Crime and Punishment
Mod note: this thread starts with posts extracted from the mod and general discussion threads.
Not commenting on individual cases but trying children as adults is tantamount to child abuse imo. Not mitigated by legality
Are you telling me you think there are lots of people who would become violent criminals if not for the threat of current violent criminals harming them? I have never heard of such a thing so it certainly wouldn't have stopped me.
Pretty much. That's how the criminal underworld operates. Or, at the very least, they would escalate whatever it is they're currently doing. If they were doing petty liquor store hold-ups before, they might start knocking off banks and armoured cars.
How does an unarmed person passing a note to a bank teller amount to an immediate threat of harm?
Usually it's along the lines of "I have a bomb. Fill this bag up or we all go boom."
How does the bank teller know the person passing a note is not armed? How do you know the pistol being held to your head is loaded?
In both cases, there is an immediate threat of harm.
As for fistfights, you're the person that wants to put people in prison for life for violent acts and fistfights are violent acts, so don't put that on me.
Sure they do, but you really don't get that if you change a 2-year sentence to a life sentence for the s
Again, I was not referring to holding a gun to someone's head. You can read d2's previous posts if you're confused.
I said for violent crimes, not violent acts, and I don't know why my clarification to include fewer crimes punished in that manner would upset you.
I get that YOU think it would make it more important, but I think it is already of utmost importance.
Pretty much. That's how the criminal underworld operates. Or, at the very least, they would escalate whatever it is they're currently doing. If they were doing petty liquor store hold-ups before, they might start knocking off banks and armoured cars.
Usually it's along the lines of "I have a bomb. Fill this bag up or we all go boom."
I don't understand what you're getting at about criminal organization's escalation - that would happen if what occurred?
Maybe I don't keep myself well informed about trends in bank robbery, but I don't think I've ever heard of suicide bombers robbing banks, so I can't imagine that could be common. But as stated previously, I don't believe the threat of violence to be as serious an offense as actually carrying out violence.
Maybe I don't keep myself well informed about trends in bank robbery, but I don't think I've ever heard of suicide bombers robbing banks, so I can't imagine that could be common.
Unarmed robbery is pretty common. It's an easy way for junkies to get a couple of grand here and there till they get caught. Banks and other organisations that deal in large amounts of cash always train their tellers to comply with such demands rather than run the risk of the threat being real.
But as stated previously, I don't believe the threat of violence to be as serious an offense as actually carrying out violence.
Putting a gun to someone's head and threatening to pull the trigger is less serious than actually pulling the trigger, sure, but it's still considered a "violent offence" in every jurisdiction I'm aware of, so it would fall under the umbrella of the chillrob sentencing reform act.
Unarmed robbery is pretty common. It's an easy way for junkies to get a couple of grand here and there till they get caught. Banks and other organisations that deal in large amounts of cash always train their tellers to comply with such demands rather than run the risk of the threat being real.
Putting a gun to someone's head and threatening to pull the trigger is less serious than actually pulling the trigger, sure, but it's still considere
As the named author of the Chillrob Sentencing Reform Act, I am quite capable of clarifying its jurisdiction. 😜
I don't understand what you're getting at about criminal organization's escalation - that would happen if what occurred?
In the criminal underworld, especially in high crime areas, there are criminal organisations such as the Mafia or a powerful street gang which essentially "run" the neighbourhood", and those below them in the criminal hierarchy have to get their permission to operate, usually for a cut of the profits. They also essentially police a lot of petty and street crime by dishing out street justice to those that either don't pay their dues, commit verboten crimes such as against women or the elderly, or otherwise get on their bad side. If you lock those people away for life, that layer of the hierarchy doesn't go away, it just gets replaced by those currently below them.
Have you considered that giving people life sentences for any kind of violence gives a lot of people an incentive to go out guns blazing? Imagine the cops having to deal with that every time there’s a routine domestic assault call or a bar scuffle.
Have you considered that giving people life sentences for any kind of violence gives a lot of people an incentive to go out guns blazing? Imagine the cops having to deal with that every time there’s a routine domestic assault call or a bar scuffle.
That and not to leave witnesses. If the penalty for pistol whipping someone is the same as the penalty for murder, why leave witnesses?
Given the nature of the discussion, I thought people might find it interesting to see recidivism rates by category of offense.
Again, I was not referring to holding a gun to someone's head. You can read d2's previous posts if you're confused.
Really dude? You said that someone handing a note to a teller has no immediate threat because the person is unarmed. I simply used your reasoning to show why it's wrong by using an example with a pistol since an unloaded pistol can't shoot someone.
In both cases, the person does not know that the person handing the note or pointing the gun is "unarmed."
I said for violent crimes, not violent acts, and I don't know why my clarification to include fewer crimes punished in that manner would upset you.
Violent acts towards others are not crimes? What do you mean exactly?
Also, what did I say to make you think I was upset?
I get that YOU think it would make it more important, but I think it is already of utmost importance.
You said it's perfectly acceptable that people get locked up for crimes they didn't commit so long as the majority of the guilty do get locked up. That doesn't sound like you consider it of the utmost importance.
I have a feeling that by the end of this discussion, chillrob will reach the conclusion that violent crimes exist on a spectrum (and also that there is no bright dividing line between what is and isn't a "violent crime"), so rather than giving life sentences for all violent crimes, we should probably graduate the sentences depending on the severity of the criminal act.
Or, in other words, the system we have now.
I didn't know that the concept of proportionality in sentencing was controversial.
