This is quite representative of the huge inequities in our justice system and well illustrates why some things desperately need to change. A hungry homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100 to try and stay in detox after he returned the money. A CEO who defrauded people out of $3 billion gets a tiny fraction of that. Disgusting.
BrassScorpion wrote:This is quite representative of the huge inequities in our justice system and well illustrates why somethings desperately need to change. A hungry homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100 to try and stay in detox after he returned the money. A CEO who defrauded people out of $3 billion gets a tiny fraction of that. Disgusting.
I'm getting the red triangle of destiny. I'm betting the homeless guy robbed someone correct, and this was a third or thereafter offense. Works for me.
More justice problems, the worst kind because they are often for the innocent.
The Problem With Pleas
October 31, 2011, 3:45 pm ET by Gretchen Gavett
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial. But how do you evaluate fairness when more than 90 percent of criminal cases never even make it in front of a judge or jury?
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on whether two defendants who did not take plea deals were denied effective council, but as NPR’s Nina Totenberg explains, if the court comes to this conclusion, it also has to decide what to do about it:
Should the defendant have a second chance at the plea offer? Do courts have the power to order that sort of remedy? Or should the defendant be restored to his original place in the system, before a trial and before a plea offer was made?
Our 2004 film The Plea tells the story of how pervasive plea deals are, and how they’re often misused. While proponents say the agreements give defendants options, plea bargaining is more often than not used to save money and time. The criminal justice system would likely collapse if every case went in front of a judge and/or jury.
But critics argue that the push to resolve cases through plea bargains jeopardizes the constitutional rights of defendants, who may be pressured to admit guilt whether they are guilty or not.
One example is Erma Faye Stewart, who was arrested along with 26 others after an informant tipped off the police to an alleged drug ring. Stewart told her court-appointed lawyer she was innocent, but with two young children at home, she took her lawyer’s advice to plead guilty to delivery of a controlled substance of more than four grams in a drug-free zone. She was sentenced to 10 years probation and was required to pay $1,800 in fines and report to her parole officer monthly.
Then, during the trial of one of the accused, it was discovered that the informant had lied about everything. All other cases were dismissed — but Stewart and the other seven people who pleaded guilty were left with charges on their record. Over the years, this meant that Stewart was ineligible for food stamps and federal education assistance. She was essentially left destitute.
The problem isn’t just bad advice from defense attorneys. Prosecutors now hold the cards when it comes to leveraging punishment, according to a recent New York Times investigation. The reporters found that mandatory sentencing laws have made the question of actual innocence or guilt almost irrelevant; rather, it’s a question of whether to risk facing a judge or jury.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..
Incorrect, or more precisely only indriectly correct.
Money buys excellent lawyers. Lawyers talk.
Lawers alone are not what keeps hedge fund managers out of cells. The money talks at all levels.
Have you ever been related to an actual case? Actually it does. Prudent counsel starts long before a trial.
Yes, I'm sure being able to pressure prosecutors, bribe elected officials, and lobby for the declawing of financial regulation has nothing the feth to do with it. Clearly it's because they hire superlawers like you. Men with psychic powers and the ability to fundamentally alter the course of histories and the writ of the laws themselves.
Oh wait, no, that's just what they have done in the background while the lawyers stall.
Do we know that either story is actually true? All we have is a .jpeg of what looks like two news stories. I'd like to read them and make my own mind up about whether or not to be outraged - all the OP has done is tell us that he is angry. I don't really care about that, if I'm being honest.
What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that. Fraud is a different crime to bank robbery. From what I can glean from (the, as yet, unproven) story in the picture, the homeless chap acted like he had a gun, putting the cashier in fear for her life. I imagine that's why he got such a stiff sentence.
What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that.
He was starving, it was 100 dollars, and he returned it the next day and turned himself in. Draconian gak like this is what is wrong with society. Was she scared? Probably, I bet he had a real scary hand. Now he's going to go to jail for 15 years. I'm sure it makes you feel safe at night to know that the dudes going to rot in a cell so that you don't have to worry about that 100 dollars he returned or the five minutes of worry the teller felt before she went on to make more money then that during her shift.
Yes, I'm sure being able to pressure prosecutors,
***heresay
bribe elected officials,
***heresay
and lobby for the declawing of financial regulation
***finally some truth. Sentences are lighter when the crimes themselves are specified as lower level crimes, but again stare decisis matters here to. Much to my chagrin, even if the law were denoted as a "capital offense" under whatever jurisdiction, it wouldn't meet the standard and would be kicked out as unconstitutional as historically you can't cap someone for non violent crimes. I know I know but I admit the US legal system is just above pond scum.
has nothing the feth to do with it. Clearly it's because they hire superlawers like you. Men with psychic powers and the ability to fundamentally alter the course of histories and the writ of the laws themselves.
***Well...yeah. Shuma is finally right on something. If you knew more about how it works we could discuss it, but pulling teeth on educating you on the entire legal system takes more energy than I care to put out.
Oh wait, no, that's just what they have done in the background while the lawyers stall.
***No although stalling is an excellent tactic.
Albatross wrote:Do we know that either story is actually true?
There are a multitude of examples of this kind of thing, where white collar crimes that steal millions (or billions) from pensions or company funds get a small sentence but someone robbing a convenience store for a pittance gets decades. Stealing the life savings of people isn't considered as serious as $100 dollars from a clerk becuase it was done in person and not on paper, even though more people are screwed over.
In the interests of fairness and equality, I think that money should be removed from the equation completely. Thus, homeless man and billionaire are given broom shanks with Boxing gloves taped to the end and some leather underpants. They then duel in a pit of death and pummel each other until one relents, the loser must do the longer sentence.
Although, I dont care about either of them frankly. Just because some rich dick is being a dick doesnt mean I think homeless dicks are super nice guys all of a sudden.
gak have you seen the state of tramps? He would probably have wound up in prison for eating someone next week anyway.
Albatross wrote:Do we know that either story is actually true?
There are a multitude of examples of this kind of thing, where white collar crimes that steal millions (or billions) from pensions or company funds get a small sentence but someone robbing a convenience store for a pittance gets decades. Stealing the life savings of people isn't considered as serious as $100 dollars from a clerk becuase it was done in person and not on paper, even though more people are screwed over.
Well...yeah. Shuma is finally right on something. If you knew more about how it works we could discuss it, but pulling teeth on educating you on the entire legal system takes more energy than I care to put out.
I'm sure a criminal defense lawer like yo.. Oh wait. How much time have you spent in the prosecutors office during a financial law trial exactly? You a judge? Been hanging out with your senators? Been collecting financial records of hedge funds lately? I mean, you sure do sound like you're somehow actually involved with these processes. I'd hate for that to be the same fallacy you toss at us anytime someone brings up something vaguely law related and you pretend you're in every area of law from enforcement to prosecution to corrections.
