|
Main Paineframe posted:And the fact that it's progress can't be minimized, since the court is moving to restrict the use of such punishments against juveniles at a rather quick pace - the Supreme Court only abolished the use of the death penalty against minors in 2005. This. There aren't many states that have LWOP as the only possible punishment, but this opinion continues to breathe life into proportionality review (if only for juveniles, at this point) and the understanding that death and LWOP is different.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, but only if they've committed murder. And the fact that it's progress can't be minimized, since the court is moving to restrict the use of such punishments against juveniles at a rather quick pace - the Supreme Court only abolished the use of the death penalty against minors in 2005. I would not be surprised if all JLWOP is deemed unconstitutional in 5 or so years, as long as Romney doesn't get to nominate the next supreme court justice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yeah so instead of sentencing them to life without parole, we can sentence them to life with the possibility of parole and then just never give it to them. Way to go!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, but only if they've committed murder. And the fact that it's progress can't be minimized, since the court is moving to restrict the use of such punishments against juveniles at a rather quick pace - the Supreme Court only abolished the use of the death penalty against minors in 2005. And they got rid of JLWOP for all non murder crimes last year. joat mon posted:This. There aren't many states that have LWOP as the only possible punishment, but this opinion continues to breathe life into proportionality review (if only for juveniles, at this point) and the understanding that death and LWOP is different. 29 states had LWOP as the mandatory option for kids who kill....thats not an insignificant number of states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:29 states had LWOP as the mandatory option for kids who kill....thats not an insignificant number of states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:
Sorry for resurrecting an older post, but something I wanted to add is that this is a symptom of how the law is written, and how precedents are set in the US. Simply put, the law does not exist to seek justice as it is written; it exists to serve as a procedural framework for the legal system to abide by as various individuals are processed through. This approach may have been appropriate in the 18th and even 19th centuries, before performance metrics and conviction rates were tracked as a meter of success for prosecutors, and before science and technology not only caught up but actually frog leaped over the legal system it is supposed to support, but today it is a fundamental issue with our legal and corrections systems. Basically, what it comes down to is that lawyers, judges, cops, prison officials, etc. aren't instructed on goals and guidelines, but instead are forced into a restrictive covenant that gives little (and diminishing) ability to exercise situational judgment. At the same time, years of PR and Wars on Whatever have demonized the accused to such an extent that it's become an Us vs. Them mentality - and not just between law enforcement and alleged criminals, but law enforcement and society at large. I know there have been some impressive walls of text written about the militarization of law enforcement already, but it bears repeating that it very much contributes to the current adversarial environment between law enforcement and just about every one else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
18 Year old sentenced to 162 years without the possibility of parole for first time conviction. His crime? Robbery. http://news.yahoo.com/insight-florida-man-sees-cruel-face-u-justice-050157061.html quote:In a statement issued the day after the sentencing, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Wifredo Ferrer hailed Davis's lock-up for life as sending an unmistakable warning to anyone seeking to profit from violent crime. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:18 Year old sentenced to 162 years without the possibility of parole for first time conviction. His crime? Robbery. I read the article Shimrra Jamaane. Although no one was injured, he and his accomplice conducted: quote:MIAMI (Reuters) - Quartavious Davis is still shocked by what happened to him in federal court two months ago. Did he realize that he was looking at decades behind bars when he was doing these strings of robberies/burglaries? Carrying a gun in the process. You do the crime, you do the time. Some people just don't learn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
