4 ms·

> 12+ years of incarceration in the federal system. His crime was armed robbery, first offense, no one was injured, and he profited a grand total of $35,000. N

> 12+ years of incarceration in the federal system. His crime was armed robbery, first offense, no one was injured, and he profited a grand total of $35,000. No one was harmed. But the crime involved threat of death. So threatening to kill at least one person is a pretty serious crime. It’s good that no one was killed, but definitely the intent to kill for personal gain was part of the reason for such a lengthy sentence. There are many flaws with the prison system but I wanted to point out the logical flaw of “no one was killed in this game of Russian roulette so it’s not that bad of a thing” kind of thinking. Threatening someone’s life for $35k is a big deal, I think.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Have to agree. We punish violent crime and corruption lightly; nonviolent crime inhumanely unforgivingly. If there was no violence, threat of violence, fraud or corruption, the limit should be two years. If there was, the minimum should be much higher.
- jeffwask 4y ago
  Because of the mandatory guidelines at the time (which have since been declared unconstitutional) any felony committed while in possession of a firearm federally had a 15 year minimum with no discretion for the judge.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  I would go further. Prison should only be used for violent crimes with a high degree of intentionality. It's been said that if you asked someone to design a process to create more criminals, they would likely invent prisons: mix as many skilled criminals, with random unfortunate individuals, so that they can share their knowledge of criminality, and have to fight to survive. Prison is bad as a deterrent and is terrible at reforming criminals. The only thing prison is good at, is keeping violent people off the street. There's absolutely no reason why non-violent offenders should be in a prison, give them any other punishment instead.
wstuartcl 4y ago
Lol yeah, armed robbery is effectively the charge for someone that was totally willing to kill while robbing but due to circumstances did not need to. That should not be considered a light crime.
- themitigating 4y ago
  How do you know they were willing to kill? If you rob someone you need to threaten them regardless if you are going to follow through.
  - wstuartcl 4y ago
    Umm based on the statute and elements of the crime they were charged with and found guilty of. Whoever, while committing a robbery, is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily harm upon another, is guilty of aggravated robbery in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both. Or is your stance that a person committing robbery with a weapon and threatening to use it should instead be considered a hapless person that has not chosen to act in a way that is highly likely to cause great injury or death? Like a gun is "ok" and should not be considered as evidence of intent to commit harm during the act of robbery unless they shoot it?
    - themitigating 4y ago
      I understand the law I was arguing against it. "Or is your stance that a person committing robbery..." Consider the crime of attempted murder.(IMAL) that's when a person attempted to commit murder but failed. So they had intent and action, they just failed Armed robbery is someone whose intent is to rob someone and they are successful at the act of robbery. The reason the robber is armed is not to harm the person but as a threat. If their intent is to harm the person that's an additional crime (assault, murder, attempted murder) "that is highly likely to cause great injury or death?" Highly likely for the robbery or if they carry out the threat. I believe the vast majority of robberies where violence was threatened don't end in violence. I don't have data for this so if you contest it I'll recind that claim.
jeffwask 4y ago
I fully agree he earned punishment and it was a serious crime. (he says the gun was never loaded but that's neither here nor there). My question is the scope and breadth of the punishment and whether the system is about restitution and rehabilitation or pure punitive action. How do people come out after 10+ years having received no training, support or rehabilitation and step into a completely changed society from when they went in. Luckily, my brother in law has us to support him. Many don't have that option. Is 12 years being enslaved for $1.25 fitting with another 3 on probation and in halfway houses? I don't believe it is especially when watching white collar folks steal millions, do infinitely more damage, and be released in 1/3 the time to pick up where they left off. Ultimately, being forced into slave labor and having to pay hundreds per a month to talk to family despite research showing it's one of the best ways to drive good behavior and rehabilitation in prisoners, is cruel and unusual punishment even if the crime committed means the person is never getting out. Even if we agree on the length of sentence, for someone who did work the entirety of their 12 year sentence, in roles that would have paid $50-70K a year to emerge still owing restitution on a paltry debt of less than a new car, is a travesty.
- D13Fd 4y ago
  > How do people come out after 10+ years having received no training, support or rehabilitation and step into a completely changed society from when they went in. Completely agreed. And it's not just that -- ex-prisoners also come out without any social network other than what they may have gained among prisoners, and they face extreme social stigma that makes finding work difficult even if they had the skills and connections.
  - jeffwask 4y ago
    One positive has been that he didn't have any issues getting work. He had a factory job within a few days and has already been offered potential advancement to a salaried role. I wouldn't be surprised if some of that stemmed from white middle class privilege and the fact that it was a impulsive action (potentially related to mental illness) on his part rather than a lifetime of gang affiliations that led to his crimes. He has no visible markers of incarceration and easily blends into any crowd of middle aged white guys.
LorenPechtel 4y ago
I don't think he's objecting to the sentence, but the financial aspects--and I agree. Put somebody in jail and the basics of life should be provided. I don't mind commissary accounts for luxuries, but the basics should cost $0. And I include communication in that. Treating prisoners as captive markets to be bled is not good for society.
hnlmorg 4y ago
The GP wasn’t trying to make light of his brother-in-laws crime (if he was, he wouldn’t have said what the conviction was). His point was that his brother-in-law has been exploited while serving his time and that is what leads to a high number of reoffenders. For what it’s worth, I agree with his point. The west looks down on revenge ruling, “an eye for an eye” etc. Yet the US prison system isn’t any more evolved. The worst part of it is because we are talking about “bad people”, any defence of their treatment is easy to dismiss - and I get why. Arguing that someone who commuted armed robbery should have rights too does sound like a perverse thing to say. But ignoring those rights just allows problems to proliferate. So all your prison system does is the proverbial cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
- vibrio_bobtail 4y ago
  > The GP wasn’t trying to make light of his brother-in-laws crime (if he was, he wouldn’t have said what the conviction was). He was making doing exactly that when he said no one was injured. Just because someone wasn't physically injured doesn't mean they weren't profoundly harmed by being a victim or armed robbery. How long did it take that victim to feel safe in their community again? His brother-in-law took that away from someone and deserves harsh punishment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    …and your comment sums up exactly the point I was making about how hard it is to have a grown up conversation about this subject matter. I get the need for justice but what you’re describing is revenge, not justice. Justice needs to contain a rehabilitation part and not just punishment. The point the GP was making is that the rehabilitation part has been substituted for exploitation. Regardless of whether you think the sentencing was just or not, and to be clear: I don’t think even the GP was suggesting that his brother-in-law didn’t deserve jail time, if you don’t try and rehabilitate then you’re just encouraging your offenders to go out and reoffend. Thus perpetuating the cycle of crime and increasing the number of peoples who are physically and mentally scared from crimes in the process. Rehabilitating inmates doesnt need to be done for altruistic purposes. There’s a very self reason to do so: those inmates will become less likely to commit further crimes upon release. And that is the crux of the argument here. It’s what the discussion should be focused on, rather than a pseudo-morality debate about whether they deserve the time. Because literally no one believes there shouldn’t be punishment for crimes. But what we don’t agree on is whether criminals deserve a chance to reform.
themitigating 4y ago
But would he have done it? Obviously difficult to determine but a major factor. What if he made the threat knowing it's the only way to get the money?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

Have to agree. We punish violent crime and corruption lightly; nonviolent crime inhumanely unforgivingly. If there was no violence, threat of violence, fraud or corruption, the limit should be two years. If there was, the minimum should be much higher.

jeffwask 4y ago
Because of the mandatory guidelines at the time (which have since been declared unconstitutional) any felony committed while in possession of a firearm federally had a 15 year minimum with no discretion for the judge.
zarzavat 4y ago
I would go further. Prison should only be used for violent crimes with a high degree of intentionality. It's been said that if you asked someone to design a process to create more criminals, they would likely invent prisons: mix as many skilled criminals, with random unfortunate individuals, so that they can share their knowledge of criminality, and have to fight to survive. Prison is bad as a deterrent and is terrible at reforming criminals. The only thing prison is good at, is keeping violent people off the street. There's absolutely no reason why non-violent offenders should be in a prison, give them any other punishment instead.

wstuartcl 4y ago

Lol yeah, armed robbery is effectively the charge for someone that was totally willing to kill while robbing but due to circumstances did not need to. That should not be considered a light crime.

themitigating 4y ago
How do you know they were willing to kill? If you rob someone you need to threaten them regardless if you are going to follow through.
- wstuartcl 4y ago
  Umm based on the statute and elements of the crime they were charged with and found guilty of. Whoever, while committing a robbery, is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily harm upon another, is guilty of aggravated robbery in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both. Or is your stance that a person committing robbery with a weapon and threatening to use it should instead be considered a hapless person that has not chosen to act in a way that is highly likely to cause great injury or death? Like a gun is "ok" and should not be considered as evidence of intent to commit harm during the act of robbery unless they shoot it?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    I understand the law I was arguing against it. "Or is your stance that a person committing robbery..." Consider the crime of attempted murder.(IMAL) that's when a person attempted to commit murder but failed. So they had intent and action, they just failed Armed robbery is someone whose intent is to rob someone and they are successful at the act of robbery. The reason the robber is armed is not to harm the person but as a threat. If their intent is to harm the person that's an additional crime (assault, murder, attempted murder) "that is highly likely to cause great injury or death?" Highly likely for the robbery or if they carry out the threat. I believe the vast majority of robberies where violence was threatened don't end in violence. I don't have data for this so if you contest it I'll recind that claim.