Yes, I'm sure being able to pressure prosecutors, ***heresay
bribe elected officials, ***heresay
If it wasn't hearsay the trial would go differently.
Albatross wrote:Do we know that either story is actually true? All we have is a .jpeg of what looks like two news stories. I'd like to read them and make my own mind up about whether or not to be outraged - all the OP has done is tell us that he is angry. I don't really care about that, if I'm being honest.
What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that. Fraud is a different crime to bank robbery. From what I can glean from (the, as yet, unproven) story in the picture, the homeless chap acted like he had a gun, putting the cashier in fear for her life. I imagine that's why he got such a stiff sentence.
He wanted the money for food and to check into his rehab shelter, but felt so badly that he turned himself (and every penny of the $100) into police. The judge "felt the need to send a message" as I recall from elsewhere.
However, Snopes does point out that the guy getting 40 months for the Fraud case wasn't the mastermind, who got 30 years in prison.
Still, 2x the sentence for 30000000x the theft? Hardly seems fair, especially considering one guy was stealing for greed, the other almost for survival.
To the point the OP is trying to raise though, yes, the simple fact is that our justice system is flawed; those with more fame, wealth and/or power will often times escape real justice, while those with none of those things will almost always be punished. It is a sad fact.
If it wasn't hearsay the trial would go differently.
This reply is not even coherent, and relates not at all to the point. Its your opinion , based on nothing but the vapors coming out of your ass.
I'm sure a criminal defense lawer like yo.. Oh wait. How much time have you spent in the prosecutors office during a financial law trial exactly?
18 bazillion hours.
You a judge?
Of course I am. Jury and executioner as well.
Been hanging out with your senators?
Which ones? Roman, state, or federal?
Been collecting financial records of hedge funds lately?
I paper my wall with them.
I mean, you sure do sound like you're somehow actually involved with these processes. I'd hate for that to be the same fallacy you toss at us anytime someone brings up something vaguely law related and you pretend you're in every area of law from enforcement to prosecution to corrections.
I'm sorry, if I could find your point I'd rebut it.
Whats especially saddening is I don't think you even caught that I agreed about the sentencing.
He kept a hand under his jacket to imply he was armed, he never produced or had a firearm.
Actual reporting on this story is annoying to come by, as search engines are full of silly blogs full of crying, either from one side screaming greatest injustice since ... something very unjust... or that the guy clearly had a 20 page rap sheet and the news isn't reporting that "fact".
The amount of posts saying "Do a little research and you'll see he's a repeat offender who has spent his entire life in jail" whilst providing no sourcing or backup is infuriating.
I stand by what I said, money talks. If you hire an uberlawyer, you are more likely to get handed a much lighter sentence or even get off scotfree.
Judges and juries are more likely to be repulsed by a stinking homeless guy with probono defence than a smart, intelligent(?) and charismatic guy with a super-lawyer...wether the homeless guy handed back the cash and repented or not. It's human nature. *shrugs*
Well since we have the mandetory pic of the homeless "savage" (Always included so to make sure fine upstanding readers can attain proper levels of outrage and disgust) we should post the other subjects pic as well:
Not that skin color, socio-ecenomic status or other such factors had anything to do with sentencing...
This reply is not even coherent, and relates not at all to the point. Its your opinion , based on nothing but the vapors coming out of your ass.
You stated it was bull because we weren't hearing about it. I said if we were hearing about it it wouldn't be an issue because they would be getting caught. It's not a hard train of logic to follow.
18 bazillion hours.
So now you're in financial law? Two months ago you were doing property, a bit before that you were doing business, investment, and IP. I'm pretty sure I remember you doing immigration law in 2010. Maybe there are superlawers. A breed apart. Beings who know every law and every case in history across all boundaries.
Of course I am. Jury and executioner as well.
I don't see the shoulder pads.
Which ones? Roman, state, or federal?
Roman.
I paper my wall with them.
Isn't that illegal?
I'm sorry, if I could find your point I'd rebut it.
My point was that financial clout gives significant recourse for avoiding trials entirely and that when you have billions to burn you have an awful lot of power outside the courtroom to effect the course of events within it. That the process doesn't stop with hiring 'the best lawyers'.
Whats especially saddening is I don't think you even caught that I agreed about the sentencing.
I caught that, but you disagreed with me on what I'm arguing. Notice how we're not talking about a homeless dude.
Phototoxin wrote:It's called 'white collar crime' - I fiddle some books and make trillions. The global economy goes to hell - well I didn't hurt anyone!
I smell horribly, am unwashed, a drug addict and homeless. I am uneducated. I steal a sandwitch from tescos I get pummeled.
Compare and contrast : who is doing the greater evil (assuming you think stealing is evil/wrong)
Is the homeless man doing evil by stealing to feed himself?
The Rich get richer ( occasionally getting a slap on the wrist when caught stealing ungodly sums of money) , The poor get prison ....wonderful.
My opinion...White collar criminal should receive much harsher sentences than some impoverished would be stick up man...simply based on the impact the white collar criminals actions have on those involved....but...I doubt that sort of justice will ever occur.
What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that.
He was starving, it was 100 dollars, and he returned it the next day and turned himself in. Draconian gak like this is what is wrong with society. Was she scared? Probably, I bet he had a real scary hand. Now he's going to go to jail for 15 years. I'm sure it makes you feel safe at night to know that the dudes going to rot in a cell so that you don't have to worry about that 100 dollars he returned or the five minutes of worry the teller felt before she went on to make more money then that during her shift.
I love how blasé you are about a person being robbed by what she believed was an armed homeless junkie. Yeah, feth her, she deserved it for doing her job and earning money. You're absolutely right. Presumably you're robbed at gunpoint every single day, so this sort of thing is water off a duck's back to you. However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience. The people I know that have been subject to armed robbery certainly seemed think it was, but then, they aren't battle-hardened internet warriors.
Ahtman wrote:There are a multitude of examples of this kind of thing, where white collar crimes that steal millions (or billions) from pensions or company funds get a small sentence but someone robbing a convenience store for a pittance gets decades.
Oh, I don't doubt that it happens. I'm just asking if we know that these two particular stories are true, is all. We didn't have much to go on originally.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:This is partially because of Racism... yes racism. The other reason why is because Americas justice system is crap.
Ah yes, I had forgotten that the Kiwi justice system is beyond criticism. And you never have modern instances of racism, but we will leave those pesky Maori out of this. And by the by, your over generalization of racism being the driving factor in this shows a complete lack of understanding of the structure of the American justice system. That being said, we don't have hardly any details that can give us the ability to truly pick apart these cases.
Albatross wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Oh Albatross, I do enjoy reading your posts
I love how blasé you are about a person being robbed by what she believed was an armed homeless junkie. Yeah, feth her, she deserved it for doing her job and earning money.
