4 ms·

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?
    - acct1771 9y ago
      I was imagining a scenario of "crime of passion" e.g. when someone catches their wife in bed with another man. Murder is murder. Self-defense obviously changes that paradigm completely, and because of that, I'd consider that example moving the goalposts of this discussion
      - jschwartzi 9y ago
        Crimes of passion aren't prosecuted as murder in many jurisdictions. They're prosecuted as manslaughter. The killer didn't plan to kill anyone, but they were provoked to do so by the other parties.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      That's why we have judges. Here we are talking about yakuza, organized crime, not Joe or Jane having one bad moment in life.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Let's say it this way: imagine it was not prison, but a full therapy treatment and rehabilitation. Do you think that 3 years is enough to rehabilitate an adult that all the events in life lead him or her to kill somebody ? Some people take 10 years to quit smoking. Also, while I agree with your point on abusing the justice system and not using it for revenge, you must not forget that: - currently we also use it as a deterrent system. Even if it doesn't work very well. If somebody is capable of killing someone else, there is a huge different between knowing you will pay 3 years or 10 for it. 3 years to get a reputation or get rid of a life road block could be calculated as an acceptable price. - there is also the way the non-killers will see the system. If people are being honest, and they witness more and more than being a criminal has not the consequences they though is should have, then people will loose any trust they have in the system. It's a very bad long term side effect to have for a society. Really, really bad.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    A murderer will murder, regardless of whether they are in prison for 1 year or 100 years afterward, they are not apt to estimate what a judge will give them for a particular crime. Deterrence for higher level crimes through harsher sentencing is ineffective.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      You are talking in absolute, and this is rarely true. What's "a murderer" ? Are all of them equals ? Do you think a Yakuza and a an person wanting an inheritance have the same views on violence ? And what if you have a one year sentence ? One month ? One week ? None ? Do you think there would be no difference ?
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      It would be great if we had some evidence to back this up.
scythe 9y ago
Sentence is more like ten years, parole in three. Manslaughter unlike murder is supposed to be unintentional. Of course if the criminals are "networking" in prison, that should prevent parole, but cost-cutting privatization in the prison industry has ensured that doesn't happen. Likewise the only reason that it's a manslaughter charge in the first place is that witness protection, and therefore cooperation, is dismal. Simply put the legitimacy of the US government has declined in some areas, although this process really kicked off in the 1960s.
- DrScump 9y ago
  the legitimacy of the US government Homicide is very rarely charged as a Federal crime (special cases like assassination or terrorism).
  - scythe 9y ago
    I didn't say federal government, now did I? My point is that when people don't respect the authorities, we refer to this as the "legitimacy of the government" and because no state was specified I went with US, because all states and their governments are part of the US. So yes I anticipated your semantic quibble.

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?
  - acct1771 9y ago
    I was imagining a scenario of "crime of passion" e.g. when someone catches their wife in bed with another man. Murder is murder. Self-defense obviously changes that paradigm completely, and because of that, I'd consider that example moving the goalposts of this discussion
    - jschwartzi 9y ago
      Crimes of passion aren't prosecuted as murder in many jurisdictions. They're prosecuted as manslaughter. The killer didn't plan to kill anyone, but they were provoked to do so by the other parties.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    That's why we have judges. Here we are talking about yakuza, organized crime, not Joe or Jane having one bad moment in life.
sametmax 9y ago
Let's say it this way: imagine it was not prison, but a full therapy treatment and rehabilitation. Do you think that 3 years is enough to rehabilitate an adult that all the events in life lead him or her to kill somebody ? Some people take 10 years to quit smoking. Also, while I agree with your point on abusing the justice system and not using it for revenge, you must not forget that: - currently we also use it as a deterrent system. Even if it doesn't work very well. If somebody is capable of killing someone else, there is a huge different between knowing you will pay 3 years or 10 for it. 3 years to get a reputation or get rid of a life road block could be calculated as an acceptable price. - there is also the way the non-killers will see the system. If people are being honest, and they witness more and more than being a criminal has not the consequences they though is should have, then people will loose any trust they have in the system. It's a very bad long term side effect to have for a society. Really, really bad.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  A murderer will murder, regardless of whether they are in prison for 1 year or 100 years afterward, they are not apt to estimate what a judge will give them for a particular crime. Deterrence for higher level crimes through harsher sentencing is ineffective.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    You are talking in absolute, and this is rarely true. What's "a murderer" ? Are all of them equals ? Do you think a Yakuza and a an person wanting an inheritance have the same views on violence ? And what if you have a one year sentence ? One month ? One week ? None ? Do you think there would be no difference ?
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    It would be great if we had some evidence to back this up.

scythe 9y ago

Sentence is more like ten years, parole in three. Manslaughter unlike murder is supposed to be unintentional. Of course if the criminals are "networking" in prison, that should prevent parole, but cost-cutting privatization in the prison industry has ensured that doesn't happen. Likewise the only reason that it's a manslaughter charge in the first place is that witness protection, and therefore cooperation, is dismal. Simply put the legitimacy of the US government has declined in some areas, although this process really kicked off in the 1960s.

DrScump 9y ago
the legitimacy of the US government Homicide is very rarely charged as a Federal crime (special cases like assassination or terrorism).
- scythe 9y ago
  I didn't say federal government, now did I? My point is that when people don't respect the authorities, we refer to this as the "legitimacy of the government" and because no state was specified I went with US, because all states and their governments are part of the US. So yes I anticipated your semantic quibble.