with the violent asshats and work our way down to the old-lady petty thieves. Then the 2 dollar bill spenders.
2005-04-08 05:37:12 PM  
Golly Miz Scarlot, i donno nuttin bout birthin no babies
2005-04-08 05:38:14 PM  
What the hell kind of crime is "being a habitual offender"? I'm a habitual offender, for instance. I have parking tickets out the ass. I'm glad I don't live in Kentucky. Could I go to jail for 8 years too?

And I mean, really, if you only ever had comparatively minor offenses like theft, and then managed to stay on the lam for 13 years without ever again getting into legal trouble of any kind, that ought to count for something. Clearly you can and have rehabilitated.

If I were a judge, I doubt I'd have even given her jail time.
2005-04-08 05:46:52 PM  
maynert "SMart enough to change her name 19 times....and that was when she was high!"|in the words of the now sellout 'ice-T"|________IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHO YA ARE, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT YA DUN
2005-04-08 05:48:37 PM  
looking at no one in particular here, just the last few posts:

(1) how many offenses does it take, exactly, before you would be concerned about this person being out on the street?

(2) if not theft (or parking tickets), what will raise your moral hackels?

you've got to draw a line. the legislature and this judge did that. if they were to ignore the law that would be inconsistent and unfair in pricipal. don't like where the line is drawn? run for office. lobby the legislature. start a petition drive. it just slays me when people take the attitude toward judges who actually enforce the law that the judge "should have just been cool about the whole thing, dude". why don't you try doing that judge's job you bunch of slackers (notice i didn't say liberal, cuz i'm just trying to be "cool about the whole thing, dude")

: )
2005-04-08 05:50:37 PM  
Can I just say that Fannie Tripp is a great porn name?
2005-04-08 05:52:50 PM  
reggie miller:

Yep. How about:

(1) Phil McKracken
(2) Bob Ohnme
(3) B.J. Daily
2005-04-08 06:02:08 PM  

What exactly is the legal difference between a law that makes BEING a habitual offender a crime in itself, or a law that makes BEING a homosexual illegal? Or BEING a black male, or a single parent, or a lawyer?

Do you believe that the latter examples would not be challenged and overturned by the American justice system almost immediately?
2005-04-08 06:09:46 PM  
mcway and Kareeshus 's points should both be considered strongly before throwing the book.
2005-04-08 06:10:52 PM  
Duncan Madikener
2005-04-08 06:11:48 PM  

Your examples are ridiculous. Of course in a political system such as ours, oppressive legislation such as you lay out as your examples would never be tolerated. You think the law which underlies the result in this case is oppressive? Maybe you are right. Who knows...I might just agree with you. The point here is you need to build a consensus around your opinion and do the things necessary to make your opinion into law. The problem for you in doing that is that most people do not think that three-strikes, etc. is oppressive. If you don't believe in the political system as a way of bringing about change, then you're just a cynic.
2005-04-08 06:23:20 PM  
yeah Whatever, this biatch is a walking reminder of why we need the three strikes law. Farkin biatch should be on a chain gang.
2005-04-08 06:29:15 PM  
There was this married couple in SoCal that ran an "escort" service via their website. They eventually got busted for--gasp!--using it to diguise their prostitution business.

When they were handed their sentences, both cried their eyes out.

I, OTOH, laughed my ass off.
2005-04-08 06:46:39 PM  
I'd hit it.
2005-04-08 08:22:42 PM  

What exactly is the legal difference between a law that makes BEING a habitual offender a crime in itself, or a law that makes BEING a homosexual illegal? Or BEING a black male, or a single parent, or a lawyer?

As much as I don't want to feed the trolls, let's run down the line here as to what is legal and what is not:

Stealing - Illegal
Being gay - Legal
Being a black male - Legal
Being a single parent - Legal
Being a lawyer - Legal

It follows that if you continue doing that which is illegal, whatever punishments you were handed down have not had an effect, hence a harsher punishment. As far as I can tell, no matter how many times you have gay sex, are black, are a single parent, or lawyer, you're not breaking the law, so it follows that you would not be breaking the law if you did it a lot.

Farking Christ, people, use your heads.
2005-04-08 08:51:35 PM  

Up until I believe it was last year, being gay in Texas (and many other states) was illegal (sodomy). In some states as well, being a single parent is also illegal in the sense that it violates laws banning marriage out of wedlock. Also, being a black person sitting on a full bus has been illegal too (Rosa Parks).

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's right. And putting someone in jail for EIGHT YEARS for "being a habitual offender" doesn't seem right to me either.
2005-04-08 08:54:11 PM  
Er, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Lawyers, judges, and the entire legal system make mistakes. That's why laws change and appeals exist. And in my opinion, based on what little I know from this article, this judge made one.
2005-04-08 09:47:30 PM  
Habitual Offender = Habitual Line Stepper
2005-04-09 12:26:11 PM  
violates laws banning marriage out of wedlock.

Displayed 33 of 33 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.