The way the united states is going, if your really down on your luck, going to Jail might be better then the next best alternative. If the only way you have left to live is stealing stuff just to get by then you know your going to score big and move to mexico, or your going to jail. My only question on the whole thing is what do we do when it takes half our GDP to keep half our population locked up for life? Because we're going in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:I read the article Shimrra Jamaane. What exactly is an 18 year old going to learn with 100+ year jail sentence? To be a good person when he is 150 years old upon release? Young persons' brains are not as well developed as an adult. They act rashly without thinking of consequences. This is a major part of why we abolished LWOP sentences for juveniles. Besides some arbitrary age, what makes an 18 year old different than a 17 year old? What good exactly does this do over a 15 to life where if he grows the gently caress up and can be a honest citizen he gets out and if not he stays in? Oh and I picked that 15 to life because that is what he'd do for loving murder in my state, and nothing he did was worse (or as bad as) second degree murder. And that ignores the whole I have to help pay for housing this guy until he dies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:I read the article Shimrra Jamaane. Yes, because if it's according to the law, it must automatically be fair. Good to know that you base your sense of justice on the thinking of noted moral philosopher Judge Dredd. Jesus poo poo dude, locking someone up for life just because of robbery is as far from proportionate retribution as possible. What's so hard to understand about this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
nm posted:
It allows me to maintain an erection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:You do the crime, you do the time. Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:18 Year old sentenced to 162 years without the possibility of parole for first time conviction. His crime? Robbery while black. There we go, much more accurate.  So he's never ever getting out of jail, what incentive is there to be a "good" person ever again? Whether he's a perfect inmate or kills 5 people every week, he's never gonna get out. edit: \/ Once he converts, change his sentence to execution so he can get to heaven faster. 
RichieWolk fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:So he's never ever getting out of jail, what incentive is there to be a "good" person ever again? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
This verdict proves that if you commit a robbery in the US while black you have no reason not to attempt to kill every single police officer who attempts to arrest you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
I read that same news article just a bit ago, and one thing that struck me (and hasn't been commented on yet) is that the article makes it sound like a lot of the charges stuck based on the testimony of the other robbers (who have incentive to send one person up the river, probably aided by the prosecutors offering plea bargains and concurrent sentences). One of them provides the sole testimony that Davis pulled the trigger, and any witnesses can't say who exactly did. And good god, the comments section 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
nm posted:What good exactly does this do over a 15 to life where if he grows the gently caress up and can be a honest citizen he gets out and if not he stays in? Does anybody benefit materially from a sentence like that? Is this a case where the prosecutor might ask the judge to give that many years, because the DA wants to use it for a campaign ad? Or were they punishing him for refusing to cooperate? Or just giving him a ridiculous sentence out of pure racist hatefulness? It just seems kind of curious to single out this kid and calculate things so he gets a life sentence behind a few armed robberies. Maybe they threatened all of them with the full 160 years to get them to flip, and his partners gave it up, but he refused so they had to follow through so nobody would think they were making empty threats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Does anybody benefit materially from a sentence like that? Is this a case where the prosecutor might ask the judge to give that many years, because the DA wants to use it for a campaign ad? Or were they punishing him for refusing to cooperate? Or just giving him a ridiculous sentence out of pure racist hatefulness? It just seems kind of curious to single out this kid and calculate things so he gets a life sentence behind a few armed robberies. Maybe they threatened all of them with the full 160 years to get them to flip, and his partners gave it up, but he refused so they had to follow through so nobody would think they were making empty threats. Note that technically, you are not supposed to punish people for taking cases to trial. It is unconstitutional and unethical, however, this scheme means almost no one goes to trial, because if they're found guilty on everything they'll do more time. In this case, he was probably offered something that was still outrageous, like 50 years, by dismissing many of the counts. Because of the massive hammer, and everyone else rolling over, there was no reason to give a reasonable offer. The person who benefits is the AUSA who will have to do less work because the system basically forces anyone who wants to get out when they are still young to plea. nm fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
