The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What is justice, and why is it worth spending taxpayer money on? I think that we should spend money on things that actually give us a return, like a rehabilitated citizen to can contribute to society again.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Man sees "cruel" face of U.S. justice (GAF - I just don't see the point anymore)
- Thread starter Vermillion
- Start date
- Status
What is justice, and why is it worth spending taxpayer money on? I think that we should spend money on things that actually give us a return, like a rehabilitated citizen to can contribute to society again.
Seven armed robberies equals 4x more punishment than one second degree murder though? Walking in with a gun with no intent to ever shoot it at anyone trumps murder.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
What? When did I say anything about the amount of the robberies? Projecting much? So you're arguing once you commit a crime you get the same amount of time no matter how many instances of it happens? So if I have 10 speeding tickets I only have to pay 1?
Do you not know how plea bargins work? This has always been the case.
Because he did it 7 times? He robbed with a WEAPON, and as a result put people in harm's way. You can't see the difference between 1 and 7?
Depends what the crimes are. I think there's a whole range of degrees of severity that need to be accounted for. But ultimately are seven robberies substantially different from six or five robberies as far as time and severity of gaol should be concerned?
A person can rob a million shops, but as long as nobody is physically hurt I don't think they should spend a day in gaol longer than someone who is convicted of assault or rape or any other violent crime.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Well there's no laws that suggest even something close to that so you're point is sort of irrelevant. How many countries have laws like that? Why stop at 5 or 6? Is that really much different from 3 or 4? What's the arbitrary cut off? What length would have been fair in your mind then?
Armed robbery with no injuries? Five years of rehabilitation/re-education into a trade followed by five years of monitoring.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
And where is this done? Anywhere at all in the world?
Keru_Shiri
Member
Yes, I know how plea bargains work. I don't see what that has to do with my point though. Not entering a plea bargain = 140 years tacked on for the same crime as his comrades? Seems a little off.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Well 9 is the lowest of the sentences and go up to 22. And we don't know anything about the terms of the plea bargin so it's hard to comment anymore on it.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I'll save my outrage for true injustices.
Dude robbed 7 places with a gun.
He was stupid to take his chances going to trial when he should of plea'd out and took his 10-20yr sentence.
Dude robbed 7 places with a gun.
He was stupid to take his chances going to trial when he should of plea'd out and took his 10-20yr sentence.
Keru_Shiri
Member
True, though the article did state that he wasn't given an option to enter a plea bargain. I still don't see why that should add up to an extra century and a half of jail time.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
He wasn't offered one, doesn't mean he couldn't have asked for one. They'll almost always give some type of deal if you don't make it go to trial.
Edit: No one I don't think is defending the 100+ years but even if he only got 10 per crime he still would have gotten 70 years and spent his life in prison.
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
I'm pretty sure in the US that once you fire a gun during a crime the punishment become much more severe, regardless if anyone is hurt. This guy commited multiple robberies and the only stopped because he got caught. Who know how many more robberies he got away with.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Yes, discharging a gun does add time or potentially add more charges due to the dangerous nature and how you could maim/kill someone even if you didn't mean to. If none of his accomplishes fired their weapons that would also be a much bigger strike against him than the others. Again, we don't know enough to say for certain why the others got less.
Neuromancer
Member
No I just found your reaction to my obviously facetious comment funny. It's all good.
I think armed robbery with a firearm is an extremely serious crime, and he participated in 7 of them and then decided to plead non guilty when he knew he was. He was an idiot but I can't say he didn't deserve what he got. Frankly he's lucky no one got killed including himself.
We do know. They pled guilty and accepted responsibility for their actions instead of wasting government time, money and resources. Judges frown upon fighting the system when the evidence is clearly against you. 99 times out of 100 you will receive a lighter sentence for pleading guilty than you do when you fight it.
Dreams-Visions
Member
So half of GAF has concluded that this 19 year old could never be rehabilitated such that he should be locked away from the rest of society for the remainder of his natural life?
I didn't realize the desire to judge someone's current and future was so strong.
I think 15-20 years would have been sufficient. 70 years (or however long he lives) is cruel given nobody was actually injured.
I didn't realize the desire to judge someone's current and future was so strong.
I think 15-20 years would have been sufficient. 70 years (or however long he lives) is cruel given nobody was actually injured.
WarMacheen
Member
What's the old saying...
Can't do the time, don't do the crime
Can't do the time, don't do the crime
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
No, we don't know. We don't know if they also fired their guns or what part they played in it. When even the others differ from 9-22 years I would think there is more than just pleading guilty for the variety in sentences.
And pretty much no one agrees that 15 years for SEVEN armed robberies is ok. That's 2 years a robbery with a gun, where he decided to fire it and could have injured someone. Do you really think that prison is that rehabilitating anyhow that after 15 years he'll never do something like this again? Prison has a pretty crappy record at reforming people.
