A man who was accidentally released from prison 88 years early(themarshallproject.org)
themarshallproject.org
A man who was accidentally released from prison 88 years early
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/07/unfreed
199 comments
If you think this sentence was unjust, there is another Colorado prisoner named Michael Dipentino. He is currently serving a 305 year sentence. What was his heinous crime? According to the Denver DA [1] he created phony checks to buy $200,000 worth of postage stamps, that he later pawned or resold. He was facing a minimum of 96 years after his conviction, but the judge decided to give him 305 years.
The "justice" system is completely out of control.
[1] http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Releases/2006%20Release...
The "justice" system is completely out of control.
[1] http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Releases/2006%20Release...
It looks like that guy actually has a blog[1]. Not sure how he has internet access in prison but it looks fairly interesting.
[1]http://mjdipentino.blogspot.com/
[1]http://mjdipentino.blogspot.com/
Generally prisoners write out their essays and mail them to someone who types them up to put online.
Others share audio via calls from prison[1].
[1] http://prisonradio.org/media/audio/Mumia
Others share audio via calls from prison[1].
[1] http://prisonradio.org/media/audio/Mumia
Counterfeiting, IMO and apparently the opinion of the Government (we rarely agree, for the record), is basically on par with treason.
Counterfeiting seems to me to be on par with fraud and theft. Could you explain why you consider it to be on par with treason?
You debase a medium of exchange upon which our society is built.
So, extracting value that doesn't belong to you, causing financial harm, but not physical harm. Sounds a lot like theft. If you walk into a bank with phony checks and walk out with money that isn't yours, how is that worse than walking in with a gun or sneaking in at night?
Sure, but theft is a subset of the crime in this case. Counterfeiting is a form of theft that literally destabilizes a regime. As jessaustin pointed out far more eloquently, my view is not novel. The fact that we have an organization within our government (the Secret Service) with a primary mandate of "defending the currency" should be enough for you to connect the dots and realize the counterfeiting is more than theft in the context of a nation.
* Steal a radio, you're stealing from a person.
* Run a Ponzi scheme, you're stealing from a group of people.
* Counterfeit a nation's currency, you are stealing from the people of that country.
So, to answer your question: Sure, counterfeiting is just theft.
And Hitler was just a killer.
Scale matters.
* Steal a radio, you're stealing from a person.
* Run a Ponzi scheme, you're stealing from a group of people.
* Counterfeit a nation's currency, you are stealing from the people of that country.
So, to answer your question: Sure, counterfeiting is just theft.
And Hitler was just a killer.
Scale matters.
We all agree that counterfeiting is a serious problem, so of course there is a governmental agency that covers "Financial Crimes, covering missions such as prevention and investigation of counterfeiting of U.S. currency and U.S. treasury securities, and investigation of major fraud" (according to Wikipedia).
I think you got to the heart of the matter when you wrote "Scale matters". Murdering millions of people is a bigger deal than murdering one person. Theft of millions of dollars is worse than theft of one dollar. The problem I have is the distinction is made not based on scale but by the means of theft. I suppose the idea is that is is worse to steal one dollar each from a million people than a million dollars from one person, but I disagree with that conclusion.
I think you got to the heart of the matter when you wrote "Scale matters". Murdering millions of people is a bigger deal than murdering one person. Theft of millions of dollars is worse than theft of one dollar. The problem I have is the distinction is made not based on scale but by the means of theft. I suppose the idea is that is is worse to steal one dollar each from a million people than a million dollars from one person, but I disagree with that conclusion.
Foucault would not have been surprised by this. Since the USPS is nominally the property of the federal government, defrauding it is an attack on the body of the sovereign. Drawing-and-quartering really isn't out of the question to avenge that injury, even though in the American case the sovereign is not an actual person. The response wouldn't have been close to this had the criminal defrauded e.g. FedEx.
The federal government's scale of "badness" differs from yours. Look at the sentences handed out. Just a little behind murder is counterfeiting, illegal weapons possession, and mail fraud. A fake $20? Unlicensed gun with barrel 1cm short of legal? a stamp-less letter using the return address as the intended destination? they all sound so trivial, yes. Yet...they cut at the foundation of the country: falsifying the representation of value, edge into revolutionary armaments, and undermine the smooth flow of information. Sure they're petty in and of themselves, but they constitute "the line" which anyone stepping over begin to damage & undermine the fragile structure holding up our society & government. Copy a $20? [shrug] meh, no big deal. Everyone copies a $20 (just once)? $6,000,000,000 of fake money can screw up the economy fast.
Remind me, is this the government that created the NSA which undermined the entire internet, destroying trust and disrupting the smooth flow of information to a degree never dreamed of by any criminal in history? That government?
Yup. Same one. Doesn't matter. Straw man argument.
No, the argument is one of hypocrisy. It would be reasonable to punish the government for 88 years or more.
As a citizen, I have a vested interest in seeing the currency protected, so this isn't "us versus the G". Your argument is irrelevant to this matter (regardless of how much I agree with your feelings about the NSA).
The government's real interest in protecting the sanctity of information flow etc is very much pertinent to the matter. The government has demonstrably zero real interest in that. Thus the sentencing is arguably too harsh.
You're on a tangent that has zero to do with some asshole debasing the currency that I store my wealth in.
This isn't a U.S. only issue, the maximum penalty for making a false stamp in Denmark is twice that of rape.
But you won't be sentenced to 300 years in prison in Denmark.
The deal you get from prosecutors is only as good as your lawyer and good lawyers cost money. This is what happens when the criminal justice system is run by politicking judges and prosecutors elected by a public whose understanding of punitive systems doesn't get any more nuanced than "let's be hard on crime!"
Sounds not unlike the non-insured experience at any hospital - you get charged with insane amounts of stuff so they can negotiate discounted reasonable rates with insurance companies.
If you don't have representation you basically get shafted.
If you don't have representation you basically get shafted.
I've often thought I need a medical agent for negotiating with hospitals and navigating my insurance. Do you know of anyone doing this? Might be a company idea in there somewhere. Medical negotiation agent.
http://billadvocates.com/
http://hospitalbillreview.com/
http://thekarisgroup.com/
lots and lots of these
lots and lots of these
Thanks for the list!
> This is what happens when the criminal justice system is run by politicking judges and prosecutors elected by a public
The same stupidity is on display in states that don't elect their judges or prosecutors.
The problem is that there is no incentive for actual justice. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor pay for the incarceration. Nor do they care for how long the individual is incarcerated.
Might be nice if they were given a limited number of years to distribute among their convicts. A little scarcity might to do the system some good.
The same stupidity is on display in states that don't elect their judges or prosecutors.
The problem is that there is no incentive for actual justice. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor pay for the incarceration. Nor do they care for how long the individual is incarcerated.
Might be nice if they were given a limited number of years to distribute among their convicts. A little scarcity might to do the system some good.
Holy shit.
That's brilliant!
Calculate the number of judge sentence years based on prison places, want harsher sentences build more prisons, tie the cost of incarceration directly to judges sentencing.
That's brilliant!
Calculate the number of judge sentence years based on prison places, want harsher sentences build more prisons, tie the cost of incarceration directly to judges sentencing.
You're leaving out the legislators that put these laws on the books in the first place, and often require mandatory minimum sentences because voters like politicians who are 'tough on crime.'
and the prison-industrial complex who stand to profit off of taxpayer dollars by locking as many people up for as minor infractions as they can get away with as possible...
> He shoots my buddy, but I don't know he's dead so I pull him into the car and drive away.
What if his friend wasn't dead, but in fact died in the car as he was driving away from the scene? What if his friend's life could've been saved by treatment at the scene? Moreover, did he have a plan for saving his friends life or was he simply trying to get them both away from the police? Furthermore, being charged with something is not the same as being found guilty of it. The quote begins, "They originally charged me," so I'm guessing some of the charges were dropped? Even then, it comes down to a jury to decide guilt.
I binge-watched a bunch of prison documentaries recently (in particular, Into the Abyss and the series by Louis Theroux are very good). They shed a lot of light on the terrible aspects of the U.S. prison system. Interviews with inmates, though, also make it clear that a lot of these people:
a) Know next to nothing about the legal system outside of their own interpretation of whatever their lawyer/judge has told them. Think of explaining programming to someone who doesn't regularly use technology, and then they go and explain it to someone else.
b) Maintain their innocence even in the face of extremely damning physical and forensic evidence to the contrary. Into the Abyss has a great example of this.
