PDA

View Full Version : California Law Working wonders



Coleitis22
02-08-2005, 05:45 PM
Why wasn't this guy sentenced to death?
California Man Who Set Son on Fire Two Decades Ago Convicted of Having Gun, May Get Life
02-08-2005 4:21 PM
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO -- A man who went to prison two decades ago for setting his 6-year-old son on fire in a custody dispute was found guilty Tuesday of illegally possessing a gun _ a conviction that could send him to prison for life.
Charley Charles, who was known as Charles Rothenberg when he burned his son in 1983, said he needed the gun as protection from vigilantes bent on retaliation for the crime against the boy, who grew to adulthood severely disfigured.
Charles, 64, testified that he bought the .38-caliber pistol in 1997 after he was shot at twice, once by a gunman who yelled, "That's the man who burned his son!"
He claimed police at the time said they were too busy to address his complaint.
Police found the revolver and ammunition in 2001 while inspecting Charles' San Francisco apartment after a fire at the complex.
After deliberating for a day, jurors on Tuesday convicted him of being a felon in possession of a handgun and ammunition.
The case was tried under California's tough three-strikes sentencing law, meaning Charles faces the possibility of life in prison. The judge has discretion over his sentence.
Charles was convicted of attempted murder, arson and other charges for setting his son on fire and served 6 1/2 years in prison. He said at the time that he was distraught over losing the boy to his estranged wife.
The boy suffered third-degree burns over 90 percent of his body.
He was sentenced to 13 years in prison, the maximum at the time, but was released for good behavior after 6 1/2 years. He changed his name from Rothenberg after being freed.
Charles, who also has a 1961 burglary conviction in New York, faced a maximum 10-year term if San Francisco County District Attorney Kamala Harris had chosen not to charge him under the three strikes law.
His lawyer declined comment after Tuesday's verdict.
Copyright

slink
02-08-2005, 07:10 PM
It wasn't a death penalty case because his son did not die. Don't know why they didn't file torture charge which is a 25yr to life sentence. Anyway, thanks to all you ***boatERS out there that voted to continue the 3 strikes law, this guy will (should) now die in prison. :)

Domn8er
02-08-2005, 07:13 PM
He shouldn't have been let out in the first place... :crossx:

rvrpig
02-08-2005, 07:13 PM
I say and eye for an eye...If he set his son on fire then he should be set on fire.
Can you imagine if we did to criminals what they did to there victims. People would thing twice about commiting crimes. :eat: :idea:

Waist Deep
02-08-2005, 07:19 PM
Thank an attorney. Theres an excuse for everything.

BRSTQUEST
02-08-2005, 07:36 PM
That Bastard Shouldn't Die In Prision!!!!!! He Should Die In The Still, Cold, Quiet Desert Chained To A Tree Covered With Honey So The Fire Ants Could Eat Him Alive......maybe The Condors Could Peck At His Eyes And Balls....this Monster Is An Evil Waste Of Flesh....good To See This All Happened In The Liberal City Of San Francisco......

Krazy K
02-08-2005, 07:41 PM
I remember this case. F*ing bastard! Let him rot in jail!