Here's what we we do know.
So, are we all just going to gloss over the fact that all of his peers got plea bargains while the person who has a mental disability is being put in jail for life (Not coming at you, just frustrated)? They admitted he wasn't the ring leader. No body could verify, besides his buddies, that he shot a gun at all. Nobody was hurt. They're going to put somebody in jail for their entire life who's brain chemistry causes them to have mild mood swings and who has an issue retaining information.
He's going to go insane in there. Normal, rational, well balanced people who make a minor mistake go crazy after a few years, this is beyond that. This situation is just crap. He shouldn't get a pass but he needs medication and therapy. Who cares if it's on the public's dime, they spend way more money on other unneeded shit. Getting this man in a program for some help would probably be cheaper than keeping him in a cell FOREVER.
Keru_Shiri
Member
Eh, I really can't tell with GAF sometimes. I've had to argue with a guy who thought even traffic violations should be punishable with jail time. Apologies if I came off a bit harsh.
Otherwise, I agree with your sentiment. He should be punished, perhaps a bit more for trying to fight it (you'd think his attorney would have been more help in this instance, at least in trying to arrange a plea bargain, like the other guys did).
SnakeswithLasers
Member
Are there studies that show that insane sentence lengths deter criminals?
The certainty of punishment is a deterrent, but the severity is not. Maybe you guys should remember that. (Because there is scholarly research that shows that to be true.)
The certainty of punishment is a deterrent, but the severity is not. Maybe you guys should remember that. (Because there is scholarly research that shows that to be true.)
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
And? He still robbed 7 banks and robbed a bank. Again, we don't know why he didn't take a deal and the others did, so stop trying to make shit up like they singled out someone with a learning disability. How do you know the others didn't have problems also? I'm not sure hwo this makes what he did ok and should be released though. He should be spending his time in a mental facility then not jail but he still needs to serve since he's obviously a threat to the public as a whole. Him and his lawyer didn't seem to think it was bad enough to need treatment so it seems like it wasn't that bad.
Then protest and change the laws? I don't see people crying for the thousands of other people convicted everyday so if you think the whole system is screwed up then shouldn't you be complaining about the whole system for a while now? I don't understand the backlash when there was no problem with plenty of other people who have been arrested and convicted of armed robbery.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
You're usually a cool dude, so I say this with all respect, but: What the fuck are you on about?
I am consistently against "harsh" sentences and treating criminals like subhumans. I vote according to this belief, and I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do in a thread about a(nother) ridiculous sentence except point out to everyone saying, "Brrr, let'm rot! hur!" that this attitude isn't conducive to a safer society.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
True, but I just don't understand (not necessarily from you) of people getting mad when it's how the laws are structured right now. I just don't understand the shock from people when armed robbery can be a federal offense and has always carried a long sentence especially when firing your gun also. The whole prison system itself isn't conductive to a safer society (at least currently), it's strictly punishment and does little if any reforming. I'm more curious how this person is bipolar and has mental issues but is just being jailed instead of going to some sort of mental facility.
Edit: Lets be honest though, if people were actually worried about reform and treating criminals correctly, there would be no such thing as prison sentences. You would be forced to go into rehab until you can function again in society without being a thread to yourself or others. Accomplish this through whatever means whether it's medication, or role playing, or other therapy you would try to reform them so that the undesirable action is no longer a part of their basic problem solving tools. There's no real justice or "fair" treatment by attaching some arbitrary number to a certain action, instead it would solely be based on reforming the person so they are not harmful to society any further.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Regardless of the "years" given, life is life. I have no problem with a murderer getting life and I have no problem with a seven time armed robber getting life.
And sorry but if you're using a gun in the commission of a crime it's assumed you're willing to use it and you'll get punished for it.
Once again...I just can't seem to say: "The poor armed robber! That's terrible he's locked up for life after seven armed robberies!".
Neuromancer
Member
I will agree that his lawyer was a fool for letting his client go to trial over this.
You are right, you fire a gun or kill somebody during a crime it becomes Fed time.
Neuromancer
Member
Well I have no doubt it was a factor.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
Sure, I overall agree with you.
However, unfortunately the majority of people don't because they are caught up in knee-jerk reactions to arbitrary threats to their security. The reason I dropped the fact that length of prison sentences doesn't actually deter criminals (instead, people are deterred if they believe that there is a very certain prospect of being caught and punished) was to make more people aware of reality, and perhaps encourage someone to do research and change their view, rather than believing the too easy trope of, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
True but that fear I think is what will ever prevent us from moving past it. Who is going to accept rehabilitation for a crime and chance it in their community? Fear has too strong of a hold. And I don't know if people see it as a deterrent as much as they're locked away so they can't be near other people like me and hurt them. Although I'm sure people do think like you said unfortunately.