I have fundamental problems with the adversarial justice system, but it's nonetheless important to be critical of what convicts say about their own situations. They're obviously going to be biased - even if they are innocent.
What if his friend wasn't dead, but in fact died in the car as he was driving away from the scene? What if his friend's life could've been saved by treatment at the scene? Moreover, did he have a plan for saving his friends life or was he simply trying to get them both away from the police? Furthermore, being charged with something is not the same as being found guilty of it. The quote begins, "They originally charged me," so I'm guessing some of the charges were dropped? Even then, it comes down to a jury to decide guilt.
I binge-watched a bunch of prison documentaries recently (in particular, Into the Abyss and the series by Louis Theroux are very good). They shed a lot of light on the terrible aspects of the U.S. prison system. Interviews with inmates, though, also make it clear that a lot of these people:
a) Know next to nothing about the legal system outside of their own interpretation of whatever their lawyer/judge has told them. Think of explaining programming to someone who doesn't regularly use technology, and then they go and explain it to someone else.
b) Maintain their innocence even in the face of extremely damning physical and forensic evidence to the contrary. Into the Abyss has a great example of this.
I have fundamental problems with the adversarial justice system, but it's nonetheless important to be critical of what convicts say about their own situations. They're obviously going to be biased - even if they are innocent.
> The quote begins, "They originally charged me," so I'm guessing some of the charges were dropped? Even then, it comes down to a jury to decide guilt.
This is another deplorable aspect of the US justice system. The vast majority (something like 95%) of convictions are not from jury trials, but from plea bargains. Piling on charges is one way prosecutors force plea bargains on suspects.
It's likely that the prosecutor charged this guy with everything he could find in order to induce him to plea to a lesser charge to avoid the hassle and uncertainty of a trial.
This is another deplorable aspect of the US justice system. The vast majority (something like 95%) of convictions are not from jury trials, but from plea bargains. Piling on charges is one way prosecutors force plea bargains on suspects.
It's likely that the prosecutor charged this guy with everything he could find in order to induce him to plea to a lesser charge to avoid the hassle and uncertainty of a trial.
Great point, I didn't consider that.
It's surprising that none of the binge-watched documentaries touched on the pervasive practice of plea bargaining. Without it, we'd have far fewer people in prison.
They did, it just slipped my mind. The point of my post was not to criticise the justice system (which, as I said, I have problems with) but to point out that critical thinking is needed when listening to what convicts have to say about their own situations.
That is horrible. And I think that the people who keep upholding this system are even worse.
The felony murder rule is somewhat controversial but nevertheless nearly universal in the United States.
Does it always override the Good Samaritan law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
"Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated."
Does the law allow you to act as a Good Samaritan in the course of committing a felony?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
"Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated."
Does the law allow you to act as a Good Samaritan in the course of committing a felony?
It might protect you from breaking the heart attack victim's ribs while delivering CPR, but it won't protect you from inducing a heart attack in the bank teller you tried to feloniously rob.
I think the OP was thinking of the attempt to save his buddy who was shot. I can't see how that was being a good Samaritan; that act wasn't about saving his life, it was about keeping him out of the hands of the police.
If he asks that in general, I would think being a Good Samaritan would take precedence over lots of crimes. For example: speeding or driving through a red light on your way to a hospital with a heavily wounded passenger, or jumping into a pool where it is forbidden to swim to save someone from drowning IMO should not be punished.
Felonies may be different. For example, pulling a huge man in the line of fire to save two others? Highly questionable, IMO. On the other hand, this article seems to indicate that pulling someone from the ledge he wants to jump of or even preventing someone from falling out of a tree legally is kidnapping. If so, I would hope one can't go to prison for such acts.
If he asks that in general, I would think being a Good Samaritan would take precedence over lots of crimes. For example: speeding or driving through a red light on your way to a hospital with a heavily wounded passenger, or jumping into a pool where it is forbidden to swim to save someone from drowning IMO should not be punished.
Felonies may be different. For example, pulling a huge man in the line of fire to save two others? Highly questionable, IMO. On the other hand, this article seems to indicate that pulling someone from the ledge he wants to jump of or even preventing someone from falling out of a tree legally is kidnapping. If so, I would hope one can't go to prison for such acts.
Why would it protect you from that? You aren't trying to help the bank teller.
This guy tried to help his buddy. He should be charged with what he actually is responsible for. His buddy sealed his own fate.
This guy tried to help his buddy. He should be charged with what he actually is responsible for. His buddy sealed his own fate.
> Does the law allow you to act as a Good Samaritan in the course of committing a felony?
I don't think any jurisdiction has a "Good Samaritan" law which makes it so that trying to provide assistance after the fact negates liability one would have for criminal acts that make you liable for the injury in the first place, including effects of injury that the attempt to provide assistance was intended to prevent but failed to.
I don't think any jurisdiction has a "Good Samaritan" law which makes it so that trying to provide assistance after the fact negates liability one would have for criminal acts that make you liable for the injury in the first place, including effects of injury that the attempt to provide assistance was intended to prevent but failed to.
> Does the law allow you to act as a Good Samaritan in the course of committing a felony?
As long as the decision is up to prosecutors, no.
As long as the decision is up to prosecutors, no.
> All I did was rob a bank
I totally understand how somebody might look at that situation and say "gee, he did only rob a bank because the guy who died was his accomplice", but at the same time... he robbed a bank! Had he not robbed it, that life might not have been lost and a body would not have been taken from the scene of a crime.
If you want to argue that the quality of one's lawyer plays a large part in the charges, hell, I agree with you and I think that sucks. But, I'm not about to toss out the legal system because a criminal had a shitty time in court. Fuck this guy.
I totally understand how somebody might look at that situation and say "gee, he did only rob a bank because the guy who died was his accomplice", but at the same time... he robbed a bank! Had he not robbed it, that life might not have been lost and a body would not have been taken from the scene of a crime.
If you want to argue that the quality of one's lawyer plays a large part in the charges, hell, I agree with you and I think that sucks. But, I'm not about to toss out the legal system because a criminal had a shitty time in court. Fuck this guy.
The legal system is supposed to make punishments fit the crime, not heap arbitrarily much punishment on anyone who ever breaks any law ever.
If you only never made any mistakes filling out your taxes, your moonshine business may still be thriving. If you only weren't selling loose cigarettes, you may still be alive...
As someone who was once an illegal immigrant (though not in the U.S.), I say this completely unironically: I'm grateful to be alive.
If you only never made any mistakes filling out your taxes, your moonshine business may still be thriving. If you only weren't selling loose cigarettes, you may still be alive...
As someone who was once an illegal immigrant (though not in the U.S.), I say this completely unironically: I'm grateful to be alive.
I think it does fit the crime, and it's not arbitrary. You get charged with crimes you committed because you didn't want to be caught committing a crime. "I moved the body because I was being chased by the cops" isn't a good excuse.
>As someone who was once an illegal immigrant
This is perfectly analogous. People in countries illegally sometimes engage in identity theft, illegal labor, and a variety of other things so they can stay in the country. The fact that someone "had to" so they could remain illegally in a country isn't a mitigating circumstance. I'm not at all insinuating it should escalate until you get shot, but if you get caught, you're culpable for every law you broke. Why would you not be?
Like, this is the simplest thing in the world. If you don't want to leave your friend's body behind if he gets shot while robbing a bank, don't rob a bank. You're not supposed to be doing that anyway. It's a threshold that everyone can meet. If you take the body, well, now you've committed another crime. I actually think that law makes a lot of sense.
>As someone who was once an illegal immigrant
This is perfectly analogous. People in countries illegally sometimes engage in identity theft, illegal labor, and a variety of other things so they can stay in the country. The fact that someone "had to" so they could remain illegally in a country isn't a mitigating circumstance. I'm not at all insinuating it should escalate until you get shot, but if you get caught, you're culpable for every law you broke. Why would you not be?
Like, this is the simplest thing in the world. If you don't want to leave your friend's body behind if he gets shot while robbing a bank, don't rob a bank. You're not supposed to be doing that anyway. It's a threshold that everyone can meet. If you take the body, well, now you've committed another crime. I actually think that law makes a lot of sense.
