FLORIDA TEEN SEES "CRUEL FACE" OF U.S. JUSTICE, SENTENCED TO 162 YEARS IN PRISON FOR HIS FIRST CRIME. Did This 20-Year-Old Man Deserve Such A Harsh Sentence?

by Tigger Too Posted 2012/07/05 10:14:06

Related Topics: Supreme Court, Murder, Crime, Miami, Dog, Florida, Prison, Court, Robbery, Sentence, Teen

52 votes
Read all 127 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	YES! He deserved to be sentenced to 162 years in prison.	11 votes	21%
	NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.	31 votes	60%
	Undecided	10 votes	19%

MIAMI, FLORIDA - - Quartavious Davis is still shocked by what happened to him in federal court two months ago. "My first offense, and they gave me all this time," said Davis, a pudgy African American with dreadlocks who spoke with Reuters at the Federal Detention Center in Miami. "Might just as well say I'm dead." Davis was convicted of participating in a string of armed robberies in the Miami area in 2010. His accomplices testified against him, saying he carried a gun during their crimes and discharged it at a dog that chased them after one of their burglaries. But Davis was not convicted of hurting anyone physically, including the dog. Davis would occupy no place at all in the annals of crime if not for his sentence. Now 20 years old, he was sentenced to 1,941 months -- 162 years -- in prison without the possibility of parole.

On the day of Davis's interview, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that life sentences without parole for defendants under the age of 18 constituted "cruel and unusual punishment," even in cases of murder. Unfortunately for Davis, he was 18 at the time of his crimes. Nonetheless, his attorney will argue that Davis's sentence to die in prison also constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" on the grounds that Davis is a "first-time offender," having never before been charged with a crime. Davis's unusually long sentence results from a controversial practice known as "stacking," in which each count of an indictment is counted as a separate crime, thus transforming a first-time defendant into a "habitual criminal" subject to multiple sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines.

DID DAVIS DESERVE SUCH A HARSH SENTENCE?
[Read the details of his crime and sentencing in the link below.]

Add a comment above

bags the Indigenous Guru 2012/07/05 13:53:00

NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.

+6
From just the small amount of information given it seems pretty draconian. No loss of life, not even injury. Armed robbery IS armed robbery and should not b marginalized, but even still. Oh....and the title says 'teen'. At 20, he's no teen anymore.
>> See Replies

More polls by Tigger Too

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/07/12 12:12:47

YES! He deserved to be sentenced to 162 years in prison.

+1
Have to draw the line somewhere. A jury has already tried the facts and found his role to be bad enough. If the defense thinks it can give us reason to doubt that, let them bring it up--and ask them why they didn't bring it up at trial.

reply
Tigger Too to Temlako... 2012/07/12 21:08:42

+1
Thanks for your comments, Temlakos!

reply
The River Rat 2012/07/12 11:01:26

YES! He deserved to be sentenced to 162 years in prison.

+1
Only by luck was nobody injures or killed. Anyone who would participate in a string of armed robberies deserves the maximum he/she can get. First time offender means first time caught or first time caught or first not convicted as a juvy and sealed. Get the criminal element off the streets and protect the average citizen. Most don't get near enough time for violent crimes.

reply
Tigger Too to The Riv... 2012/07/12 21:09:16

+1
Thanks for your comments, The River Rat!

reply
The Riv... to Tigger Too 2012/07/12 23:44:00

+1
You're welcome/

reply
Selketskiss 2012/07/11 21:54:59 (edited)

YES! He deserved to be sentenced to 162 years in prison.

