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

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#51

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

wespiser_2018 wrote: post #21
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…

For the Norway example, that offender is being held in solitary confinement in very harsh conditions, and it's very likely his sentence will be extended indefinitely. It's not a good example of a more human criminal justice outcome, considering how harmful we know the effects of solitary confinement to be on mental health of those held.

Harsh conditions?

He is kept away from other prisoners because they would kill him. The state even pays people to keep him company.

Yes it looks like his sentence will be extended indefinitely - but that is up to him last I heard he still wants a race war.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#52

Post by epx »

superflit wrote: post #26

I think they should do as the laws in Brazil. In Brazil, It is not allowed to give sentences for more than 30 years, and if the prisoner has good behavior, he is out in 1/6 of his sentence. And still, if he is not caught in 24h, was his first murder and has a job he may wait for the final judgment outside prison (after all appeals). Brazil is big, multi-diverse and is very nice. The Brazilian penal code is the most h…

You are being ironic, right?

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#53

Post by nate_meurer »

xenophonf wrote: post #31
nate_meurer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive?

Who gives a shit what his motivation was? The legal system sure doesn't. The effect of his refusal to testify was that the killer could not be brought to justice. His participation in the attack and his refusal to cooperate after the man's death makes him morally and legally culpable in that death. This is not controversial in any modern legal jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

> 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.

You appear to be confusing this issue with our Fifth Amendment indemnity against self-incrimination. Mr. Fennell was not examined as a witness, but rather as a defendant. If you refuse to testify against an accomplice, and you expect to be somehow protected from a charge of accessory-after-the-fact, you're in for a rude surprise.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#54

Post by coldtea »

rayiner wrote: post #16
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…

Right. Homicide rate in the UK went up significantly after hangings were abolished: https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-wa... . Europe had much lower homicide rates before criminal justice reforms. Arguably, the causation runs the other way. Europeans were willing to have more lenient sentences because homicides were less of a pervasive problem.

>Right. Homicide rate in the UK went up significantly after hangings were abolished

Only slowly (following a trend that was there before 1964 - heck, 1053 with the death penalty is higher than 1965 to 1968 without it), then had a sudden jump around mid-90s and a peak in 2002 (35 to 40 years after the abolishment for that to be a factor).

Note also, as the article itself notes, that the measurements were diluted, for example after 1972 "the crimes of murder, manslaughter and infanticide" where lumped into homicides, and that before 1998 they counted multiple murder cases as a single homicide incident.

On top of that, the rate is low enough to be diluted by cases like "58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK" in 2001, "173 victims of Dr Harold Shipman" in 2013, "52 victims of the 7 July London bombings" in 2006, and so on.

Even with such over-reporting, meanwhile, the whole time, the rate was so far below the US (who had the death penalty the whole time) even at its peak, that it hardly makes the case:

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

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#55

Post by coldtea »

deogeo wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>I bet you apply this very selectively

Yes, I apply it to organized societies and legal systems, who one would expect to have higher standards than criminals and/or juveniles.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#56

Post by Tomte »

mieseratte wrote: post #40
Tomte wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of them? The parole boards recommend, the governor decides.

That was a point in a decision by the German Federal Constitution Court in an extradition case.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#57

Post by coldtea »

rayiner wrote: post #44
coldtea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>The idea that gun control and lenient criminal laws caused lower homicide rates in Europe contradicts all the available data

Does it? Check this graph of historical rates in Europe going back to 1300 and covering the whole 20th century:

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

It was much worse in the past -- and even before the abolishment of the death penalty the drop are related to a more lenient system (e.g. check France during Les Miserables times, or England and Dickensian conditions), plus increased prosperity of course.

Now go to the "Global long run perspective" and click to add United States. Historically worse than Europe (measurements start from 1900 but not so complete then).

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#58

Post by coldtea »

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.

You don't? To me it sounds like the epitome of legal absurdity.

So, if 3 teenagers decided to steal a car and have a joyride (sure, a stupid and criminal decision, but tons have done it with nobody being hurt), and while trying to do so, the owner comes, and one of the teenagers kills him in the altercation, that means all 3 are "equally guilty"?

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#59

Post by gumby »

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.…

This I corollary to the plea bargaining system in the US (make a confession in exchange for a lighter sentence than you'd get if you went to trial) which is illegal and considered a human rights violation in most other countries.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#60

Post by DanBC »

coldtea wrote: post #58
x0x0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. You don't? To me it sounds like the epitome of legal absurdity. So, if 3 teenagers decided to steal a car and have a joyride (sure, a stupid and criminal decision, but tons have done it with nobody being hurt), and while trying to do so, the owner com…

Joint Enterprise is usually unjust.

But you can see in your example if one of the teenagers holds the man down and another one stabs him that maybe they both killed him, even if only one of them used the knife?

This UK radio programme talks about some of the miscarriages of justice caused by "joint enterprise" verdicts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d44rm

Post reply on HN