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

A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 513 posts

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#381

Post by enko »

anonymouz wrote: post #380
enko wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is attempted murder basically Oh come on. I've lost my license for what you'd call DUI - made a stupid decision to drive the 1.5km back home from a pub, got a 1 year ban and a hefty fine. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do and I deserve what I got, but attempted murder ? Don't be ridiculous. At most repeated DUI is criminal negligence, and negligence on the part of whomever supplied the offender with the vehicle…

> Life imprisonment is an amazingly harsh and expensive over-punishment for a stupid but usually non-malicious crime. Then again, death is an amazingly harsh and expensive punishment for an innocent who happens to get killed in a driving accident with somebody who's drunk... That said, attempted murder doesn't really fit. Attempted Manslaughter or something like criminal negligence (of the sort that endangers people'…

Like I replied to someone else, what do you do about all those innocents who get killed in a driving accident with someone who's not drunk?

That kind of ruins your simplistic little moral diorama, doesn't it?

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#382

Post by everyone »

I think the interesting discussion point here is this.. In the US the prison system is a huge, profitable and influential industry. As the pharma industry will encourage doctors to prescribe their medicines the prison industry will encourage and lobby the legal system to increase the amount of prisoners.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#383

Post by enko »

reginaldjcooper wrote: post #375
enko wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is attempted murder basically Oh come on. I've lost my license for what you'd call DUI - made a stupid decision to drive the 1.5km back home from a pub, got a 1 year ban and a hefty fine. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do and I deserve what I got, but attempted murder ? Don't be ridiculous. At most repeated DUI is criminal negligence, and negligence on the part of whomever supplied the offender with the vehicle…

It's not negligence because you are an active participant. But, ok, let's meet in the middle and call it attempted manslaughter because you had no mens rea . The goal of this idea is to encourage you to not attempt manslaughter with your vehicle, so if you were faced with life imprisonment perhaps you would think long and hard before you do it the third time.

I see what you're driving at (ha!), but "attempted manslaughter" is a contradiction in terms. Attempt implies intent; manslaughter is by definition without intent.

Look, I can see your point of view. There needs to be a deterrent, yes. Locking someone up and throwing away the key, though, should be reserved for only the most heinous offences. In my opinion, you should not be able to achieve that using only a six-pack, a car, and zero dead bodies.

There has got to be some other solution that doesn't utterly ruin the person's life, and the state's finances.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#384

Post by clarky07 »

unfamiliar wrote: post #278
clarky07 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing a job is traumatic. Enron though, wasn't about insider trading. Yes several of the guys at the top were charged with insider trading, but they were also charged with fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, bank fraud, making false statements to banks and auditors, securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, among other crimes. Insider trading, not the thing that caused trauma, and in f…

So despite listing all the extreme damage they did, you still think it is reasonable that they got "significant" prison terms and the guy who stole a wallet gets life?

Why does everyone keep minimizing this to stole a wallet? He did more than steal a wallet, and he did it repeatedly.

Finally, I've also said that life might be excessive, but significant jail time is reasonable.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#385

Post by silverbax88 »

enko wrote: post #349
reginaldjcooper wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple DUIs do deserve a severe punishment IMO, because that is attempted murder basically and they are a danger to the public. The rest I agree are ridiculous. Huffing drugs three times does not deserve permanent incarceration.

> that is attempted murder basically Oh come on. I've lost my license for what you'd call DUI - made a stupid decision to drive the 1.5km back home from a pub, got a 1 year ban and a hefty fine. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do and I deserve what I got, but attempted murder ? Don't be ridiculous. At most repeated DUI is criminal negligence, and negligence on the part of whomever supplied the offender with the vehicle…

I've got a massive 7 inch scar across my face from when a drunk driver plowed into our car when I was 8 years old. I had over 100 stitches in my head and my face was a criss cross of zipper scars for years. The only thing that saved my life was that I was reading a book when we were struck - the book literally saved my life by blocking the glass from slashing my throat.

So, yea, murder. That's how serious DUI (or texting behind the fucking wheel) is.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#386

Post by reginaldjcooper »

enko wrote: post #383
reginaldjcooper wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not negligence because you are an active participant. But, ok, let's meet in the middle and call it attempted manslaughter because you had no mens rea . The goal of this idea is to encourage you to not attempt manslaughter with your vehicle, so if you were faced with life imprisonment perhaps you would think long and hard before you do it the third time.