+1
First charged.. only means first time caught. Bet he has done it many many times..leave his butt locked up..I am sick of thugs getting out then they go kill people..lock them all up once caught and throw away the damn keys...

reply
Tigger Too to Selkets... 2012/07/12 21:19:16

+1
I'm all for being tough on crime, but... This man was convicted based on the testimony of his accomplices, who all copped pleas for turning state's evidence and to get lighter sentences themselves, and they named the defendant as the person wielding the gun. How convenient for them. I find such "jailhouse confessions" evidence suspect. Even if this ISN'T this guy's first crime (and you're probably right that this is just the first time he got CAUGHT), courts can't prosecute or convict someone for past crimes for which no charges were filed. Also, this young man was only 18 when the crime occurred. The judge in this case had the option of running the sentences concurrently, as opposed to consecutively. IMO, he should have sentenced the guy to the maximum amount of years for the most serious of the crimes, and then run the other sentences with it. The judge could have stipulated that the defendant serve his time day-for-day, with no chance of parole and no time off for good behavior. I just think that 162 years is a WAY unfair sentence for this guy. Thanks for your comments, my friend, and have a beautiful evening! (It's finally raining here! Woo-Hoo!)

reply
Selkets... to Tigger Too 2012/07/12 21:36:09

+1
Good thing I am not a judge they would all be doing time for 100 years..sorry..LOL..keep cool

reply
Tigger Too to Selkets... 2012/07/13 17:40:24

+1
That looks like one happy Siberian tigger rolling around in the snow! It was so hot here the other day, TLC had a "Deadliest Catch" marathon on, and I watched it just because seeing those freezing Bering Sea waves come crashing over the decks of the crab boats made me feel cooler! And it's still raining here. Hooray!

reply
Selkets... to Tigger Too 2012/07/13 18:14:57

+1
Yeah I knew you were sweltering that is why I chose the pic and told you to keep cool..LOL. I see you changed your avatar to one baby..and what a sweet one it looks like he is saying hi...LOL

reply
Tigger Too to Selkets... 2012/07/13 21:24:11

+1
Thanks! And isn't my little white tigger cub CUTE as a button? And once more, thanks for the darling picture of the tiggers! I'll have to save that one!

reply
Maddog 2012/07/10 18:31:00

Undecided

+1
Sounds a bit like overkill. I'm sure he'll appeal the sentence. That said, he should do some serious time, since he used a gun in the commission of felony, and it was just blind luck that he didn't kill someone.

reply
Tigger Too to Maddog 2012/07/11 01:23:39

+1
IMO, sentencing a first-time offender to 162 years in prison, even if he DID carry a gun during the string of armed robberies he allegedly committed, is TOTAL overkill. Besides, it was his ACCOMPLICES, who all copped pleas to get lighter sentences in return for their testimony, who said that HE was the one brandishing the firearm. The judge could have gotten his point across about the seriousness of the defendant's actions by sentencing him to the longest amount of time on the most serious charge, and then run the time for the remaining charges CONCURRENTLY, instead of consecutively. The court could have also stipulated that the man would have to do his time day-for-day, with no time knocked off his sentence for good behavior and with no chance of parole. Of course, that's just my opinion. Thanks for your comments, Maddog!

reply
catbyte21 2012/07/08 14:27:28

YES! He deserved to be sentenced to 162 years in prison.

+1
If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime!

reply
Tigger Too to catbyte21 2012/07/08 22:42:59

Thanks for your response, catbyte21!

reply
Derbyhat 2012/07/07 04:00:49

YES! He deserved to be sentenced to 162 years in prison.

+1
The trouble with criminals is that they usually only think of the ONE CRIME THEY COULD BE PENALIZED ON. Unfortunately, in the commission of a crime, the conspiracy to commit the crime, the getaway, the cover up, they bring out an array of other offenses that when "They throw the book at him" it weighs a ton. It might even feel like an anvil being dropped on his chest.

Like they say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. On the other hand, if the cuisine is palatable, he does have up to about 177500 free meals to look forward to, as long as someone doesn't decide to tax it.

reply
Tigger Too to Derbyhat 2012/07/07 10:23:25

As far as I know, Quartavious Davis wasn't convicted of any other crimes but the armed robberies. The fact that the only evidence against him came from his accomplices, which is suspect because they turned state's evidence against him for lighter sentences, is weak. IMO, this represents just one more case of a poor black man getting the shaft because he couldn't mount a decent defense. The court could have run his sentence concurrently, instead of consecutively, which would have been sufficient punishment. In this particular case, the punishment definitely doesn't fit the crime. Thanks for your comments, Derbyhat!

reply
Derbyhat to Tigger Too 2012/07/08 17:06:07

+1
Tigger Too, I found I could not say the punishment was too harsh and warn novice criminals to use their heads and stay out of such situations. Someone armed for any level of combat, like his "friends", and shows up at a public site runs the risk for all his friends do. What bothers me is that when people take, "Beginning A Criminal Career 101" they never get to the part about punishment and overload the court system and pack out prisons. They just see the likes of OJ, John Edwards, Robert Blake, the police who beat Rodney King, Charlie Rangel and others going free then they compare it directly to their case. If we saw real justice in these types of cases, fewer would scheme to commit the crimes.

