-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
A Tale of Two Sentences
- Thread starter Vihzel
- Start date
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
All I can say is it comes down to how good your lawyer team is.
The prosecutors were not even seeking as long a sentence on the first guy, as was given to the second.
Vihzel
Destroying Balls Everyday
I am mainly shocked that the 2nd guy has a sentence of 15 years for his crime. It's not even like he wanted to get as much money as possible... just enough for him. He even turned himself in to the police and pleaded guilty. Still... 15 years? That's like 1 year for every $7 that he stole... or 1 month for every $.55.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
He acted like he had a gun so when you do that it becomes armed robbery. So the two guys did totally different crimes. Plus I bet the first guy did a plea bargain for why he got such a low sentence . Now if you want to compare apples to apples then why this guy gets a light sentence and Bernie madoff gets 150 years.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
So what is the problem? If Mr. Brown committed first degree robbery combined with an apparent threat of a weapon, what should the judge do?
If you walk into a bank and rob the place and scare the teller with the suggestion of a gun, darn right, you go to jail. It is where you need to be.
Sorry folks, I guess I am the only one here that says he got exactly what he deserved.
Bob
If you walk into a bank and rob the place and scare the teller with the suggestion of a gun, darn right, you go to jail. It is where you need to be.
Sorry folks, I guess I am the only one here that says he got exactly what he deserved.
Bob
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I agree with Bob from a legal standpoint, but not from a moral one. Situations like this teach us all one thing: don't turn yourself in next time.
On the positive note, the homeless guy probably isn't going to be worrying about being hungry or having shelter to sleep under for a good while.
On the positive note, the homeless guy probably isn't going to be worrying about being hungry or having shelter to sleep under for a good while.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
He just has to watch out for the big guy that will make him his B***h
lordofthereef
Android Expert
^^^ LOL
Good point.
Good point.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I don't see any evidence of that.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Or perhaps it is because he is guilty? As I recall, the article mentioned that he turned himself in and he admitted his crime. When this happens, black and white disappear because we know exactly who did the dastardly deed.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
You will find few non poor people serving long sentences. There is a good reason only people with crappy legal teams are on death row
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Or, those that are poor/oppress/starving tend to commit more crimes.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
More, but not all. I'm sure there are middle class people who have committed multiple murders, yet none of them are on death row.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Of course. I am simply saying statistically, you are going to see far fewer "rich" people in jails because they don't tend to be the one robbing banks, houses, etc. Hence, THAT is why there are more "poor" people in jails as opposed to not being able to afford a decent lawyer. I am sure some of it has to do with representation, but certainly not the majority.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
^What I'm really getting at is the sentance. The poorest seem to get the hardest sentences. Its like you get judicial Brownie points for being an Account or Stock Broker as well
I still can't believe that the banker only got 40 months.
I mean we think America deals with corporate crime so good over here. Seriously its a joke.
$3 Billion dollars. Christ
I still can't believe that the banker only got 40 months.
I mean we think America deals with corporate crime so good over here. Seriously its a joke.
$3 Billion dollars. Christ
lordofthereef
Android Expert
kool kat2
Android Expert
Unless you have the defense that the guy in the first article had... btw I don't seriously think it was because he's black lol
I don't know if I would put it quite that way, even though it's easy to make that leap.
Roy Brown committed a violent crime ... armed robbery. Okay, so he didn't have a gun, but nobody knew that but him and he made the threat of violence in the commission of a crime. His sentence (theoretically) represents the need to protect society from violent criminals.
Paul R. Allen committed a non-violent act so there is no imminent threat to society. Plus keeping him in jail continues to cost the (innocent) taxpayers for his crimes and prevents him from making any restitution if any was ordered.
Granted it might not be fair, in terms of how it's perceived my the amounts of money involved, but they really are two different crimes.
I'm sure if Mr. Brown had used the $100 to buy booze and then go beat up his aging mother, most people would have no problem putting him away for much longer, even if he only took $100 and didn't actually have a weapon.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Making a person think you want to kill them or actual having the means of killing them in the moment are two different thing, in my eyes. Not saying he shouldn't be punished, but if what he did is defined as a violent crime I urge we revisit the legal definition.
karandpr
Android Expert
While 100 $ can be recovered from the guy.
3 billion $ can never be recovered from one man if hidden smartly.
One used brawn ,was poor and hungry and was penalized for using a crude method of acquiring money.
The former used sophisticated of acquiring money and he escaped crime by using loopholes .
Since the exact nature of documentation is unknown we dont know what he was convicted for exactly.
The difference between the crimes is the latter is defined thoroughly in law.
While the former crime has yet to be defined thoroughly.
The consequences of corporate fraud should be studied and well defined in law.
Only then equality can be achieved.
3 billion $ can never be recovered from one man if hidden smartly.
One used brawn ,was poor and hungry and was penalized for using a crude method of acquiring money.
The former used sophisticated of acquiring money and he escaped crime by using loopholes .
Since the exact nature of documentation is unknown we dont know what he was convicted for exactly.
The difference between the crimes is the latter is defined thoroughly in law.
While the former crime has yet to be defined thoroughly.
The consequences of corporate fraud should be studied and well defined in law.
Only then equality can be achieved.
DoAndroidDream?
Well-Known Member
I agree with Bob. There is a difference when you use a weapon and the threat of violence. He belongs in prison. The other guy should have got a lot more time than he did though to be certain.
Problem is that then every robbery that involves a gun will have to argue that it was a real gun, if they had a gun at all.
Look at it from the perspective of the victim.
On Monday a homeless man, starving, goes into a bank with his hand in his pocket and claims to have a gun ... takes $100 and leaves.
On Tuesday a scumbag comes into the bank with his hand in his pocket (and has a gun) and claims to have a gun ... takes $100 and leaves.
Same crime in the eyes of the victim and the law.
While the first man's situation is definitely more pitiable, it is at sentencing that the situation becomes relevant.