It's true, but note that Allan received a reduced sentence for testifying against the actual mastermind of the fraud, who got 30 years.
So him defrauding millions of times more than what that 15-year sentence guy stole is less bad because the fraudster also snitched on an even bigger fraudster?
I think that isn't an issue. The issue is the clearly disproportionate punishment of 15 years for 100 dollars.
A few years for fraud especially you helped the catch more fraudsters is fine.
15 years for something that won't cover a night out is fucking wrong.
Absolutely agree, you're preaching to the choir
In most circumstances the dollar amount does matter. The titles are cherry picked. The 100 dollar theft wasnt from a convenience store, he robbed a bank. Is your argument that it was such a bad bank robbery that we shouldnt punish the guy? What about criminal history?
Dramatizing the facts does not help make the point, it makes it less resilient. The situation is already lopsided if we just take the simple facts of what happened, but the titles of these articles are not that.
Trying t8 defend the US justice system is a bold fucking move.
You do knowing about three strikes laws and mandatory minimums right?
There are people serving life sentences for stealing food while most white collar crime, even when convicted, don't get much jailtime at all. Usually fines, or parole or house-arrest in their mansions.
Sometimes a non-violent felony also counts as a third strike, which thus would result in a disproportionate penalty., Three-strikes laws have thus also been criticized for imposing disproportionate penalties and focusing too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime.
The US manufactures crimes so it can legally enslave the poor people. Because slavery is still legal in the US, as long as the slaves are convicted criminals.
That's genuinely propping up a significant portion of the US economy; slave labour from prisons which are filled up with all kinds of excuses.
Pretending you don't understand this is the reality of the situation is making me question your humanity.
Well you just keep on pushing people away with your exaggerations. My second favorite part is where you assume any critique must mean I support the current system.
Read better. I said this is already a great example of inequality without obfuscating details. Since it stands on its own merits, any efforts to exaggerate either way is reducing the effectiveness of your message. Honesty is important.
Read more and stop licking the boots of your oppressors.
Are we really defending headlines in articles now?They always are missing nuance, as a rule. All I said was its important not to exaggerate. After reading all the details its still absurd.
I'm saying headlines like that can push people away as much as it can grab them. I generally dont like headlines that are designed to invoke a certain emotional response.
I dont want to discuss how this makes people feel, I want to discuss the details and why things are the way they are, so we can go about trying to fix them.
And you can save the links, although I do enjoy the reading, cause like I said I already agree with your position: its not just or fair or equal or any of that.
Twice as long as the homeless man, yes.
The difference in dollars and impact though, and considering who turned themselves in... It's still an egregious sentence for $100.
It wasn't the amount - It was the "who" that the homeless person robbed. He didn't steal from a local liquor store or 7/11. He robbed from a bank. And bank robbery, since the time there have been banks to rob from, has always carried certain heavy punishments. And the punishments are well known to even a homeless person. And very often the judge gets no choice or leeway in the sentencing.
And TB&W also stole from banks through fraud.
The judge isn't the issue being called out, the laws and associated punishments are.
So.. yes. And my point stands.
And the punishments are well known to even a homeless person.
The bootlicking condescension is strong here.
you can't easily or directly compare the monetary value of violent vs non-violent crime.
Robbery is not about the money from a severity perspective.
Any robbery will be much more heavily punished than a theft of the same monetary value due to the violence or threat of violence agaist the person or people.
If you stick a gun in someones face and ask them for one cent, you still should be going to jail for a decent amount of time - way more than shoplifting a 500 dollar tv.
15 years does seem a lot though, you might have expected them to at least wave the weapon around, or put it direct to someones head, or put a knife to the throat - that doesn't seem to be the case here. but if it were less than 5 , I'd think they'd got off lightly for robbery.
The homeless guy should have shoplifted food from grocery store - not gone and threatened someones life.
That's certainly quite the interpretation of what happened when Roy Brown went into the bank, said "this is a stickup" with no weapon, was handed three stacks of bills, took a single $100 bill, handed the rest back and said "Sorry, I'm homeless".
Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/homeless-man-vs-corporate-thief/
It's true, but note that Allan received a reduced sentence for testifying against the actual mastermind of the fraud, who got 30 years.
