uuhhmmm .. . NO! <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NwmMMZZjxpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Rocket River
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm "in the USA, it is said that there are far more male rapes every day in prisons alone than there are rapes of all females in the USA." Naaa. . . it is worth more Three Hots and a Cot. Rocket River
They still work, maybe scroll down? Uh, maybe because it's taking people off the street that have an extremely high chance of committing more crimes? Career criminals like your poor guy, Mr. Brown, is a junkie who has committed over 9 crimes, many felonies since 88'. You think when people commit felonies they're 'accidents' and should be given a 'break' when it comes to the three strikes rule? How can you not see how much worse off society is when this guy is on the streets...especially if you and your family are walking down the same street when he's in need of money...oh wait...his momma didn't raise him like that... Yeah, the guy that was actually making the money off of the 3 billion got 30 years. He'll be 88 at that time. What else should they do? Please tell me, I'm sure you're REALLY concerned with the impact to society and this has NOTHING to do with one being white and the other being black... The last link takes you exactly to the page...I don't think I can do much better than that...you'll have to actually move your eyes down to see it.
gwayneco, my friend, in ad hominum attacks, one must be subtle, and not so blunt. For example, I just need to mention the math skills required to dissect the statement that 40 months is pretty much 72 months, if in your world of mathematics, 55% of something is pretty much something (using this logic, Kevin Martin is pretty much Lebron James, Brian Gionta is pretty much Alex Ovechkin etc.). Don't be confused by the "slightly less" appended to it, and use your mind critically. The mind of a four year old thing is something an eight year old would say, and that's not exponentially up the intelligence ladder. But, if you want to discuss the failings of the justice system, why don't we bring up other cases--- http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1693362&page=1 Outrage After Teen Gets 10 Years for Oral Sex With Girl Why don't we bring up how the fine gentlemen at Wachovia got zero years for laundering drug money to Mexican gangs? Why don't we bring up this up, to people who think prison is a paradise? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/supreme-court-orders-cali_n_865503.html You know it's bad when Kennedy takes the time to leave the "judicial original ism" spaceship (which is probably currently peering at the GOP party platform, or a time machine they have never revealed to us) to vote with the good ol' liberal bloc. (And how about this for irony? The Eighth Amendment prohibits withholding medical care for inmates as cruel and unusual punishment, but TOO BAD to the 45,000 people who die a year uninsured who haven't had the good sense to get locked up in "prison paradise".) Hey, why don't we look at cocaine usage in Wall Street? OH WAIT, wouldn't you know it--- hey, they changed it a bit though--- YIPPEE! 18 to 1 instead of 100 to 1! WOW Yeah, tell me about a judicial system that creates a prison system (now increasingly privatized, and prone to things like the following)--- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ck-private-jail-builder-lock-children-up.html ---that has the largest recorded incarceration rate in the world, and is close to historic highs established by Stalin in the gulag era, which happens to be inordinately filled with minorities and the poor. Yeah, the judicial system is working JUST FINE.
haha, what are we, in grade school? go in the corner gwayneco, reflect a bit, maybe write a punitive essay or two. If you want to debate issues, so be it, but if I wanted to trade personal insults for no reason, I'd rather prefer trading them with someone who was clever or original.
Good, I'll make sure it gets back to him with a bit more knowledge, though some alcohol damage is to be expected.
While it doesn't seem just, I am not so sure these are comparable crimes. Stealing is stealing. The question is how much would this guy get in a prison term if he snuck in and stole $100 from a cash register and then got caught? Probably not much. But he committed (or feigned) armed robbery. A far more dangerous crime where people's lives may be endangered. Feigning a weapon doesn't make it much less - it's still considered a major felony. Now, should his sentence be tempered by the fact that he was at rope's end? Not sure about that. To say he had no other choice is ridiculous. Was his life or that of someone else's really in danger? Not convinced. But the fact that he turned himself in should be considered. Does he deserve 10 years+ no. Does the white collared crook deserve more, absolutely. But these were not crimes about stealing x dollars of money.
Yeah, one of them was about getting contracted to do something, then totally screwing these people. We're talking mortgage fraud that brought down several companies and necessitated huge disbursements of taxpayer money. but no---the threat of violence is what makes it so critical! We need to make sure people are accountable for threatening violence! Cowboy organizational cultures that emphasize screwing their own clients, hell, their own country? yeah, it's not about the money here either. it's about broken trust, societal bailouts for private profit, and a culture of greed. but, you know, it's important to remember it's not just about the money. Even if the homeless guy stealing $100 might have maybe saved Mr.Manager from going out for an expensive meal, but a mortgage huckster selling fraudulent mortgages that totaled up to $3 billion can only, you know, cause the collapse of several corporations, undermine trust in financial institutions, and put taxpayers on the hook for something like millions if not billions of dollars.
If the point of the OP is that the white-collar guy should have gotten a far stiffer sentence than he did, then I agree.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3YvV8VY1I0w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
From that link about the teen sex "And in Georgia, that they'd had oral sex made matters worse. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison." What the hell is wrong with Georgia?
your sarcasm is much appreciated. Like I said, I am not saying the prison terms were right or wrong - only that these were two completely different types of crimes. The first one isn't about stealing $100, it's about walking into a place and saying you have a gun and are willing to use it. The other one is about fraud. The laws are not just about the consequences, it's about discouraging the crime as well. Due process isn't about comparing one crook to another. It's about applying the law as created in a constitutional framework. I think selling the guy who robbed millions should get life in prison. And I think the homeless guy should get to be in prison too to be honest. Probably not for 10 years, but definitely something. So are we arguing the laws here or the sentencing?
I think the OP is arguing for sentencing, I can see where he is comming from, people said you can't put a price on human life but in the real world we do it all the time and while the homeless man might have risk possible injure one person the wall street damage million of lives for god know how long.
I suspect with a case like this its not just about that one crime was violent, or at least feigning violence, but likely that the mortgage exec can afford better legal representation than the homeless man.
I don't think the laws are the issue - but rather enforcement and penalties. He should have been arrested long before. And there needs to be stiffer penalities for all types of fraud. But if you hold up a bank, you are going to be locked up for a very long time. It's a very different crime. Yes, legal representations makes a difference but it's not only that - the guy robbed a bank. I don't like making the rationale too important, because then you give credence that it's ok to commit a crime in certain circumstances. yes, if it's a real emergency you can run a red light. But rob a bank? No. There is no excuse for that, no moral justification, and the law should not be changed to say it's a lesser crime to rob a bank if you only take 100 bucks and are hungry and need money and will come clean later. That's not how it works. The comparison is what I am disagreeing with. These two crimes should not be put side by side. A man who defrauds millions should be locked away for life regardless - you don't need to compare it to anything else.
