Or it's yet another situation where the rich live by a different set of laws than the rest of us.
Homeless man gets 15 years in jail for 100$, CEO gets 40 months for 3 Billion.
- Thread starter Jabberwock xeno
- Start date
What a free and equal society we live in... where the rich live by different laws than the common man and the common man has no rights unless the rich deign to give him some. Bourgeoisie filth.
In Louisiana it applies to all crimes. Plus while robbing the bank he implied that he had a weapon and armed robbery in Louisiana carries a minimum sentence. The CEO while stealing more money and affecting more people was not a repeat offender and never threatened anyone lives directly. However I believe the CEO also should have gotten a similar sentence. The issue with that is VA is a different state and has different laws and stealing 100 or 3 billion will carry the same sentence.FuktLogik said:
I dont think its right but because the crimes happened in different states, under different laws and one was an armed robbery (implied), and the other was a desk-jockey, white collar crime they really cannot be compared to one another.
Because, under the law, robbing a bank period probably has a minimum of 15 yearsJabberwock xeno said:
This disgusts me.
How do you guys feel about this? Any idea of what we can do to make this shit better?
On the other hand, tax evasion has a fine OR a maximum 5 year incarceration or a combination of both. I'm not sure what type of fraud he committed but i would think it would have similar punishments.
You see, the law is the law and applies to everyone. Just because a person is poor or had good reasons to break the law doesn't mean he is not punished as harshly by it. The law applies the same to everyone, not just people who can afford it.
^ that's just it. The homeless guy was a repeat offender in Louisiana (and therefore fell under the 3 strike rule), who did an armed robbery (implied he had a weapon), while the CEO was in Virginia, was unarmed and was not a repeat offender and or the state does not have the 3 strike rule. Both states have different minimum and maximum sentences not to mention both trials were under different judges. (although the 3 strike rule still would have put the homeless man away for 15 years)lacktheknack said:
I still think the CEO should have gotten a longer sentence (hes at 3 1/3 years and I wished he would have gotten 5 or more in state penitentiary)
Maybe as in maybe an asteroid will fall through my window in the next five seconds.lacktheknack said:
...
Nope, I'm still here.
^_^
The CEO will likely serve most or all of his sentence, it's likely his first offense, and it will actually be at least an inconvenience to him.
The homeless person will serve very little of his sentence, this offense is probably one of at least a few, and it may be the best thing that happens to him this year. He'll get fed, he'll get free medical and psychiatric treatment (I guarantee you that dude needs haldol, like pronto), and he'll probably get some sort of educational training that he might be able to utilize to stay off the streets once he gets out (probably in 3 years).
Old news.
Don't care.
If the injustice of the kid glove treatment of the CEO irritates you, I get that. But comparing these two cases completely un-fucking-re-fucking-lated (sorry for the extra "fucking". It's just that they have nothing to do with each other) and getting mad over that? Come on, man.
The homeless person will serve very little of his sentence, this offense is probably one of at least a few, and it may be the best thing that happens to him this year. He'll get fed, he'll get free medical and psychiatric treatment (I guarantee you that dude needs haldol, like pronto), and he'll probably get some sort of educational training that he might be able to utilize to stay off the streets once he gets out (probably in 3 years).
Old news.
Don't care.
If the injustice of the kid glove treatment of the CEO irritates you, I get that. But comparing these two cases completely un-fucking-re-fucking-lated (sorry for the extra "fucking". It's just that they have nothing to do with each other) and getting mad over that? Come on, man.
He wasn't convicted of tax evasion. He was convicted of fraud. A similar case is being prosecuted in the same state, and the prosecutor is seeking a 385-year sentence. You can read about it <link=http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/virginia/Farkas-may-face-life-sentence-for-fraud>hereLaxman9292 said:Because, under the law, robbing a bank period probably has a minimum of 15 yearsJabberwock xeno said:
This disgusts me.
How do you guys feel about this? Any idea of what we can do to make this shit better?
On the other hand, tax evasion has a fine OR a maximum 5 year incarceration or a combination of both. I'm not sure what type of fraud he committed but i would think it would have similar punishments.
You see, the law is the law and applies to everyone. Just because a person is poor or had good reasons to break the law doesn't mean he is not punished as harshly by it. The law applies the same to everyone, not just people who can afford it.
The '3 strikes' law applies to any felony. If a crime (ANY crime) is a felony, then it is counted as a strike.FuktLogik said:
I don't think this is an example of the Three Strikes law though for two reasons: One, I know the 3 strikes law was passed in California, but I don't know if it was passed in Virginia as well. Two, the Three Strikes punishment is 25 years to Life; it would not be possible to sentence him to 15 years.
in reality the homeless man gets a place to live and food to eat so...... gratz to him
and the for the CEO well people are stupid. the more i say it the more true it is
and the for the CEO well people are stupid. the more i say it the more true it is
The methods in which the robbery was committed should NOT matter in the sentencing. And neither should your social status. The sentencing should be entirely about how much you stole, and WHY you stole. And while there's seldom a good reason to commit crime, stealing because you're poor is a much more valid reason than stealing because you're an elitist asshole. Our society's attitude seems to be that stealing is OK as long as you're an elite and you do that stealing in your own private office.
But if you're a starving man and you commit robbery by force, instead of getting you a place to stay and a hot meal like any decent society would, we're just going to make your life even worse by tossing you in jail. For most of your remaining years. We are too obsessed with punishing people. We sentence based on feelings, instead of logic. And from a purely logical standpoint, there was absolutely no reason to throw that homeless man in jail. Seriously, why do we care about the rich? They're rich. They have no right to complain and no reason to steal. The poor have a huge right to complain and lots of reasons to steal. If anything, the punishment for white-collar robbery should be HIGHER than the punishment for robbery by force.
