Thread: Stealing $100 vs $3,000,000,000

Seems like Roy got a very raw deal.

At least now Roy will get 3 warm meals and full health care benefits from now...

it has always been this way, white collar crime is more acceptable and the punishment is much less than blue collar crime, its stupid because white collar crime affects 100's to 1,000's of people (such as your example) and blue collar crimes typically only affect 1 or maybe a few people, our justice system rocks!

Originally Posted by Prince

it has always been this way, white collar crime is more acceptable and the punishment is much less than blue collar crime, its stupid because white collar crime affects 100's to 1,000's of people (such as your example) and blue collar crimes typically only affect 1 or maybe a few people, our justice system rocks!

Sarcasm noted.

the main difference i see is that the 100$ was stolen to support a drug habit....

Originally Posted by Prince

it has always been this way, white collar crime is more acceptable and the punishment is much less than blue collar crime, its stupid because white collar crime affects 100's to 1,000's of people (such as your example) and blue collar crimes typically only affect 1 or maybe a few people, our justice system rocks!

You don't put yourself in the homeless guy's situation and there shouldn't be a problem.

Great comparison of foul justice, Minimal.

While, I was reading about that white collar thief only getting 3 yrs for his thievery of billions. And the homeless guy getting 15 yrs. for stealing a hundred, then turned himself in because he felt guilty.

But, what's really messed up, is the guy getting 20 yrs. for stealing a buck!

Then I remembered, all these prisons being built are for the poor. Not for a well off thief who steals billions.

In Amerika, greed and corruption get rewarded, while the poor get the shit end of the stick!

Originally Posted by WG 3.0

You don't put yourself in the homeless guy's situation and there shouldn't be a problem.

It's not the situation but the outcome of having been in that situation.

White collar guy got zip.
Blue collar (or no collar) guy got hammered.

That's a problem, imo.

Originally Posted by irish_2003

the main difference i see is that the 100$ was stolen to support a drug habit....

Your a fuckin tool.

How do you know the white guy doesnt have a drug habbit?

Why is a drug habbit different than a "spend 10,000 dollars on a boat with hookers" habit?

Originally Posted by myCATpowerlifts

Your a fuckin tool.

How do you know the white guy doesnt have a drug habbit?

Why is a drug habbit different than a "spend 10,000 dollars on a boat with hookers" habit?

because the article didn't say what the white collar crime amount was used for......so it's not relevant with the information provided.....

I agree that this is messed up. Very very messed up. But I want to point something out.

These are two different states and two different legal systems. These sentences were made completely independent of each other. So, I am curious; which state are you more frustrated with: Virginia for only giving the white-collar crime 3 years or Louisiana for giving the homeless man 15 years?

I suspect that you all are more frustrated with Virginia. My bet is that you all wouldn't give two shits about the homeless man if his story wasn't cleverly used as a contrast to the little time that the white-collar criminal received.

Originally Posted by maxpro2

I agree that this is messed up. Very very messed up. But I want to point something out.

These are two different states and two different legal systems. These sentences were made completely independent of each other. So, I am curious; which state are you more frustrated with: Virginia for only giving the white-collar crime 3 years or Louisiana for giving the homeless man 15 years?

I suspect that you all are more frustrated with Virginia. My bet is that you all wouldn't give two shits about the homeless man if his story wasn't cleverly used as a contrast to the little time that the white-collar criminal received.

That contrast is the hook, but I'm still curious how a man trying to recover from drug addiction and who showed some remorse for his wrongdoing was given 15 years in prison.

The problem with Roy is, he decided to rob a bank. Usually these type federal offenses carry minimum sentences. He should have chosen another place to rob.

Originally Posted by vortex

The problem with Roy is, he decided to rob a bank. Usually these type federal offenses carry minimum sentences. He should have chosen another place to rob.

Not sure that adds up to fifteen years for Roy, though.

Google offered this...

KILLEEN (May 19, 2011)—Two Killeen women who dressed as men and robbed a Killeen bank were sentenced in Waco’s federal court Wednesday to federal prison time.

Amber D. Waters, 24, and Jalyssa S. Bradley, 20, pleaded guilty in March in Waco's federal district court to charges stemming from the Dec. 22, 2010 robbery of the First National Bank Texas.

Waters was sentence to 32 months for bank robbery and 84 months for using a firearm in commission of felony, ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, $2,635 in restitution and a $100 special assessment to the court.

Bradley was sentenced to 21 months for bank robbery and 84 months for using a commission of a firearm, plus ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, $2,635 in restitution and a $100 special assessment to the court.

More @ Two Women Sentenced For Robbing Local Bank

Less than ten and she used a firearm. I'd love to see his rap sheet.

Originally Posted by Curt James

Not sure that adds up to fifteen years for Roy, though.

Google offered this...

KILLEEN (May 19, 2011)—Two Killeen women who dressed as men and robbed a Killeen bank were sentenced in Waco’s federal court Wednesday to federal prison time.

