Dear Editor:
Can someone help me understand what I read in the Jan. 17 News Tribune? In the local section, on page B2, was an article entitled, "Man gets probation after chase plea." The premise was that a California man was sentenced to five years of supervised probation after pleading guilty to a number of crimes.
After reading the entire article, I was astounded! I could understand the probation sentence if the man had been found guilty of one misdemeanor. However, according to the newspaper, the Cole County Sheriff's Department reported the person was found guilty of resisting arrest; possession of methamphetamine lab components; stealing a vehicle; a felony warrant; another felony warrant; and yet another felony warrant.
That's correct, three outstanding felony warrants! And this inventory doesn't include the guilty party fleeing on foot, nor crossing county lines to avoid apprehension.
Please, someone explain to me how this sentence was arrived upon. I'm all for giving everyone a first chance, even an occasional second chance, because everyone makes mistakes - that's the human condition, but this sentence seems extremely light. Is it just me or does anyone else think our justice system is a bit askew?
Can anyone clarify?