|
"Sentences are unfair" does not mean "this prisoner's sentence is unfair " Whatever the gently caress fair means.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
twodot posted:While I agree they are related, it's simply not practical to simultaneously talk about national statistics and sentencing guidelines which are specific to a crime and a jurisdiction. Maybe you can say "US sentences are, in general, too long", but this doesn't actually tell you how to fix the problem, or even what the real problem is, you need to look at the books at each state and federally, and figure out which individual laws are bad, and by the time you get there, I think it's reasonable to start talking about individual cases. There are certain aspects that are widespread, if not universal - Mandatory minimums and 3 strikes laws, for example. New York's repeal of those laws has lead to a drastic decrease in their prison population, just looking at the abstract.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are certain aspects that are widespread, if not universal - Mandatory minimums and 3 strikes laws, for example. New York's repeal of those laws has lead to a drastic decrease in their prison population, just looking at the abstract. edit: The automatic upgrades for gun possession might be something people would argue over. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are certain aspects that are widespread, if not universal - Mandatory minimums and 3 strikes laws, for example. New York's repeal of those laws has lead to a drastic decrease in their prison population, just looking at the abstract. Nope see its your responsibility to caveat each individual exception to three strike laws or else a kindly and informative poster will choose to focus entirely on your "mistake" or including a state that doesn't have three strikes, rather than discussing or debating your larger point at hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, discussing "people" in the abstract is beyond worthless. Every single state in the union has a lot more people in detention per capita than every other first-world nation in the world. This is a nationwide problem in the US, probably related to the drug war and the general popularity of "tough on crime." It's not as bad in some states as it is in others, but it's unacceptable in all of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"Sentences are unfair" does not mean "this prisoner's sentence is unfair " Replace "fair" with "conducive to desirable social outcomes."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sure, but is there anyone here willing to defend either of those practices? (edit: That isn't an obvious troll) There are a lot of reasons to hate mandatory minimums. Everyone thinks they will get the minimum. They won't. So they reject pleas that would have been in their best interest, get slammed and then file the appeals and habeas petitions that keep me employed. A sentence review board to make sure you don't have rogue judges is a better oversight. I'm generally a fan of giving judges discretion...but we have really good appointed judges. Case in point, manslaughter case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Every single state in the union has a lot more people in detention per capita than every other first-world nation in the world. This is a nationwide problem in the US, probably related to the drug war and the general popularity of "tough on crime." And we also demonize convicts to the point of denying them rights (2.5% of all Americans of voting age, or 7.7% of all blacks of voting age, are disenfranchised due to a current or past felony conviction) and criminal history is often considered a legitimate reason to not hire or associate with someone. This inevitably results in the US having a recidivism rate as high as 60% on average, increasing 70% or higher for theft-related crimes. There's little focus on rehabilitation and it often feels like American society is geared toward treating criminals as inherently broken or bad, rather than someone who's made a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:And we also demonize convicts to the point of denying them rights (2.5% of all Americans of voting age, or 7.7% of all blacks of voting age, are disenfranchised due to a current or past felony conviction) and criminal history is often considered a legitimate reason to not hire or associate with someone. This inevitably results in the US having a recidivism rate as high as 60% on average, increasing 70% or higher for theft-related crimes. There's little focus on rehabilitation and it often feels like American society is geared toward treating criminals as inherently broken or bad, rather than someone who's made a mistake. "Mistake" is not the correct word for your example. Larceny is a specific intent crime. You don't commit larceny by accident. "Person who made poor decisions" is more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"Mistake" is not the correct word for your example. Larceny is a specific intent crime. You don't commit larceny by accident. Of all the things to nitpick. When people regret things they did intentionally in the past, they often refer to it as a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"Mistake" is not the correct word for your example. Larceny is a specific intent crime. You don't commit larceny by accident. This is equivocating. You know full well, as a speaker of English, that "made a mistake" is frequently used to mean "made a bad choice that is bad but not super-bad".