And why oh why do the rich even steal in the first place? They've already got more money than they can spend. At the point in your life where you could easily afford three beautiful scantily-clad live-in maids to wait on you hand-and-foot, you've officially lost your right to ever complain about money or taxes. Yet the rich complain about money and taxes more than anyone.
And now, back to the homeless man. I'm willing to bet his sentence was so high, not just because he's poor, but because he's black. We think racism is mostly gone, but we're dead wrong. And while everyone's a little bit racist, our legal system has surpassed "little bit" by about a thousand miles. It must have been racism. Who could possibly hear his case and think that 15 years is a reasonable sentence? There is absolutely nothing that justifies that. Nothing. And if there's no logic behind it, it can only come from that which is illogical. Must've been racism. I'm also disappointed that the man turned himself in. I know he committed a crime, but personally I believe crime is justified sometimes. And if the government doesn't want banks getting robbed, maybe they should start doing more to help the poor. So really, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
But if you're a starving man and you commit robbery by force, instead of getting you a place to stay and a hot meal like any decent society would, we're just going to make your life even worse by tossing you in jail. For most of your remaining years. We are too obsessed with punishing people. We sentence based on feelings, instead of logic. And from a purely logical standpoint, there was absolutely no reason to throw that homeless man in jail. Seriously, why do we care about the rich? They're rich. They have no right to complain and no reason to steal. The poor have a huge right to complain and lots of reasons to steal. If anything, the punishment for white-collar robbery should be HIGHER than the punishment for robbery by force.
And why oh why do the rich even steal in the first place? They've already got more money than they can spend. At the point in your life where you could easily afford three beautiful scantily-clad live-in maids to wait on you hand-and-foot, you've officially lost your right to ever complain about money or taxes. Yet the rich complain about money and taxes more than anyone.
And now, back to the homeless man. I'm willing to bet his sentence was so high, not just because he's poor, but because he's black. We think racism is mostly gone, but we're dead wrong. And while everyone's a little bit racist, our legal system has surpassed "little bit" by about a thousand miles. It must have been racism. Who could possibly hear his case and think that 15 years is a reasonable sentence? There is absolutely nothing that justifies that. Nothing. And if there's no logic behind it, it can only come from that which is illogical. Must've been racism. I'm also disappointed that the man turned himself in. I know he committed a crime, but personally I believe crime is justified sometimes. And if the government doesn't want banks getting robbed, maybe they should start doing more to help the poor. So really, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
I think we are missing a lot of information. How many times has the homeless man been convicted? Were any of those priors also felonies as the robbery was a felony? Did he get an added sentence for acting like he had a gun? Most states slap on an extra 10 years for a crime involving a gun, or acting like you have a gun. He said he was going to detox. Did he have drugs on him during the robbery?Jabberwock xeno said:
Now don't misunderstand me. I think the CEO should have done hard time as well, but we don't have enough information to understand the rulings separately. Much less in comparison to each other.
That Martha Stewart thing pissed me off to no end. Just to let you know.
also imbelezing isn't a violent crime. By all rights that man had a gun and that is what he implied. Also the 3 strike thing. Most people at a Detox center would probably of have some kind of record...3billion dollar guy not so much of a record. Different states also...its not uncommon.Mouse_Crouse said:
How do you know it's fictional?GodofCider said:
Either way, while my statement is incorrect (regardless of whether or not it is fictional), I'm just annoyed by that guy talking about needing to know more to pass judgement. Where is the limit of how much you need to know in his opinion?
If this did actually happen, all you need to know if that one guy stole billions through fraud and the other guy stole $100 through robbery.
To actually determine the guilt of either of them, you would need to know more, but since they were both found guilty, this is not necessary.
To say it is a flawed system, all you need to know is the crime and punishment.
The key word here is "Robbery".Jabberwock xeno said:
This disgusts me.
How do you guys feel about this? Any idea of what we can do to make this shit better?
Burglery, Robbery, and running Scams are all considered to be seperate things. Robbery is when you coerce someone with the threat of violence, and treated the most seriously. As that article describes, the guy approached with his hands in his jacket, making it seem like he had a gun, and basically said "give me money, or I kill you".
In comparison the CEO didn't do anything violent, he stole more money, but he didn't actively threaten anyone and make them fear bodily harm (or being killed).
Honestly, I can't say I disagree with the homeless guy getting 15 years for that. I do however think that the CEO deserved more of a penelty, one of the big problems with the USA is that it's behind the times when it comes to new technology and societal development, and i don't think the laws are designed to adequetly deal with white collar criminals who do
things like this. In his case the sentence is fairly light, because all he probably did was lie to people and betray their trust, and that's a far cry from threatening people's lives, and doesn't carry that much weight in the legal system no matter how much is stolen, unless other things can be attached to it.... it's something that needs to be addressed.
Burglery is between the two extremes, that's when you steal stuff physically, but don't actually threaten or have any direct contact with anyone. Say sneaking into someone's house while they aren't home and grabbing their stuff. That can carry some serious jail time, especially given the other crimes that can typically be added to it (like tresspass) but is generally less weighty than robbery.
Basically that homeless guy didn't get much money, but he engaged in the worst kind of theft there is in the eyes of the law, since he did it with the threat of violence.