61–70 of 130 posts
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.
44 years for attempted murder of a police officer, I guess with such a benchmark the next police officer murdering a civilian will be sentenced to at least double that given that they're supposed to set an example. Incredible. What standard of sentencing would essentially take someone's life away for an attempt . Makes you wonder how big a sentence you'd get if you succeeded, more than a lifetime?
If someone attempted to murder you, what do you think would be a suitable punishment for that person? Honest question. If they were in jail for a short amount of time you'd probably be a bit worried that they would come find you after and finish the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the possibility that the reporting might be inaccurate. Did he shoot harmlessly in the air during a robbery, and then get 44 years for "attempted murder" because he's black? Or did he leave a police officer in a coma for life after torturing him for days? Or did he get 8 years for attempted murder and then commit additional crimes while in prison? We don't have enough information to know.
Actually, I think we do have enough information to know. Read it again, paying attention to the dates and ages. The shop lifting offense occurred 8 years before the attempted murder. Tacking an extra 8 months onto a 44 year sentence, for a minor crime committed 8 years earlier is just vindictive.
I don't think it's vindictive to have a fixed sentence for a crime, shop-lifting say, and apply that to all shop-lifters who are convicted regardless of any other crimes they may also have committed and been convicted for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. One answer is that manslaughter is already a special case, as it doesn't require intent to kill anyway, only negligence.
Crimes requiring some mental state other than specific intent are fairly common, not a special case (note that this includes murder of the depraved indifference sort.)
My understanding is that logically there's that basic framework of required specific intent, then there are a few crimes that allow prosecuting for negligence, then very few crimes with strict liability.
I'm originally not from US so I'm probably still getting used that the latter two categories are quite common in US law (and that strict liability is even possible).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I think we do have enough information to know. Read it again, paying attention to the dates and ages. The shop lifting offense occurred 8 years before the attempted murder. Tacking an extra 8 months onto a 44 year sentence, for a minor crime committed 8 years earlier is just vindictive.
Is it just not to punish one offender for a crime just because they committed additional crimes whilst nonetheless punishing another offender for that same crime? I don't think it's vindictive to have a fixed sentence for a crime, shop-lifting say, and apply that to all shop-lifters who are convicted regardless of any other crimes they may also have committed and been convicted for.
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…
To prove a moral equivalence between 'murder' and 'attempted murder' the law should have to prove that person A tried to kill person B and failed, and then also prove that they would've repeated their attempts until success if they hadn't been stopped by law enforcement ...
If I try to murder you, fail, and then stop trying to murder you, I've inherently done something 'less' than if I had succeeded in murdering you.
This would also avoid creating a legal incentive for Person B to take extra action to complete a failed murder attempt which they might otherwise not take. If the punishments for murder and attempted murder are equivalent, then a criminal should never stop until the victim is dead once reaching the point of 'attempting' murder -- the not-dead person can testify against them making it (in general) far easier for the law to successfully convict than it would be if the victim had died ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I think someone pointing a gun at you and threatening your life is a big difference. Don't you?
But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him.
If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What would you suggest then as a punishment?