6 ms·

Have you ever been in a jail cell? Almost every day in the US you see someone who decides to go out with guns blazing rather than go back.

consumer451 4y ago
This sounds like Hollywood reality for white collar. Here is actual reality: > "Hey Do, I just want to let you know, jail is not that bad," Shkreli said. "So don't fret – I hope it doesn't happen. If it does happen ... it's not that bad." - Martin Shkreli https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/08/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-to-lunas-do-kwon-jail-is-not-that-bad/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/08/pharma-bro-mart...
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  The general rule of thumb, is that, if it's nonviolent, and less than ten years, it's Camp Cupcake (minimum security -no walls). If it's over a decade, or violent/escape risk, then it's Leavenworth. I've known folks that have done both.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    The lesson learned from Ross Ulbricht is that there's a good chance it's Leavenworth for non-violent internet crime. Edit: per usual folks come out of the woodwork to accuse Ross of murder-for-hire despite the fact he was not convicted of any murder related charge, only generic conspiracies for which the overt act could have been a number of options (such as drug distribution). The jury never specifically said the overt act they convicted the conspiracy was murder for hire, yet the judge sentenced him as if he were guilty of that.
    - jamiek88 4y ago
      Ross literally hired hitmen to kill someone who owed him money. The fact that he didn’t know it was an undercover agent (pro tip if you hire a hit man and you aren’t customarily in ‘that life’ you are always hiring an undercover agent) is irrelevant. He still required and received ‘proof’ of the deed, a photo of the aftermath, staged of course. He was even cold blooded with the ‘collateral damage’ of the intended victims family being home when the hit was to go down. All this was taken into account at sentencing. The attempt to whitewash Ross into a sympathetic internet hero figure like Aaron Swartz is transparent and wrong.
      - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
        If that actually happened, why didn't they prosecute him for it?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        toss1 4y ago
        Just like most habitual criminals, even serial murderers — focusing limited resources on the easier-to-convict and sufficient-jail-time crimes. Nothing says they have to prosecute every single crime. So, yes, just because it isn't prosecuted, doesn't mean there wasn't a crime committed, it just didn't result in a conviction. They already got a life in prison and forfeiting $183,961,921 [0]. They don't need more, and there are other criminals to prosecute. [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread-pirate-roberts-sentenced-manhattan-federal-court-life-prison https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread...
        vkou 4y ago
        Because the other stuff he did was also enough to put him away forever. The better question is: "Why are people so insistant on whitewashing him?" Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal? Do they regularly pretend to hire them? Are they just closing ranks around him because they think he's part of their in-tribe?
        kelnos 4y ago
        I think the point is that justice shouldn't be arbitrary like that. If you are convicted of certain crimes, your sentence -- even within the range appropriate for those crimes -- should not take into account other crimes that the person was suspected of committing, but it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the entire point of evidentiary standards: in the first place, it's to avoid putting people in jail at all if we can't prove they did it to a particular level of confidence. But we should also not be inflating sentences (again, even if the end result is still within the guided range for the convicted crimes) just because we think they did other, worse things too. Maybe Ulbrict did deserve a much longer sentence. But the prosecution apparently could not prove the more serious crimes. His sentence should not be influenced by things the prosecution could not prove. I'm sure there are other defendants who were convicted of crimes, but suspected of worse crimes that they didn't actually commit in reality. Maybe Ulbricht got what he deserved, but these other people got worse than they deserved. > Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal? To sum up: what people think about this is entirely irrelevant. He was not convicted for hiring a contract killer, so that should have zero bearing on his sentence. Even if his sentence was in the range appropriate for what he was convicted for, it's a range, and if his sentence was pushed higher in that range because of other things the judge believed he did, that's not justice.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      I believe that ol’ Dreaddie got just a wee bit more than ten years.
      - paulpauper 4y ago
        and likely so will SBF white collar sentences are so long these days.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- paulpauper 4y ago
  Bigly difference between a few years at camp jail vs. life or decade + at medium or worse facility. Significant white collar fraud that entails a longer than 10 year sentence would likely be served at a medium, not a camp, due to flight risk. I think Do Kwan would get the latter (assuming he is extradited to US, charged, sentenced, etc.).
- jongjong 4y ago
  I suspect that a lot of decent people go to jail nowadays. That would explain why jails aren't so bad and why different facilities are so inconsistent. I can imagine a day when good people will be in jail and bad people will be outside running them. I think in some countries, this is not far from reality.
ctvo 4y ago
> Have you ever been in a jail cell? Almost every day in the US you see someone who decides to go out with guns blazing rather than go back. ... what? Who are these people going out in a blaze of glory rather than returning to prison? Considering there are millions of ex-cons, many who will be repeat offenders, we should be seeing many more of these people going out "guns blazing" rather than returning to prison, yeah? Or did you pull this fun fact from a viewing of The Town?
- notch898a 4y ago
  google 'felon warrant fires police' I'm honestly shocked I'm forced to even cite that this happens. Although I suppose if someone has lived in America and made it to adulthood without acknowledging the stories they aren't going to be convinced.
  - duxup 4y ago
    I don’t think that search result would support your statement.
    - tehwebguy 4y ago
      Yeah, they don't.
      - mrcode007 4y ago
        He said google. Not bing ;-P Plenty of shootings involving felons on parole in the news.
        xapata 4y ago
        News articles are biased towards likelihood of clicks.
        mrcode007 4y ago
        That doesn’t make them any less true? I think you’re confusing selection bias with the fact that something happened. Say a news outlet says “X happened and it’s bad”. Another news outlet says “X happened and it’s good.” Both have their respective slant. Fine. But BOTH say X happened. Stuff that’s not newsworthy doesn’t go into news. You can’t just dismiss facts with prejudice as in “Don’t look up”.

consumer451 4y ago

This sounds like Hollywood reality for white collar. Here is actual reality: > "Hey Do, I just want to let you know, jail is not that bad," Shkreli said. "So don't fret – I hope it doesn't happen. If it does happen ... it's not that bad." - Martin Shkreli https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/08/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-to-lunas-do-kwon-jail-is-not-that-bad/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/08/pharma-bro-mart...

