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.

I'd really really like to know what he needed 200k for. Like, was it all in one shot, or did he slowly siphon bits and pieces out. Not particularly relevant I know, but I'm very curious...

It's, personally, where I would have moved it to and where I would keep those fething Chapterhouse "legality" threads at rather than having them clog up News & Rumours.
***Where you want it is not relevant. Its an OT topic.

Frazzled wrote:
***Yes these are the typical excuses to get white collar criminals off. I've heard them over and over again. Some investment banker plunders a company and he goals to jail for 2 years. The local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years. Its an excuse to cover and I call bs.

That is a way different situation and you damned well know it. This guy didn't "plunder a company". He didn't set up a Cayman Islands tax shelter and funnel away his employees' retirement or healthcare funds.
***No its not. You believe your way and I believe mine. You are utterly wrong in this circumstance. Justice must be blind.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

They get away here too though.

People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
Discretionary punishment in the sense that “this person does this in their normal life so we are going to ease up the punishment” is wrong. It punishes other people for not doing those same things with their life. If not being a prominent business owner is wrong then make it a crime. If it isn’t wrong then don’t penalize me relative to a prominent business when we commit the same crime.

Except that's not how discretionary punishment (at least the way it's supposed to) work.
The idea isn't "Well, Dave is a prominent doctor and is loved by everyone whereas ArtfcllyFlvrd is a steelworker who is hated by everyone. They both stole a signpost when they were drunk, but Dave gets a free pass while we're prosecuting Art to the fullest extent of the law!"

The idea is "Well Dave and Art are both gainfully employed, have no prior offenses, and committed the same crime. We'll sentence them to X hours of community service and rehabilitation for alcoholism."

You'll notice I removed your "robbing a bank also victimless?" statement. I did that because you don't seem to understand that there's a difference, conceptually at least, between robbery and theft.

"Theft" is what you'll see referring to a situation where an item was removed(usually without force or threats of violence) whilst the victim was unaware. I hesitate to put credit card fraud under that simply because it's such a "new age" crime. There's more to it than simple theft, but I can't think of a single case where it's gotten up to someone holding someone up for their credit cards.
"Robbery" is the opposite. It's brazen, and usually involves forcefully removing or threatening force against the victim if they don't comply.

But yeah. Your example was flawed anyways. "Robbing a bank" is always a victimizing crime. Banks have employees and customers who are usually in the banks and are the real targets of the robbery, not the bank itself.

Mannahnin wrote:For some crimes we do have Warnings, though, which are similar idea to Cautions. I can't think of any states or municipalities which have them for drug offenses, but they're certainly an option some places for some motor vehicle violations. Yes, sometimes the cop just gives you a verbal warning and there's no consequence; but some departments have written warnings which go on your record and which another officer will see and take into account if you get stopped again for the same thing. I got one of these once for a brake light being out- the terms were (IIRC, it was over ten years ago) that I had 48hrs to get it fixed; if I got pulled over again in my town for the same thing after that, I'd get a fine.

Yep, we definitely have warnings!
I can't think of any crimes(or even misdemeanors) outside of motor vehicle violations where they give warnings though.

Kanluwen wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
Discretionary punishment in the sense that “this person does this in their normal life so we are going to ease up the punishment” is wrong. It punishes other people for not doing those same things with their life. If not being a prominent business owner is wrong then make it a crime. If it isn’t wrong then don’t penalize me relative to a prominent business when we commit the same crime.

Except that's not how discretionary punishment (at least the way it's supposed to) work.
The idea isn't "Well, Dave is a prominent doctor and is loved by everyone whereas ArtfcllyFlvrd is a steelworker who is hated by everyone. They both stole a signpost when they were drunk, but Dave gets a free pass while we're prosecuting Art to the fullest extent of the law!"

The idea is "Well Dave and Art are both gainfully employed, have no prior offenses, and committed the same crime. We'll sentence them to X hours of community service and rehabilitation for alcoholism."

You'll notice I removed your "robbing a bank also victimless?" statement. I did that because you don't seem to understand that there's a difference, conceptually at least, between robbery and theft.

"Theft" is what you'll see referring to a situation where an item was removed(usually without force or threats of violence) whilst the victim was unaware. I hesitate to put credit card fraud under that simply because it's such a "new age" crime. There's more to it than simple theft, but I can't think of a single case where it's gotten up to someone holding someone up for their credit cards.
"Robbery" is the opposite. It's brazen, and usually involves forcefully removing or threatening force against the victim if they don't comply.

But yeah. Your example was flawed anyways. "Robbing a bank" is always a victimizing crime. Banks have employees and customers who are usually in the banks and are the real targets of the robbery, not the bank itself.

Condescend much?

Dave and Art getting the exact same punishment for the exact same crime is not discretionary, it’s just punishment. I suppose there is judgment involved in what that punishment should be, but if you are going to say that someone who takes $200k that isn’t theirs and does not go to jail falls within the bounds of reasonable discretion than remind me never to let you watch my kids, drive my car, feed my pets, or do anything else that requires the exercise of reasonable judgment.