Neuromancer
Member
We don't put people in jail only as a deterrent though. I'd argue that's a secondary goal; punishment for your acts and taking you out of the public's harm is the primary purpose.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
But what is the purpose of it when punishment is supposed to be used to alter behavior? If it's shown after a certain extent that the punishment is not doing anything more than what is the point? Stroking someone's ego that they're better than someone? What is the point of punishment if not to alter behavior?
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
What? What kind of nonsense is this that if you are ok with long sentences you should be ok with the death penalty? What a load of nonsense.
Deified Data
Banned
Life sentences without parole are pointless, whether you believe the aim of our criminal justice system is to punish or rehabilitate. If you want revenge, he's better off dead. If you want to rehabilitate, he's never going to be released back into society even if he genuinely changes his ways. What is accomplished? It seems like enforcing a law for the sake of the law, not for said law's contribution to our collective well-being.
Guy's an armed robber, and could very well have shot someone if it came down to it. He doesn't deserve "mercy", but locking him away for life is hardly justice, either. 30 years for such an escapade sounds reasonable.
Guy's an armed robber, and could very well have shot someone if it came down to it. He doesn't deserve "mercy", but locking him away for life is hardly justice, either. 30 years for such an escapade sounds reasonable.
Oppo
Member
I'm not saying whether or not I think this is nonsense just yet, I'm just curious as to the responses.
Uhm, it is harsh.... A good friend of mine has got 9 years for importing a few shipping containers of weed of which he'll actually serve 4 years in prison max. (UK) That seems a long time for him to think about what he's done, so this sentence for an 18 year old who is yet to fully mature and hasn't actually hurt anyone is over the top.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Because many people don't agree with killing people is why it's different than killing them. That coupled with our less than 100% perfect convictions are another reason. If they're stuck in jail, it sucks immensely but if they are exanerated due to new evidence or newer investigative techniques you didn't needlessly kill someone. There's a pretty big difference between life in prison and the death penalty. Especially since a life sentence is a lot shorter than this person received.
To Data, what do you do after 30 years? Do you believe he will be reformed with the mental issues he has that he won't do something like this or worse once he's released? What if he committed 15 acts of armed robbery? Should it still be 30? When does it stop mattering if you keep committing crimes or not?
How can you possibly compare it to a weed charge? This person threatened and robbed people at gunpoint and fired his gun during some of them. That's in a whole other ballpark than possession of weed/importing weed...
echoshifting
Banned
You are making the perfect the enemy of the good, Zaraki...you acknowledge that the process and pursuit of justice are inherently flawed, but you don't allow for the fact - which none can deny - that people can and do turn their lives around every day. We shouldn't exclude this guy from the possibility that his could turn around as well. Recidivism happens, yeah, but shouldn't a teenager get another shot at leading a good life when he didn't actually end anyone else's?
I'd say 30 is still appropriate in all of the scenarios you describe.
Deified Data
Banned
I guess it can all be explained by imperfect creatures creating an imperfect system of justice based on imperfect morality and procedure. Can't be helped, I guess.
Neuromancer
Member
Who says that's the purpose? I certainly don't. Some people are beyond rehabilitation.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
I think there is more to this individual than he just needs to feel bad about what he did and reform. He has a learning disability and is bipolar, his ability to make decisions would seem much more impaired than with others.
Wikipedia said:
That is a pretty common justification for punishment... What is the purpose then since you didn't respond the last time when I asked...?
Neuromancer
Member
I've already said. Punishment for a past crime and removing them (temporarily at least) from the public where they can continue to be a danger to people.
Boss Man
Member
Yeah, the guy should be in jail. He should be in jail for a long time even, but not from 18 until he's dead. Not when he was 18 and this was his first offense. There aren't many crimes someone could commit in that situation where I'd feel like they deserved to be locked away for life. Murder and rape are actually the only examples I can think of.
That is because it was worded like ass.
Then in my next post I asked for something different, which was about the trials. Which was kinda what I meant in my first post. My bad. So let me rephrase it:
Was there a trial for each robbery, or was it one trial for the whole string of them?
Kitsunebaby
Member
Probably 1 trial but a different judgement for each count.
Death Dealer
Member
and admitted guilt instead of trying their luck and losing at trial.
1 murder compared to 7 armed robberies is not the same thing as comparing the number 1 to the number 7. Try again.
If the penalty for armed robbery is 5 years and the penalty for second degree murder is 25 years for example, he should have gotten 35 years max. Not over 100 years.
Why does he have to choose? It isn't like his disagreeing with the ruling is equivalent to his sympathizing with the criminal. The two are completely divorced.
- Status