The problem here is that the punishment doesn't fit our collective understanding about the relative immorality of various crimes.
Years ago there was a movie review site called moviecritic.com (a demo site for early collaborative filtering technology). After you rated a movie from 1 to 10, it would show you your rating for several other movies and ask you if you're sure. Half the time you would think "wait a minute, no, I really didn't mean to rate this better than The Shawshank Redemption" and adjust the rating.
A guy robbed a bank. His friend who died understood the risk he was taking; his death is morally "on his own head", even if the "unlucky" robber may have a hand in it. The punishment for this needs to be put next to the punishments for "violent rape", "assault+battery", "willful murder" and adjusted accordingly. Otherwise the whole system feels unfair and arbitrary.
Years ago there was a movie review site called moviecritic.com (a demo site for early collaborative filtering technology). After you rated a movie from 1 to 10, it would show you your rating for several other movies and ask you if you're sure. Half the time you would think "wait a minute, no, I really didn't mean to rate this better than The Shawshank Redemption" and adjust the rating.
A guy robbed a bank. His friend who died understood the risk he was taking; his death is morally "on his own head", even if the "unlucky" robber may have a hand in it. The punishment for this needs to be put next to the punishments for "violent rape", "assault+battery", "willful murder" and adjusted accordingly. Otherwise the whole system feels unfair and arbitrary.
Why not just binary ratings?
You're comparing violent crime (robbing a bank) with non-violent crime (illegal immigration).
> But, I'm not about to toss out the legal system because a criminal had a shitty time in court. Fuck this guy.
I don't think anyone is suggesting anything other than reform of how we prosecute laws in this country, there is an obvious imbalance at play here and cases like this highlight the problem.
Second.. sure, fuck that guy; but what about his family? His children? The community? Just because you put one person in jail does not mean that suffering and loss ends there.
What is the function of the justice system? To fulfill our base needs for revenge? Or is it a tool to improve society? If it's the latter, then "fuck that guy" is not a useful response.
I don't think anyone is suggesting anything other than reform of how we prosecute laws in this country, there is an obvious imbalance at play here and cases like this highlight the problem.
Second.. sure, fuck that guy; but what about his family? His children? The community? Just because you put one person in jail does not mean that suffering and loss ends there.
What is the function of the justice system? To fulfill our base needs for revenge? Or is it a tool to improve society? If it's the latter, then "fuck that guy" is not a useful response.
Oh, the children! What about the children?
What does it matter? He robbed a bank! Someone died! He chose to break his contract with society. If I did that, I would expect zero considerations be made for my two kids. It is my responsibility to never put them in such a position.
What does it matter? He robbed a bank! Someone died! He chose to break his contract with society. If I did that, I would expect zero considerations be made for my two kids. It is my responsibility to never put them in such a position.
The children who are going to grow up without a father, yea, I'm thinking about them.
Who's going to raise them? A single mother, if they're lucky. Think she's going to have an easy time re-marrying with an ex-con husband? How about getting a good job in the era of background checks? Think she was highly educated to begin with?
Taxpayers at large are going to foot most of bill for this domestic disaster. Further, these children are now more likely to end up in jail themselves. Now society gets to pay another $30,000 a year per child to house, feed and care for another inmate.
This isn't strictly touchy-feely stuff here, there's a hard cost to society when you jail people without any thoughts towards true justice. It's stupid, ineffective and perverse.
Who's going to raise them? A single mother, if they're lucky. Think she's going to have an easy time re-marrying with an ex-con husband? How about getting a good job in the era of background checks? Think she was highly educated to begin with?
Taxpayers at large are going to foot most of bill for this domestic disaster. Further, these children are now more likely to end up in jail themselves. Now society gets to pay another $30,000 a year per child to house, feed and care for another inmate.
This isn't strictly touchy-feely stuff here, there's a hard cost to society when you jail people without any thoughts towards true justice. It's stupid, ineffective and perverse.
This might get 14 to 20 years in India even if we consider him as murderer. I am not sure what makes people think that lifetime prison helping. Atleast in India i would expect the guy to comeback after 14 years as clean person most probably more useful to society if he had taken the punishement seriously. What is the use of putting some one for the rest of the life in jail? if the jail was not for correction but to revenge then you may execute him right away and may be save prison cost.
You are criticizing a negative feedback loop while simultaneously endorsing policies that would create equally detrimental feedback loops.
What is true justice?
What is true justice?
Whatever justice is, it cannot be the vengeful, racist, wealth-centered system we have now. Nor can it possibly be found in the the mind of anyone prone to uttering the phrase "fuck this guy".
Whatever justice is, it cannot be forfeiting our own empathy and humanity.
Whatever justice is, it cannot be forfeiting our own empathy and humanity.
I agree with you to an extent. Where was the robber's empathy and humanity when he decided to commit a violent crime?
I'm sticking with "fuck this guy".
If you really want to bear a cross, I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.
I'm sticking with "fuck this guy".
If you really want to bear a cross, I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.
Where is the empathy of a well off white boy who runs over people with his car while drunk and gets away with merely a scolding - beceause his parents are rich and connected enough to get him a good lawyer.
One straw man argument after another... We're talking about a bank robber. We're talking about crimes committed during the robbery (preventing his accomplice from getting medical care, which resulted in his accomplice's death) being added to his list charges.
And I don't disagree with you! I hate injustice like you're referring to as well. But injustice is not some exchangeable capital. We can't correct one by neglecting to punish another.
And I don't disagree with you! I hate injustice like you're referring to as well. But injustice is not some exchangeable capital. We can't correct one by neglecting to punish another.
Having a man locked up for 100 years for robbing two stores without actually hurting anyone is hardly justice. And the case of the bank robber is also hardly justice.
And it seems that this type of systemic overcompensation is exactly what is going on in your justice system.
I wish that persecutors would use same zeal to persecute all the crimes. Including police crime and white collar crime. Then, perhaps it would dawn on you that such random and strict distribution of justice is no justice at all.
And it seems that this type of systemic overcompensation is exactly what is going on in your justice system.
I wish that persecutors would use same zeal to persecute all the crimes. Including police crime and white collar crime. Then, perhaps it would dawn on you that such random and strict distribution of justice is no justice at all.
I think you've confused this thread with the OP's article. My comment was in reference to a bank robber who was charged with the murder and kidnapping of his accomplice when he ran away from police with his friend (who was shot). His friend died and he was charged with robbery (the original crime) as well as the subsequent crimes, as is policy in American juris prudence.
> Where was the robber's empathy and humanity when he decided to commit a violent crime?
Where was ours when we drove him to that crime?
> I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.
Unlike some people, I don't feel it is morally appropriate to pick and choose who gets justice.
Where was ours when we drove him to that crime?
> I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.
Unlike some people, I don't feel it is morally appropriate to pick and choose who gets justice.
I am responsible for my actions. I own my mistakes rather than blame society. Lots of people come from nothing and don't resort to crime. Your view is one of the worst types of liberal elitism and I honestly am repulsed by it.
Your view is one of the worst types of conservative inhumanity and I honestly am repulsed by it.
Yea, but it's not really about pity for "the poor children." It's about making sure those children do not grow up to commit more crimes against you or me. It's selfish preservation on our part.
Suppose he didn't go to prison for kidnapping and murder. He's still going to prison for bank robbery and those imaginary kids are going to grow up without a daddy regardless.
Your argument is moot.
Your argument is moot.
What's the problem with the charges? Felony murder is serious business. Yeah, he didn't choose to kill anyone by his own hand directly, but he wantonly created the felonious circumstances which directly led to someone's death. As for the "kidnapping", that's an understandable edge case for the legal definition entailing taking a human body (which may or may not have been legally dead at that particular point) without permission.
I say committing major felonies sucks. Doesn't matter if he thought bank robbery was "harmless", it is and the consequences demonstrate why. Throw the law library at him.
I say committing major felonies sucks. Doesn't matter if he thought bank robbery was "harmless", it is and the consequences demonstrate why. Throw the law library at him.
When felony murder kills a bystander through recklessness, that makes sense. Felony suicide should not count as felony murder by the partners. He got himself killed.
Now when a cop shoots you while you are trying to rob a bank, it's suicide? This seems like a perfect example of felony murder.
I'm with you. If said person had not decided to commit a crime, the person would likely not have died.
