6 ms·

Am I the only one here not seeing this as propaganda with nicely worded articles masking a lot of the reality here? Some of them seem a little unreasonable I'll

Am I the only one here not seeing this as propaganda with nicely worded articles masking a lot of the reality here? Some of them seem a little unreasonable I'll agree, but lets go through a few of these: "taking a wallet from a hotel room" - we blame it on the court appointed lawyer. He's already been convicted and sent to jail twice for burglary and he continues to break into other peoples places and steal their stuff. Poor guy just took a wallet from those rich vacationing golfers. Screw that. If I was there I'd be scared to death. How many times do we let him keep doing this. Stop doing it stupid. "stealing tools from a tool shed" - oh he was just riding along. sure he was. already been convicted multiple times for burglary. The fact that he desperately misses his children does not make him less guilty of continuing to break into other peoples places and taking their things. Stop doing that stupid. "borrowing a co-workers truck" - i think there is clearly more to this story. generally speaking, people don't normally drive other people's trucks 3 states away without letting them know. If it really was harmless, i'd expect the other guy to not press charges or testify on his behalf. Hey guys, it was just a misunderstanding I thought someone else took it. Also, "inadvertently killing someone" is a really nice way of saying he beat the shit out of someone in a fight and the guy died. Perhaps some of these don't deserve life, but I don't really have that much of a problem with it. Maybe we could lower it to 20-30 years, but I have no problems with escalating penalties. If you are a productive member of society this isn't a problem. These mini-articles are all worded as if these people didn't do anything wrong and just made a tiny mistake this one time and now they are in prison forever. Not the case. Most of them made pretty big mistakes, and they made them repeatedly.

Mithaldu 13y ago
There's a principle in justice: A punishment fitting the crime. As the document points out, people who raped or murdered, sometimes more than once, can leave prison after 5-15 years, depending on behavior. Meanwhile those people listed will never be able to leave, even if they spend 50 years with impeccable and absolitely perfect behavior.
- clarky07 13y ago
  Can I ask where the document states that? Ctrl-F doesn't seem to find the word rape and says nothing about 5-15 years. That being said, I am not for anyone convicted of rape or murder being let out after 5-15 years. Being ok with someone convicted repeatedly of things being sentenced to long terms does not mean I want short terms for even more serious crimes. Feel free to argue for longer terms for rape and murder. Unlikely to find too much dissension. This article on the other hand is for shorter terms for different crimes. The two things don't REALLY have anything to do with one another.
- tshile 13y ago
  Crimes. Plural, not singular. Three strikes laws exist for a reason. Does stealing a wallet justify sitting in jail for life? No. Does getting caught committing your third burglary? Well, that's a much more interesting question and everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinions. But no one is entitled to completely twist the facts and then demand everyone agree with them or feel sorry for their own positions on it.
avenger123 13y ago
Incredible. Please, please take a step back and read what you wrote. Now, for each of those instances you described, please assume this is your uncle, brother, cousin etc? Do you still feel the same? No one is saying these people did nothing wrong. The main issue is that the punishment does not fit the crime. That's it. Simple. Where do we draw the line? Obviously for you the line is ok where it is at. But, frankly, all these cases, I have an intuitive sense that the punishment does not fit the crime. There are many people, I would assume that also have this intuitive sense. Why is this? I would make a guess that when I see someone like Martha Stewart getting less than a year in prison for securities fraud and someone "taking a wallet from a hotel room" getting life, well, it just doesn't jive right. Obviously this is just one example. The unevenness of it makes it wrong.
- clarky07 13y ago
  you clearly don't know me at all. I have a cousin that has stolen large sums of money from and threatened bodily harm to my grandma along with several other convictions that i'd like to stay in prison for a long time. I've got an uncle that I have similar feelings for. Also, you should re-read what I wrote. I also said that perhaps these don't deserve life, but "a long time" does seem reasonable. Finally, how is securities fraud worse than breaking and entering? How is securities fraud worse than "inadvertently killing someone?" Really? Yes yes, I know we hate the 1%. Terrible rich people. Insider trading is not worse than breaking and entering or killing someone. Come on now.
  - meric 13y ago
    Breaking and entering: $1000's of damage, per instance. Insider trading: $100,000's of damage, per instance. Enforcement level of insider trading is also low, so a person can commit many more times the crime of insider trading before they're caught.
    - clarky07 13y ago
      Breaking and entering - very traumatic to someone. insider trading - traumatic to no one. I'm not sure what these "damages" you speak of are. Someone wanted to buy or sell stock, and an insider bought or sold it. Sure, they have more information, but someone always has more or different information. carl icahn and warren buffett have more information than me about a lot of things. yet we trade on the same market everyday. many economists argue that it should be legal, and it is a victimless crime. "Other critics argue that insider trading is a victimless act: a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to trade property which the seller rightfully owns, with no prior contract (according to this view) having been made between the parties to refrain from trading if there is asymmetric information. The Atlantic has described the process as "arguably the closest thing that modern finance has to a victimless crime""[1] i can't imagine how someone can suggest that insider trading is a worse crime than breaking and entering. also, FWIW, if you want to get mad at insider trading, don't get mad at martha stewart. She went to jail for it. Get mad at the fact that it is completely legal for politicians to insider trade. I mean WTF. They get non-public important information on a regular basis and for whatever bizarre reason we decided that they can trade on it but nobody else can. WTF? [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Arguments_for_legalizing_insider_trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Arguments_for_l...

