4 ms·

In certain cities in the United States going to jail for shooting and killing someone is something of a networking retreat for criminals. You plead down to mans

by s_m_t 9y ago

In certain cities in the United States going to jail for shooting and killing someone is something of a networking retreat for criminals. You plead down to manslaughter and may serve less than 3 years. Great way to jumpstart your career and gain credibility on the streets.

jMyles 9y ago
I need to see some evidence of these claims. I doubt that prison is materially similar to a "networking retreat". Are people really pleading down to manslaughter, after literally shooting and killing someone, and serving less than 3 years?
- ggg9990 9y ago
  The large numbers of prison gangs is evidence of the networking function. And in gang ridden neighborhoods most murders aren’t even solved, and 3 years happens regularly, because of the low evidence an lack of witness cooperation causing prosecutors to cut plea bargains.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    I agree with the GP; I'd need to see some evidence. > in gang ridden neighborhoods Gangs are no longer a problem in most American cities, afaik. It's a obsolete myth in the minds of people who never step foot in poor and working-class urban neighborhoods, but they see lots of TV and movies.
    - ggg9990 9y ago
      You don't see Crips and Bloods wearing colors but in the several cities I've spent significant time in, there are organized drug-dealing operations with management hierarchy. That, to me, is a gang.
      - forapurpose 9y ago
        How would you know those things without being in that 'business'? The current drug problem is disproportionately rural, as far as I know. Crime in cities is at lows going back decades. Again, gang-ridden, drug-dealer filled cities is an obsolete notion among those who don't live in them.
sametmax 9y ago
3 years for manslaughter ? That seems a very, very low sentence for taking a life.
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  Be careful when you react this way. This kind of thinking leads to mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses, shoplifting, and all kinds of petty crimes that aren't typically perpetrated by hardened criminals with violent tendencies. It's the kind of thinking that fills our prisons with people who really belong in therapy or a psych ward. Killing someone is bad, very bad. But murder charges should be reserved for people who planned to kill someone that day versus being driven to do so in the moment. On its face it might not seem like there's a difference, but there is. It's like the difference between yelling at someone for cutting you off in traffic versus planning exactly how you're going to yell at your boss when you quit in pique. It's the heat of the moment versus the calculation of premeditation. People do take advantage of the way our justice system judges you partly on intent, but I think that's an essential part of a humane justice system, and some people will always take advantage of our humanity. And I think if we look at the mechanics of plea bargains, this kind of abuse is probably rife. But I don't think the answer is to raise the minimum sentence. I think the answer is to prosecute the correct charges and to prove intent and planning. Or to accept that many of the killings in question really are perpetrated in the heat of the moment and not out of some cunning plan on the part of the killer.
  - acct1771 9y ago
    The victim sees no difference in either of your examples, so I'm having a hard time agreeing fully.
    - kungtotte 9y ago
      Scenario A: you are at a bar and someone starts a fight with you. You fight back and due to unfortunate circumstances they fall and hit their head in such a way that they die. Scenario B: you are angry at your neighbor for always taking your parking lot. So you acquire a gun, and in the middle of the night you sneak over to his house, break in, and shoot him while he's sleeping. Two dead victims, two very different sets of circumstances. Should both those cases be prosecuted as murder? Given the same sentence?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by s_m_t 9y ago

jMyles 9y ago

I need to see some evidence of these claims. I doubt that prison is materially similar to a "networking retreat". Are people really pleading down to manslaughter, after literally shooting and killing someone, and serving less than 3 years?

ggg9990 9y ago
The large numbers of prison gangs is evidence of the networking function. And in gang ridden neighborhoods most murders aren’t even solved, and 3 years happens regularly, because of the low evidence an lack of witness cooperation causing prosecutors to cut plea bargains.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I agree with the GP; I'd need to see some evidence. > in gang ridden neighborhoods Gangs are no longer a problem in most American cities, afaik. It's a obsolete myth in the minds of people who never step foot in poor and working-class urban neighborhoods, but they see lots of TV and movies.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    You don't see Crips and Bloods wearing colors but in the several cities I've spent significant time in, there are organized drug-dealing operations with management hierarchy. That, to me, is a gang.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      How would you know those things without being in that 'business'? The current drug problem is disproportionately rural, as far as I know. Crime in cities is at lows going back decades. Again, gang-ridden, drug-dealer filled cities is an obsolete notion among those who don't live in them.

sametmax 9y ago

3 years for manslaughter ? That seems a very, very low sentence for taking a life.

jschwartzi 9y ago
Be careful when you react this way. This kind of thinking leads to mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses, shoplifting, and all kinds of petty crimes that aren't typically perpetrated by hardened criminals with violent tendencies. It's the kind of thinking that fills our prisons with people who really belong in therapy or a psych ward. Killing someone is bad, very bad. But murder charges should be reserved for people who planned to kill someone that day versus being driven to do so in the moment. On its face it might not seem like there's a difference, but there is. It's like the difference between yelling at someone for cutting you off in traffic versus planning exactly how you're going to yell at your boss when you quit in pique. It's the heat of the moment versus the calculation of premeditation. People do take advantage of the way our justice system judges you partly on intent, but I think that's an essential part of a humane justice system, and some people will always take advantage of our humanity. And I think if we look at the mechanics of plea bargains, this kind of abuse is probably rife. But I don't think the answer is to raise the minimum sentence. I think the answer is to prosecute the correct charges and to prove intent and planning. Or to accept that many of the killings in question really are perpetrated in the heat of the moment and not out of some cunning plan on the part of the killer.
- acct1771 9y ago
  The victim sees no difference in either of your examples, so I'm having a hard time agreeing fully.
  - kungtotte 9y ago
    Scenario A: you are at a bar and someone starts a fight with you. You fight back and due to unfortunate circumstances they fall and hit their head in such a way that they die. Scenario B: you are angry at your neighbor for always taking your parking lot. So you acquire a gun, and in the middle of the night you sneak over to his house, break in, and shoot him while he's sleeping. Two dead victims, two very different sets of circumstances. Should both those cases be prosecuted as murder? Given the same sentence?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]