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.

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.

I'm gonna want something backing that statement.

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?

It doesn't matter what I believe. The court said 15 years. He will probably get out in a year on parole anyways.

sparkywtf wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe.

Either you have extremely low self esteem, or you aren't quite using the word "believe" right.

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

sparkywtf wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

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?

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.

Violent crimes are generally punished more harshly, and most people are okay with this.

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.

I'm sure if this had been his first offense he wouldn't have received such a stiff sentence.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

It's like I always say to my buddy when talking about the ingrained racism in our judicial system.

If white guy has weed it's possession. If a black guy has weed it's intent to sell.

I don't recall saying that white collar crimes shouldn't be punished.

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.

Amaya wrote:It's like I always say to my buddy when talking about the ingrained racism in our judicial system.

If white guy has weed it's possession. If a black guy has weed it's intent to sell.

that totally explains why my friend has 2 felonies for intent to sell and drug trafficing.

Oh wait, he is white. Nevermind.

You need better, or at least smarter, friends.

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

Sell all your warhams and videogames and whatnot and mail him the proceeds then, Mother Theresa.

Once again, the assumptions you make about people are hysterically uninformed.

Monster Rain wrote:

Sell all your warhams and videogames and whatnot and mail him the proceeds then, Mother Theresa.

Once again, the assumptions you make about people are hysterically uninformed.

They just follow the posted behavior of said people. I don't make assumptions without cause, so stop giving me cause.