First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Two Thieves Are Arrested for Identical Crimes...
11312 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Just look behind...
Offline
Posted 7/26/13
Just burn them at the steak and be done with it!
26739 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 7/28/13

BearSol wrote:
My issue with jail sentences is that a rapist, on average, serves half as much time as a pot dealer.
7 years for rape and 15 for selling weed. Does this make sense to anyone?


Right? I want to suggest that anyone who tries to justify this dichotomy should maybe get raped a little. Apparently it's not as bad if you don't inhale.
31749 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / PALO ALTO, CA
Offline
Posted 7/28/13
Personally I think that they both should get exactly the same punishment. Looking at an isolated case you may be inclined to say that criminal A's punishment should be less severe but is it really okay to be lenient on all those who commit a crime because they had a 'good reason' to commit the crime. In the long term being lenient on people like criminal A is going to create problems because in a way we are encouraging people to commit crimes as long as they can justify the reason for doing so.
33268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Kentucky
Offline
Posted 7/28/13 , edited 7/28/13
I'm the kinda person that thinks there is always a better option, even if their may not actually be one. I would think if the guy went to the nearest walmart and just held a sign about the situation... a lot of people would even give him the money needed to get by. Some places will even give out food that is near the expiration date. I know a Chinese restaurant in our town that gives out remaining buffet food for free when its closing its doors. There is always another option... as long as you are willing to look for it.
9341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / irst
Offline
Posted 7/28/13
Crimes usually have a range of possible punishments based on the degree of the crime. For crime A, it could range from a fine of $100-1000. For crime B, it could be 10-30 years in jail. The judge decides where on this scale the particular criminal is going to be sentenced, based on circumstances and from what they can tell of the criminal's character.

If it were just a matter of "crime A means a $500 fine no matter what" we could just use machines to dole out punishments. We wouldn't need the human factor anymore. And that scares me, to be honest.
18303 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Huntington Beach, CA
Offline
Posted 7/28/13

seekerperson7 wrote:

EDIT: - If anyone for some unknown reason is interested in a small glimpse of my deeper thoughts on the subject, consider reading the essay entitled "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" by C.S. Lewis (where he argues against the theory).

They should serve the same time. To give criminal A a lesser sentence seems far too subjective to me. Examine the facts - did he steal? Yes. What's the penalty for stealing? X amount of time in jail. Therefore, the culprit is sentenced to X amount of time in jail.

However, that's from the court's perspective. Say i owned a bakery and the two criminals stole some bread from my own personal bakery. Say that I could choose what happened to them. In that scenario, I would let Criminal A serve less time, or even go free if that was possible. If Criminal B was truly selfish, then i'd have him serve time. However, if he was starving, or truly repentant, then I might let him go free as well.


So this has nothing to do with this post and I apologize to the OP for that but it wouldn't let me send you a private message. I was reading this post and saw that you were from Huntington Beach. I graduated from HBHS in '11 and was trying to deduce who you were from your profile haha. Which turns out incredible similar to mine by the way. Send me a message please. I'll give up who I am first. Considering there's only Edison and HBHS in Huntington I'm hoping you went to HBHS.

22446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / University of Tex...
Offline
Posted 7/28/13
I think it depends on the situation. If criminal B stole to feed himself (due to starvation), I don't think he deserves more time than someone stealing t feed their starving family. On the other hand, if he was just stealing for his financial gain, he deserves more time.
27140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/13

BearSol wrote:

So now that there aren't any rhetoric issues or confusion as to the location problems, do YOU want to attempt to get a rise, or are we finished here?


I still have an issue with your statement of 15 years for distribution of marijuana. According to federal distribution law, the maximum for pot is actually life in prison. But that is for having over 1 ton of marijuana to sell. If you have anything less than 110 lbs, the maximum is 5 years. That is a lot of pot. Then there are punishments that have different penalties based on the weight, but those are the minimum and maximums. You can find the information, along with every other drug and a multitude of crimes here -> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30722.pdf

According to California Penal Code 261, the penalty for rape ranges from between 3 and 8 years. If the victim is a minor, then the minimum is 7 which a maximum of 13 years in prison. You can read the penal code, or read what I found to be a nice break down of the penal code at http://www.shouselaw.com/rape.html

Do I agree that rape should be more severe? Yes. Do I still think you are making an improper and off topic post? Yes. When I read your original post, I don't know if you are making a case for rape to be more severe or distribution of an illegal substance to be less, or lastly, still trying to get a rise out of people. There is no information as to what you want people to get out of it other than someone complaining about the dichotomy of our justice system. I will comment, that it is a lot easier to convict someone of drug distribution charges, which is why there are federal laws on the subject. There was a federal law that covered rape (and many other violent acts against women), but it was removed by the supreme court back in the 90s. Law makers unfortunately gave up rather than trying to improve the act.