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:Of all the things to nitpick. When people regret things they did intentionally in the past, they often refer to it as a mistake. But it's not. And referring to it as "a mistake" is a way to deflect responsibility (e.g. Reagan "mistakes were made") if you are still deflecting responsibility it weighs against successful rehabilitation. And complaining people aren't being treated like "someone who made a mistake" when the in fact did not make a mistake, but engaged in deliberate conduct (eg larceny) is problematic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:This is equivocating. You know full well, as a speaker of English, that "made a mistake" is frequently used to mean "made a bad choice that is bad but not super-bad". Frequently used by people trying to minimize their conduct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:But it's not. And referring to it as "a mistake" is a way to deflect responsibility (e.g. Reagan "mistakes were made") if you are still deflecting responsibility it weighs against successful rehabilitation. Mistake: "an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong." If you wanted to have an honest discussion, I'd suggest not trying to out pedant fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Frequently used by people trying to minimize their conduct. No, it's used to make more clear the point that we frequently dole out extreme punishments for crimes that are not all that severe (no one was maimed or killed, for example). If a kid steals someone's car and gets 10 years, I'm going to say "He made a mistake and he gets 10 years for that?" because the point is that a 10 year sentence is an insane punishment if things like job training, access to education, and public assistance can do a better job of ensuring he doesn't steal again. It seems like you want people to debate you by defining axioms to dump into a theorem solver or something. That's not the way a discussion works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There are a lot of reasons to hate mandatory minimums. Everyone thinks they will get the minimum. They won't. So they reject pleas that would have been in their best interest, get slammed and then file the appeals and habeas petitions that keep me employed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Frequently used by people trying to minimize their conduct. This is really not an argument you want to pursue. You're not doing yourself any favors by picking apart poo poo like this and then claiming the aggravated response is unjustified. You knew drat well what he meant, but you picked that apart anyways, and then wonder why people believe you're biased or posting in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Maybe I misunderstand you, your issue with mandatory minimums is that defendants get confused by the term so they turn down plea offers? And then appeal the 20+ year sentences for nonviolent crimes? (like possessing too many grams of black people drugs) No. One of my issues with mandatory minimums is it focuses people on the wrong end of the number spectrum. That's just one issue. As to mistake, you are talking criminal law. In the criminal law context mistake is unintentional. It's not being a pedant to ask that words with a specific meaning in that context be used correctly in that context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:This is really not an argument you want to pursue. You're not doing yourself any favors by picking apart poo poo like this and then claiming the aggravated response is unjustified. I pointed out he was misusing a word and gave the correct word. The response was basically "Nuh-uh." I didn't pick apart his argument or play gotcha. I pointed out incorrect terminology. If you want to know why the law isn't treating someone like they made a mistake, it's because in the criminal law context, they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. One of my issues with mandatory minimums is it focuses people on the wrong end of the number spectrum. That's just one issue. Where is the word 'mistake' in criminal law statue? Source your claims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Where is the word 'mistake' in criminal law statue? Source your claims. http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/RCWSelectedTitles/Documents/2012/9A.pdf All are involved with thinking something is true which isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Where is the word 'mistake' in criminal law statue? Source your claims. You can start with blacks law dictionary and move on to pretty much every statute addressing mens rea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Mistake occurs at least three time in Washington's criminal code: Mistake of fact/ mistaken belief are a little different than mistake - action. But the common theme is "not intentional "
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You can start with blacks law dictionary and move on to pretty much every statute addressing mens rea. So telling people to just go look things up is valid now? Alright, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I pointed out he was misusing a word and gave the correct word. The response was basically "Nuh-uh." I didn't pick apart his argument or play gotcha. I pointed out incorrect terminology. If you want to know why the law isn't treating someone like they made a mistake, it's because in the criminal law context, they didn't. And out of the entire post, you pulled an aphorism that is commonly used in non legal parlance, in a post that isn't referencing a criminal law context, but a statistic about how sentencing is disenfranchising felons and contributing to recidivism. And you still wonder why your posts are accused of being in bad faith. The entire post you quoted just to pick at the last loving sentence: chitoryu12 posted:And we also demonize convicts to the point of denying them rights (2.5% of all Americans of voting age, or 7.7% of all blacks of voting age, are disenfranchised due to a current or past felony conviction) and criminal history is often considered a legitimate reason to not hire or associate with someone. This inevitably results in the US having a recidivism rate as high as 60% on average, increasing 70% or higher for theft-related crimes. There's little focus on rehabilitation and it often feels like American society is geared toward treating criminals as inherently broken or bad, rather than someone who's made a mistake. But don't bother engaging the actual post when you can strawman the last sentence. You are arguing in bad faith. If you'd like to actually address the issue then by all means do so. Otherwise, you're contributing nothing and derailing the thread. And this is a common habit you've employed constantly in this thread. You are doing the same poo poo Cole does, just not as blatantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:So telling people to just go look things up is valid now? Alright, thanks. You asked for a source. I gave you one. As to the rest, while I think perhaps too many things are classified as felonies, I don't have a problem with people convicted of the classic common law felonies not getting to vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Mistake of fact/ mistaken belief are a little different than mistake - action. But the common theme is "not intentional " edit: Perhaps more importantly, Georgia does contemplate that someone might make an accident, but does not use mistake to name such an action: quote:§ 16-2-2. Effect of misfortune or accident on guilt twodot fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