My point with robbing the bank it that it’s stupid to say a crime is victimless because a big faceless bank is the target. The bank and its insurers, which are owned by real people, which employ real people, which get their money from people, and which do business with real people are legitimate victims. If you really have the “they’re so big they won’t miss it” mentality I don’t know what can be done for you.

When I have to explain something as relatively simple to you as "discretionary punishment" or why using robbing a bank as an example of a victimless crime is flawed...

Then yeah, I will have to be condescending.

Your notion that judges or law enforcement personnel should be able to circumvent the law at their discretion because of extenuating circumstances is frankly un-American and unconstitutional.

In your original example, don’t get drunk if your wife is expecting. You could kill yourself, your wife, your child and other people. If anything you should be punished more. If you are drunk and your wife is injured call an ambulance, or get someone you are with to drive you, or accept the punishment for drunk driving.

Giving people that kind of power is a slippery slope to favoritism and special treatment of the well known and well connected. Of course a police man is going to listen to the extenuating circumstances of the mayor, or the local sports star. But the same extenuating circumstance from Joe Nobody doesn’t mean squat to him. Of course a judge is going to listen to the extenuating circumstances of a Senator or congressman, but the same excuse from a former convict means nothing.

I know it happens but it shouldn’t, and far from making our country great it weakens it. Your original comment that this is one of the joys of living in our country remains absurd.

Modquisition on. Posters need to mellow out and avoid personal statements. Attack the positions not the persons thank you.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

I think your comments here don't really resemble what I'm talking about, although I understand that my points may have been obscured under some of the more sensationalist and extreme rhetoric being slung around in this thread.

My original statements were based on a combination of the details in the article and the comments of members here who are familiar with the shop and the owner. That he's a good and normally honest person, that it's a first offense, that he felt remorse and began restitution before any charges were filed, that he owns a business which employs other people, and that his incapacitated elderly father depends on him for daily care. In that context, jail time does more harm than good for the community. A punitive fine and extended probation (with jail time kicking in if he ever does it again) seems to make more sense from the perspective of what benefits us as a society. If any of the aforementioned contextual data is inaccurate and/or other relevant info comes to light, my opinion may change.

Bear in mind that there's a larger picture with more details that the judge is going to be working with than what we have here. Sweeping generalizations and adamant judgments seem inappropriate and premature.

Mannahnin wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

I think your comments here don't really resemble what I'm talking about, although I understand that my points may have been obscured under some of the more sensationalist and extreme rhetoric being slung around in this thread.

My original statements were based on a combination of the details in the article and the comments of members here who are familiar with the shop and the owner. That he's a good and normally honest person, that it's a first offense, that he felt remorse and began restitution before any charges were filed, that he owns a business which employs other people, and that his incapacitated elderly father depends on him for daily care. In that context, jail time does more harm than good for the community. A punitive fine and extended probation (with jail time kicking in if he ever does it again) seems to make more sense from the perspective of what benefits us as a society. If any of the aforementioned contextual data is inaccurate and/or other relevant info comes to light, my opinion may change.

Bear in mind that there's a larger picture with more details that the judge is going to be working with than what we have here. Sweeping generalizations and adamant judgments seem inappropriate and premature.

That's the stuff I thought you were talking about. I just disagree. To me the bottom line to me is the guy stole a lot of money and needs to be punished. And the law says he's going to jail for at least a year. I feel terrible for his father and bad for his workers, but that's the way of the world. Some criminals have nothing to lose, some have a lot. Unfortunately this guy had a lot, but you can't let him off the hook because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He knew he had a lot to lose when he stole.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

I think your comments here don't really resemble what I'm talking about, although I understand that my points may have been obscured under some of the more sensationalist and extreme rhetoric being slung around in this thread.

My original statements were based on a combination of the details in the article and the comments of members here who are familiar with the shop and the owner. That he's a good and normally honest person, that it's a first offense, that he felt remorse and began restitution before any charges were filed, that he owns a business which employs other people, and that his incapacitated elderly father depends on him for daily care. In that context, jail time does more harm than good for the community. A punitive fine and extended probation (with jail time kicking in if he ever does it again) seems to make more sense from the perspective of what benefits us as a society. If any of the aforementioned contextual data is inaccurate and/or other relevant info comes to light, my opinion may change.

Bear in mind that there's a larger picture with more details that the judge is going to be working with than what we have here. Sweeping generalizations and adamant judgments seem inappropriate and premature.

That's the stuff I thought you were talking about. I just disagree. To me the bottom line to me is the guy stole a lot of money and needs to be punished. And the law says he's going to jail for at least a year. I feel terrible for his father and bad for his workers, but that's the way of the world. Some criminals have nothing to lose, some have a lot. Unfortunately this guy had a lot, but you can't let him off the hook because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He knew he had a lot to lose when he stole.

Agreed on all counts. We can agree to disagree here with the loyal opposition.

Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

And especially not infamous ones.

Frazzled wrote:

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

And especially not infamous ones.

Sorry I took so long, but I went to Conneticut to buy a new car . I am now caught up and as always Frazz you da man.

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

And especially not infamous ones.

Sorry I took so long, but I went to Conneticut to buy a new car . I am now caught up and as always Frazz you da man.

wha tkind?