It's not different than if I were speeding recklessly, zoomed by some old person who gets scared, runs off the road and dies.
Maybe they shouldn't be charged with murder, but maybe manslaughter? Their actions directly contributed to the death of someone.
It's not different than if I were speeding recklessly, zoomed by some old person who gets scared, runs off the road and dies.
Maybe they shouldn't be charged with murder, but maybe manslaughter? Their actions directly contributed to the death of someone.
It's not different than if I were speeding recklessly, zoomed by some old person who gets scared, runs off the road and dies.
It's vastly different. The old person in your example is not a willing part of your crime.
Frankly the concept is absurd. Innocent bystanders and responding law enforcement that are killed in the commission of the crime can be said to have been murdered, but willing participants have died primarily as a result of their own actions, which is not murder under any sensible definition.
It's vastly different. The old person in your example is not a willing part of your crime.
Frankly the concept is absurd. Innocent bystanders and responding law enforcement that are killed in the commission of the crime can be said to have been murdered, but willing participants have died primarily as a result of their own actions, which is not murder under any sensible definition.
Unfortunately the law frowns upon the death of anyone, regardless if they willingly did something to encourage it.
That is not entirely true. People may put in "Do not resuscitate" elections, people can be left behind to die on mountain climbing expeditions, people can be beaten to death in a boxing ring.
Sure, there are exceptions, but I guess my point is that although people may voluntarily enter into an agreement, the law limits contracts where a person may be injured or kill.
In other words, you and I could agree that if you don't pay me the $1000 I loaned you, I can break your legs, but I'll still get charged with assault if I do it.
In other words, you and I could agree that if you don't pay me the $1000 I loaned you, I can break your legs, but I'll still get charged with assault if I do it.
[deleted]
>Now when a cop shoots you while you are trying to rob a bank, it's suicide?
The euphemism is "suicide by cop", yeah.
>This seems like a perfect example of felony murder.
When the deceased was committing a felony themselves, why can't they take 100% of their own felony murder charge? We don't need multiple people to face full consequences for a single act.
The euphemism is "suicide by cop", yeah.
>This seems like a perfect example of felony murder.
When the deceased was committing a felony themselves, why can't they take 100% of their own felony murder charge? We don't need multiple people to face full consequences for a single act.
> When the deceased was committing a felony themselves, why can't they take 100% of their own felony murder charge? We don't need multiple people to face full consequences for a single act.
If you view punishment retributively, as a blood price that must be paid, that argument makes sense -- when you have multiple people available to take the cost, only one of them should need to (of course, if you view it that way, its hard to see how the person who died can, if felony murder has a blood price, be said to pay it.)
But, while retribution is no doubt part of the basis of punishments in the American system, its not the sole basis. If two people act together to commit a murder directly, we punish them both as principles. If two people act together to commit a felony in which someone is one of them -- whether or not it is one of them -- why shouldn't both be fully liable (whehter or not both can be punished) for felony murder?
A crime doesn't necessarily have only one principal, and when it has more than one, we don't generally only punish one. And if it has multiple principals and one of them is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, or immune to punishment for some other reason, that doesn't absolve the other principals of punishment. I don't see why felony murder, presuming that we should have it at all, should be an exception to that rule.
If you view punishment retributively, as a blood price that must be paid, that argument makes sense -- when you have multiple people available to take the cost, only one of them should need to (of course, if you view it that way, its hard to see how the person who died can, if felony murder has a blood price, be said to pay it.)
But, while retribution is no doubt part of the basis of punishments in the American system, its not the sole basis. If two people act together to commit a murder directly, we punish them both as principles. If two people act together to commit a felony in which someone is one of them -- whether or not it is one of them -- why shouldn't both be fully liable (whehter or not both can be punished) for felony murder?
A crime doesn't necessarily have only one principal, and when it has more than one, we don't generally only punish one. And if it has multiple principals and one of them is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, or immune to punishment for some other reason, that doesn't absolve the other principals of punishment. I don't see why felony murder, presuming that we should have it at all, should be an exception to that rule.
The law may work this way, but our social notions of justice do not. Talk to ten people on the street about the circumstances of this crime ("A and B rob a bank; B gets shot and killed"). Ask them how they feel about these two statements:
1) "It's A's fault that B got killed"
2) "It's B's fault he got himself killed"
I doubt you will get much agreement with #1 (I would expect responses like "did A talk B into it?") and I'm pretty sure you will get lots of agreement with #2. The law (effectively #1) is incongruous with our prevailing notions of morality and responsibility.
1) "It's A's fault that B got killed"
2) "It's B's fault he got himself killed"
I doubt you will get much agreement with #1 (I would expect responses like "did A talk B into it?") and I'm pretty sure you will get lots of agreement with #2. The law (effectively #1) is incongruous with our prevailing notions of morality and responsibility.
> This seems like a perfect example of felony murder.
Its literally a textbook example -- its one of the standard examples used in teaching the felony murder rule.
Its literally a textbook example -- its one of the standard examples used in teaching the felony murder rule.
Talk about cruel punishments, locking up someone for two fucking robberies without any deaths for nearly a century is unreasonable, cruel and defies everything our civilization stands for.
But hey, private prison operators need to make money and police/DA/any part of the justice system profits from being "tough on crime"...
Thank God I'm German, even if you end up killing someone you'll at most get 15 years (okay, there are some exceptions, but they're literally exceptions, not like US where exceptions tend to become standards).
But hey, private prison operators need to make money and police/DA/any part of the justice system profits from being "tough on crime"...
Thank God I'm German, even if you end up killing someone you'll at most get 15 years (okay, there are some exceptions, but they're literally exceptions, not like US where exceptions tend to become standards).
Another side of this is that the harsher you make the punishments for small crimes, the less you discourage moving up to bigger crimes.
If you're robbing a place and your punishment for being caught is effectively life in prison, what reason do you have not to murder all the potential witnesses to improve your odds of getting away with the crime? All you have is morality, and I don't want to rely on the morality of criminals.
I know that the deterrent effect of prison on criminals is highly debatable, but if somebody is robbing me, I don't want all of the incentives given to him to point towards murdering me too.
If you're robbing a place and your punishment for being caught is effectively life in prison, what reason do you have not to murder all the potential witnesses to improve your odds of getting away with the crime? All you have is morality, and I don't want to rely on the morality of criminals.
I know that the deterrent effect of prison on criminals is highly debatable, but if somebody is robbing me, I don't want all of the incentives given to him to point towards murdering me too.
If you're robbing a place and your punishment for being caught is effectively life in prison, what reason do you have not to murder all the potential witnesses to improve your odds of getting away with the crime? All you have is morality, and I don't want to rely on the morality of criminals.
In Heat, Al Pacino's character summarizes this attitude in a quick line (paraphrase): "Once it escalated to a murder-one for all of them, why not pop guard number two because ... what difference does it make?"
The scene is an armored truck holdup and a loose-cannon member of the robbers' crew shoots one of the two guards (By accident? Or is he a psychopath?). After this, the second guard needs to die, as a living witness, because the entire crew is already exposed to first-degree murder charges. Simple risk management.
In Heat, Al Pacino's character summarizes this attitude in a quick line (paraphrase): "Once it escalated to a murder-one for all of them, why not pop guard number two because ... what difference does it make?"
The scene is an armored truck holdup and a loose-cannon member of the robbers' crew shoots one of the two guards (By accident? Or is he a psychopath?). After this, the second guard needs to die, as a living witness, because the entire crew is already exposed to first-degree murder charges. Simple risk management.
Right. In that scene, the criminals (aside from the nutjob who shoots the first guard) are somewhat moral, but once the first guard dies, the cold calculations outweigh their somewhat loose morality.
(Great movie, too. If anyone else is reading this and wonders wtf it's all about, go check it out.)
(Great movie, too. If anyone else is reading this and wonders wtf it's all about, go check it out.)
The movie stands out for the actoring duel between Pacino and DeNiro, as well as (IIRC) sound.
> Another side of this is that the harsher you make the punishments for small crimes, the less you discourage moving up to bigger crimes.
Actually it makes it easier ... there is upper limit on how much you could punish a person. And if the penalties for stealing pack of gum and high treason are the same - well ... why bother with only the first.
Actually it makes it easier ... there is upper limit on how much you could punish a person. And if the penalties for stealing pack of gum and high treason are the same - well ... why bother with only the first.