Mithaldu 13y ago

There's a principle in justice: A punishment fitting the crime. As the document points out, people who raped or murdered, sometimes more than once, can leave prison after 5-15 years, depending on behavior. Meanwhile those people listed will never be able to leave, even if they spend 50 years with impeccable and absolitely perfect behavior.

clarky07 13y ago
Can I ask where the document states that? Ctrl-F doesn't seem to find the word rape and says nothing about 5-15 years. That being said, I am not for anyone convicted of rape or murder being let out after 5-15 years. Being ok with someone convicted repeatedly of things being sentenced to long terms does not mean I want short terms for even more serious crimes. Feel free to argue for longer terms for rape and murder. Unlikely to find too much dissension. This article on the other hand is for shorter terms for different crimes. The two things don't REALLY have anything to do with one another.
tshile 13y ago
Crimes. Plural, not singular. Three strikes laws exist for a reason. Does stealing a wallet justify sitting in jail for life? No. Does getting caught committing your third burglary? Well, that's a much more interesting question and everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinions. But no one is entitled to completely twist the facts and then demand everyone agree with them or feel sorry for their own positions on it.

avenger123 13y ago

Incredible. Please, please take a step back and read what you wrote. Now, for each of those instances you described, please assume this is your uncle, brother, cousin etc? Do you still feel the same? No one is saying these people did nothing wrong. The main issue is that the punishment does not fit the crime. That's it. Simple. Where do we draw the line? Obviously for you the line is ok where it is at. But, frankly, all these cases, I have an intuitive sense that the punishment does not fit the crime. There are many people, I would assume that also have this intuitive sense. Why is this? I would make a guess that when I see someone like Martha Stewart getting less than a year in prison for securities fraud and someone "taking a wallet from a hotel room" getting life, well, it just doesn't jive right. Obviously this is just one example. The unevenness of it makes it wrong.

clarky07 13y ago
you clearly don't know me at all. I have a cousin that has stolen large sums of money from and threatened bodily harm to my grandma along with several other convictions that i'd like to stay in prison for a long time. I've got an uncle that I have similar feelings for. Also, you should re-read what I wrote. I also said that perhaps these don't deserve life, but "a long time" does seem reasonable. Finally, how is securities fraud worse than breaking and entering? How is securities fraud worse than "inadvertently killing someone?" Really? Yes yes, I know we hate the 1%. Terrible rich people. Insider trading is not worse than breaking and entering or killing someone. Come on now.
- meric 13y ago
  Breaking and entering: $1000's of damage, per instance. Insider trading: $100,000's of damage, per instance. Enforcement level of insider trading is also low, so a person can commit many more times the crime of insider trading before they're caught.
  - clarky07 13y ago
    Breaking and entering - very traumatic to someone. insider trading - traumatic to no one. I'm not sure what these "damages" you speak of are. Someone wanted to buy or sell stock, and an insider bought or sold it. Sure, they have more information, but someone always has more or different information. carl icahn and warren buffett have more information than me about a lot of things. yet we trade on the same market everyday. many economists argue that it should be legal, and it is a victimless crime. "Other critics argue that insider trading is a victimless act: a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to trade property which the seller rightfully owns, with no prior contract (according to this view) having been made between the parties to refrain from trading if there is asymmetric information. The Atlantic has described the process as "arguably the closest thing that modern finance has to a victimless crime""[1] i can't imagine how someone can suggest that insider trading is a worse crime than breaking and entering. also, FWIW, if you want to get mad at insider trading, don't get mad at martha stewart. She went to jail for it. Get mad at the fact that it is completely legal for politicians to insider trade. I mean WTF. They get non-public important information on a regular basis and for whatever bizarre reason we decided that they can trade on it but nobody else can. WTF? [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Arguments_for_legalizing_insider_trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Arguments_for_l...