So him defrauding millions of times more than what that 15-year sentence guy stole is less bad because the fraudster also snitched on an even bigger fraudster?
I think that isn't an issue. The issue is the clearly disproportionate punishment of 15 years for 100 dollars.
A few years for fraud especially you helped the catch more fraudsters is fine.
15 years for something that won't cover a night out is fucking wrong.
Absolutely agree, you're preaching to the choir
In most circumstances the dollar amount does matter. The titles are cherry picked. The 100 dollar theft wasnt from a convenience store, he robbed a bank. Is your argument that it was such a bad bank robbery that we shouldnt punish the guy? What about criminal history?
Dramatizing the facts does not help make the point, it makes it less resilient. The situation is already lopsided if we just take the simple facts of what happened, but the titles of these articles are not that.
Trying t8 defend the US justice system is a bold fucking move.
You do knowing about three strikes laws and mandatory minimums right?
There are people serving life sentences for stealing food while most white collar crime, even when convicted, don't get much jailtime at all. Usually fines, or parole or house-arrest in their mansions.
The US manufactures crimes so it can legally enslave the poor people. Because slavery is still legal in the US, as long as the slaves are convicted criminals.
That's genuinely propping up a significant portion of the US economy; slave labour from prisons which are filled up with all kinds of excuses.
The wealthy 'make mistakes', the poor go to jail
Pretending you don't understand this is the reality of the situation is making me question your humanity.
Well you just keep on pushing people away with your exaggerations. My second favorite part is where you assume any critique must mean I support the current system.
Read better. I said this is already a great example of inequality without obfuscating details. Since it stands on its own merits, any efforts to exaggerate either way is reducing the effectiveness of your message. Honesty is important.
Read more and stop licking the boots of your oppressors.
Why We Let White-Collar Criminals Get Away With Their Crimes
How white collar criminals get away with it
Is white-collar crime treated more leniently in the US?
How They Got Away with It: White Collar Criminals and the Financial Meltdown
Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Crime, and Criminal Justice
"Cherrypicking"
Are we really defending headlines in articles now?They always are missing nuance, as a rule. All I said was its important not to exaggerate. After reading all the details its still absurd.
I'm saying headlines like that can push people away as much as it can grab them. I generally dont like headlines that are designed to invoke a certain emotional response.
I dont want to discuss how this makes people feel, I want to discuss the details and why things are the way they are, so we can go about trying to fix them.
And you can save the links, although I do enjoy the reading, cause like I said I already agree with your position: its not just or fair or equal or any of that.
Twice as long as the homeless man, yes.
The difference in dollars and impact though, and considering who turned themselves in... It's still an egregious sentence for $100.
It wasn't the amount - It was the "who" that the homeless person robbed. He didn't steal from a local liquor store or 7/11. He robbed from a bank. And bank robbery, since the time there have been banks to rob from, has always carried certain heavy punishments. And the punishments are well known to even a homeless person. And very often the judge gets no choice or leeway in the sentencing.
And TB&W also stole from banks through fraud.
The judge isn't the issue being called out, the laws and associated punishments are.
So.. yes. And my point stands.
The bootlicking condescension is strong here.
you can't easily or directly compare the monetary value of violent vs non-violent crime. Robbery is not about the money from a severity perspective. Any robbery will be much more heavily punished than a theft of the same monetary value due to the violence or threat of violence agaist the person or people.
If you stick a gun in someones face and ask them for one cent, you still should be going to jail for a decent amount of time - way more than shoplifting a 500 dollar tv.
15 years does seem a lot though, you might have expected them to at least wave the weapon around, or put it direct to someones head, or put a knife to the throat - that doesn't seem to be the case here. but if it were less than 5 , I'd think they'd got off lightly for robbery.
The homeless guy should have shoplifted food from grocery store - not gone and threatened someones life.
That's certainly quite the interpretation of what happened when Roy Brown went into the bank, said "this is a stickup" with no weapon, was handed three stacks of bills, took a single $100 bill, handed the rest back and said "Sorry, I'm homeless".
In other words, not remotely what you described.
Goodbye.