Yeah, I'm sure she got scared. Lets send the dude to jail for fifteen years, I'm sure her 2 minutes of fright is that important.
You're absolutely right. Presumably you're robbed at gunpoint every single day, so this sort of thing is water off a duck's back to you. However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience. The people I know that have been subject to armed robbery certainly seemed think it was, but then, they aren't battle-hardened internet warriors.
How long do you think it'll take her to get over having a dude point his pocket at her? Fifteen years? Sounds about right. I'm sure throwing a black middle aged man into the prison system for what will probably be the remainder of his life will teach him not to scare people like that.
I love how blasé you are about a person being robbed by what she believed was an armed homeless junkie. Yeah, feth her, she deserved it for doing her job and earning money.
Yeah, I'm sure she got scared. Lets send the dude to jail for fifteen years, I'm sure her 2 minutes of fright is that important.
So, is the money the important factor then?
You're absolutely right. Presumably you're robbed at gunpoint every single day, so this sort of thing is water off a duck's back to you. However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience. The people I know that have been subject to armed robbery certainly seemed think it was, but then, they aren't battle-hardened internet warriors.
How long do you think it'll take her to get over having a dude point his pocket at her? Fifteen years? Sounds about right. I'm sure throwing a black middle aged man into the prison system for what will probably be the remainder of his life will teach him not to scare people like that.
The threat was real, it doesn't matter that the gun wasn't. It's still demanding money with the threat of violence.
Albatross wrote:I love how blasé you are about a person being robbed by what she believed was an armed homeless junkie. Yeah, feth her, she deserved it for doing her job and earning money. You're absolutely right. Presumably you're robbed at gunpoint every single day, so this sort of thing is water off a duck's back to you. However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience. The people I know that have been subject to armed robbery certainly seemed think it was, but then, they aren't battle-hardened internet warriors.
Sure, and the sentence should be reflective of the terror caused more than the paltry sum of money that was actually taken.
But it's more than a little ridiculous to consider scaring someone worthy of a 15 year sentence. People regularly get less for manslaughter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Luckily, there's no racism in New Zealand.
And even more luckily, the presence of racism in New Zealand means that no-one can ever comment on racism anywhere else in the world.
Not that I think racism is particularly relevant to the case, to be honest. I've got no problem with believing a judge would randomly decide to deliver a ridiculously disproportionate sentence to a guy with a record and a drug problem whether he was black or white.
But still, the point remains that you are allowed to comment on something even though it also happens in your country.
However, Snopes does point out that the guy getting 40 months for the Fraud case wasn't the mastermind, who got 30 years in prison.
Same thing happened with the Enron case more or less. This particular guy probably rolled on the others and got a nice cut. 3 years sounds like what the guys who dealed on the Enron scandal got.
Albatross wrote:However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience.
Ever met anyone who had their life ripped from them? Their retirement wiped out, their kids college fund deleted, their mortgage is now up for debate. Being robbed at gunpoint is traumatic, but so is having your life stolen from you, and it is arguable about which will has more long term effects psychologically and emotionally. Watch the interviews with the Enron people or the non-celebrities that Maddof swindled.
I love all these judges saying "I wanted to make an example out of this one" or "I wanted to send a message" to disguise their prejudices against a certain person they are trying over. Pretty damn sad.
It is threads like this that make Frazzled my hero, i dont recall claiming the US justice system was perfect, but I believe it is a heck of a lot better than many others that are out there.
dajobe wrote:It is threads like this that make Frazzled my hero, i dont recall claiming the US justice system was perfect, but I believe it is a heck of a lot better than many others that are out there.
Being better than something bad doesn't make something good, it just makes it less bad, and I'm not sure that is a very good standard to shoot for.
dajobe wrote:It is threads like this that make Frazzled my hero, i dont recall claiming the US justice system was perfect, but I believe it is a heck of a lot better than many others that are out there.
I'm glad you're so willing to settle. It must be easy when you throw up your hands and take whats in the box. Also, what was unique about frazzleds response that would make him your illustrious hero (other then the superpowers)?
Which is why we have a supreme court, and congress and executive, who's job it is to improve the system and keep it going. If the situation bothers you, write your representative/senator and if enough people do this, the desired change may be made. But crying about how unjust the system is, and how easy the gov't is on the rich gets nothing done.
dajobe wrote:Which is why we have a supreme court, and congress and executive, who's job it is to improve the system and keep it going. If the situation bothers you, write your representative/senator and if enough people do this, the desired change may be made. But crying about how unjust the system is, and how easy the gov't is on the rich gets nothing done.
The presumption that no one on these boards has time to both write a letter and post here is a bit foolish.
dajobe wrote:Which is why we have a supreme court, and congress and executive, who's job it is to improve the system and keep it going. If the situation bothers you, write your representative/senator and if enough people do this, the desired change may be made. But crying about how unjust the system is, and how easy the gov't is on the rich gets nothing done.
The presumption that no one on these boards has time to both write a letter and post here is a bit foolish.
I dont recall mentioning time?I never said that someone couldnt both write a letter and post here. I could write up a letter to my senator in less than 30 minutes and i have 3 midterms and a term paper due within the week. It is all about taking the initiative and taking a stand for what they are passionate about, unfortunately, some people are passionate about complaining.
dajobe wrote:It is threads like this that make Frazzled my hero, i dont recall claiming the US justice system was perfect, but I believe it is a heck of a lot better than many others that are out there.
What a completely bizarre thing to say. I mean, I honestly can't wrap my head around the idea of being satisfied with a justice system because some other system out there is worse. It's like any actual concern over people getting a fair treatment is a sideshow to nationalism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:Which is why we have a supreme court, and congress and executive, who's job it is to improve the system and keep it going.
That guy got a ridiculous 15 year sentence because the courts don't want people taking their cases to court, they want them to cop a plea and take a year - something that's handled by having the thread of 15 year long sentences if they don't take the plea.
The system wants people taking those pleas because it simply doesn't have the resources to give a proper hearing to every case that comes along.
And there's nothing the Supreme Court can do about that.
But crying about how unjust the system is, and how easy the gov't is on the rich gets nothing done.
Whereas half thinking through responses to people on the internet is the work of a young dynamo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:I dont recall mentioning time?I never said that someone couldnt both write a letter and post here. I could write up a letter to my senator in less than 30 minutes and i have 3 midterms and a term paper due within the week. It is all about taking the initiative and taking a stand for what they are passionate about, unfortunately, some people are passionate about complaining.
Do i believe the old man should have gotten a 15 year sentence, no. Did he rob someone and make it look like he had a gun beneath his coat, yes, which if the law says he can get 15 years, dont steal. There are many jobs out there for unskilled laborers that are vacant. In my town there are homeless people all over, but there are part and full time hiring signs in many store fronts, cab companies are hiring. There is always SOMETHING you can do. If you cant work because of a disability or age( and i am talking like 75, lots of old people work in groceries and other things) then collect a disability check and find a job that works. No excuse for stealing and i have zero sympathy.
