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

A Prison Lifer Comes Home

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#41

Post by bsanr2 »

x0x0 wrote: post #20
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?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty. Obviously there is a question of proximity, but under Fennell's (presumably charitable) telling of events, he assaulted a man then returned with a co-conspirator; when the victim attempted to defend himself, Fennell threw a bottle at him and watched as…

>I don't think it's unreasonable to say all participants in a crime that leads to a murder, even if the participant didn't personally kill someone, are equally guilty.

I do. A murder verdict requires action, effect, and malice. How can you prove murderous intent if the defendant didn't personally deliver a lethal blow? His actions might not have intended death. We punish different degrees of homicide differently because they presume differing threats to society.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#42

Post by eMSF »

DenisM wrote: post #17
throwawaysea wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if your post was being sarcastic or sincere. It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here. That’s not medieval or inhumane, it’s appropriate and common sense. The relation you imply between laws, sentencing, and crime rate…

You are assuming that having killed once he is more likely to kill again. Depending on the person this may not be true. A psychopath will likely kill again and so should be locked for good. OTOH someone who was not a psychopath and took this chance to rethink his life choices might be about as harmless as the next guy. Before you say "we can't tell one form the other" let me say this: we cannot tell if we never look.…

>took this chance to rethink his life choices

Someone else in this equation didn't get to think their life choices, maybe for no fault of their own, because they're dead.

So, how long should you be in for a murder? 30 years? 20? 10? 5? If punishment really got nothing to do with it at all, and the perpetrator is really, really ashamed from just the trial and conviction, why not let them go after that?

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#43

Post by acdanger »

mieseratte wrote: post #36
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.

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.

The fact that you don't go about killing seems to be a pretty good indicator that society has benefited you in at least one substantial manner.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#44

Post by rayiner »

coldtea wrote: post #25
throwawaysea wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if your post was being sarcastic or sincere. It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here. That’s not medieval or inhumane, it’s appropriate and common sense. The relation you imply between laws, sentencing, and crime rate…

> It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here Well, not all cultures on Earth, especially western ones, share the above revenge-motivated old-testament-style viewpoint on the law. Perhaps that's why they manage to have less crime, les…

> In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members).

Which way does the causation run, for both?

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in...

During the 20th century the US homicide rate fluctuated from 5-10 per 100,000. In Germany, France, Sweden, and England, it was below 2.5 the entire century.

Focus on France and the UK (since Germany and Italy were unstable states during part of that time). In France, the first gun laws date to 1938. By that time, France’s homicide rate was about 1 per 100k, about what it is today. The first UK gun laws started in 1920. The UK murder rate has gone up since that time. (Handguns, which are responsible for most US gun homicides, weren’t banned in England until 1997.)

How did gun control cause low homicide rates in those countries when homicide rates were already very low (at current levels or even lower) before gun control? That’s an “umbrellas cause rain” argument.

Likewise, the death penalty wasn’t eliminated in the UK until the 1950s. Criminal justice reform in Europe generally happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

How did criminal justice reform cause European homicide rates to be lower when they were already very low?

The idea that gun control and lenient criminal laws caused lower homicide rates in Europe contradicts all the available data. The only supportable conclusion is the opposite: that Americans remain resistant to lenient criminal justice laws or disarmament because America is a much more violent society.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#45

Post by ljm »

bsanr2 wrote: post #38
ljm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s more like kids being kids. Boys will be boys is a heavier loaded version and is often used by parents and adults to excuse bad behaviour (or bad parenting).

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#46

Post by Stratoscope »

> His $830 a month included a few hundred in Supplemental Security, but he mostly relied on close to $600 in Social Security spousal benefits, thanks to Bernadette’s years in the workforce. He said he’s offered to refund her a portion of that, but she declined.

It's generous of him to offer to give her part of his spousal benefits, but the word "refund" makes me wonder if there is some confusion over how spousal benefits work. They aren't taken from the other spouse; their benefit remains unchanged.

A somewhat simplified explanation: if one spouse (or ex-spouse in some cases) is receiving more than twice the Social Security benefit of the other, the one with a smaller benefit gets theirs "topped off" to be half of the other's benefit.

It this case Bernadette may be receiving $1660/month in benefits. Haywood's benefit of several hundred dollars is increased to half of that, or $830. Bernadette still gets her full $1660.

There are various requirements and conditions that may change this amount; I'm assuming both spouses are of full retirement age.

Anyone receiving or about to receive Social Security benefits where one spouse earned significantly more than the other would do well to look into this.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying6.html

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#47

Post by Filligree »

miracle2k wrote: post #33
maxerickson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hope he'll change, but even if he doesn't, he's sure to be released once he's too old and physically broken down to be a threat.

That's effectively life, though.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#48

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

coldtea wrote: post #12
DenisM wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a [felony], the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder. Which is to say, he was guilty from the get-go.

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?

The UK (England and Wales at least) have a concept called joint enterprise which is similar.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#49

Post by deogeo »

coldtea wrote: post #25
throwawaysea wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if your post was being sarcastic or sincere. It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here. That’s not medieval or inhumane, it’s appropriate and common sense. The relation you imply between laws, sentencing, and crime rate…

> It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here Well, not all cultures on Earth, especially western ones, share the above revenge-motivated old-testament-style viewpoint on the law. Perhaps that's why they manage to have less crime, les…

> In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow.

I bet you apply this very selectively.

> Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members).

You would not want mandatory monitoring collars, sacrificing privacy to massively reduce the homicide rate, would you? We are willing to bear substantial risks to preserve our rights - I would argue it comes from an intuitive understanding of how dangerous it is to be powerless. So why not apply that same logic to gun rights?

There is more to the question than 'Would fewer people die' - after all, if that is all you consider, then monitoring collars would get an unreserved 'Yes!'.

This same logic could get that kid a milder sentence - give him a punishment more just considering his age and role in the crime (subjective, I know I know), despite the risk to "law-abiding free citizens" that he kills again.

If you're not willing to risk death, your own and that of others, to protect your rights, then you will have none.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#50

Post by eternalny1 »

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.…

I agree with everything you said, but I am amazed I've never seen "newspapers.com" before today.

That is a great idea. Archive old newspapers and let people link to clips. Brilliant.

Post reply on HN