In American life, the words "consecutive" and "concurrent" only come up when someone strikes out six batters in a row, gets hits in 25 straight games or goes 20 games without an interception. I do feel bad for his extreme loss of freedom. If he participated in this event across a state line, he might have been locked away for just a couple of years. Thanks!

reply
Tigger Too to Derbyhat 2012/07/08 22:59:29

I appreciate your remarks. However, the fact that his accomplices dropped a dime on this unfortunate young man, saying that HE was the person wielding the gun during their string of armed robberies, is suspect. I tend to agree with your statement that many criminal wannabes have thought processes that fail to follow the consequences of their actions. One thing that REALLY bothers me about these young felons is that many of them just do not seem to care, not only about their victims' lives, but their own lives as well. Also, the gun-toting philosophy, advocated by the NRA and others, is turning our streets and towns into the Wild West. I don't know if you're familiar with the show on A&E, "The First 48," but it's an excellent program that follows homicide detectives from the time they get the first call of a murder until they arrest one or more suspects. The amazing, and frightening, thing I've noticed about these murders is that most of them are committed by kids, some only 14 years old. These young people don't seem to care that they've destroyed their lives and are potentially facing a lifetime behind bars. If these kids don't care about their OWN lives, then it's damn sure that they don't give a rat's ass about YOURS. I still say that the young man in this particular case sh...

I appreciate your remarks. However, the fact that his accomplices dropped a dime on this unfortunate young man, saying that HE was the person wielding the gun during their string of armed robberies, is suspect. I tend to agree with your statement that many criminal wannabes have thought processes that fail to follow the consequences of their actions. One thing that REALLY bothers me about these young felons is that many of them just do not seem to care, not only about their victims' lives, but their own lives as well. Also, the gun-toting philosophy, advocated by the NRA and others, is turning our streets and towns into the Wild West. I don't know if you're familiar with the show on A&E, "The First 48," but it's an excellent program that follows homicide detectives from the time they get the first call of a murder until they arrest one or more suspects. The amazing, and frightening, thing I've noticed about these murders is that most of them are committed by kids, some only 14 years old. These young people don't seem to care that they've destroyed their lives and are potentially facing a lifetime behind bars. If these kids don't care about their OWN lives, then it's damn sure that they don't give a rat's ass about YOURS. I still say that the young man in this particular case should have been sentenced to concurrent prison terms, not running them consecutively, or "stacking" his time. One more thing... You wouldn't BELIEVE how savvy these criminals are about the legal system, all the way from the crime to the punishment. Honestly, some of them could be lawyers!
(more)

reply
Derbyhat to Tigger Too 2012/07/23 06:10:30

+1
I would not doubt that those young criminals you mentioned are extremely savy with the legal as well as the welfare system. They would likely sink a loaded cruise ship, if they could gain a dime and another thrill.

reply
Aahz_OneAndOnly 2012/07/06 02:29:15

Undecided

+1
Ouch!

reply
Tigger Too to Aahz_On... 2012/07/07 10:23:59

+1
Ouch indeed! Thanks for your response, Aahz_OneAndOnly!

reply
Jalysa Ellis 2012/07/05 22:46:30

NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.

+2
That just seems like too much. Most people who are convicted for more serious crimes, like murder or sexual assault, get WAAAAAAY less time than this guy did for robbery; even if they were stacked.

reply
Tigger Too to Jalysa ... 2012/07/07 10:26:26

+1
IMO, this is just one more example of a poor black man getting the shaft because he could not afford to mount a reasonable defense. Also, the court could have run his sentences concurrently instead of consecutively. In this case, the punishment definitely exceeds the crime. Thanks for your comments, Jalysa!

reply
Giantfan 2012/07/05 21:42:21

NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.