But back on topic, the op commented on different penalties for two people committing the SAME crime, not different ones. Which I still believe that there should be different penalties and that it is built into the system because there are minimums and maximums. Judges get to administer the penalty that they feel is just, and then there is a full appeal, parole, and other processes afterwards. I do also want to point out that the purpose of prison for the majority of offenders is to rehabilitate. Since most convicts cannot be removed completely from society, we must try to do our best to make sure they do not end up in situations where they re offend.

Does the system work though? Well if you look back at the original post, realistically, the rich person would probably not go to trial, while the poor hungry person would with certainty. Even if they were both convicted, realistically, the penalty would probably be reversed from what it should be. I do believe that this is why we need people of integrity who have a strong sense of justice in the position of judge.
14394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 7/28/13

ColouringYourLife wrote:

no to rob is a crime he could simply ask and give a reason why he wont it



That's like going into a grocery store and saying "Oh my chicken died, can I have these eggs for free?"
Totavo 
50453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Missouri, United...
Offline
Posted 7/28/13 , edited 7/28/13
I would give both criminals the same time, since they both did in fact do the crime they both should have known better. There are always better ways. If needed hit up a local restaurant around the time they close see if they can't help out. Most of the food that they have at that point has to be thrown away if its cooked.
970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Samsara
Offline
Posted 7/28/13
i cant answer without knowing who the stole from.. i dont really think their is a fair way of knowing what crimes they should face based on this much data.. is this how our justice system is run?? dam shame...
Banned
15153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
http://myanimelis...
Offline
Posted 7/28/13

seekerperson7 wrote:

EDIT: - If anyone for some unknown reason is interested in a small glimpse of my deeper thoughts on the subject, consider reading the essay entitled "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" by C.S. Lewis (where he argues against the theory).

They should serve the same time. To give criminal A a lesser sentence seems far too subjective to me. Examine the facts - did he steal? Yes. What's the penalty for stealing? X amount of time in jail. Therefore, the culprit is sentenced to X amount of time in jail.

However, that's from the court's perspective. Say i owned a bakery and the two criminals stole some bread from my own personal bakery. Say that I could choose what happened to them. In that scenario, I would let Criminal A serve less time, or even go free if that was possible. If Criminal B was truly selfish, then i'd have him serve time. However, if he was starving, or truly repentant, then I might let him go free as well.


what he/she said. ^
3905 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / London
Offline
Posted 7/28/13 , edited 7/28/13
Sogno made a thread


I'm in love

I think Criminal that stole for himself should serve less time, criminal that stole for his fam is a lot more dangerous and should be kept under maximum sentence. Don't want him getting any more ideas like kill for his hungry family now do we? Conceited little shit. K i'm done xD
49495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/28/13 , edited 7/28/13

Sogno- wrote:

If you took the quiz linked on the "Dating Persona" thread then this question will look familiar to you:

"Two thieves are arrested for identical crimes. Criminal A stole for his hungry family. Criminal B stole for himself. Should Criminal A serve less time?"

I said they should serve the same time because, regardless of reasons behind the act, stealing is stealing.

What do you think?


this is an old question that has been asked over and over. I am not sure where it started though.
This is exactly why our justice system does not work. Our peers judge based on their biased opinions and not equally. Sometimes people put aside their biased which was shown in the zimmerman case and only judged on facts. I am not saying he was innocent but that there was not enough to convict. Most people were against him and convicted him before hearing all the info. Yet a black woman got 20yrs for just shooting a warning shot. The system is flawed because we are...

So in short I would judge equally and offer what help I could for the victims of the criminal act (that includes the family of the criminal). The governement has many programs most of which nobody knows about. Criminal A with the family has now put his family in even a worse situation...so no sympathy for him.
16276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Nottingham, Engla...
Online
Posted 7/28/13 , edited 7/28/13
From my perspective this is how I see it. There is no such thing as crime, only victims. Victims of society that moulded their motives to commit to stealing in this case. Thing is though, that touches on nature versus nurture and as such, dances around this question.

So it all comes down to this really. If Criminal A is punished for his deed then this punishes those he was trying to look after as well as himself, but if Criminal B is punished then only he faces any punishment in this scenario.


Totavo wrote:

I would give both criminals the same time, since they both did in fact do the crime they both should have known better. There are always better ways. If needed hit up a local restaurant around the time they close see if they can't help out. Most of the food that they have at that point has to be thrown away if its cooked.


I can tell you from my experience working in a food store that it was policy to throw food away rather than give it away to anyone that needed it. Didn't matter if it was still good enough to eat, it had to be thrown away. Would a restaurant do the same? Very likely considering that once something has been cooked it becomes rapidly perishable.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.