Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My life after 44 years in prison

interactive.aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#51

Post by avar »

MrJagil wrote: post #47
parennoob wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good point. I thought of this by applying it to myself – if someone attempted to murder me, but did not succeed, would I want them to be put away for a very long time? You bet.

I get that you're trying to equate attempted and real murder but it sounds very short-sighted and it does not do any argument justice that you isolate such a serious incident from the countless factors that are surely involved (motive being prominent, but i feel a discussion of that would also turn simplistic). For the sake of future discussions, just remember that these people are real, and there's mostly likely tre…

You're not really addressing the grandparent's point. Why shouldn't you purely punish culpability and ignore outcomes? It's seems way more logical and everyone recognizes this on some level.

If I shoot you purely by accident most people will agree that I shouldn't go to prison. It was an accident, I'm not a danger to society.

If I mean to murder you but my aim is off, or modern medical science manages to keep you from death, how is society better off exactly by keeping me in prison for a shorter time just because I wasn't successful?

The rational reason to put people in prison in the first place is because we consider them a danger to society. Am I less of a danger to society just because I was slightly incompetent on my first murder attempt?

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#52

Post by WalterBright »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #45
newjersey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd still think the judge can and should be able to use discretion and allow concurrent sentences. Maybe the judge decided in this case that the sentences should not be concurrent. We don't know what judge had in their mind. I hate to go all PC (I swear I am not one of them) but I wonder whether mandatory sentencing isn't all bad. Perhaps mandatory sentencing is the most effective way to bring down sentencing rules a…

No jail time for non violent crime? I presume you've never been defrauded, burgled, etc.

I've been defrauded and burgled for substantial amounts. I've also been mugged at gunpoint. Only for the latter violent crime would I suggest jail time.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#53

Post by duncan_bayne »

WalterBright wrote: post #52
duncan_bayne wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No jail time for non violent crime? I presume you've never been defrauded, burgled, etc.

I've been defrauded and burgled for substantial amounts. I've also been mugged at gunpoint. Only for the latter violent crime would I suggest jail time.

Why do you draw a distinction between the two?

(To be clear, I'm not trying to defend victimless 'crimes' here; rather, I don't understand why you would distinguish between someone stealing from you at gunpoint vs. raiding your home while you're out).

Edited: With the obvious exception that the mugger is endangering your life by pointing a loaded weapon at you. Is that the only difference?

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#54

Post by newjersey »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #45
newjersey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd still think the judge can and should be able to use discretion and allow concurrent sentences. Maybe the judge decided in this case that the sentences should not be concurrent. We don't know what judge had in their mind. I hate to go all PC (I swear I am not one of them) but I wonder whether mandatory sentencing isn't all bad. Perhaps mandatory sentencing is the most effective way to bring down sentencing rules a…

No jail time for non violent crime? I presume you've never been defrauded, burgled, etc.

As I said in item?id=10595078, I am not happy about the situation but considering we already let go the largest of the criminals, I don't see why we should send people to jail for failing to be big/important enough.

I do think false representation, fraud, malpractice are serious crimes. If someone sells you a copy of Debian Linux or Microsoft Windows and they sell you a compromised copy, they deserve to have their pants sued off of them. To me that is the same level of crime as a pharmacist selling placebos as real medicine. I imagine there has to be a balance somewhere between discouraging fraud and abuse while not coming as too heavy handed.

I certainly won't claim to have the answers. Perhaps I am kicking my position further to the extreme than what I believe is a reasonable compromise. Sorry if I come off as silly or self-contradictory. Part of me writing is to discover and learn what my positions are.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#55

Post by scotty79 »

avar wrote: post #51
MrJagil wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that you're trying to equate attempted and real murder but it sounds very short-sighted and it does not do any argument justice that you isolate such a serious incident from the countless factors that are surely involved (motive being prominent, but i feel a discussion of that would also turn simplistic). For the sake of future discussions, just remember that these people are real, and there's mostly likely tre…

You're not really addressing the grandparent's point. Why shouldn't you purely punish culpability and ignore outcomes? It's seems way more logical and everyone recognizes this on some level. If I shoot you purely by accident most people will agree that I shouldn't go to prison. It was an accident, I'm not a danger to society. If I mean to murder you but my aim is off, or modern medical science manages to keep you fro…

> If I shoot you purely by accident most people will agree that I shouldn't go to prison. It was an accident, I'm not a danger to society.

That probably depends on how reckless you were. Stupidity combined with fondness for dangerous objects can be dangerous to society. Jail-time might be good idea.

> If I mean to murder you but my aim is off, or modern medical science manages to keep you from death, how is society better off exactly by keeping me in prison for a shorter time just because I wasn't successful?

Results surely must play some role. Let's imagine a world when tech is so advanced that murdering a person is really hard. Should all who attempt be punished same way as those that really put in the effort to get the job done?

Should a person be punished as if he murdered you if he was trying to kill you using voodoo magic or consciously trying to give you heart attack with insisting on you eating additional burgers?

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#56

Post by Asbostos »

What I've started to realize about people is that you can't influence them all with deterrents. No matter how long the sentence, or how permanent the memory of the justice system (8 months in prison for robbery, 50 years later), none of that is bad enough to actually stop people committing crimes in the first place. Essentially, people aren't rational. They don't act in their own self interests.

I saw this also when I was a teacher. No amount of detentions or removal from class would change the behavior of some students. Saying clever thing to them however, would. Many people respond more strongly to their animal instincts than to logic. You could trick a student into not distrupting class (eg offer them two choices and a minute to make a decision - they somehow forget they really have more choices), but for many, you couldn't incentivize them.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#57

Post by chillwaves »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #48
webo wrote: post #4

This man's experience and attitude towards life is amazing. Very inspiring. Props to him. 44 years is ridiculous amount of time for an assault when others are getting away with a few years for an actual murder or slavery. Don't prisons have common areas with TVs, radios, or magazines? It worries me that inmates don't have access to basic development as a human/society.

Who got a few years for murder?

Have you attempted to answer this question yourself?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-dui-case-deposition-tapes...

I'm sure there are many cases with people getting away with murder.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#58

Post by rl3 »

Asbostos wrote: post #56

What I've started to realize about people is that you can't influence them all with deterrents. No matter how long the sentence, or how permanent the memory of the justice system (8 months in prison for robbery, 50 years later), none of that is bad enough to actually stop people committing crimes in the first place. Essentially, people aren't rational. They don't act in their own self interests. I saw this also when…

>Essentially, people aren't rational.

To expand on this, people with proclivities towards committing serious crimes tend to be highly irrational.

Thus, employing a deterrent that relies upon the rationality of such individuals makes about as much sense as using a flamethrower to mow the lawn.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#59

Post by Theodores »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #45
newjersey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd still think the judge can and should be able to use discretion and allow concurrent sentences. Maybe the judge decided in this case that the sentences should not be concurrent. We don't know what judge had in their mind. I hate to go all PC (I swear I am not one of them) but I wonder whether mandatory sentencing isn't all bad. Perhaps mandatory sentencing is the most effective way to bring down sentencing rules a…

No jail time for non violent crime? I presume you've never been defrauded, burgled, etc.

Look at it from the other way around - if you were to enter someone else's property and steal, would you expect to be sent to prison for being caught? If yes, would that seem fair? I would say yes.

Would you expect to serve time for being caught riding a bicycle on a pavement? No. Otherwise would not seem fair, particularly if there were no warning signs...

The law is a system with predictable penalties if you a) don't live somewhere with utterly absurd laws and b) can put yourself in the shoes of the person doing such a crime and think about the expected outcome of getting caught.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#60

Post by avar »

scotty79 wrote: post #55
avar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not really addressing the grandparent's point. Why shouldn't you purely punish culpability and ignore outcomes? It's seems way more logical and everyone recognizes this on some level. If I shoot you purely by accident most people will agree that I shouldn't go to prison. It was an accident, I'm not a danger to society. If I mean to murder you but my aim is off, or modern medical science manages to keep you fro…

> If I shoot you purely by accident most people will agree that I shouldn't go to prison. It was an accident, I'm not a danger to society. That probably depends on how reckless you were. Stupidity combined with fondness for dangerous objects can be dangerous to society. Jail-time might be good idea. > If I mean to murder you but my aim is off, or modern medical science manages to keep you from death, how is society b…

    > That probably depends on how reckless you were.
Let's assume the most generous interpretation possible. I.e. one where I'm at no fault whatsoever by any reasonable definition and pose no future risk to society.

My point is that most people do recognize the importance of intent and future outcomes.

    > Results surely must play some role.
The more I think about it I don't think they should.

Why do we put people in prison at all? Revenge is not an actual reason, which is where outcomes would matter. Future deterrence and security is a good reason. Killing someone isn't primarily a crime against /them/, but a crime against society made up by people who'd like to not live their lives surrounded by likely murderers.

If that's the goal it makes no sense to say "oh he stabbed that guy, but missed the heart by an inch, that's OK then". No it isn't.

    > if he was trying to kill you using voodoo magic
Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd. I'm talking about cases where actual people actually want to kill you (successfully or not) and what we should actually be doing about that. Let's stay on topic and not bring up silly contrived scenarios.
Post reply on HN