Read that sentence/post again, because the two of you agree.
Too many monsters too little sleep :(
That's what I said: harsh punishment for minor crimes reduces the deterrent effect of harsh punishment for major crimes.
> there is upper limit on how much you could punish a person
I would not be so sure about that. We, humans, are extremely creative when it comes to hurt each other.
I would not be so sure about that. We, humans, are extremely creative when it comes to hurt each other.
> Another side of this is that the harsher you make the punishments for small crimes, the less you discourage moving up to bigger crimes.
Maybe everybody should go to prison for a while to stop crime before it even starts.
Disproportionate penalties may be as likely to harden them as reform them. What you get out isn't a repentant model citizen. Unless your goal is to let these people rot and die and just release corpses.
Maybe everybody should go to prison for a while to stop crime before it even starts.
Disproportionate penalties may be as likely to harden them as reform them. What you get out isn't a repentant model citizen. Unless your goal is to let these people rot and die and just release corpses.
This is a reasonable comment, but what does it have to do with the comment you replied to?
I think he misread it. I had to absorb the sentiment of the rest of the post and re-read your first line a few times to properly parse it.
For me, "the less you discourage" reads less clearly than "the more you encourage". I realise that the two aren't identical in meaning, but I would have chosen the latter because a compounded minimization ("the less you don't do x") is generally less immediately clear than a maximization ("the more you do x").
This is compounded by your opening of "Another side of this". This can mean "another aspect of the problem you describe which agrees with your point" but it can also mean "another aspect of how sentencing should work that comes to a different conclusion". For many, the latter is more intuitive ("two sides to every story" etc etc).
Not passing judgement on how you worded your post, just explaining why someone might misread it.
For me, "the less you discourage" reads less clearly than "the more you encourage". I realise that the two aren't identical in meaning, but I would have chosen the latter because a compounded minimization ("the less you don't do x") is generally less immediately clear than a maximization ("the more you do x").
This is compounded by your opening of "Another side of this". This can mean "another aspect of the problem you describe which agrees with your point" but it can also mean "another aspect of how sentencing should work that comes to a different conclusion". For many, the latter is more intuitive ("two sides to every story" etc etc).
Not passing judgement on how you worded your post, just explaining why someone might misread it.
Fair. Looks like he's not alone, too. I'll keep that in mind!
You know -- I think we're on the same page wrt how the punishment really ought to fit the crime; I misread what you were saying :)
Maybe I should take it down -- initially I thought you were talking about discouraging crime w/ a big punishment, but in fact you were talking about discouraging a criminals restraint because they're already going to get nailed in a big way...
I think I'll take mine down and let your original post stand.
Edit: or I'll just leave it so the flow is preserved -- there's a thread here now that explains everything. Let the downvotes fit the crime though, please ;)
Maybe I should take it down -- initially I thought you were talking about discouraging crime w/ a big punishment, but in fact you were talking about discouraging a criminals restraint because they're already going to get nailed in a big way...
I think I'll take mine down and let your original post stand.
Edit: or I'll just leave it so the flow is preserved -- there's a thread here now that explains everything. Let the downvotes fit the crime though, please ;)
Leaving it is good by me. Like I said, it's a reasonable comment, just seemed out of place since it sounded like disagreement but said the same thing. Now that everyone knows what's up, it fits fine.
The main function of prisons is to keep the criminals away from law-abiding society. Note that the guy's accomplice continued his criminal behavior inside prison.
That said, 10-15 is more than enough for this kind of crime.
That said, 10-15 is more than enough for this kind of crime.
> That said, 10-15 is more than enough for this kind of crime.
Indeed. When he gets two-three murders worth of time without murdering anyone, you really have to question the proportionality of the whole thing.
They both definitely deserved jail time. I'm certain the crimes had an impact on the people they robbed and threatened.
And I agree, 10-15, MAYBE up to 20 is proportionate. 90 years is not.
Indeed. When he gets two-three murders worth of time without murdering anyone, you really have to question the proportionality of the whole thing.
They both definitely deserved jail time. I'm certain the crimes had an impact on the people they robbed and threatened.
And I agree, 10-15, MAYBE up to 20 is proportionate. 90 years is not.
20 years for two armed robberies is not remotely appropriate. It only seems appropriate in a system where people routinely get sentences longer than a standard lifespan.
And it's not only from a moral standpoint - the economics of it are ridiculous, too. The social harm done from two robberies is not worth the cost of locking someone up until they die.
And it's not only from a moral standpoint - the economics of it are ridiculous, too. The social harm done from two robberies is not worth the cost of locking someone up until they die.
The main function of prisons is to keep the criminals away from law-abiding society
Really? I thought it was about correcting/reforming.
Really? I thought it was about correcting/reforming.
The four recognized purposes of punishment are: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. Which is primary, or even whether they are all legitimate is a matter of fierce debate.
So an 18 year old kid gets busted for a drug offense. He gets thrown in jail for several years along with hardened and violent criminals. His "rehabilitation" consists of an immersion in a world of criminality, and when he is finally released, he has a record that will stay with him for the rest of his life and severely limit his choices moving forward.
Yes, he's been reformed. Just not in a good way. Not in a way that does anything to try to fit him back into society.
Yes, he's been reformed. Just not in a good way. Not in a way that does anything to try to fit him back into society.
Depends on the country maybe? Here in Brazil no one believes criminals can be fixed, here we want them away, locked up or dead.
They should change name from correctional facilities to something else then.
Joking aside, I think that using prisons just for isolation is a waste of tax payer money.
Just think about at the case at hand, we are wasting the money needed to keep this guy in jail for another 8 decades with no actual reasons.
edit: fix grammar
Joking aside, I think that using prisons just for isolation is a waste of tax payer money.
Just think about at the case at hand, we are wasting the money needed to keep this guy in jail for another 8 decades with no actual reasons.
edit: fix grammar
It's not a matter of belief, it is a matter of demonstrable fact that some criminals are capable of completely reforming. To deny this is simply to deny reality.
(It is also clearly apparent that some criminals are unreformable - telling the difference a priori remains the hard part).
(It is also clearly apparent that some criminals are unreformable - telling the difference a priori remains the hard part).
I may be misremembering the story or context, since I can't find it with an internet search at the moment.
There was an ancient Chinese general, who lost a battle. The punishment for failure was death. The punishment for mutiny was also death. The general learned of this, and lead his soldiers in a revolt.
There was an ancient Chinese general, who lost a battle. The punishment for failure was death. The punishment for mutiny was also death. The general learned of this, and lead his soldiers in a revolt.
I recall a similar one where a work party for the Great Wall was delayed, and delay was punishable by death, so the leader of the work party led them on a successful revolt instead, and became emperor.
Not to mention they slapped them with kidnapping charges because they forced the people they were robbing into a room.... How the fuck....
The sad truth is the American people simply do not care. Period. If you are a criminal you are a nobody and you get everything you deserve in the eyes of many Americans. People sit and rot in prison for the stupidest of reasons or technicalities and then when they get out we are surprised when they sometime return to a life of crime? They don't know anything else and the rules of their parole are often impossible to adhere to without support. Like having to interview for jobs they know they won't get just to satisfy their parole terms. We really need to get more people out of the prisons and back on the streets with reasonable parole programs. However this is the "terrorism" argument all over again, no politician wants to sign his/her name to something like this because ONE single fuckup will have it all blow up in their face and potentially ruin their career....
Full Disclosure: I work for a company that, among other things, provides electronic monitoring to jurisdictions as an alternative to incarceration. That said any views expressed here are my own and not that of my employer.
The sad truth is the American people simply do not care. Period. If you are a criminal you are a nobody and you get everything you deserve in the eyes of many Americans. People sit and rot in prison for the stupidest of reasons or technicalities and then when they get out we are surprised when they sometime return to a life of crime? They don't know anything else and the rules of their parole are often impossible to adhere to without support. Like having to interview for jobs they know they won't get just to satisfy their parole terms. We really need to get more people out of the prisons and back on the streets with reasonable parole programs. However this is the "terrorism" argument all over again, no politician wants to sign his/her name to something like this because ONE single fuckup will have it all blow up in their face and potentially ruin their career....
Full Disclosure: I work for a company that, among other things, provides electronic monitoring to jurisdictions as an alternative to incarceration. That said any views expressed here are my own and not that of my employer.
