• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

A Tale of Two Sentences

I agree, but the first guy didn't.

The first guy committed a big financial crime and the other person committed armed robbery. Different crimes entirely and they should not be compared.

Both should do time and in accordance with the respective sentences.

Life is tough, wear a cup.
 
The first guy committed a big financial crime and the other person committed armed robbery. Different crimes entirely and they should not be compared.

Both should do time and in accordance with the respective sentences.

Life is tough, wear a cup.
Agree, 3b$ is more then 40 month though. Consider how many lost to this guy? Each individual he scammed should have netted him 40 month.
 
Agree, 3b$ is more then 40 month though. Consider how many lost to this guy? Each individual he scammed should have netted him 40 month.
Apparently the normal number for that kind of money is 6 years, based on the article. 40 months is a little over half that... and with "good behavior", less still.
 
Sorry to bring the old horse back...
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.

Well 15 years of being clothed, fed and sheltered...

I've read some cases where some homeless people commit crimes that would get them to prison.

I think that would be considered mansalughter (but please correct me on that). He would be liable because he made threats and caused her heart failure. He should NOT be guilty for having a gun, being that he didn't have one.

I can perceive anything that I want. Hell, I perceived that the guy had a weapon in his pocket when he was fiddling with his cell phone (in my Chicago visit experience above). That doesn't mean I am going to claiming he assaulted me for money. The guy just had the jitters from being tweaked out.

All I am saying is that I BELIEVE that what the victim perceives is irrelevant. If I didn't have a weapon, I didn't have a weapon. I am well aware that the courts, and many others, disagree with me.

Your perceived perception is different from the teller's though. The shoe guy did not indicate that he had a gun on him, you only thought because of his behaviour. It seems that the poor robber pretended to have a gun with his hand in his pocket and the outline of the hand might look like he has a gun in his pocket.

Lets say you get the law to change with a (very) lighter sentence. No gun (hand) gets 30 days in prison. Assume that you're a really good robber and you can steal $10,000 but you have a 50/50 chance of getting caught. If you don't get caught, you get $10,000...if you do, it's only a month (or whatever little amount of time) in prison. The benefit involved for the robbery out weights the risk now. So after 30 days, what's the reason of you NOT going to rob another bank? Even I might be tempted if I was in a dire situation (homeless).

So would it be better for the teller to perceived that the guy does not have a gun and acted upon that? I mean those are the only 2 scenarios available.

The other scenerio is that I perceived what the guy has in his pocket pointing towards me as he tries to rob me is NOT a gun and act upon that....but it turns out that it was a gun and I get shot. So stupid me to assume that what he had in his pocket wasn't a gun.
 
So would it be better for the teller to perceived that the guy does not have a gun and acted upon that? I mean those are the only 2 scenarios available.

The other scenerio is that I perceived what the guy has in his pocket pointing towards me as he tries to rob me is NOT a gun and act upon that....but it turns out that it was a gun and I get shot. So stupid me to assume that what he had in his pocket wasn't a gun.

I am pretty certain that if someone walks into a bank and states "this is a robbery", tellers are instructed to do what is demanded of them regardless of whether the robber has a cap gun or a bazooka. They aren't really told to assess the danger and then decide whether you tell the guy "no" or not.
 
Everybody talking about whether he had a gun or not.....what about first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, premeditated murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide...

In all cases someone died. All wont get the same sentence based on certain circumstances. Of those instances I'm willing to bet 1 is considered worse than all of them. With one or 2 having a possibility of being executed.

Thinking out loud here:

When does self defense become murder, manslaughter or vice versa?
Does the perceived threat of a weapon carry the same weight as having an actual weapon? How come armed robbery is harsher than just beating someone up and robbing them? The person was robbed in both cases.
What if the person is beat to within in inch of their life and robbed? Does that carry greater weight than just beating someone up and robbing them?

I dont think he shoulda got 15 years. Unless like someone said he had prior brushes with the law. If thats the case at some point you have to get him to understand you cant keep doing this. Is 15 years the way to teach him if he had priors? Dont know...but you have to get him to understand somehow.

And I like the Madoff comparison. Why did Madoff get so much time? Why did this guy get so little for 3 billion?
 
That's a point I hadn't considered. Thanks for this. Interested in seeing if this discussion keeps moving, possibly even in a different direction.
 
This is just another example of why I have virtually no respect for our legal system in this country. We need punishments that are more in line with the actual harm caused by the crime committed, not on arbitrary sentencing guidelines.

Our system is in shambles and many sentences don't make sense, some far too lenient, others far too harsh, while some people are sent to prison for crimes that shouldn't be crimes at all. I don't even know where to begin with fixing things, but something has to be done before the system degrades further. If action isn't taken more and more people are going to disregard the laws, both the good and bad ones, and that will be bad for everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom