[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by jasonX

[SchlauCow]

Oh he's black, this changes everything. Lock him up and throw away the key.

[CollinsE90]

Whats better for you when you're homeless? 15 years in prison with 3 meals a day, a bed, and AC/Heat. Or 15 years of fighting an addiction(most likely), not knowing when your next meal will be, and fighting the seasons. I see it being a positive for him, negative for taxpayers but still

[1speedbike]

15 years with food and shelter guaranteed... and anal rape. Only sounds slightly better than being cold and hungry to me..

[Kiemyster]

Originally Posted by ghosthi32

fuck babylon system fyah bun pussyhole

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by SchlauCow

Oh he's black, this changes everything. Lock him up and throw away the key.

No.

A few people raised some interesting points along the lines of . . . "Well why does one guy who made away with millions of dollars in some kind of white-collar fraud scheme only get blah blah amount of prison time whereas this homeless guy get 15 years and only stole 100 dollars?!"

Well, robbery is oftentimes frowned upon a lot more than white-collar types of crimes because robberies (particularly bank robberies) are oftentimes violent felonies where people are threatened or injured by the use of physical (including deadly) force.

Regarding criminal law, imprisonment and other forms of punishment (e.g. fines, capital punishment) stem from the jurisprudential notions of deterrence and retribution. I'm not going to get into that very much here. If you want to read about it, do some research. It's interesting.

White-collar crime, e.g. some type of fraud involving millions of dollars and a wealthy individual (or multiple wealthy individuals) acting as the perpetrator (perpetrators) is not usually punished by lengthy prison terms.

Why? For starters, while these types of individuals clearly violated some portion of the criminal law (e.g. a federal or state statute), the crimes they participated in were non-violent crimes and these individuals are viewed oftentimes less dangerous to society.

Secondly, white-collar offenders usually can be forced to pay enormous fines (depending on the situation) as a part of their punishment, in lieu of prison time.

This is just scratching the surface regarding why white-collar criminals are punished differently but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

[Cdnrockies]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Whats better for you when you're homeless? 15 years in prison with 3 meals a day, a bed, and AC/Heat. Or 15 years of fighting an addiction(most likely), not knowing when your next meal will be, and fighting the seasons. I see it being a positive for him, negative for taxpayers but still

The difference is that you are giving up your freedom. Many people would be more willing to suffer at any extreme rather than give up their ability to live freely.

['Cane]

If this homeless guy has such a great moral compass, it would have prevented him from going into the bank to begin with. Got what he deserved.

[E90SoFlo]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

No.

A few people raised some interesting points along the lines of . . . "Well why does one guy who made away with millions of dollars in some kind of white-collar fraud scheme only get blah blah amount of prison time whereas this homeless guy get 15 years and only stole 100 dollars?!"

Well, robbery is oftentimes frowned upon a lot more than white-collar types of crimes because robberies (particularly bank robberies) are oftentimes violent felonies where people are threatened or injured by the use of physical (including deadly) force.

Regarding criminal law, imprisonment and other forms of punishment (e.g. fines, capital punishment) stem from the jurisprudential notions of deterrence and retribution. I'm not going to get into that very much here. If you want to read about it, do some research. It's interesting.

White-collar crime, e.g. some type of fraud involving millions of dollars and a wealthy individual (or multiple wealthy individuals) acting as the perpetrator (perpetrators) is not usually punished by lengthy prison terms.

Why? For starters, while these types of individuals clearly violated some portion of the criminal law (e.g. a federal or state statute), the crimes they participated in were non-violent crimes and these individuals are viewed oftentimes less dangerous to society.

Secondly, white-collar offenders usually can be forced to pay enormous fines (depending on the situation) as a part of their punishment, in lieu of prison time.

This is just scratching the surface regarding why white-collar criminals are punished differently but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

+1 at least someone has common since.

[BTM]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

+1 at least someone has common since.

common since when?

[number335]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

No.

A few people raised some interesting points along the lines of . . . "Well why does one guy who made away with millions of dollars in some kind of white-collar fraud scheme only get blah blah amount of prison time whereas this homeless guy get 15 years and only stole 100 dollars?!"

Well, robbery is oftentimes frowned upon a lot more than white-collar types of crimes because robberies (particularly bank robberies) are oftentimes violent felonies where people are threatened or injured by the use of physical (including deadly) force.

Regarding criminal law, imprisonment and other forms of punishment (e.g. fines, capital punishment) stem from the jurisprudential notions of deterrence and retribution. I'm not going to get into that very much here. If you want to read about it, do some research. It's interesting.

White-collar crime, e.g. some type of fraud involving millions of dollars and a wealthy individual (or multiple wealthy individuals) acting as the perpetrator (perpetrators) is not usually punished by lengthy prison terms.

Why? For starters, while these types of individuals clearly violated some portion of the criminal law (e.g. a federal or state statute), the crimes they participated in were non-violent crimes and these individuals are viewed oftentimes less dangerous to society.

Secondly, white-collar offenders usually can be forced to pay enormous fines (depending on the situation) as a part of their punishment, in lieu of prison time.

This is just scratching the surface regarding why white-collar criminals are punished differently but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

I understand your point about non-violent crime and the law, but one guy is stealing enough to feed his family, and one is committing fraud for wealth. The guy who stole from the bank used a note, not a weapon. Which one really is the bigger criminal?

[BTM]

Doesn't matter if you you steal $100, or $100m, ask any robber...

[CollinsE90]

The difference in those cases is Lawyer, homeless guy has a record I'm sure, and a public defendant who cares the minimal amount he can about that guy. The business guy probably had an entire crew of lawyers, who worked deals for a lesser sentence

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

The difference in those cases is Lawyer, homeless guy has a record I'm sure, and a public defendant who cares the minimal amount he can about that guy. The business guy probably had an entire crew of lawyers, who worked deals for a lesser sentence

White-collar criminals oftentimes can afford the best attorneys. That certainly factors into the equation.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

+1 at least someone has common since.

Thank you for the kind words sir. Although I'm really just throwing out some info. rather than really taking a definite position.

Originally Posted by number335

I understand your point about non-violent crime and the law, but one guy is stealing enough to feed his family, and one is committing fraud for wealth. The guy who stole from the bank used a note, not a weapon. Which one really is the bigger criminal?

I understand exactly where you are coming from.

Economic necessity (e.g. I was robbing a bank to feed my family) is really never a justifiable defense the commission of a crime (especially robbery). Although the results may seem harsh/upsetting in one instance, courts have a duty to stay consistent across the board.

[persian54]

i think he asked them for a long sentence..

[montreal red]

madness.... 15 years seems a little too harsh considering that no one got hurt and that he turned himself in.

[BTM]

Originally Posted by montreal red

madness.... 15 years seems a little too harsh considering that no one got hurt and that he turned himself in.

Or consider the other side, that 15yrs seems benevolent considering his current living arrangements...

[ChrisMT79]

Yikes, if he only knew he could have gotten $100 just for opening a checking account. Ok, that was bad.

[TroyDeJ]

Originally Posted by ChrisMT79

Yikes, if he only knew he could have gotten $100 just for opening a checking account. Ok, that was bad.

as childish as that was it made my night lol