I think its easy to say that sitting in your chair from this side. I would imagine that if I was one of the people in the bank that was being robbed, and I were forced in to a room. I would feel that I was being kidnapped / held hostage.
Do you think that because you and a colleague were held hostage ('kidnapped' is ridiculous, not even taken off-site) that it's worth each perpetrator getting about 30 years in prison? That that moment of fear is worth locking someone up for a generation and a half? That that moment of fear is even worth you paying taxes to keep that person locked up for that time?
30 years ago, the Cold War was still in full swing. Mutually Assured Destruction was still something people were afraid of. The world wide web was still about 10 years away. USA for Africa's "We Are The World" was just about to hit #1 in the charts. Big hair and legwarmers were fashionable. Half the people that use this site hadn't even been born yet. 30 years is an incredibly long time.
30 years ago, the Cold War was still in full swing. Mutually Assured Destruction was still something people were afraid of. The world wide web was still about 10 years away. USA for Africa's "We Are The World" was just about to hit #1 in the charts. Big hair and legwarmers were fashionable. Half the people that use this site hadn't even been born yet. 30 years is an incredibly long time.
Man, you layer it on thick. I just turned 30!
More big hair and legwarmers for you!
Actually, I was thinking about it a bit more this morning, and found another interesting 30 year stretch: from the declaration of war in WWI to the close of WWII in Europe (VE Day) was about a month short of 31 years. Taking it to VP Day is about 1 month into 31 years.
So both world wars and everything that happened in-between took 'only' 30-ish years. :)
Actually, I was thinking about it a bit more this morning, and found another interesting 30 year stretch: from the declaration of war in WWI to the close of WWII in Europe (VE Day) was about a month short of 31 years. Taking it to VP Day is about 1 month into 31 years.
So both world wars and everything that happened in-between took 'only' 30-ish years. :)
There's a reason we don't let crime victims decide the punishment for the criminal. This stuff is supposed to be objective. (How well that's achieved is debatable, but that's the goal.) Bringing up the emotions of the victims is not a good argument.
Sometimes timing is everything. The article mentioned that the crime was committed near the end of a violent period in that region and the public was giving politicians the message that they needed to crack down on crime. So what would have normally been a crime that merited a decade or so of prison time received a near-life sentence. He was essentially being punished for the actions of the criminals that came before him.
It reminds me a bit of something that happened to the brother of a former colleague of mine. He was an animal rights activist that allegedly, in protest, set off a bomb at an animal testing facility. The bomb went off at a time when no one was there. If he'd done it a few years earlier, it wouldn't have received much attention. But it happened shortly after 9/11 and the sentiment in the country was to stop terrorism at all costs. And so he's been on the FBI's most wanted list ever since. Don't get me wrong, setting off bombs is a serious matter, but I have a hard time believing that a stupid juvenile prank that only resulted in property damage puts someone in the top 10 most dangerous people the FBI could be pursuing.
Timing can be a bitch and the justice that someone receives is often more about the vengeance that society is yearning for rather than what the offender deserves.
It reminds me a bit of something that happened to the brother of a former colleague of mine. He was an animal rights activist that allegedly, in protest, set off a bomb at an animal testing facility. The bomb went off at a time when no one was there. If he'd done it a few years earlier, it wouldn't have received much attention. But it happened shortly after 9/11 and the sentiment in the country was to stop terrorism at all costs. And so he's been on the FBI's most wanted list ever since. Don't get me wrong, setting off bombs is a serious matter, but I have a hard time believing that a stupid juvenile prank that only resulted in property damage puts someone in the top 10 most dangerous people the FBI could be pursuing.
Timing can be a bitch and the justice that someone receives is often more about the vengeance that society is yearning for rather than what the offender deserves.
If you think about it in Germany he would have gotten a 9 year sentence for something like this.
It worked, he was rehabilitated and became an integrated member of society again.
This guy is a good argument against these long sentences, it doesn't make any sense for a society to keep this guy until he dies in prison for taxpayer money (not even considering the cruelty of it). Especially when he didn't commit a murder.
This guy is a good argument against these long sentences, it doesn't make any sense for a society to keep this guy until he dies in prison for taxpayer money (not even considering the cruelty of it). Especially when he didn't commit a murder.
It's very similar to the drug problem. As soon as we label these people criminals, we just don't care what happens to them. Because they are now not people, the DA has no problem throwing every single possible crime against them. This means they are not prosecuted for much more than what they did. "Going easy" on criminals is not a good way to retain a position in government in the US, so we do the opposite.
It is interesting to note that the judge made good comments about how unjust this seemed, but was unable to do anything about it. That says a lot about our judicial system.
It is interesting to note that the judge made good comments about how unjust this seemed, but was unable to do anything about it. That says a lot about our judicial system.
More and more we prosecute people for who they are, not what they did
> As soon as we label these people criminals, we just don't care what happens to them.
Probably because felons don't have the right to vote. So no politician or anyone else cares much.
Probably because felons don't have the right to vote. So no politician or anyone else cares much.
It's highly variable:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/do-convicted-felons...
In most states, voting rights are restored upon completion of the sentence. In Maine and Vermont, prisoners have the right to vote.
Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia make the loss of the vote permanent.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/do-convicted-felons...
In most states, voting rights are restored upon completion of the sentence. In Maine and Vermont, prisoners have the right to vote.
Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia make the loss of the vote permanent.
[deleted]
"private prison operators need to make money"
Public unions in many states (California being the major example) lobby for longer sentences all the time. Many spend more money than private companies. It's a humans acting selfishly problem, not a corporate problem.
The profit incentive we use for prisons (occupancy number) is the wrong profit incentive. We should pay on capacity and recidivism numbers (bonus after some number of years).
Public unions in many states (California being the major example) lobby for longer sentences all the time. Many spend more money than private companies. It's a humans acting selfishly problem, not a corporate problem.
The profit incentive we use for prisons (occupancy number) is the wrong profit incentive. We should pay on capacity and recidivism numbers (bonus after some number of years).
He should have ran for the Canadian border the day he was released by mistake. (Probably wouldn't have helped since we extradict.)
In Canada, you can kill someone and get only six years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/killer-of-thai-welder...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/glowatski-sentenced-to-six-yea...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/northern-sask-man...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/kenny-gr...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ryan-hickey-sent...
In Canada, you can kill someone and get only six years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/killer-of-thai-welder...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/glowatski-sentenced-to-six-yea...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/northern-sask-man...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/kenny-gr...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ryan-hickey-sent...
I think it's worth noting that the United States has 3x as many murders per capita per year as compared to Canada. I'd hate to see American-style justice come to Canada, because it clearly doesn't keep the country safe.
If I wanted to murder someone what would be the best country to do it? Obviously not the US.
Edit: I mean get caught, do my time and be on my way.
Edit: I mean get caught, do my time and be on my way.
Arguably, the best country to murder someone (as in, get away with it) would be any dictatorship where you are one of the thugs employed by the murderous regime, with the task of making people "disappear".
Also, in any country in which the justice system is broken, you can murder people and get away with it by getting a job as an executioner. What your state considers a lawful execution is regarded as murder in the eyes of the sane world, and so you're getting away with murder.
Also, in any country in which the justice system is broken, you can murder people and get away with it by getting a job as an executioner. What your state considers a lawful execution is regarded as murder in the eyes of the sane world, and so you're getting away with murder.
Why do all that work when you can do it in Canada, serve a few years and get on with your life?
Antarctica?
Good luck going anywhere after you say "No, I don't know where Jack is. Maybe we should head back to the ship without him."
Business as usual in the Prison Industrial Complex, aka the New Jim Crowe. Some people make lots of money by locking people up. I don't expect the laws to change anytime soon.
Most of the victims of gangster thug types are ordinary black people. Only confused white people view the thugs as the victims.
I doubt Mr. Takita is one of those. You seem to be the one out of touch, however. The vast majority of American blacks are opposed to the policies of the Ferguson Police Department, the Drug War, and the mass incarceration of black men. Violence is visited most upon this community, but it didn't arise spontaneously. It has been fostered for generations by openly racist legal policies.
That's another extreme to me... 15 years for taking a life seems extremely low. With the ever extending life expectancy, this is not even half of persons productive years. Murder is an exceptional crime and deserves exceptional punishment.