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
The general rule of thumb, is that, if it's nonviolent, and less than ten years, it's Camp Cupcake (minimum security -no walls). If it's over a decade, or violent/escape risk, then it's Leavenworth. I've known folks that have done both.
- notch898a 4y ago
  The lesson learned from Ross Ulbricht is that there's a good chance it's Leavenworth for non-violent internet crime. Edit: per usual folks come out of the woodwork to accuse Ross of murder-for-hire despite the fact he was not convicted of any murder related charge, only generic conspiracies for which the overt act could have been a number of options (such as drug distribution). The jury never specifically said the overt act they convicted the conspiracy was murder for hire, yet the judge sentenced him as if he were guilty of that.
  - jamiek88 4y ago
    Ross literally hired hitmen to kill someone who owed him money. The fact that he didn’t know it was an undercover agent (pro tip if you hire a hit man and you aren’t customarily in ‘that life’ you are always hiring an undercover agent) is irrelevant. He still required and received ‘proof’ of the deed, a photo of the aftermath, staged of course. He was even cold blooded with the ‘collateral damage’ of the intended victims family being home when the hit was to go down. All this was taken into account at sentencing. The attempt to whitewash Ross into a sympathetic internet hero figure like Aaron Swartz is transparent and wrong.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
      If that actually happened, why didn't they prosecute him for it?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - toss1 4y ago
        Just like most habitual criminals, even serial murderers — focusing limited resources on the easier-to-convict and sufficient-jail-time crimes. Nothing says they have to prosecute every single crime. So, yes, just because it isn't prosecuted, doesn't mean there wasn't a crime committed, it just didn't result in a conviction. They already got a life in prison and forfeiting $183,961,921 [0]. They don't need more, and there are other criminals to prosecute. [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread-pirate-roberts-sentenced-manhattan-federal-court-life-prison https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread...
      - vkou 4y ago
        Because the other stuff he did was also enough to put him away forever. The better question is: "Why are people so insistant on whitewashing him?" Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal? Do they regularly pretend to hire them? Are they just closing ranks around him because they think he's part of their in-tribe?
        kelnos 4y ago
        I think the point is that justice shouldn't be arbitrary like that. If you are convicted of certain crimes, your sentence -- even within the range appropriate for those crimes -- should not take into account other crimes that the person was suspected of committing, but it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the entire point of evidentiary standards: in the first place, it's to avoid putting people in jail at all if we can't prove they did it to a particular level of confidence. But we should also not be inflating sentences (again, even if the end result is still within the guided range for the convicted crimes) just because we think they did other, worse things too. Maybe Ulbrict did deserve a much longer sentence. But the prosecution apparently could not prove the more serious crimes. His sentence should not be influenced by things the prosecution could not prove. I'm sure there are other defendants who were convicted of crimes, but suspected of worse crimes that they didn't actually commit in reality. Maybe Ulbricht got what he deserved, but these other people got worse than they deserved. > Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal? To sum up: what people think about this is entirely irrelevant. He was not convicted for hiring a contract killer, so that should have zero bearing on his sentence. Even if his sentence was in the range appropriate for what he was convicted for, it's a range, and if his sentence was pushed higher in that range because of other things the judge believed he did, that's not justice.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    I believe that ol’ Dreaddie got just a wee bit more than ten years.
    - paulpauper 4y ago
      and likely so will SBF white collar sentences are so long these days.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
paulpauper 4y ago
Bigly difference between a few years at camp jail vs. life or decade + at medium or worse facility. Significant white collar fraud that entails a longer than 10 year sentence would likely be served at a medium, not a camp, due to flight risk. I think Do Kwan would get the latter (assuming he is extradited to US, charged, sentenced, etc.).
jongjong 4y ago
I suspect that a lot of decent people go to jail nowadays. That would explain why jails aren't so bad and why different facilities are so inconsistent. I can imagine a day when good people will be in jail and bad people will be outside running them. I think in some countries, this is not far from reality.

ctvo 4y ago

> Have you ever been in a jail cell? Almost every day in the US you see someone who decides to go out with guns blazing rather than go back. ... what? Who are these people going out in a blaze of glory rather than returning to prison? Considering there are millions of ex-cons, many who will be repeat offenders, we should be seeing many more of these people going out "guns blazing" rather than returning to prison, yeah? Or did you pull this fun fact from a viewing of The Town?

notch898a 4y ago
google 'felon warrant fires police' I'm honestly shocked I'm forced to even cite that this happens. Although I suppose if someone has lived in America and made it to adulthood without acknowledging the stories they aren't going to be convinced.
- duxup 4y ago
  I don’t think that search result would support your statement.
  - tehwebguy 4y ago
    Yeah, they don't.
    - mrcode007 4y ago
      He said google. Not bing ;-P Plenty of shootings involving felons on parole in the news.
      - xapata 4y ago
        News articles are biased towards likelihood of clicks.
        mrcode007 4y ago
        That doesn’t make them any less true? I think you’re confusing selection bias with the fact that something happened. Say a news outlet says “X happened and it’s bad”. Another news outlet says “X happened and it’s good.” Both have their respective slant. Fine. But BOTH say X happened. Stuff that’s not newsworthy doesn’t go into news. You can’t just dismiss facts with prejudice as in “Don’t look up”.