+2
Damn had he ruthlessly killed a person of family I'd be all for it but he didn't. This isn't justice and God bless all these stand your ground people carrying guns who may end up in front of this judge.

reply
Tigger Too to Giantfan 2012/07/07 10:28:38

+1
Sadly, the people who kill someone else and claim the "stand your ground" law as their defense are way more apt to get off scot-free than this guy, who didn't cause physical harm to ANYBODY. Thanks for your comments, Giantfan!

reply
shywink 2012/07/05 20:05:14

YES! He deserved to be sentenced to 162 years in prison.

+1
He participated in a *string* of robberies, he just hadn't been caught until then. He had a gun and was clearly prepared to use it since he shot at the dog. He could have shot at a human just as easily and he probably would have sooner or later if they hadn't have found him guilty. A thug in the making. Glad he's off the streets. He did the crime, now he can do the time.

reply
NoName to shywink 2012/07/05 23:07:55

+2
If he was only convicted of one of them, and this REALLY was his first, sure he should still go to prison, but 162 years is way too long - I mean, punishment fitting the crime still means something, and somehow I doubt that 162 isn't excessive for 1.

reply
Tigger Too to shywink 2012/07/07 10:30:05

IMO, his sentences for the string of armed robberies should have been run concurrently, not consecutively. People who murder others don't get THIS much time behind bars. Thanks for your comments, shywink!

reply
Scout 2012/07/05 19:44:04

Undecided

+2
The nation is sick of the criminal element running amok. If something isn't done to correct this, we will have to start executing these miscreants.

reply
Tigger Too to Scout 2012/07/07 10:30:35

Thanks for your response, rspell!

reply
Anonymouse BN-0 ~bibbityboo~ 2012/07/05 17:54:45

NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.

+3
Way too harsh. Make him pay it all back, help him get his life on track.

reply
Tigger Too to Anonymo... 2012/07/07 10:31:07

+1
I agree with you 100%. Thanks for your response, Anonymouse!

reply
buttahaball 2012/07/05 17:30:51

NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.

+2
A judge give a African American man 1,941 months in prison that is about 162 years in prison for a string of arm robberies. No matter what he had done he was a teenager a kid still. I guest they used each robbery that did as each crime. Instead of one so that's makes him a Habitual criminal. So now let's think about this a man or a woman commits a murder they will be sentences to what about 25 years to what 50 years in prison for murder. Now let's think about this do you think that the judge is taking his anger out on him because of George Zimmermen is about to go prison for murder of black man.

reply
Tigger Too to buttaha... 2012/07/07 10:32:05

You make some excellent points. Thanks for your comments, buttahaball!

reply
rand 2012/07/05 17:27:16

Undecided

+1
Perhaps Florida wants to make an example of him. I wouldn't dictate to them how to govern, but lifetime incarcerations are expensive. Will it result in reduced numbers of armed robberies? I'm doubtful but will be interested to see. As for Davis, threatening bodily harm to others deserves whatever it gets you.

reply
Tigger Too to rand 2012/07/07 10:33:55

+1
IMO, the court could have punished this guy by running his sentences concurrently instead of consecutively. Life without parole is too stiff a punishment for armed robberies, IMO. Thanks for your comments, rand, and have a lovely weekend!

reply
Ozzyboy 2012/07/05 16:37:56

NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.

+2
We only have the information provided to us through the media but, even on the surface this needs to be looked at again. It seems the stacking of this incident is not warranted and those who testified against them can not be deemed as creditable.

reply
Tigger Too to Ozzyboy 2012/07/07 10:35:30

+1
I agree with your point that testimony from his accomplices, which seems to have been the only evidence against the defendant, is suspect and insufficient for a conviction, much less a 162-year sentence. Thanks for your comments, Ozzyboy!

reply
eNewsAlerts 2012/07/05 16:34:16

NO! Being sentenced to 162 years in prison was too harsh.

+3
We need to focus on violent criminals. What he did was severe and potentially violent, but life for that when so many repeat violent criminals get a fraction of that just highlights a broken system.

reply