Do i believe someone who stole 3 billion dollars should get more than about 3 years, yes, they should go away for a while, but there must have been some other reason that the 3 year sentence was awarded, because i couldnt see very well from that little snippit the OP put there.
and if i am a dynamo then you are a disgruntled nihilist.
And yes i am complaining about them complaining, i have written letters to my senator before about issues, did it do anything, not really, but if everyone did, then it could.
dajobe wrote:You obviously missed the point of my post.
Not really, no.
Do i believe the old man should have gotten a 15 year sentence, no. Did he rob someone and make it look like he had a gun beneath his coat, yes, which if the law says he can get 15 years, dont steal. There are many jobs out there for unskilled laborers that are vacant. In my town there are homeless people all over, but there are part and full time hiring signs in many store fronts, cab companies are hiring. There is always SOMETHING you can do. If you cant work because of a disability or age( and i am talking like 75, lots of old people work in groceries and other things) then collect a disability check and find a job that works. No excuse for stealing and i have zero sympathy.
How much of that applies to recovering drug addicts with criminal records? And well might you point out that all his previous lifestyle choices were his fault and blah de blah, and while we don't have all the details, you're probably right. He probably did screw up.
So lets ignore whatever his real world situation was, and guess he was on his way to accept a decent paying, steady job when he decided screw it, I'd rather rob that lady. It's clear he only committed the crime because of his own absolute moral failings. Even then, how do you justify a 15 year prison sentence for petty theft and scaring a lady? All told, that 15 year sentence is going to cost the state about a million bucks, all as punishment for petty theft and scaring a lady.
It's absurd. People get a third of that for manslaughter. For actually killing a person.
and if i am a dynamo then you are a disgruntled nihilist.
Is it even possible for a nihilist to be disgruntled? And for that matter, why would a nihilist be complaining about an excessive jail sentence? Wouldn't a nihilist just, you know... not care? Like most of the usual suspects who jumped into this thread to defend that ludicrous sentence with little more than 'he broke the law so he gets what he gets'.
And yes i am complaining about them complaining, i have written letters to my senator before about issues, did it do anything, not really, but if everyone did, then it could.
So your belief is that people shouldn't just complain on-line, but take an active role in improving things they find troublesome. And you're here to complain about the people that are just complaining.
dajobe wrote:
In my town there are homeless people all over, but there are part and full time hiring signs in many store fronts, cab companies are hiring.
Once you no longer have a permanent address, it becomes very difficult to obtain an above-the-board position, especially if you've been without one for a significant period of time.
dajobe wrote:
There is always SOMETHING you can do.
Maybe in most cases, but not always, particularly when there is high unemployment and you don't have a permanent address, an established work history, or, potentially, even an inoffensive appearance.
dajobe wrote:
And yes i am complaining about them complaining, i have written letters to my senator before about issues, did it do anything, not really, but if everyone did, then it could.
That doesn't change the fact that you're engaging in a behavior every bit as futile as the one that you're deriding.
It's pretty black and white. You rob a bank with a gun and your in the gak. The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.
Its merely a story designed to promote outrage and im surprised that someone as bright as shuma is arguing the toss frankly.
True story.. I have a mate who got three years for robbing fags from an off license with a bananna! He stuck it up his jumper, and ran in drunk for a bet and said "gimme all the fags!"
ParatrooperSimon wrote:This is partially because of Racism... yes racism. The other reason why is because Americas justice system is crap.
Luckily, there's no racism in New Zealand.
Just killer sheep. LOTS of sheep.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
But it's more than a little ridiculous to consider scaring someone worthy of a 15 year sentence. People regularly get less for manslaughter.
And you're an expert on US criminal sentencing...how? The argument is nonsense. You know nothing about the crime. You know nothing about his previous history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..
Incorrect, or more precisely only indriectly correct.
Money buys excellent lawyers. Lawyers talk.
So we should kill the lawyers instead?
If its good enough for Shalespeare...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Albatross wrote:However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience.
Ever met anyone who had their life ripped from them? Their retirement wiped out, their kids college fund deleted, their mortgage is now up for debate. Being robbed at gunpoint is traumatic, but so is having your life stolen from you, and it is arguable about which will has more long term effects psychologically and emotionally. Watch the interviews with the Enron people or the non-celebrities that Maddof swindled.
Yes. My parents. This is being presented like its an either/or. Its not. Put the bank robber in jail for fifteen. Put the super swindler away for life*
*Life meaning Frazzled would prefer putting them in a match with some of their victims Roman style.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
dajobe wrote:It is threads like this that make Frazzled my hero, i dont recall claiming the US justice system was perfect, but I believe it is a heck of a lot better than many others that are out there.
I'm glad you're so willing to settle. It must be easy when you throw up your hands and take whats in the box. Also, what was unique about frazzleds response that would make him your illustrious hero (other then the superpowers)?
My ability to scream like a girl whenever I see a scorpion of course.
mattyrm wrote:The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.
Not according to most judges. The only reason he received such a harsh sentence was the just decided he wanted to "make an example", whereas a more intelligent and less politically minded judge would have used all of those facts, along with him turning himself in and returning all stolen goods willingly, to lessen his sentence and prefer rehabilitation over punishment.
mattyrm wrote:The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.
Not according to most judges. The only reason he received such a harsh sentence was the just decided he wanted to "make an example", whereas a more intelligent and less politically minded judge would have used all of those facts, along with him turning himself in and returning all stolen goods willingly, to lessen his sentence and prefer rehabilitation over punishment.
But he didn't get a sane judge.
Again, you have no clue what actually occured. You have no clue what the guy's crimes were previously. The sort of stories are just stupid.
A guy who turns himself in over a $100 theft... that's the kind of guy who sounds to you like he's a repeat offender? One bad enough to get 15 years for stealing and then returning $100?
Frazzled wrote:And you're an expert on US criminal sentencing...how? The argument is nonsense. You know nothing about the crime. You know nothing about his previous history.
You need to be an expert in US criminal law to know that people regularly get less for manslaughter? Wow, that's a mighty arcane legal system you have over there.
How do you know what the punishments for manslaughter are in that jurisidction? Again, you also have absolutely no history on what his previous record is. Thats the stupidity of these types of threads.
You can argue the other crime should have recieved more time, and I am in agreement with your argument. But the two are not related.
With regards to the cases, depending on how the $100 is stolen it can indeed reach a higher sentence, 15 years for that is steep but not excessively so for armed robbery, though unfair if it was a simple burglary.
The fraudster has been severely undersentenced though.
Orlanth wrote:
With regards to the cases, depending on how the $100 is stolen it can indeed reach a higher sentence, 15 years for that is steep but not excessively so for armed robbery, though unfair if it was a simple burglary.