nm posted:What exactly is an 18 year old going to learn with 100+ year jail sentence? To be a good person when he is 150 years old upon release? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Lots of bizarre violent crimes involving murder, beatings to death and other things in my hometown. You do this, don't expect to get out for a long - hopefully never. What is the appropriate sentences for this person? 3 years? Too risky. 5 years? 10? 25? It sends a message. Do not do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yes, because if it's according to the law, it must automatically be fair. Good to know that you base your sense of justice on the thinking of noted moral philosopher Judge Dredd. What is hard to understand is that someone would do a string of armed robberies and even discharge a gun in Florida. Send a message. Don't commit armed robberies and shoot your gun. You will be punished if caught. Why does anyone even care about this thug?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:What is hard to understand is that someone would do a string of armed robberies and even discharge a gun in Florida.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:You will be punished if caught. Why does anyone even care about this thug? Because he's a human being.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:The line has to be drawn somewhere. Can someone please link one of the many studies that proves harsh penalties are in no way an effective deterrent to crime? Maybe even the ones showing that recidivism is related to the (lack of) rehabilitative services of prisons more than anything else?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hey dude, welcome to the 57 page prison thread (this is not the first prison thread). Maybe you should read more than half a page before posting your lovely uninformed opinions
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...l?frame=2261569 Look at the nice happy chain gang. Look at all the women's smiling faces. Isn't Arpaio wonderful? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
I will never understand the reasoning or motivation of someone who comes into the middle of a huge issue specific thread like this one, skips right to the last page and blurts out "Hey have you considered that If You Do The Crime You Do The Time?  "Like, wow. Yeah man. You just cracked the code and blew this discussion wide open. Absolutely nobody has thought of this except for you, the lonely voice of reason, just now. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. The emperor has no clothes and his junk is small.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:I will never understand the reasoning or motivation of someone who comes into the middle of a huge issue specific thread like this one, skips right to the last page and blurts out "Hey have you considered that If You Do The Crime You Do The Time? Ah, but have you considered deterrence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:The line has to be drawn somewhere. This is why nobody ever commits crimes that could result in the death penalty.  e: poo poo, we could eliminate crime altogether if we used the death penalty for everything!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:This is why nobody ever commits crimes that could result in the death penalty. Kant was right!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:What is hard to understand is that someone would do a string of armed robberies and even discharge a gun in Florida. The data shows deterrance doesn't work. What's generally very effective is treating criminals like mentally ill people - therapy and job training. What this country regards as 'soft on crime' works better to eliminate crime than 'tough on crime' policies. A simple example could be our 70% recidivism rate versus Norway's ~20+%. Our system converts 3 out of 10 criminals into normal citizens whereas theirs turns 8 out of 10. A large part of that is how criminals are handled; their prisons are like college dorms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Well you know, when I am committing crimes my first thought is "hey, this case I came across on the internet on some obscure blog/media outlet showed that some guy got sentenced to 156 years, maybe I shouldn't do that!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
It must be nice to have never made a mistake in one's life. Obviously, some are worse than others, and I don't think anyone would suggest an armed robber shouldn't be punished at all, but at the same time, why does society feel such a compelling need to dehumanize criminals? I think we've all done things we're not proud of, probably even things which were against the law, in full knowledge of the penalties. The penalties should be reasonable to the scale of the offense, and allow a person who is honestly remorseful for his actions to move beyond them after a point. I know I'm most likely preaching to the converted, but it's still infuriating that there is a need for this conversation at all. To all the people who disagree with me: think of the worst thing you've done in your life. Was it or could it have been illegal? Now think about how you'd feel if it cost you the rest of your life or a significant portion thereof because some vengeful, stupid assholes think it will act as a deterrent. People ought to be punished in relation to the severity of their crimes, and if you think anything but premeditated murder with no extenuating circumstances could possibly merit life imprisonment or death, you are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Well you know, when I am committing crimes my first thought is "hey, this case I came across on the internet on some obscure blog/media outlet showed that some guy got sentenced to 156 years, maybe I shouldn't do that!" I live in a state where shoplifters are routinely sent to prison for years (well, now county jail, but for years, not months), and we still have a rash of shoplifting. I don't think increased punishment will do it. What would do it is rising people out of the level of poverty that causes them to steal a toothbrush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
