Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2011/11/08 18:24:17
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
I judge you all 15 years!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/11/08 18:31:57
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2011/11/08 19:02:08
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/08 19:10:28
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/11/08 19:35:02
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
thats all I wanted.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2011/11/09 03:15:30
Subject: Re:40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/09 03:19:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/11/09 03:20:31
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 03:23:23
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/09 03:23:40
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
Monster Rain: The judge explicitly said that he was "setting an example".
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/11/09 03:25:49
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
Monster Rain wrote:This may come as a surprise, but not wanting people robbing banks is a non-partisan issue.
Yes, but why not set an example of a malicious person instead of a remorseful one?
The judge didn't care, he was just earning political points. Not exactly uncommon in some places...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/09 03:28:20
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/11/09 03:40:08
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/11/09 03:47:34
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/09 06:16:26
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 06:17:08
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/11/09 07:46:37
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
Based on what?
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/09 08:14:03
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/11/09 08:16:36
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 08:17:17
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/09 08:34:48
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 08:40:19
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2011/11/09 08:40:34
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 08:44:03
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/09 08:52:39
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 08:56:33
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2011/11/09 08:56:48
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/11/09 09:06:12
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/09 09:13:32
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2011/11/09 09:16:39
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 09:17:03
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
2011/11/10 03:24:58
Subject: 40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100
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.
You're better than this.
I'm really not. This is my a-game.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