The fraudster has been severely undersentenced though.
Indeed.
1. Robbing a bank is serious, federal crime GMan stuff and highly frowned upon.
2. We don't know what his priors were.
mattyrm wrote: In the interests of fairness and equality, I think that money should be removed from the equation completely. Thus, homeless man and billionaire are given broom shanks with Boxing gloves taped to the end and some leather underpants. They then duel in a pit of death and pummel each other until one relents, the loser must do the longer sentence.
I like the cut of your jib. As we've discussed before, televise this. As an add-on, use the money from the sponsors to fund detox shelters and other rehab centers.
mattyrm wrote: It's pretty black and white. You rob a bank with a gun and your in the gak. The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.
Its merely a story designed to promote outrage and im surprised that someone as bright as shuma is arguing the toss frankly.
True story.. I have a mate who got three years for robbing fags from an off license with a bananna! He stuck it up his jumper, and ran in drunk for a bet and said "gimme all the fags!"
5 years on, he sees the funny side. ;-)
Put him in a full on prison (if he were kept in a jail or whatever the UK equivalent is) and keep him in there for 12 more years. Lets see how he's seeing that funny side. I dislike this sentence because it's truly overblown, regardless of his history. Its not designed to promote anything, it's just outrageous.
MrDwhitey wrote:He kept a hand under his jacket to imply he was armed, he never produced or had a firearm.
Actual reporting on this story is annoying to come by, as search engines are full of silly blogs full of crying, either from one side screaming greatest injustice since ... something very unjust... or that the guy clearly had a 20 page rap sheet and the news isn't reporting that "fact".
The amount of posts saying "Do a little research and you'll see he's a repeat offender who has spent his entire life in jail" whilst providing no sourcing or backup is infuriating.
The correct response to that is to do a little research and present the evidence that he wasn't a repeat offender, etc. (If it's correct, of course.)
However this would not often do much good because most people choose an opinion based on their personality type and facts are remarkably ineffective at changing that opinion. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
mattyrm wrote: It's pretty black and white. You rob a bank with a gun and your in the gak. The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.
Its merely a story designed to promote outrage and im surprised that someone as bright as shuma is arguing the toss frankly.
True story.. I have a mate who got three years for robbing fags from an off license with a bananna! He stuck it up his jumper, and ran in drunk for a bet and said "gimme all the fags!"
5 years on, he sees the funny side. ;-)
Put him in a full on prison (if he were kept in a jail or whatever the UK equivalent is) and keep him in there for 12 more years. Lets see how he's seeing that funny side. I dislike this sentence because it's truly overblown, regardless of his history. Its not designed to promote anything, it's just outrageous.
Yeah, It IS overblown. I didn't say the rich guy wasn't a douche bag, or that 15 years was mega sensible and the judge deserves a hearty back slap.
The point was merely that it still counts as armed robbery if you make out that have a firearm, and it was a BANK!
I mean.. feth me. Armed robbery on a bank, that's pretty serious. 3 years was a tad harsh for my mate in my eyes, but he cant whinge that much cos he was a stupid bastard and he has said the same thing himself. The fact remains, that when you do what this guy did, you pretty much have to give the bloke proper jail time. And it very much is a story designed to illicit an emotional response from people by making comparison to the "evil guys of the moment" namely, fat rich fethers who commit fraud and sting us all!
Yeah, It IS overblown. I didn't say the rich guy wasn't a douche bag, or that 15 years was mega sensible and the judge deserves a hearty back slap.
The point was merely that it still counts as armed robbery if you make out that have a firearm, and it was a BANK!
Does it make a difference that it was a bank? Is he a cartoon villain now?
I mean.. feth me. Armed robbery on a bank, that's pretty serious. 3 years was a tad harsh for my mate in my eyes, but he cant whinge that much cos he was a stupid bastard and he has said the same thing himself. The fact remains, that when you do what this guy did, you pretty much have to give the bloke proper jail time. And it very much is a story designed to illicit an emotional response from people by making comparison to the "evil guys of the moment" namely, fat rich fethers who commit fraud and sting us all!
This story isn't new. The guy was sentenced weeks ago. It was utterly outrageous and pathetic then, the comparison to another financial criminal doesn't change the barest fact that a mans life is essentially being destroyed, not because he tried to get away with a crime, but because he tried to make things right. feth that judge, he is a cruel, compassionless and disgusting soul and the people here carrying on like he deserved it are the same.
Poor guy. If he had just thought to mention he was an illegal alien and not a citizen he would have been given accommodating welfare checks. The more you know.
Lt. Coldfire wrote:Poor guy. If he had just thought to mention he was an illegal alien and not a citizen he would have been given accommodating welfare checks. The more you know.
ShumaGorath wrote:
This story isn't new. The guy was sentenced weeks ago.
...way before the hatred of evil fatcats entered the zeitgeist. Absolutely correct. I think I might use a macro:
It was utterly outrageous and pathetic then, the comparison to another financial criminal doesn't change the barest fact that a mans life is essentially being destroyed, not because he tried to get away with a crime, but because he tried to make things right. feth that judge, he is a cruel, compassionless and disgusting soul and the people here carrying on like he deserved it are the same.
Ok, consider this: If he HAD had a gun, and subsequently given the money back, would you feel the same?
All I have to say is some people need to look up what manslaughter is, and the difference between burglary and armed robbery is.
Guy should have taken a plea bargain if he didn't want 15 years. You have no idea about prior criminal history or mandatory sentencing in the jurisdiction.
Homeless man robs bank to pay for rehab, turns himself in, gets 15 years....
Um... win?! The man was stable enough to know he needed help with an addiction, does something to get arrested. Now he's getting a warm-ish place to sleep, 3 meals a day, exercise, and "free" medical attention? Dude sounds like a smarter man than I
Alfndrate wrote:Homeless man robs bank to pay for rehab, turns himself in, gets 15 years....
Um... win?! The man was stable enough to know he needed help with an addiction, does something to get arrested. Now he's getting a warm-ish place to sleep, 3 meals a day, exercise, and "free" medical attention? Dude sounds like a smarter man than I
Does indeed sound like a hell of a deal. Can't blame him for wanting a better life and getting a 15 year ticket into one.
I don't even get 3 meals a day or free medical. Must be nice.
Karon wrote:It warms my heart that y'all can laugh and make jokes about something like this.
Quite pathetic.
I was being completely serious. That image says the man was stealing the money for rehab. They didn't throw him in a maximum security prison, they probably put him in like the same prison they put people who bounce too many checks.
It's quite pathetic that people on dakka can't see beyond the words on the page to that little bright lining behind his actions.
I'm all for fixing our justice system, but maybe the guy was relying on being sent to prison for several years. He's old as it is, think of it as a free retirement policy...
Frazzled wrote:How do you know what the punishments for manslaughter are in that jurisidction?