Given the nature of the discussion, I thought people might find it interesting to see recidivism rates by category of offense.
I think sex offenders mostly commit sex crimes. Others commit multiple crimes
So i think that's why it looks like the sex crime recidivisn number is "low"
But it really isn't
Obviously it's relevant. You said we shouldn't expect much from a person who believes it. Yet that idea spawned one of the world's major religions.
No, I said we shouldn't expect anything different from a person who believes those three things together.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
I'm quite capable of observing the lives of others. Have you watched many videos provided by charities of wartorn and famine stricken countries recently?
Of course you are, but it all comes through the lens of your own experiences. You suffered, other people suffer, therefore we shouldn't bring children into the world and humans should go extinct. Your own suffering blinds you to the good in the world, or at least causes you to minimize it.
That's an oversimplification of course, but not that much of one.
Or do you base your idea of life mainly from the point of view of a person of above average income in one of the wealthiest countries on earth?
Hell, no. My life of extreme privilege would provide me a pretty narrow lens to see the world through.
I'll let others judge whether they're useful or not, but I've shared many in this forum over the years.
And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you don't/can't have any useful ideas, just that your framing of the human race as a terrible blight upon the world doesn't provide you with any.
I would love to hear actual reasons you or anyone else has for opposing my plan other than those already mentioned, which I have addressed.
No, you haven't. You didn't go near my assertion that "life in prison for any and all violent crimes is bound to be unjust", which I'll come back to. I'd also suggest that "different prison conditions for worse offenses" isn't going to stop a lot of people who realize that a violent act and murder lands them in jail for the same amount of time and have incentive to take it all the way. Nor how keeping all these people in prison for life isn't going to result in a dramatic increase in prison population, although you did briefly mention not imprisoning people for non-violent crimes, which could mitigate that somewhat.
So coming back to my unjust argument, I sure wouldn't want to live in society that simply writes people off for a single violent act. I'm not going to nitpick over things like what level of violence you mean, what kind of an escalation of a fistfight counts, or whether robbery is violence. I'm talking about obviously violent acts, and the idea that a single one means you're done. No chance for redemption or rehabilitation. When you're filling up those new prisons you'll have to build, what do you think their populations will look like? Do you think they'll be full of privileged people, or might they become even more of those who are born into a world of violence, and know no other way to move through life? I guess you might see that as all the more reason we shouldn't have children and should just go extinct; I see it as another reason we should try to solve the underlying problem and seek equity rather than using the simple "solution" of throwing more people in jail for life.
RFK was shot in a hotel in front of a crowd. Sirhan Sirhan was subdued and disarmed on the scene by journalists and a couple of athletes. He admitted on direct examination during his criminal trial that he had committed the murder.
The odds that he is guilty are very, very high.
that does not mean much. Im on the fence...
not even RFK JR believes sirhan did it and there are many more.
Its pretty similar with JFK, right? there are top notch people who can tell you all about it and they will probably convince you, bc they have all the arguments to convince you.
He admitted doing it in an interview.
Whether or not he deserves parole is another thing. After serving 56 years for a single murder, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Political assassination though is essentially an attack on the state/society itself, so I can also understand if he's denied parole.
that doesnt mean anything. how many false confessions do you know of? I agree after 56 years its probably about time. the guy that got him sacked, the top official, I dont remember his name now, he was working the last 20 years to get him OUT!! wtf, right? now what? what do you say to that? RFK JR the son of RFK DOES NOT BELIEVE SIRHAN DID IT. how can you be that dense? 😀
but browser probably had a reason to move it here so it might as well stay here. so now we could talk about if the crime fits the time or if it even happened like its the narrative. and then idk, it tangents so many threads, the palestine thread bc hes palestinian. sirhan had many family members murdered by israel, thats what they tell us, and that he went nuts and murdered RFK: that is the story...
Um, igt actually does.
how many false confessions do you know of?
Who says it's false4? And your reasoning is false confessions happen ergo happened here?
I agree after 56 years its probably about time. the guy that got him sacked, the top official, I dont remember his name now, he was working the last 20 years to get him OUT!! wtf, right? now what? what do you say to that? RFK JR the son of RFK DOES NOT BELIEVE SIRHAN DID IT. how can you be that dense? 😀
Heh.
Never ever ever change Washoe. 😀
In all US jurisdictions I am aware of, a death sentence has to be given by a jury, in most jurisdictions unanimously, in some by a majority. So, there is no such thing as an automatic death sentence, even in a death penalty case - the jury can still come back with a life sentence.
Also, it is always at the discretion of the prosecutor whether to make a case a death penalty case. There is no scenario under which the prosecutor is mandated to
Where this took place its mand. death or life sent.. fl dont mess around
I am saying that life without parole sentences for juveniles have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That makes it illegal to give a juvenile a LWOP sentence in the US. I wouldn't call that "cutting slack" but that's semantics.
They'll go up for a parole hearing like everyone else. If they have behaved themselves in prison, they have the same chance of getting out as anyone else with a parole date. If they have a long institut
Ure not telling me anything i didnt know but good post.
I didnt reply bc i know all of that, holmes.
Good long form breakdown on crime & incarceration in the US.
Jasus how many youtube channels does Simon Whistler actually have?
I think I subscribe to at least 5, and I get a bunch more in my suggestions. I reckon about a dozen.
He's a good content creator and I do really like his stuff, in relatively small doses. I watched a bunch of videos on his crime channel back to back once and it put me off watching any of this other stuff for about 2 weeks, just something about his particular style.