The lives of the victim and those around the victim are forever altered, yet under German laws, the life of the murderer can go back on track and conviction be effectively hidden...
The lives of the victim and those around the victim are forever altered, yet under German laws, the life of the murderer can go back on track and conviction be effectively hidden...
I have to disagree. You don't want people like this around. Do you think this guy would stop if a family is crossing the street while he is trying to get away?
I have a problem with a single mother spending a night jail over an unpaid parking ticket.
I have a problem with a single mother spending a night jail over an unpaid parking ticket.
[deleted]
Fifteen years while loved ones of the deceased spend the rest of their lives in mourning? Thank God I'm not.
FYI "because I want the person to suffer" is not a valid reason to lock someone up.
We lock people up as a punishment just like your parents may have sent you to your room when you were acting up. We do it under the thinking of they won't do it again once they've paid their debt but that thinking is flawed on SO many level. Among them are:
1. Prison does NOT reform people in fact it pushes many deeper into a life of crime
2. Even after they have "paid their debt to society" they are still ostracised and disadvantaged
3. Unlike your parents there is no mercy/compassion in our judicial system AFAICT or if there is it's only directed at upper-class white males....
We lock people up as a punishment just like your parents may have sent you to your room when you were acting up. We do it under the thinking of they won't do it again once they've paid their debt but that thinking is flawed on SO many level. Among them are:
1. Prison does NOT reform people in fact it pushes many deeper into a life of crime
2. Even after they have "paid their debt to society" they are still ostracised and disadvantaged
3. Unlike your parents there is no mercy/compassion in our judicial system AFAICT or if there is it's only directed at upper-class white males....
> FYI "because I want the person to suffer" is not a valid reason to lock someone up.
I don't know if it's valid, but it certainly a reason why we lock people up. "An eye for an eye" is a universal principle and I assume victims expect some type of revenge. Maybe that's something we should refrain from in a perfect world, but I don't think we're there yet!
I don't know if it's valid, but it certainly a reason why we lock people up. "An eye for an eye" is a universal principle and I assume victims expect some type of revenge. Maybe that's something we should refrain from in a perfect world, but I don't think we're there yet!
Don't know about you, but to me punishment is about first and foremost protecting the society from persons actions and about offering a chance for redemption/improvement.
Vengeance is never a good agenda. Eye for an eye is an universal sadist principle.
Vengeance is never a good agenda. Eye for an eye is an universal sadist principle.
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
I think that concept is fundamentally flawed... I don't think it's sustainable or really fair.
I think that concept is fundamentally flawed... I don't think it's sustainable or really fair.
"An eye for an eye" is a universal principle
No, it's not. It's a common desire, but it is not universal. And plenty of victims of various crimes don't want revenge, but to just put the whole affair behind them.
No, it's not. It's a common desire, but it is not universal. And plenty of victims of various crimes don't want revenge, but to just put the whole affair behind them.
Other countries put people in prison to protect the public, not to make them suffer. Many countries dropped the victorian method (lock people up and throw away the key, and lock them up in fairly nasty conditions)of prisons when they figured out it does not work.
How much they have varied from the Victorian method of prisons depends on the country, from Scandinavia at the one end,to the UK at the other.
How much they have varied from the Victorian method of prisons depends on the country, from Scandinavia at the one end,to the UK at the other.
And how can we murder the Aurora shooter 17 times?
> "because I want the person to suffer" is not a valid reason to lock someone up.
It's one of the established reasons: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. The following are all from Wikipedia:
----
Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending.
Incapacitation in the context of sentencing philosophy refers to the effect of a sentence in terms of positively preventing (rather than merely deterring) future offending.
Rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy.
Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return.
----
The U.S. certainly puts more weight to retribution - in my opinion, too much weight - while European justice systems are more interested in rehabilitation, sometimes being ridiculously naive.
It's one of the established reasons: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. The following are all from Wikipedia:
----
Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending.
Incapacitation in the context of sentencing philosophy refers to the effect of a sentence in terms of positively preventing (rather than merely deterring) future offending.
Rehabilitation is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy.
Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return.
----
The U.S. certainly puts more weight to retribution - in my opinion, too much weight - while European justice systems are more interested in rehabilitation, sometimes being ridiculously naive.
People are also locked up to keep them away from ordinary citizens.
point 3 is not factually correct
(at least as far as 'males')
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-se...
Why, what would be your concern?
Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Uni...
Murder rate for 2011 (Homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants): Germany: 0.86. USA: 5.
That's nearly 6x as many murders per capita in the USA than Germany.
Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Uni...
Murder rate for 2011 (Homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants): Germany: 0.86. USA: 5.
That's nearly 6x as many murders per capita in the USA than Germany.
mineshaftgap(2)
The way you compare them, you make it sound like increasing the prison term will decrease the time the loved ones spend mourning.
Which deceased is that? This person was convicted of robbery, not murder.
The hypothetical deceased German that would lead to the hypothetical 15 year maximum in the top comment of this subthread.
Emotion is a complex thing, but if I were killed, I would certainly not want my loved ones mourning me for the rest of their lives. Move on, be happy.
Regardless, the length of the prison sentence has no bearing on the mourning process.
Regardless, the length of the prison sentence has no bearing on the mourning process.
The U.S. incarcerates more people than China. Not per capita, mind you. More total people. If ever there's a stellar example of the kind of disaster that can result from privatizing a government function, this is it.
Private prisons have a strong profit motive to increase the number of people behind bars until we have the kind of situation we have today in the U.S. These are folks who can afford to pay lobbyists to create the kind of sentencing that leads to 98 years for 2 robberies, and criminalize non-violent or victimless 'crimes.'
Here's a Last Week Tonight segment on the broken prison system in the U.S.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY
Private prisons have a strong profit motive to increase the number of people behind bars until we have the kind of situation we have today in the U.S. These are folks who can afford to pay lobbyists to create the kind of sentencing that leads to 98 years for 2 robberies, and criminalize non-violent or victimless 'crimes.'
Here's a Last Week Tonight segment on the broken prison system in the U.S.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY
I don't know that you can directly compare the two judicial systems. Especially when China executes roughly 61 times as many prisoners - often for petty crimes from repeat offenders.
That being said the US puts far too many people in jail, often for far too long of sentences.
That being said the US puts far too many people in jail, often for far too long of sentences.
Still, I think there is something fundamentally flawed with a society where 40-50 % of all men have been arrested by the police by age 23.
I tried to find some comparable statistics and I found that 5-10 % of all 15-20 year old males in Sweden have been -suspected- for a crime. I doubt that all of them were actually arrested.
I tried to find some comparable statistics and I found that 5-10 % of all 15-20 year old males in Sweden have been -suspected- for a crime. I doubt that all of them were actually arrested.
I think that's sort of the idea behind the comparison. Even a country with a bar so low for punishment is far outpaced by our own judicial system.
Also, prison contractors get more taxpayer dollars for lengthy sentences, whereas the state handles executions (that is, there's no profit in executions for the prison-industrial complex).
I'm not convinced that private prisons are anywhere nearly as influential as people make them out to be. They're a common bugbear in these conversation, but the numbers don't match up. Something like 5% of the total US prison population is in private prisons. I just don't see how such a small proportion of the activity would have so much influence.
A much bigger influence is probably things like prison guard unions. They have the same sort of profit motive to increase the number of people behind bars, and that applies just as much (probably more) to state-run prisons.
A much bigger influence is probably things like prison guard unions. They have the same sort of profit motive to increase the number of people behind bars, and that applies just as much (probably more) to state-run prisons.
> “Plainly said,” Orman wrote in his reply, “the Defendant had no business getting married and starting a family.”
Wow. Just wow...
Wow. Just wow...
I came here to say just that. I can't believe someone who is supposed to represent justice can dehumanize someone to this point.
It's a very sad thing to read.
It's a very sad thing to read.
The worst part of this, IMO, is how the mistake was discovered. His former prosecutor was looking up his old cases on the state DOC's website, apparently to delight in the damage he had caused decades earlier. You would have to be a pretty depraved person to derive pleasure from unjustly taking away someone's life.
I thought that too until the article implied later that they were looking for other clerical errors as a result of a really bad mixup.
The state was auditing some cases, but according to the article his didn't come up for an audit. This was just the DA reflecting on his handiwork.