Because I have the magical power of competence.
The crime was committed in Louisiana. In Louisiana the crime of manslaughter carries a minimum 10 years, so right there and then we know that people convicted of manslaughter can receive less jail time than a guy who robbed a bank, declined taking all the money offered, and instead took just $100, which he returned the next when he turned himself in.
But then in Louisiana manslaughter is actually murder carried out in the heat of the moment, under provocation. THe crime that is commonly intended by the phrase 'manslaughter' is called negligent homicide in Louisiana, and that carries a maximum sentence of five years.
So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.
sebster wrote:So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.
In all fairness the guy was black, so you have to take that into consideration.
sebster wrote:So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.
Negligent homicide is different from murder because there was no intent to kill the person.
The guy walked into a bank with the intent to rob the bank, with what appeared to be a weapon (even if not visible). Just cause he turned himself in doesn't mean that he should be let off any easier.
sebster wrote:So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.
Negligent homicide is different from murder because there was no intent to kill the person.
The guy walked into a bank with the intent to rob the bank, with what appeared to be a weapon (even if not visible). Just cause he turned himself in doesn't mean that he should be let off any easier.
Yes. Yes it does. It means exactly that. That is the thing that it means.
Ahtman wrote:In all fairness the guy was black, so you have to take that into consideration.
Do you think so?
I mean, I'm certainly not an expert on American justice, but I could see a judge applying such a ridiculous sentence on a recovering drug addict who happened to be white.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sparkywtf wrote:Negligent homicide is different from murder because there was no intent to kill the person.
Sure, but intent isn't the only criteria for poor behaviour. Killing someone because you just didn't give enough of a gak to be careful is still something that needs to be punished. And that punishment really should be about the level of 'you did something really stupid, and it's the kind of thing society cannot put up with so we will punish you, but there is no reason to completely ruin your life, so a moderate jail sentence will be applied'.
And in the state of Louisiana that general idea translates into a maximum jail sentence of 5 years.
Just cause he turned himself in doesn't mean that he should be let off any easier.
Do you seriously believe that?
And it isn't just that he turned himself in. He declined taking more than the money he absolutely needed to get through the next day, and then turned himself in the next day, returning that money.
That's not to say what the guy did isn't a serious thing. He scared the life out of a poor bank teller, and could have brought on a police response and life threatening danger. The guy certainly screwed up. But what he did is, at most, on the light end of 'you did something really stupid, and it's the kind of thing society cannot put up with so we will punish you, but there is no reason to completely ruin your life, so a moderate jail sentence will be applied'. Which you'd think would be a jail sentence up to five year limit.
Instead, he's copped a 'this is basically your life in the crapper, because you did something utterly abhorrent' kind of sentence.
I see the comments about him getting his medical care/help, not homeless anymore as being smart.
In some ways yes. But something he probably forgot to consider, and most people have little knowledge of, Drugs are easier to get in prison than on the streets.
The guy will probably be hooked and high again within a year in prison.
But I suppose he will be sheltered and fed, that's something.
In some ways yes. But something he probably forgot to consider, and most people have little knowledge of, Drugs are easier to get in prison than on the streets.
To make a comparison. Those of you who think 15 years is reasonable. You're caught speeding. The judge decides to "send a message" and puts you away for 15 years. After all, speeding is the number one cause of fatal road accidents. You knew the law. You've been caught speeding before! Repeat offender. You're risking the lives of other people!
You'd happily accept this sentence? Or would you find it just?
Da Boss wrote:To make a comparison. Those of you who think 15 years is reasonable. You're caught speeding. The judge decides to "send a message" and puts you away for 15 years. After all, speeding is the number one cause of fatal road accidents. You knew the law. You've been caught speeding before! Repeat offender. You're risking the lives of other people!
You'd happily accept this sentence? Or would you find it just?
The difference is maximum sentences for the crime.
At a certain speed over the limit, it is more than just a speeding ticket, which probably jail time. But speeding 10 over isn't going to get you jail time.
However committing a VIOLENT crime that probably has some sort mandatory sentence should land you in jail.
But hey, lets just compare apples and oranges too while we are at it.
The sentence was unjust. The judge should've given the sentence he thought the man had earned and not the one he thought would keep the local bank robbing population at bay.
sparkywtf wrote:The difference is maximum sentences for the crime.
At a certain speed over the limit, it is more than just a speeding ticket, which probably jail time. But speeding 10 over isn't going to get you jail time.
However committing a VIOLENT crime that probably has some sort mandatory sentence should land you in jail.
But hey, lets just compare apples and oranges too while we are at it.
You missed the point. People in this thread have justified the punishment by saying 'that's the law' and that the guy shouldn't have broken it. As if that were the beginning and end of the matter, and that there was no general sense of justice that one could appeal to, and that the courts themselves will apply.
And I'll ask again, do you seriously believe that the court shouldn't take into consideration the fact that the guy turned himself in and returned the money?
sparkywtf wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe. The court said 15 years. He will probably get out in a year on parole anyways.
If your beliefs don't matter, why did you bother to post this in the first place;
"Just cause he turned himself in doesn't mean that he should be let off any easier."
Da Boss wrote:To make a comparison. Those of you who think 15 years is reasonable. You're caught speeding. The judge decides to "send a message" and puts you away for 15 years. After all, speeding is the number one cause of fatal road accidents. You knew the law. You've been caught speeding before! Repeat offender. You're risking the lives of other people!
You'd happily accept this sentence? Or would you find it just?
Thats not how it works actually, but don't let that get in the way of your argument.
In some ways yes. But something he probably forgot to consider, and most people have little knowledge of, Drugs are easier to get in prison than on the streets.
I'm gonna want something backing that statement.
Haha!
Yeah even on "The Wire" it looks like its pretty hard to get drugs in prison. I mean, im sure that it is possible, you know, with either corrupt guards or some guy with very loose bowels able to jam some happy pills in his dirtbox, but considering you can get drugs easy as feth on the outside, im loathe to say its easier.
Oh good I can ignore you because you willingly admit you don't matter.
At any rate, a good judge looks at everything, all the mitigating factors, before setting a penalty-- turning himself in, pleading guilty, returning the stolen goods, being remorseful in general.
But then, this wasn't a good judge. He was playing politics, nothing more, and this unfortunate man suffers for it.
The difference between the "white collar crime" and the other thing is the implicit threat of violence in the crime committed by the homeless guy.
Which isn't to say that people who steal billions shouldn't be sentenced harshly, but the distinction between "robbery" and "theft" is an important one in this case.
sparkywtf wrote:The difference is maximum sentences for the crime.
At a certain speed over the limit, it is more than just a speeding ticket, which probably jail time. But speeding 10 over isn't going to get you jail time.
However committing a VIOLENT crime that probably has some sort mandatory sentence should land you in jail.
But hey, lets just compare apples and oranges too while we are at it.
