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

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#81

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

7952 wrote: post #62
rayiner wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Europe had quite a serious gun violence problem betweens 1939 and 1945. I wonder if that helped create a more reticant culture around firearms.

1914-1918 was worse.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#82

Post by without_words »

A confession from one redditor:

I was sentenced to 3 years with 2 suspended at the North Dakota State Penitentiary. I sold a quarter pound of ganja to an undercover after an informant introduced me to him. Mind you now, think of a quarter pounder cheeseburger patty. It's not THAT much. I was in my third year of college at UND for pre-health sciences. I went to prison and it threw a wrench in the machine that is my life. Now let me tell you the best way I can: Some guys are gay for the stay as they say. For the most part, RAPE is very rare. Unless your in a federal prison. Then duct tape your buttcheeks. I compare prison to being in detention. Except in this detention, imagine the WORST, I mean the BIGGEST problem child from your memories in school. Now, briefly imagine the number of schools in your state. Imagine that number of problem people. Now, the detention lasts 24/7. And they are all in a cage together. Like a problem child / man zoo. I thought I'd go to prison meeting good guys who made bad choices like me. What I learned is that there are an obnoxious amount of BAD MEN. They are chronic liars and they are VERY selfish. They are bad because they care nothing for anyone but themselves, and yet they all feel sorry for themselves. I hope none of you fine folks have to find out what the experience is like.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#83

Post by timlod »

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…

If you read your second reference, you will find that it states that the decline in homicides is not due to Bolsonaro (it started before he got into office) - in fact, it states that certain types of murder have had increased rates.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#84

Post by coldtea »

tptacek wrote: post #69
coldtea wrote: post #58

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. 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…

There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with. In California, the rule applies only to participants in the actual killing, unless the victim was a police officer. In Illinois, any killing that results from the commission of a violent ("forcible") crime is attributable to all the participants of the crime, on the theory that th…

>There are different felony murder rules in different jurisdictions, so you'll have to be specific about the rule you're taking issue with.

I'm taking issue with the "equally guilty" the grandparent mentioned - so whatever jurisdiction does that.

I didn't start complaining about some specific jurisdiction, but about the general idea (as mentioned in the grandparent comment) that there are laws that deem people in such cases "equally guilty".

In fact, even the "tamer" California example you gave is already what I characterized as an absurdity (as all 3 kids in my example would be "participants in the actual killing", even though only one did the actual killing - and the others might never had done it or had time to prevent it, they just wanted to commit the initial act (e.g. the joyride).

The Illinois example takes it to even further levels of absurdity, if "is attributable to all the participants of the crime" (so e.g. even someone who gave them the details of the car to steal for the joyride, but wasn't even present in the murder. "on the theory that the criminals could have foreseen that their crime would ultimately require them to kill someone" -- is some "butterfly effect" level legal conception for such cases...

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#85

Post by coldtea »

DanBC wrote: post #60
coldtea wrote: post #58

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. 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

>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?

Of course, that would be understandable. And I don't think that would need the "joint enterprise" construct to be tried as both being murderers in most legal systems.

The unjust concern is for the people who weren't such active participants in the act of murder (or called for it), but just on the "initial" crime.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#86

Post by coldtea »

rayiner wrote: post #78
coldtea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don’t see how that helps your argument. Gun control and leniency on criminal issues are a 20th century reform in Europe. England imposed the death penalty for pickpocketing until 1808. And prior to 1920, you could buy guns at the store with cash in the UK. Gun control didn’t exist in France until 1938. Yet the homicide rate of the UK was lower than it is today, and 1/7 of what it was in the US at the time. By 1800,…

>And prior to 1920, you could buy guns at the store with cash in the UK. Gun control didn’t exist in France until 1938. Yet the homicide rate of the UK was lower than it is today

According to the graph it wasn't. It was 0.8 and higher between 1900 and 1960, 0.7 in 1962, had a rise in the 70s and 80s, and is historically smaller than 1900-1960 today at 0.5 (since 2012 or so) while still not having the death penalty.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#87

Post by superflit »

epx wrote: post #52
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?

Sure I was!!

But we always have some "activists" that take some "edge" case and try to stretch it to all cases.

We have to focus on the real victims not on people that ganged and killed someone cold blood.

Re: A Prison Lifer Comes Home

#88

Post by rayiner »

coldtea wrote: post #86
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how that helps your argument. Gun control and leniency on criminal issues are a 20th century reform in Europe. England imposed the death penalty for pickpocketing until 1808. And prior to 1920, you could buy guns at the store with cash in the UK. Gun control didn’t exist in France until 1938. Yet the homicide rate of the UK was lower than it is today, and 1/7 of what it was in the US at the time. By 1800,…

> And prior to 1920, you could buy guns at the store with cash in the UK. Gun control didn’t exist in France until 1938. Yet the homicide rate of the UK was lower than it is today According to the graph it wasn't. It was 0.8 and higher between 1900 and 1960, 0.7 in 1962, had a rise in the 70s and 80s, and is historically smaller than 1900-1960 today at 0.5 (since 2012 or so) while still not having the death penalty.

Which chart are you looking at? The fifth chart in the page shows the homicide rate of England at under 1 per 100k in 1900, and over that from 1990-2010. World Bank data says 1 per 100k in 2017, and there has been a spike in the UK last couple of years. 0.5 in this decade is almost certainly incorrect.

If your point now is that the murder rate didn’t go up after getting rid of the death penalty, that’s probably true, but a different argument than you made previously. (We should keep the death penalty because some people deserve to be executed for their crimes. But death penalty versus life in prison probably doesn’t serve as a deterrent effect that would lower the homicide rate. It’s a moral rather than utilitarian policy.)

Post reply on HN