Be careful who you spit on
This morning I asked my tough-on-crime wife what sentence she thought a person who spat on a jail guard should receive. She replied, "solitary confinement." When I told her that a man received 10 years in prison (in Illinois and not Malaysia), she was aghast. Then she went back to making french toast and completely forgot about it. This interaction sums up the situation with sentencing in Illinois: sure, the punishment may not fit the crime, but few people in society are out there clamoring for lighter sentences, especially for someone with a bad criminal background. Click here for the article about the case.
How in the world was this defendant able to receive 10 years in prison for spitting? First of all, spitting on someone is a battery which is defined as either harmful contact or contact of an insulting or provoking nature. In most cases, spitting on someone is in the insulting or provoking conduct category. Battery in Illinois is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in the county jail. When you spit on a police officer, however, that same act is now a Class 2 felony, punishable between 3 and 7 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. So, how did he get 10 years when the maximum is 7? According to the news article, this defendant was sentenced as a Class X offender by virtue of having two prior convictions for Class 2 or greater (worse) felonies. On the third conviction of a Class 2, 1 or X felony, the sentence becomes a Class X sentence which is 6 to 30 years in prison.
Being a police or correctional officer is a tough job, and they should be protected, no doubt. They should not have to suffer from abuse. At the same time, the punishment ought to fit the crime. In this situation, 10 years is too harsh a sentence, regardless of the defendant's background. The problem is that the judge was completely in his right to give him the sentence because it was authorized by the law. Some may argue the judge was lenient for not giving the defendant 30 years in prison! When this case is heard on appeal, I would be very surprised if the sentence were to be reduced.
The people in Springfield ought to change the law and make it less harsh for a change. When it comes to spitting on somebody, the law should limit that behavior to a misdemeanor only. Unless a defendant is intentionally trying to transmit a disease he has, this behavior is insulting and provoking, but it isn't harmful. Aggravated battery cases should be limited to cases involving bodily harm only.
So, anyone willing to join me in the protest? I didn't think so.