nm posted:Everyone should hate lawyers. I know I do. Hope that helps with this argument. Hey, since this derail is real lame, how many of your clients do you think are innocent? No need to be rock-solid on them, if 10% are 50-50 cases, then we can call those 5%.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:18
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Hey, since this derail is real lame, how many of your clients do you think are innocent? No need to be rock-solid on them, if 10% are 50-50 cases, then we can call those 5%. There's a separate A/T Criminal Justice thread over here, though I do wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment in changing the subject.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:As to the rest, while I think perhaps too many things are classified as felonies, I don't have a problem with people convicted of the classic common law felonies not getting to vote. To what end? And doesn't the disparate impact on minorities given the justice system's systemic racism give you a cause for concern when it comes to stripping additional civil liberties? Also worth noting, other countries give both prior (and even currently incarcerated!) felons the right to vote with no ill effect. Maine and Vermont allow prisoners to vote without issue. The US states that restrict voting rights after the completion of a prison sentence are actually an outlier internationally. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"Mistake" is not the correct word for your example. Larceny is a specific intent crime. You don't commit larceny by accident. You know I think you would find people wouldn't "pick on you" so much if every page wasn't 50% your posts. Especially ones like this. Good luck on the crusade though. Here's an article of the police using deadly force appropriately: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-report-finds/
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:And we also demonize convicts to the point of denying them rights (2.5% of all Americans of voting age, or 7.7% of all blacks of voting age, are disenfranchised due to a current or past felony conviction) and criminal history is often considered a legitimate reason to not hire or associate with someone. This inevitably results in the US having a recidivism rate as high as 60% on average, increasing 70% or higher for theft-related crimes. There's little focus on rehabilitation and it often feels like American society is geared toward treating criminals as inherently broken or bad, rather than someone who's made a mistake. Your data is rearrest rate, not reimprisonment, which is around 52% in the U.S. For comparison, the reimprisonment rate in the UK is 46% and Scotland is at around 45%. Norway apparently shows a roughly 20% reimprisonment rate, but that excludes repeat offenders receiving fines and suspended sentences (Scottish study mentioning Norway), and those are given quite frequently in Norway (around 50% of all sentences, though conditional sentences are probably less likely in the case of reoffense so it probably isn't directly usable to determine the reoffense rate) so the actual reoffense rate is going to be higher. Basically every study I've seen says U.S. recidivism rates are more or less identical to everywhere else's - they just tend to result in harsher sentences in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:Agreed, the point is I've looked through two criminal codes, Washington and Georgia (edit: Georgia has 5 usages), and 100% of the usages of mistake are mistakes of fact. You should look at jury instructions for the word "knowingly" and then look at how many crimes use knowing as an element of intent. https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter269/section10 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section18C https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94c/Section34 https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter268/section32b https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter271/Section49 But sure, you're right, the word mistake doesn't appear in the statute - it's just a necessary component to understanding a word used in the statute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You should look at jury instructions for the word "knowingly" and then look at how many crimes use knowing as an element of intent. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:ActusRhesus is arguing that mistake is a term of art in criminal law, but the only usage of mistake with regards to actions we have is in model jury instructions, which are specifically written to be heard by non-experts. I feel pretty comfortable saying mistake is only a term of art with regards to mistakes of fact. (edit: knowingly is a term of art since it needs to be explained in jury instructions, but mistake does not because they are using the common usage as understood by non-experts in its context) So you're saying that the common usage of "mistake" with respect to criminal law is "something I didn't actually mean to do", not "something I meant to do and now regret having done"? Funny. I think that was AR's whole point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you're saying that the common usage of "mistake" with respect to criminal law is "something I didn't actually mean to do", not "something I meant to do and now regret having done"? twodot fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:That post doesn't make any attempt to define mistake, it's just arguing it's not a term of art that has a proper legal definition (unlike words like "knowingly"), so I'm confused how you came to this conclusion. This post will define the common usage of mistake as including (but not limited to) actions deliberately done that someone regrets doing. "It is was a mistake to steal that car, I should have not stolen that car" is fine English. Right. But no one would say that "I should not have stolen that car" would be the kind of mistake that means you didn't knowingly steal a car - so even ordinary people understand that when you're talking about criminal acts, that's not what mistakes mean. In other words, in criminal law, mistake has a specific meaning (beyond that used in mistakes of fact and mistakes of place, which themselves have additional specific meanings.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:"It is was a mistake to steal that car, I should have not stolen that car" is fine English. (edit: I suppose that comma is pretty arguable though) Whoah whoah whoah now, I think we have to hire ourselves a trained grammarian. Without years of specialist training how could we common plebs ever understand or parse language? We should leave that task to the professionals. If we can't afford a grammarian, well I guess we will have to suffer the consequences of not writing in correct English.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right. But no one would say that "I should not have stolen that car" would be the kind of mistake that means you didn't knowingly steal a car - so even ordinary people understand that when you're talking about criminal acts, that's not what mistakes mean. Kalman posted:In other words, in criminal law, mistake has a specific meaning (beyond that used in mistakes of fact and mistakes of place, which themselves have additional specific meanings.) twodot fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:No, it's used to make more clear the point that we frequently dole out extreme punishments for crimes that are not all that severe (no one was maimed or killed, for example). Is it your position that grand larceny (vehicle) is not a serious offense? We've gone from defending drug possession (ok) to defending drug dealing (?) to defending carjacking (?!) gently caress it. Repeal all criminal statutes. Revel in our new utopia. I call dibs on your car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 22:58
|
|