I think the entire thought process in this country has to change. The current idea is "i am a peaceful unique snowflake and everyone else is a bunch of horrific violent criminals that need to be locked up in cages." People don't see the thin line that exists between them and the wood chipper. Getting caught with weed while having a minor record can lead to a ludicrous prison sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
nm posted:The person who benefits is the AUSA who will have to do less work because the system basically forces anyone who wants to get out when they are still young to plea. Well, that and the judicial system. If every case, or even just a somewhat higher percentage, went to trial, the judicial system would be completely incapable of handling the load. A related link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/go-to-trial-crash-the-justice-system.html (I don't actually think the proposal is terribly realistic, but it's an interesting thought experiment, anyway.) Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jul 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Well, that and the judicial system. If every case, or even just a somewhat higher percentage, went to trial, the judicial system would be completely incapable of handling the load. Which is of course pretty indicative of the underlying problem with our justice/correctional system: if we are prosecuting so many people that it's logistically impossible to actually give them all a fair trial, we are probably prosecuting too goddamn many people. The reason of course being the whole self-propelled expansion of any bureaucratic system, especially one with terrible internal motivators (prosecutor win records, per-inmate rewards and the like for eardens), with an added helping of Drug War. I'm saying absolutely nothing that anyone who's actually read this thread doesn't already know, but sometimes stuff like these little details - that our judicial sustem is completely reliant on that ~95% plea bargain rate - really drives the whole hosed-up situation home in my mind. Incidentally, while I hate that there's so much ignorance and spite floating around the general population on this issue that it's really hard to tell the difference between ignorant/reprehensible people and trolls, Positive Optimyst is absolutely trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:What is hard to understand is that someone would do a string of armed robberies and even discharge a gun in Florida. Read the article and notice something; he was a very poor person from a lovely neighborhood and was living on outright meager payments from the government. Chances are, IF he got a job, it would be minimum wage with no hope of advancing, ever, and probably being treated not exactly well because he's a fat black guy. So we have a very poor person with lovely life prospects. He said he wanted to go to trade school. It's highly unlikely that he'd be able to do so without funding. Which, of course, means money. The economy is poo poo right now, unemployment is utterly rampant among the black, and people living in poverty find that college is pretty much impossible. Did it ever occur to you that he started crime because he literally had no other choice if he wanted to, you know, not starve to death slowly? Also consider that he was a teenager. As in, young and stupid. It probably seemed like a good idea. My guess is that he's just a regular dude put into a really, really lovely situation and got desperate. So, I ask, which would be better; putting him away for life and leaving him to rot, or giving him an opportunity for a life that doesn't involve guns and robbery? You're making the choice to turn him into a burden on society. Every prisoner needs fed, clothed, and cared for but don't necessarily produce anything. A bit of job training and, next thing you know, this guy could be a productive member of society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Did it ever occur to you that he started crime because he literally had no other choice if he wanted to, you know, not starve to death slowly? Also consider that he was a teenager. As in, young and stupid. It probably seemed like a good idea. My guess is that he's just a regular dude put into a really, really lovely situation and got desperate. And what about all the people that will possibly get fired for not stopping him? Sucks to be them, I guess. There's also the people that will eat the increased insurance premium costs, which will then get reflected by reduced wages and benefits for employees and so on and so forth. And there's also loss of business during which a building is being repaired, if any damage is caused during the robbery-- which again is lost wages to the employees. More people than just the guy who owns the building get hosed in a robbery. So frankly the whole "poor minority just tryin' to get ahead" argument is stupid. He's poor and down on his luck? Sucks to be him, but so are all the other people he hosed over by getting involved in this. Not saying the punishment isn't absurd but this specific argument is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
Wait, wait, so because his actions affected other people, the causes that led to them don't exist? What? That's completely inane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 23:49
|
|