Amber D. Waters, 24, and Jalyssa S. Bradley, 20, pleaded guilty in March in Waco's federal district court to charges stemming from the Dec. 22, 2010 robbery of the First National Bank Texas.Waters was sentence to 32 months for bank robbery and 84 months for using a firearm in commission of felony, ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, $2,635 in restitution and a $100 special assessment to the court.

Bradley was sentenced to 21 months for bank robbery and 84 months for using a commission of a firearm, plus ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, $2,635 in restitution and a $100 special assessment to the court.

More @ Two Women Sentenced For Robbing Local Bank

Less than ten and she used a firearm. I'd love to see his rap sheet.

Yeah, it may be he got a raw deal, we don't know what his priors look like.

Louisiana First Degree Robbery

LA R.S. 14:64.1

A. First degree robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another, or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, when the offender leads the victim to reasonably believe he is armed with a dangerous weapon.

B. Whoever commits the crime of first degree robbery shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than three years and for not more than forty years, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of imposition or execution of sentence.

From RS 14:64.1 — First degree robbery :: Title 14 - Criminal law :: 2006 Louisiana Code :: Louisiana Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

The judge seems to have been well within his rights to sentence him to 15 years. There has to be something else going on though. Like curt james/vortex said, I'd love to see his rap sheet.

Also, I'd like to point out that people always complain about the law. This particular Louisiana bank robbery statute was created by the Louisiana legislature, which represents the people. In theory, if Louisianans don't like this law or its application, they can change it through the democratic process.

In theory, if we don't like how little time white-collar criminals can be sentenced to, we can change that through Congress.

Originally Posted by irish_2003

because the article didn't say what the white collar crime amount was used for......so it's not relevant with the information provided.....

so are you a tool that can't read? the article says nothing about supporting a drug habit. the homeless man said he needed the money to stay in detox...

This is really a case of apples and oranges. Louisiana law versus Federal law. An unsophisticated homeless man who immediately waived his 5th Amendment rights, and a highly sophisticated white-collar criminal, presumably with a team of lawyers.

Originally Posted by Curt James

Seems like Roy got a very raw deal.

not really if you steal under 40 or 50 billion the sentance is the same thats why most ceo's steal under that amount .
just a few months back a investor stole 300 million so he got only 4 years in prison strange.but i always say if your going to steal, steal bigg. Andon a side note he's black and homeless. people don't have much use for them

Originally Posted by irish_2003

the main difference i see is that the 100$ was stolen to support a drug habit....

So, what you steal something for is more relevant than how much you stole in your opinion?

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

so are you a tool that can't read? the article says nothing about supporting a drug habit. the homeless man said he needed the money to stay in detox...

what is this "tool" term mean?

since when do poor people have to start paying for detox?.....you go to the hospital and say you want detox and they simply send you and the taxpayers foot the bill......he WANTED to get arrested it appears then for the long term treatment.....i wish the gentleman the best in his recovery....

Originally Posted by irish_2003

what is this "tool" term mean?

since when do poor people have to start paying for detox?.....you go to the hospital and say you want detox and they simply send you and the taxpayers foot the bill......he WANTED to get arrested it appears then for the long term treatment.....i wish the gentleman the best in his recovery....

so now we have gone from "I go by whats in the articel bla bla.." to "I assume that is what he was gonna do.." . which one is it?

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

so now we have gone from "I go by whats in the articel bla bla.." to "I assume that is what he was gonna do.." . which one is it?

but you're also assuming that there isn't much more to the story (either story of course) than what's been printed......

Originally Posted by KelJu

So, what you steal something for is more relevant than how much you stole in your opinion?

When you assault someone, you'll get a stiffer sentence if you assaulted the person because you didn't like their race. The corollary being that if you beat someone up for no particular reason, you'll get a lesser sentence.

So apparently the reason does matter.

Originally Posted by vortex

The problem with Roy is, he decided to rob a bank. Usually these type federal offenses carry minimum sentences. He should have chosen another place to rob.

bingo. and when you rob a bank, you have a gun, or atleast say you have a gun. otherwise the tellers would just say, "fuck you". ANY crime committed "with the use of a firearm" is considered a WAY bigger deal.

plus, i bet the homeless guy has been in trouble ALOT. that's one of the main reasons you become homeless.

3 hots and a cot!

Originally Posted by irish_2003

but you're also assuming that there isn't much more to the story (either story of course) than what's been printed......

way to avoid a question..

Where do I assume anything? all I did was call you out on the fact that you claimed to be going by the articel when the truth was that the article never said anything about supporting a crack habit.

did you maybe not read the whole 15 lines and then got caught bs-ing? it's ok, it happens to all of us..

Originally Posted by DOMS

When you assault someone, you'll get a stiffer sentence if you assaulted the person because you didn't like their race. The corollary being that if you beat someone up for no particular reason, you'll get a lesser sentence.

So apparently the reason does matter.

thats not an entirely correct statement. It is true in cases classified as hate-crimes yes but if we get into it over a parking spot it's no different than if we fight over a female.

some cases it matters yes but generally motive is not of primary concern in criminal cases (does not need to be established or proven)

in this case, you are wrong, it really would not matter what he stole it for.