You missed the point. People in this thread have justified the punishment by saying 'that's the law' and that the guy shouldn't have broken it. As if that were the beginning and end of the matter, and that there was no general sense of justice that one could appeal to, and that the courts themselves will apply.
And I'll ask again, do you seriously believe that the court shouldn't take into consideration the fact that the guy turned himself in and returned the money?
Do we know that that wasn't the case? What's the maximum sentence for armed robbery in that state anyway?
Monster Rain wrote:The difference between the "white collar crime" and the other thing is the implicit threat of violence in the crime committed by the homeless guy.
Except we have talked about reasons why this isn't necessarily a well thought out difference already. Strangely enough, the people with the most influence over writing the laws (upper class, upper middle class) have created more lenient sentencing for crimes they are more likely to commit.
Spoiler:
The charge is bank robbery. Now, my caddy's chauffeur informs me that a bank is a place where people put money that isn't properly invested. Therefore, robbing a bank is tantamount to that most heinous of crimes, theft of money.
Albatross wrote:Do we know that that wasn't the case? What's the maximum sentence for armed robbery in that state anyway?
In Louisiana the maximum sentence for robbery where you imply you have a deadly weapon but do not is 40 years. But note the spread of sentencing is 3 to 40 years. I'm honestly finding it hard to figure out how this crime could have been more mild than it was, so surely the sentence should have been very close to 3 years?
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but none of the reasons presented were very good.
Violent crimes are generally punished more harshly, and most people are okay with this.
Sure, and I think everyone is okay with that as a general principle. To the point where a guy ends up with more time in prison than he'd get for actually hurting someone, though, and it starts looking like it's gone too far.
Ahtman wrote:Except we have talked about reasons why this isn't necessarily a well thought out difference already.
Yeah, but none of the reasons presented were very good.
That is a load of crap. The idea that someone ripping away everything you own, and everything one hundred other families own, with the swipe of a pen has no impact on the people it happens to is ludicrous. The idea that being briefly physically threatened is somehow greater than long term psychological is really out of date and out of touch. It is still as it has ever been, the nobles can get away with noble crimes and the serfs are punished severely for minor versions of the same thing. Still a little and you are a thief worthy of no compassion, but steal an obscene amount of money and you are rewarded for creativity with a slap on the wrist.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure if this had been his first offense he wouldn't have received such a stiff sentence.
Given he's a homeless guy with drug addiction problems, it almost certainly isn't the first time he's been in front of a judge. Given he took only $100 when the teller put more on the counter, and that returned the money the next day when he turned himself in, it's pretty likely it's the first time he's tried robbing a bank.
Ultimately, I just can't see how people are reading the story of what happened and deciding that there was a man who really needed a heavy punishment to be taught right from wrong.
sebster wrote:Ultimately, I just can't see how people are reading the story of what happened and deciding that there was a man who really needed a heavy punishment to be taught right from wrong.
I don't think anyone can reasonably read that story and know all of the angles.
But yes, in a perfect world, he'd be receiving some sort of therapy and rehabilitation if he needs it as badly as he apparently does.
sebster wrote:Ultimately, I just can't see how people are reading the story of what happened and deciding that there was a man who really needed a heavy punishment to be taught right from wrong.
I don't think anyone can reasonably read that story and know all of the angles.
But yes, in a perfect world, he'd be receiving some sort of therapy and rehabilitation if he needs it as badly as he apparently does.
I don't think that requires a perfect world. I dunno, maybe my standards for human interaction are higher then the norm. I'm starting to think being logical and compassionate are beyond the pale of the citizens in this country and abroad.
Monster Rain wrote:Yes, my acknowledgment that the world isn't perfect is tantamount to a complete and utter disregard for humanity's well-being.
You're absolutely correct.
I'm done here.
No, the pretense that the world would have to be perfect rather then not fundamentally fethed up for this situation to not occur is what signals that. I'm judging other posters far more then you MR, I'm a judgy guy.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, the pretense that the world would have to be perfect rather then not fundamentally fethed up for this situation to not occur is what signals that.
Well, Shuma, allow me to extend you this olive branch:
When I'm saying "in a perfect world" is pretty much saying that the world is, in fact, fundamentally fethed up.
Albatross wrote:Do we know that that wasn't the case? What's the maximum sentence for armed robbery in that state anyway?
In Louisiana the maximum sentence for robbery where you imply you have a deadly weapon but do not is 40 years. But note the spread of sentencing is 3 to 40 years. I'm honestly finding it hard to figure out how this crime could have been more mild than it was, so surely the sentence should have been very close to 3 years?
If I had to guess, I'd say that it is because the judge was trying to rack up political points.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, the pretense that the world would have to be perfect rather then not fundamentally fethed up for this situation to not occur is what signals that.
Well, Shuma, allow me to extend you this olive branch:
When I'm saying "in a perfect world" is pretty much saying that the world is, in fact, fundamentally fethed up.
sparkywtf wrote:that totally explains why my friend has 2 felonies for intent to sell and drug trafficing.
Oh wait, he is white. Nevermind.
Yes, the presence of a white person in prison means there is no racial inequality in the judicial system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I don't think anyone can reasonably read that story and know all of the angles.
But yes, in a perfect world, he'd be receiving some sort of therapy and rehabilitation if he needs it as badly as he apparently does.
True, we are left to speculate somewhat on the record of the convicted, and there could be other factors that make the case more reasonable.
But from the face of it, it appears an incredibly harsh sentence, and I'm intrigued at the number of posters who've come forward to defend the punishment on the assumption there must be other factors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:If I had to guess, I'd say that it is because the judge was trying to rack up political points.
It seems pretty likely. Tough on crime rhetoric always works. Weirdly enough, even when people disagree with the harshness of sentencing, you find that person's approval rating generally increases, because it seems at the core of our monkey brains we love those take charge, alpha male men of action.
I think that the harshness of the penalty reasonably implies that there are other factors.
I would say that it is equally unsupported to conjecture that the authorities in this case are racist or politically motivated. It is fun to jump to conclusions, though.
Monster Rain wrote:I think that the harshness of the penalty reasonably implies that there are other factors.
I would say that it is equally unsupported to conjecture that the authorities in this case are racist or politically motivated. It is fun to jump to conclusions, though.
Racism and political motivations are certainly speculation, in the same way that other facts not mentioned are, that's true.
Between 'the judge wanted to show his tough on crime credentials ' and 'a guy took only the $100 he desperately needed and turned himself in and returned the money the next day, but is probably a hardened criminal with a record of robbing banks' I know which one I'm going to pick as more likely.
I would respect that if you would only admit that that position is based entirely on your own bias, just as much as those saying that the homeless guy has a prior record.
Monster Rain wrote:I would respect that if you would only admit that that position is based entirely on your own bias, just as much as those saying that the homeless guy has a prior record.
