This is just crazy. A New Orleans judge sentenced three people who looted liquor from a grocery store after Hurrican Katrina to 15 years in prison, saying he wanted to send a message.

This is just crazy.

15 weeks seems excessive to me

Why, after 10,000 years of "civilization", do "civilized" countries act all suprised when people respond adversely to adverse pressures? Apparently they didn't get the enlightenment memo...

Shorter sentences have been given to CEO's who, in the middle of massive financial troubles, bilked millions from thousands.

Shorter sentences have been given to soldiers convicted of killing POW's.

Are you claiming here that if we stop punishing criminals for their antisocial behavior, crime will soon cease to exist as "adverse pressures" are no longer exerted? Please advise.

I agree. I think this is a great argument for longer sentances for them, instead of shorter sentences for the looters in question.

This I don't know about. Have any links to stories of American soldiers being found guilty of killing POWs and getting less than 15 years in the brig (you, after all, said "convicted" so I won't accept "they always go unpunished!!!!!") I won't be holding my breath for those sources.

I don't feel aggrevating circumstances need exist.

Had you been the judge, to what term would you have sentenced them?

For breaking and entering into a personal business and stealing bottle of booze?

How would you handle this situation?

200 hours community service rebuilding New Orleans would better serve all.

3. The judge, per SCOTUS, must state aggravating circumstances, and it is unlikely "sending a message" is one of them.

4. The article doesn't say they did any "breaking and entering." Posters are assuming that. For all we know, the door was wide open and they entered to buy something. If so, that would make it a petty theft and not even a burglary.

§62.5. Looting A. Looting is the intentional entry by a person without authorization into any dwelling or other structure belonging to another and used in whole or in part as a home or place of abode by a person, or any structure belonging to another and used in whole or in part as a place of business, or any vehicle, watercraft, building, plant, establishment, or other structure, movable or immovable, in which normal security of property is not present by virtue of a hurricane, flood, fire, act of God, or force majeure of any kind, or by virtue of a riot, mob, or other human agency, and the obtaining or exerting control over or damaging or removing property of the owner. B. Whoever commits the crime of looting shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned at hard labor for not more than fifteen years, or both. C. Whoever commits the crime of looting during the existence of a state of emergency, which has been declared pursuant to law by the governor or the chief executive officer of any parish, when the defendant knew or should have known that a declaration of emergency existed may be fined not less than five thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than three years nor more than fifteen years without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

During one of the worst natural disasters in our history

The judge needs aggrevating circumstances to sentence a defendant within the statuory limits?

Since the 1970s, sentencing has undergone a political and legal revolution; it has been transformed from a field once rightly accused of being "lawless" to one that is now replete with law. Legislatures and sentencing commissions have developed various "structured" or "guideline" systems to govern sentencing in state and federal courts, and the evolution of modern sentencing reforms is one of the most dynamic and interesting stories in American legal history. On June 24, 2004, the sentencing reform story was forever changed when an earthquake in the form of the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington struck the sentencing landscape. Though technically only declaring unconstitutional one portion of one state's sentencing guideline system, Justice Antonin Scalia's dramatic opinion for the Court in Blakely suggests that any and every fact which increases a defendant's effective maximum sentence must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant. In other words, Blakely suggests the Constitution does not permit judges to find facts which increase applicable sentencing ranges, even though nearly all sentencing reforms of the past two decades have made judges central and essential fact-finders in the application of sentencing laws. Consequently, the ramifications of Blakely for modern guideline sentencing reforms -- indeed, for the entire criminal justice system -- cannot be overstated.

Actually, we can safely assume the store was closed. This case clearly falls within the Louisiana looting law...

Perhaps this Judge is the son or daughter of the infamous Texas Judge

Liljeberg's campaign themes include integrity, dedication and public safety. He says his combined experience as an assistant district attorney, businessman and civil attorney -- along with his even temperament -- better qualify him for the judgeship. Hand counters that he promises to be a "full-time" judge without outside business "distractions" -- a reference to Liljeberg's reportedly large real estate holdings. Hand also pledges to make his taxes public. Liljeberg says that he, too, will be a full-time judge and that his business holdings will not distract him from his work as a judge.

Note that you can't blame liberal activist judges for this one.

Pearson's attorney, Bruce Netterville, said the sentence and conviction would be appealed. "We believe the sentence is excessive," said Netterville. Attorneys for the other defendants agreed.

Little, McGowen and Pearson each testified that they were not looting, but they offered conflicting accounts of matters such as who drove to the store. Pearson, who had a clean criminal history, testified he went to the store to get insulin for his ailing mother, who stayed home through the storm and was running low on her medication. Deputies later confirmed Pearson's story and delivered the insulin to his mother, according to testimony. Released from jail on bond, Little was later hired by the same store she was accused of looting, the store manager testified.

Considering how feckless, stupid, and short-sighted these morons are, the idea of deterring them seems hopeless. Unless there is some scheme of handcuffing a cop to each of these clowns 24-7. And that is likely true of any life forms more or less genetically similar, say, out to third cousins. But, dumb as they are, no amount of sentence, long or short, will cause them to "learn their lesson", and so the question then arises how to protect society from them.

"It's best to remain quiet and let people think you're an idiot, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I smell the hand of the powerful liquor lobby at work behind the scenes in this case.

Yes. The comparison pointed out a problem. The problem is tht the men bribing a federal official should have a much LONGER sentence, not that the looters should have a shorter one.

I won't be too upset if a man who killed his woman in the heat of passion is let out of Raiford to make room for a looter.