A Prison Lifer Comes Home • Hacker News Board

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#31

Post by xenophonf » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #18

coldtea wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this common in western countries, or one of those "only in the US and/or some third world country" things, like the "three-strikes" and the "death penalty" (even for juveniles) laws?

In this case, Mr Fennell watched a man get attacked, did nothing to help the man and even actively participated in the attack, and when the man died, Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. I don't think it's a stretch, ethically or legally, to assign him significant blame for the killing, especially since his refusal to testify deprived his victims of any further justice. That doesn't mean…

Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify.

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive? Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#32

Post by e12e » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

awillen wrote: post #8

coldtea wrote: post #3

> Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"? What kind of medieval backwater has such laws? And how is that working out for them? [1] Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juve…

The Norway example is misleading for people who are primarily familiar with US sentencing. Twenty one years is the maximum sentence one can be given initially, but it can be extended five years at a time at the end of the sentence. There are no limits on the number of five year extensions, so a twenty one year sentence can effectively be a life sentence. It's basically equivalent to a US sentence of life in prison wi…

Recent changes means the new max is 30, with a possible mandatory 20 years served. The 5 year indefinite extension remains (but as far as I understand extensions are not intended as punishment - rather as a way to protect society in the face of a real risk of the prisoner committing new, serious crimes on release).

As I recall there is some newfangled stuff about "terrorism" on the books - but the change was apparently mostly motivated by the NOKAS-robbers possibly being released earlier under the new "forvaring" (containment?) system than under the previous 21 year "life sentencing". (they'd be given a max of 10 year mandatory imprisonment even with a 21 year sentence).

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#33

Post by miracle2k » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #24

coldtea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it will also be far more common to be actually released at the default (or close). Heck, "real" life sentences in the US are handed out as peanuts... Also no death penalty. Plus much much nicer prison terms (very human hotel-like prisons, permission to study, no solitary crap as punishment, very low recidivism rates, prisoners can take leaves -like "vacations" and come back, etc).

Do you think your example is going to get released after 21 years? Because that's what they were pointing out, that your example was an extreme and likely not to receive the common treatment.

If the system in Norway releases based on someone being a continued threat to society, which is the case if I understand it correctly, the government will probably have to make an argument to that effect, and it strikes me as very possible they might lose that argument at some point.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#34

Post by candiodari » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…

> Rather, my problem is the attempt to draw lines between more or less egregious conduct that don’t make any sense. Someone who along with three other young men tries to rob and ends up killing a man is among the most dangerous and culpable of criminals. Such premeditated group violence is the greatest threat to social order. Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable.

Welcome to moral systems, like the law. None of them make much sense at all (even though they're necessary), but laws are particularly bad. Laws + governments saving money are a recipe for total disaster.

But mostly the poor and socially weak are victimized so nobody cares. And of course, whether it's a third world dictatorship or a modern "european democracy" as if that's an ideal: the state protects it's own enforcers. Even when they shoot a slowly moving van that refused to stop for border patrol, then refuse to bring a 2 year old they shot that was dying to the hospital for 20 minutes, their parents in chains (totally not to avoid responsibility, not at all), and then when the child went unresponsive, tried to free everyone they arrested (again, this had totally nothing to do with attempting to avoid responsibility) ...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/may/25/b...

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#35

Post by bsanr2 » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #3

> Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"? What kind of medieval backwater has such laws? And how is that working out for them? [1] Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juve…

Every seemingly irrational law or socioeconomic convention that you may find in the US can ultimately be tied causally to the bleeding of contempt for people of color into the design process. It short circuits our logical faculties and results in policy that is as cruel as possible, limited only by the extent to which it is perceived that such policy may affect white Americans and the mandate that said policies be at least nominally race-neutral (though this is only a recent development, itself only predicated on the obvious and embarrassing effects its absence has had on our economic well-being, both internally and globally).

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#36

Post by mieseratte » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:52 PM UTC

craigsmansion wrote: post #15

rayiner wrote: post #2

The article leaves out some facts. While Fennell’s participation in the attack (at the age of 17) was sufficient to convict him for murder, regardless of who ultimately delivered the killing blow, the jury may not have convicted him for murder (or a judge may have later commuted his sentence) had he testified against the man who directly killed the victim: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=19706704&fcfTo.…

> Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable. Yes it does. Boys do strange things, boys in groups do stranger things, like not testifying against each other, especially if they feel society has abandoned them and the world is against them. Normal societies are set up to deal with that or prevent it. Fix your bloody society.

You’re making an awfully large assumption, that “society failed them” as if that is the reason.

Society has failed me in more ways than I care to count, I don’t go about killing.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#37

Post by hogFeast » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

I don't understand how these people are supposed to re-integrate.

You commit a crime...cool, we are going to send you to a boarding school for criminals, where you are subjected to a ton of violent behaviour, that is heavily structured and limiting on your freedom...and in twenty years (or whatever), you are going to come out and be expected to be like everyone else...okay...

It would be interesting to ask how the behaviour of those who work in these institutions is effected by this environment...if this is the case then it is clearly non-rational to believe that people in that environment 24/7 are going to be fine after they come out.

(I don't have a solution to this either...just a chimp throwing peanuts from the gallery).

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#38

Post by bsanr2 » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

ljm wrote: post #27

craigsmansion wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being 17 or acting as part of a group don’t make you less culpable. Yes it does. Boys do strange things, boys in groups do stranger things, like not testifying against each other, especially if they feel society has abandoned them and the world is against them. Normal societies are set up to deal with that or prevent it. Fix your bloody society.

I would agree more if this didn’t sound like a ‘boys will be boys’ defence. If you want to fix society you also have to leave that kind of belief in the past. In this case, the guy is also black. The article avoids the racial aspect and focusses on other circumstances, but American society has never been favourable to black folk.

It's a biological fact that's recognized in our having a separate system for juvenile and adult defendants. We can't leave it behind, it would be cruel and unusual.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#39

Post by mieseratte » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #11

coldtea wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when you refuse to testify that someone else did the murder, you become the murderer in that system?

Should you get less of a sentence because you testify?

Highly dependent upon context, I suppose. If you came forward to break an otherwise improbable or cold case, I could imagine that would warrant consideration.

Of course someone could sing to save their skin, and in doing so lie.

It’s a balance of incentives, I suppose? This is why we have a human system of law, not an algorithm.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#40

Post by mieseratte » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #14

awillen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Norway example is misleading for people who are primarily familiar with US sentencing. Twenty one years is the maximum sentence one can be given initially, but it can be extended five years at a time at the end of the sentence. There are no limits on the number of five year extensions, so a twenty one year sentence can effectively be a life sentence. It's basically equivalent to a US sentence of life in prison wi…

I'd expect Norway to let the judiciary decide whether someone is a still a threat and needs to stay in prison. In America, it's governors who ultimately decide, and a politician has vastly skewed incentives.

In what state(s) do governors decide parole? Typical parole boards exist for this purpose.