I'm very tough on crimes where there are victims who have been physically harmed. In such cases, I do not believe in leniency.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We cannot lightly allow the perpetrator of a serious crime to go free simply because that person believed his actions were reasonable and necessary to prevent some perceived harm.
Certainly, I don't think I can ever be accused of being soft on crime.
I think it's common sense to say that the longer away from a crime it gets prosecuted, the less deterrent effect there is.
There are people who are victims in life, and I don't think they should be encouraged.
When I interview people accused of capital offenses, I never even ask if they did it. I would consider that unprofessional.
We are often deterred from crime by the disgrace of others.
My argument is not that I shouldn't have been punished, but that the punishment didn't fit the crime.
An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
At the risk of sounding really corny now, I'm a career prosecutor. I've been doing this for a very long time. And I believe in holding people responsible when they violate the law. But our sole responsibility is to seek justice. And sometimes that means a very lengthy sentence for people who are dangerous and from which society must be protected.
Given the devastation that crime can visit on families and communities, I will err on being a little too tough on crime than being too soft on crime.
No opposing quotes found.