I see what you're driving at (ha!), but "attempted manslaughter" is a contradiction in terms. Attempt implies intent; manslaughter is by definition without intent. Look, I can see your point of view. There needs to be a deterrent, yes. Locking someone up and throwing away the key, though, should be reserved for only the most heinous offences. In my opinion, you should not be able to achieve that using only a six-pack…

"Attempted manslaughter" is an actual legal concept [0]. Gotta love the US legal system :)

I think DUI three times is particularly heinous. Maybe life in prison is excessive, but the third time you do it you are well aware that it is potentially lethal, and the punishment should be on the level of attempted manslaughter. If that gets you nailed with some three-strikes thing, I think your argument should be against the three-strikes aspect.

But my original point was to disagree that DUI is the same class of crime as drug use in general, since it's incredibly dangerous for the other members of the public.

[0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1113

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#387

Post by kbenson »

x0054 wrote: post #289
joyeuse6701 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criticism of government has it's limits. Snowden is questionable because what he said was not public knowledge and had crippling negative effects towards security of the state, but say, expressing your criticism of government by blowing up a federal building...

So releasing documents that prove that US Government is knowingly violating its citizens constitutional rights is equivalent in your mind to killing a lot of people with an explosive?

It's called a juxtaposition because the items presented are different and meant to be contrasted.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#388

Post by clarky07 »

collyw wrote: post #287
clarky07 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing a job is traumatic. Enron though, wasn't about insider trading. Yes several of the guys at the top were charged with insider trading, but they were also charged with fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, bank fraud, making false statements to banks and auditors, securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, among other crimes. Insider trading, not the thing that caused trauma, and in f…

It is still fairly naive to think that it is traumatic to no one.

You just suggested that Enron was insider trading so I don't think you have a great handle on what insider trading is. It is not traumatic for someone to enter into a stock trade that they are planning to make. The fact that the person on the other end might know more than you is a fact of life for every stock trade ever made. There are prominent economists that think we should let people insider trade. It is a victimless crime.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#389

Post by enko »

heynk wrote: post #372
enko wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Buy all the trinkets and crap off the swarming children Oh FFS, don't do that, it just encourages them to treat visiting whiteys as walking ATMs, which is bad for their tourism industry long-term. Stay at hotels, eat at restaurants, take taxis, but don't encourage the obnoxious hawkers, no matter how young they are.

Would you advocate for the same 'top-down' approach to stimulating the economy in the US or another developed country? I think the concept of 'hawkers' could be easily applied to startups. Do you believe a good consumer should be supporting big corporations or fledgling startups? I'm just genuinely curious of your position and if you think the analogy applies in the first world.

I am not so sure it is such a good analogy. The "business model" of these hawkers in third world countries like Cambodia or Laos is to explicitly present themselves as impoverished, and then pressure or guilt-trip you into buying something from them as a gesture of charity. The OP seemed to encourage such behaviour, even admitted it was "crap" they were selling (it is).

I'd suggest that any startup worth its salt is actually offering something of real value, not explicitly a charity case, so the analogy completely breaks down. I fully support encouraging the startup ecosystem.

And I'm not even sure about using a term like "top down". Hotels really do employ locals, as do restaurants, and by patronising them you send a strong signal of support to the local tourism industry. With that assurance they can make plans, invest, advertise, expand. It's not about making the rich richer, not at all. Giving a small regional tourism industry the confidence to plan for the future is a wonderful thing.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#390

Post by dror »

rayiner wrote: post #355
michaelt wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be less biased to show statistics for the kind of people sentenced under the three strikes law, but that wouldn't tug the heart strings as much. Perhaps we could aspire to have a law that works right in outlier cases, not just on average?

One of the most basic principles of system design is that there will be edge cases. Every engineer knows that. In a country with 300 million people, enough will fall into these edge cases for the ACLU to put together a pamphlet with a few examples. That's inevitable. That said, with three strikes laws, you don't need to resort to sob stories. The statistics are evidence enough: about half of three strikers in Califor…

No, that's not inevitable. That's why judges should have discretion. They can look at the outliers and figure out the circumstances during sentencing.
Post reply on HN