jeffwask 4y ago

I fully agree he earned punishment and it was a serious crime. (he says the gun was never loaded but that's neither here nor there). My question is the scope and breadth of the punishment and whether the system is about restitution and rehabilitation or pure punitive action. How do people come out after 10+ years having received no training, support or rehabilitation and step into a completely changed society from when they went in. Luckily, my brother in law has us to support him. Many don't have that option. Is 12 years being enslaved for $1.25 fitting with another 3 on probation and in halfway houses? I don't believe it is especially when watching white collar folks steal millions, do infinitely more damage, and be released in 1/3 the time to pick up where they left off. Ultimately, being forced into slave labor and having to pay hundreds per a month to talk to family despite research showing it's one of the best ways to drive good behavior and rehabilitation in prisoners, is cruel and unusual punishment even if the crime committed means the person is never getting out. Even if we agree on the length of sentence, for someone who did work the entirety of their 12 year sentence, in roles that would have paid $50-70K a year to emerge still owing restitution on a paltry debt of less than a new car, is a travesty.

D13Fd 4y ago
> How do people come out after 10+ years having received no training, support or rehabilitation and step into a completely changed society from when they went in. Completely agreed. And it's not just that -- ex-prisoners also come out without any social network other than what they may have gained among prisoners, and they face extreme social stigma that makes finding work difficult even if they had the skills and connections.
- jeffwask 4y ago
  One positive has been that he didn't have any issues getting work. He had a factory job within a few days and has already been offered potential advancement to a salaried role. I wouldn't be surprised if some of that stemmed from white middle class privilege and the fact that it was a impulsive action (potentially related to mental illness) on his part rather than a lifetime of gang affiliations that led to his crimes. He has no visible markers of incarceration and easily blends into any crowd of middle aged white guys.

LorenPechtel 4y ago

I don't think he's objecting to the sentence, but the financial aspects--and I agree. Put somebody in jail and the basics of life should be provided. I don't mind commissary accounts for luxuries, but the basics should cost $0. And I include communication in that. Treating prisoners as captive markets to be bled is not good for society.

hnlmorg 4y ago

The GP wasn’t trying to make light of his brother-in-laws crime (if he was, he wouldn’t have said what the conviction was). His point was that his brother-in-law has been exploited while serving his time and that is what leads to a high number of reoffenders. For what it’s worth, I agree with his point. The west looks down on revenge ruling, “an eye for an eye” etc. Yet the US prison system isn’t any more evolved. The worst part of it is because we are talking about “bad people”, any defence of their treatment is easy to dismiss - and I get why. Arguing that someone who commuted armed robbery should have rights too does sound like a perverse thing to say. But ignoring those rights just allows problems to proliferate. So all your prison system does is the proverbial cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

vibrio_bobtail 4y ago
> The GP wasn’t trying to make light of his brother-in-laws crime (if he was, he wouldn’t have said what the conviction was). He was making doing exactly that when he said no one was injured. Just because someone wasn't physically injured doesn't mean they weren't profoundly harmed by being a victim or armed robbery. How long did it take that victim to feel safe in their community again? His brother-in-law took that away from someone and deserves harsh punishment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  …and your comment sums up exactly the point I was making about how hard it is to have a grown up conversation about this subject matter. I get the need for justice but what you’re describing is revenge, not justice. Justice needs to contain a rehabilitation part and not just punishment. The point the GP was making is that the rehabilitation part has been substituted for exploitation. Regardless of whether you think the sentencing was just or not, and to be clear: I don’t think even the GP was suggesting that his brother-in-law didn’t deserve jail time, if you don’t try and rehabilitate then you’re just encouraging your offenders to go out and reoffend. Thus perpetuating the cycle of crime and increasing the number of peoples who are physically and mentally scared from crimes in the process. Rehabilitating inmates doesnt need to be done for altruistic purposes. There’s a very self reason to do so: those inmates will become less likely to commit further crimes upon release. And that is the crux of the argument here. It’s what the discussion should be focused on, rather than a pseudo-morality debate about whether they deserve the time. Because literally no one believes there shouldn’t be punishment for crimes. But what we don’t agree on is whether criminals deserve a chance to reform.

themitigating 4y ago

But would he have done it? Obviously difficult to determine but a major factor. What if he made the threat knowing it's the only way to get the money?