I don't think they're exactly the same thing, though. Speculation on there being some other factor leading to the high sentence is needed by anyone looking to justify 15 years, whereas speculation on why the judge imposed the sentence doesn't matter, the case that it is an incredibly high sentence exists just from the facts presented. Then there's the issue of one being a lot more likely than the other.
That said, I will grant that not everyone was looking to justify the sentence for the same reason. For instance, there is a decent argument to be made that information was missing just because it is typical for court reporters to leave out important details, due to sensationalism or incompetence, that makes stories look much worse than they usually are. Such a motivation is fair enough, though I would also expect them to post much the same in threads in which it looked like a person got a very low sentence.
sebster wrote:I don't think they're exactly the same thing, though. Speculation on there being some other factor leading to the high sentence is needed by anyone looking to justify 15 years, whereas speculation on why the judge imposed the sentence doesn't matter, the case that it is an incredibly high sentence exists just from the facts presented.
On the contrary, under the correct circumstances it could be a perfectly reasonable sentence.
sebster wrote:Then there's the issue of one being a lot more likely than the other.
Monster Rain wrote:On the contrary, under the correct circumstances it could be a perfectly reasonable sentence.
Sure, at which point we have two different possibilities.
"If there is some unknown information out there, then this might be reasonable."
"Given the information presented, it is apparent this sentence is unusually harsh. Given that, here is some speculation on why that might be..."
Based on what?
When robbing the bank, the guy was handed a lot of money but declined it and took only the $100 he needed right now. The next day he returned the money and turned himself in. This is not the description of a hardened bank robber. As such, it is very unlikely he has built a long criminal record.
On the other hand, it is hardly uncommon for judges to hand out particularly long sentences for political reasons.
sebster wrote:When robbing the bank, the guy was handed a lot of money but declined it and took only the $100 he needed right now. The next day he returned the money and turned himself in. This is not the description of a hardened bank robber. As such, it is very unlikely he has built a long criminal record.
That really doesn't follow.
Robbing banks isn't the only crime that someone can commit. You could have a long criminal history with only one bank robbery on it. You're better than this.
Been thinking the same about you in this thread, tbh. I agree with Sebster that given the information we are privy to, is reasonable to find it unjust. If more information were to come to light were are free to amend that, as that how it works.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? - John M Keynes
You seem to be either arguing that becuase their could be more information we should just accept that it was just, or that becuase there could be more information we shouldn't be able to form a thought on the subject now.
Ahtman wrote:Been thinking the same about you in this thread, tbh. I agree with Sebster that given the information we are privy to, is reasonable to find it unjust.
It's no more reasonable than wondering if there were other factors contributing to the sentence considering its severity.
Ahtman wrote:You seem to be either arguing that becuase their could be more information we should just accept that it was just, or that becuase there could be more information we shouldn't be able to form a thought on the subject now.
I'm arguing that there's no point in forming a thought on it if so much of the process is based on personal bias and wild speculation.
Ahtman wrote:You seem to be either arguing that becuase their could be more information we should just accept that it was just, or that becuase there could be more information we shouldn't be able to form a thought on the subject now.
I'm arguing that there's no point in forming a thought on it if so much of the process is based on personal bias and wild speculation.
We have enough information to form some preliminary thoughts, and you don't get to be the judge of that, which I find an odd role for you to try and fill. Given the information on hand we certainly can scramble together some thoughts on the subject, including that more information could change things. If we used this unreasonable standard you have come up with people would never be able to start formulating anything, as we almost never have, if we ever do, perfect information. We have to go on information that we are given and be open to change it as things progress. If I see a light coming at me I don't need to let the train hit me before I decide get out get out of the way.
Monster Rain wrote:It's no more reasonable than wondering if there were other factors contributing to the sentence considering its severity.
And no one has said that it would be unreasonable to believe that there could be more information. What is being argued against is you are turning it from "there might be, and probably is more information" to "you can't form a thought since their may be more information".
Ahtman wrote:We have enough information to form some preliminary thoughts, and you don't get to be the judge of that, which I find an odd role for you to try and fill.
Your preliminary thoughts are no more valid than anyone else's given the limited amount of information. That's the point. In fact, it's already established that the story in the OP was misleading, or at least omitting pertinent information, in order to be sensationalistic. Read the snopes article again.
Ahtman wrote:Given the information on hand we certainly can scramble together some thoughts on the subject, including that more information could change things.
Institutional racism or political motivation is hardly apparent from these facts.
Ahtman wrote:If we used this unreasonable standard you have come up with people would never be able to start formulating anything, as we almost never have, if we ever do, perfect information. We have to go on information that we are given and be open to change it as things progress. If I see a light coming at me I don't need to let the train hit me before I decide get out get out of the way.
And if what you originally thought was a train was an ice cream truck you'd look extremely silly for overreacting.
Ahtman wrote:We have enough information to form some preliminary thoughts, and you don't get to be the judge of that, which I find an odd role for you to try and fill.
Your preliminary thoughts are no more valid than anyone else's given the limited amount of information. That's the point.
Neither are they invalidated either. I don't know why you think we are not allowed to discuss the subject at all. Discussion is how we move things forward and get new information. If you just stop all discussion before it can ever start there is no point in even having something like a forum.
Monster Rain wrote:Institutional racism or political motivation is hardly apparent from these facts.
I don't think it has been explicitly stated that was a what happened. I know I half-heartedly joked about it but I never said that was the only reason this happened or that I believe that it was a major factor. If you would like to argue there has always been parity in sentencing along ethnic lines you are more than welcome to argue against all the studies that show that it actually is an issue, which is more what I was referring to with that. If that was your issue, you were extremely muddled in making that clear.
Monster Rain wrote:And if what you originally thought was a train was an ice cream truck you'd look extremely silly for overreacting.
Not really, getting out of the way of a moving vehicle generally is a good idea.
Ahtman wrote:Neither are they invalidated either. I don't know why you think we are not allowed to discuss the subject at all.
You're allowed to discuss it, just as I am allowed to ponder the futility of said discussion.
Ahtman wrote:If that was your issue, you were extremely muddled in making that clear.
My bad then. It's late and scotch is delicious.
Ahtman wrote:Not really, getting out of the way of a moving vehicle generally is a good idea.
It's not going to hit you, though. It's coming to sell you delicious ice cream novelties shaped like your favorite cartoon characters complete with gumball eyes.
Robbing banks isn't the only crime that someone can commit. You could have a long criminal history with only one bank robbery on it.
Sure, and given he's in a course for drug addiction, it's more than a little likely he's got a record for drug possession, and probably also for selling. But given the way he went about this robbery, it's pretty unlikely he's got priors for theft or violence.
At which point we're looking at a guy who clearly showed remorse for the crime, being punished incredibly severely because of prior drug use. Which still reads to me as being fundamentally unjust.
