Absurdity in Shreveport, Louisianna

[ScytheNoire]

http://wesawthat.blogspot.com/2009/01/s ... s-for.html

So, a homeless black man with a drug problem steals $100 from a bank, and then gives it back the next day and turns himself in, gets 15 years from a D.A. in a Southern USA state known for it's history of racism, a D.A. that has repeatedly failed to be tough of drunk drivers and rapists. But this guy, he'll get 15 years.

Meanwhile, if you happen to steal $50 Billion dollars, well, you get to hang out in your mansion.

The political and justice system is so damn corrupt.

[Timmer]

I suppose the bright side is that he is getting 3 square meals a day.

[j]

He's probably fortunate that he didn't do that 'put your hand in your jacket and pretend it's a gun' thing at my bank.

[Spaker]

He's probably fortunate that he didn't do that 'put your hand in your jacket and pretend it's a gun' thing at my bank.

That shit still works on someone? wtf

[j]

I'm sure bank tellers are instructed to go along with whatever an 'armed robber' says. It's not worth taking the chance that it really is a gun, and the bank's insured anyway.
Regardless of whether or not the guy was packing, the fact that he implied that he was still makes it armed robbery. I suppose he'll have 15 years to consider whether or not it was a good idea.

[Spacemonkey]

So...This D.A. from a Southern US state known for it's racism, was he going easy on only white rapists and drunk drivers?

[Moonmist]

Also, should all criminals go unpunished just because some do?

I don't think 15 years is worth the $100 - it's a taxpayer burden Louisiana doesn't need and a punishment that does not fit the crime - but really? Is anyone actually saying this guy should go free for committing a felony just because someone else has gone free for committing a felony? That's terrible logic. Actually, that's not logic at all, it's just trash.

But... yeah, at least he'll get three squares a day.

[j]

Also, should all criminals go unpunished just because some do?

I don't think 15 years is worth the $100 - it's a taxpayer burden Louisiana doesn't need and a punishment that does not fit the crime - but really? Is anyone actually saying this guy should go free for committing a felony just because someone else has gone free for committing a felony? That's terrible logic. Actually, that's not logic at all, it's just trash.

But... yeah, at least he'll get three squares a day.

Agreed, 15 years of supporting this guy will cost considerably more than he's probably worth to society, but if the punishment for armed robbery is 15 years then that's what he deserves. Just because he's too stupid to commit a crime that's worthwhile doesn't mean he should get off any lighter than a criminal with a bit more intelligence.
If someone told me they were armed and wanted my wallet, I'd treat them the same way as if they said they wanted my car. His lack of ambition doesn't make the crime any less significant.

[Suntail]

This is why I favor a penal system that sentences based on a perceived cost/benefit analysis of the criminal, factoring in such things as: estimated total contribution to society of this person going free, projected likelihood of recidivism, cost to society of the crime, cost to society of recidivism, and cost to society to house this person in prison for any length of time vs. cost to put him to death.

My system results in lots more executions, lots less prison time for harmless "crimes of consent", and prison time really only for those people we highly suspect of being valuable to society if they are not in prison with a high chance of rehabilitation, and drastically reduced tax-payer burden.

I can't ever decide if I'm more pissed, as a tax payer, that we're putting some 18 year-old away for 10 years for possession of pot or that we're putting away some 18 year-old for life with no hope of parole for capital murder. We're spending entirely too much money in both cases.

[j]

This is why I favor a penal system that sentences based on a perceived cost/benefit analysis of the criminal, factoring in such things as: estimated total contribution to society of this person going free, projected likelihood of recidivism, cost to society of the crime, cost to society of recidivism, and cost to society to house this person in prison for any length of time vs. cost to put him to death.

My system results in lots more executions, lots less prison time for harmless "crimes of consent", and prison time really only for those people we highly suspect of being valuable to society if they are not in prison with a high chance of rehabilitation, and drastically reduced tax-payer burden.

I can't ever decide if I'm more pissed, as a tax payer, that we're putting some 18 year-old away for 10 years for possession of pot or that we're putting away some 18 year-old for life with no hope of parole for capital murder. We're spending entirely too much money in both cases.

Yeah, but then you start setting some dangerous precedents...this guy is a 54 year old homeless man with a drug problem. Supposedly he robbed the bank so that he could stay in a detox center, but after he turned himself in the police had to wait two days for him to sober up before they questioned him. Knowing just that information, how much benefit do you think he's likely to bring to society? How much of a drain on the system is he even if he never commits another crime? Without any additional information it's probably safe to assume that he's going to take more out of the system than he's going to put in, so allowing him to live is a net loss...at which point it could be argued that he should be executed no matter what the crime is. In a society that didn't coddle the weak and support the lazy, the costs would be significantly less, but we (unfortunately) don't have sufficient cruelty for that here.
Frankly I'd like to see a prison system that was at least partially self-sufficient. We've collectively decided that hard manual labor isn't acceptable for inmates anymore, but why not make them do some data entry or something to earn those 3 squares? That's hardly cruel and unusual, and the profits from the contracts could lessen the burden on our taxpayers.

[j]

I'd also like to point out that 'shreveport man gets 15 years for stealing $100.00' is a pretty misleading headline. Stealing (while it may involve force) has the connotation of 'taking without permission.' The guy acted like he was armed, implied that he was willing to cause harm, and demanded money. Something along the lines of 'Shreveport man gets 15 years for a $100 armed bank robbery' would be far more appropriate.

[Moonmist]

Something along the lines of 'Shreveport man gets 15 years for a $100 armed bank robbery' would be far more appropriate.

Yes, but then whiny liberals couldn't make the comparison between an armed bank robber and a corporate low-life, and they couldn't make it sound so awful that the armed bank robber in question was going to face the punishment of an armed bank robber.