There was an element of "pre-crime" to the original sentences. Not just this case, but the article alludes to an entire program to sentence young people who have multiple brushes with the law to life long periods. Taking young teenagers off the streets for the rest of their lives purely on the basis that they are likely to continue committing crimes if they were released again and not for actual crimes committed.
The COP program was done away with, but someone should revisit those horrific sentences given to teens that effectively take their entire lives away. Guilty, yes. But 90+ years for a case where no one got hurt? Wow.
The COP program was done away with, but someone should revisit those horrific sentences given to teens that effectively take their entire lives away. Guilty, yes. But 90+ years for a case where no one got hurt? Wow.
Sign the Petition: https://www.change.org/p/john-w-suthers-release-rene-lima-ma...
This article was a very good read.
If you are in America, you should try and contact that governor his family is lobbying. I would, but I'm not living in this country.
If you are in America, you should try and contact that governor his family is lobbying. I would, but I'm not living in this country.
That would be Governor John Hickenlooper, http://www.colorado.gov/governor/
Send him a tweet: https://twitter.com/hickforco
What was he incarcerated for? Edit: Two counts of first-degree burglary and three counts of aggravated robbery
"Both men received two counts of first-degree burglary and three counts of aggravated robbery, for each of the three employees they made cooperate at the two stores... Then came the kidnapping charges: three counts of second-degree kidnapping, because they’d forced three employees in those two robberies to move from one part of a store to another."
Edit: and edit ninja'd...
Edit: and edit ninja'd...
I really dislike "stacked" charges. Maybe that's the best way to differentiate between "a burglary", "a burglary where an innocent person was involved", "a burglary where 3 innocent people were involved," and "a burglary where 3 innocent people were involved and made to do stuff beyond 'getting robbed'".
But assuming "equal" charges, is involving three people 3x as bad as involving one? Is "forcing people to move" 2x as bad as just robbing them?
But assuming "equal" charges, is involving three people 3x as bad as involving one? Is "forcing people to move" 2x as bad as just robbing them?
"... Two clerks were in the store, not just one. Lima-Marin and Clifton brought them both into a back room, forcing one onto the floor and the other to open the safe. “They put a gun to the back of my head and said, ‘This is where you’re going to die,’” one of the employees, Shane Ashurst, later recalled."
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/07/unfreed
A bit more than simply asking them to move to another room.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/07/unfreed
A bit more than simply asking them to move to another room.
The "mov[ing] from one part of a store to another" was how the article characterized the kidnapping charge. I would imagine that forcing someone to the floor and threatening them with a gun would be part of the aggravated assault charge. Otherwise, what's the difference?
Heh, I found the most ironic part to be where he talks about the simplicity of prison life. Everything is paid for and he simply studies.
Makes you start to think about what the proportionality of these sentences actually work out in the eyes of the victim of the crime.
In some way the victim wants them awarded the biggest punishment possible, but at the same time that punishment comes out of their pocket in taxes that go to keep this person behind bars for an unreasonable amount of time.
I don't know what the numbers are but that sounds awfully expensive to me and if I was an employee at a video store that got robbed I really don't think I would like all that additional burden on the economy as retribution for a few minutes of fear.
Makes you start to think about what the proportionality of these sentences actually work out in the eyes of the victim of the crime.
In some way the victim wants them awarded the biggest punishment possible, but at the same time that punishment comes out of their pocket in taxes that go to keep this person behind bars for an unreasonable amount of time.
I don't know what the numbers are but that sounds awfully expensive to me and if I was an employee at a video store that got robbed I really don't think I would like all that additional burden on the economy as retribution for a few minutes of fear.
It's difficult to read stories about U.S. non-concurrent sentences, third strike system, plea bargaining replacing jury trials, and 1% lockup rate for adults, then listen to their people talk about "Freedom in America" and keep a straight face.
[deleted]
This is nothing more or less than cruel and unusual punishment.
Reading this made me feel sick...
Given that the man had changed, and actually moved on to have a more civil life, can anybody explain the point of him going back to a correctional facility? What are they trying to correct?
I would like to see clemency for this man but I don't view the european system as being necessarily superior to the USA.
In my country there are a lot of avowedly unrepentant murderers walking the streets after 'life' sentences that in some cases lasted less than a decade.
The state has decided to show compassion.
It's easy to forgive someone when you're not the victim or one of those who loved a victim.
Personally I feel that if you premeditatedly take another person's life you should have no expectation of ever being able to live outside a prison again.
If this was really an issue, shouldn't the murder rates in European countries be a lot higher than in the US?
According to Wikipedia [0] the "intentional homicide" rate in the US is 4.7, in the UK 1.0 and in Germany 0.8. Shouldn't those numbers be reversed if the European system was releasing "avowedly unrepentant murderers" back onto the streets?
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
According to Wikipedia [0] the "intentional homicide" rate in the US is 4.7, in the UK 1.0 and in Germany 0.8. Shouldn't those numbers be reversed if the European system was releasing "avowedly unrepentant murderers" back onto the streets?
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
European nations should be compared to European nations. American nations should be compared to American nations. Actually just a glance at your wikipedia page makes this clear: different continents simply have different murder rates. I feel this phenomenon is rooted in historical colonization.
I don't think that follows.
You might as well infer that the european rate is lower because we release murderers.
The statistics you quote don't support either view, I believe.
You might as well infer that the european rate is lower because we release murderers.
The statistics you quote don't support either view, I believe.
> and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
And why is he not rubberstamping such when the prison situation in US is cruel, sadly not unusual and definitely unjust.
And why is he not rubberstamping such when the prison situation in US is cruel, sadly not unusual and definitely unjust.
The offenses were not against the United States. This man is in a Colorado prison for crimes under Colorado law. The President has no authority in this case.
There are enough federal inmates with good reasons for pardon. And mass pardons of federal prison could hint the governors about their power too.
1) The governors have powers that vary from zilch to equal to the President's. This is determined state-by-state.
2) You are mistaken if you believe all or even a substantial minority of the governors would ever agree with your views in this matter.
2) You are mistaken if you believe all or even a substantial minority of the governors would ever agree with your views in this matter.
The Colorado governor may pardon any Colorado conviction other than those for treason or impeachment. The entire point of this thread is that the governors are culpable for the injustice of the system. Their opinions don't absolve them of that.
The comment I responded to said "And mass pardons of federal prison could hint the governors about their power too.". This suggests two mistaken beliefs:
1) That governors as a whole have these powers.
2) That "hints about their power" would prompt them to act in the manner he wishes.
The governors don't need hints about their power in this area, they are well aware of it. They don't fail to exercise it as he wants them to because they need a "hint", they fail to exercise it as he wants them to because they do not agree with him.
I'm not addressing the thread as a whole. I'm addressing this little corner of it. I'm under no obligation to address the thread as a whole in every comment I make, and doing so would be both pointless and tiring.
1) That governors as a whole have these powers.
2) That "hints about their power" would prompt them to act in the manner he wishes.
The governors don't need hints about their power in this area, they are well aware of it. They don't fail to exercise it as he wants them to because they need a "hint", they fail to exercise it as he wants them to because they do not agree with him.
I'm not addressing the thread as a whole. I'm addressing this little corner of it. I'm under no obligation to address the thread as a whole in every comment I make, and doing so would be both pointless and tiring.
Actually they could just start with all the drug incarcerations. Not only do those crimes have no plausible victims, but the eventual verdict of posterity on the entire practice of drug prohibition is pretty clear even now. Why wouldn't any politician want to get on the right side of that?
A Bank Robber, 45
'They originally charged me with murder, kidnapping, and bank robbery, but I'm really just a bank robber with really bad luck. You see, my buddy and me were robbing this bank, and when we come outside there is a cop waiting across the street and he starts shooting. He shoots my buddy, but I don't know he's dead so I pull him into the car and drive away. When they bust me, they charge me with murder, kidnapping, and the robbery.
I ask my attorney, "How the hell can they do that? All I did was rob a bank"
He says the law says if you are committing a felony and someone dies, a bank teller has a heart attack or something, you can be charged with murder. He tells me they charged me with murder because my buddy got killed.
He says the law says when I pulled my buddy into the car and drove off, I kidnapped him because I was taking a body from the scene of a crime. That's how they got me for kidnapping.
He says the law says that I can be charged with all three even though I didn't kill nobody and I didn't kidnap nobody.
I say the law sucks.'