Stealing $100 vs $3,000,000,000

[Gissurjon]

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.

its really not apples and oranges, its a matter of justice... period. They are being compared because they are both criminal cases thus making them apples to apples. comparing an american car to a car from japan would not be apples to oranges would it? they can be very different but both cars.

 

[DOMS]

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.

KelJu insinuated that the reason behind a crime shouldn't matter in sentencing. I simply showed that the law does seem to take it into account.

For the record, the idea of hate crimes is utterly stupid and shouldn't be in the law.

 

[KelJu]

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.

Hey I don't disagree with what you just said. I think hate crime legislation is fucking retarded, too. But I don't see how that ties into Irish's comment or this story. If I understood correctly, Irish was saying that the reason a man should do 15 years for stealing $100 is because he was just going to use the money on drugs. That implies that had Paul Allen intended to spend 3 billion dollars on a coke habit, he would get 15 years instead of a 3 and a half year sentence. I know, I know. Nobody can snort 3 billion dollars worth of coke, but that just adds to the ridiculousness of the augment.

Lets take into account that Roy Brown robbed a teller for $100 with nothing more than his hand in his pocket. If he had a gun aimed at a teller, I could understand the stiff sentence, but it isn't the case. Also, Mr. Brown turned himself in. He physically hurt no one, stole very little, and his impact on society was minimal.

Now, lets take into account that Paul Allen was part of the economic breakdown of not just America, but the entire world. Think of how many people are out of work, financially ruined, hungry, and stuck in poverty due to the greed and immoral actions of people like Allen. The impact can't even be measured, because it is so big. You really think 3 years is fair punishment for someone who has caused so much suffering?

 

[BillHicksFan]

Black guy is sick. The fact that he stole a mere $100 means that he is desperate and could probably do with some help. The justice system is a complete failure for even punishing this guy.

 

[maniclion]

people don't go to detox for crack (which i never stated which drug, only that the article said "detox")it's out of your system in 72 hours and there's no physical addiction after that, only psychological addiction.....detox is for drugs that cause you to get sick such as heroin....so why would he be trying to go to detox then as stated in the article?......i think you're letting your emotions get in the way of your debate here

Who's to say he wasn't in detox for the legal drug alcohol?

Perhaps ol' Roy has a long record and deserved 15 years, still doesn't appease my notion that this shysty CEO deserves a much more severe sentence, his bullshit is probably still affecting a whole lot of lives...

 

[Gissurjon]

people don't go to detox for crack (which i never stated which drug, only that the article said "detox")it's out of your system in 72 hours and there's no physical addiction after that, only psychological addiction.....detox is for drugs that cause you to get sick such as heroin....so why would he be trying to go to detox then as stated in the article?......i think you're letting your emotions get in the way of your debate here

you are right, it doesnt say crack, i have gotten used to calling junkies crackheads.

people go to detox for crack Detox | Crack Abuse. you , my sir, are talking out of your butt

you could have atleast googled it before making a false statement.

you still arent answering my question, which is rather trivial by now, did you get on somebody else about how you use the facts of the article and then turn around and make something up?

 

[Gissurjon]

KelJu insinuated that the reason behind a crime shouldn't matter in sentencing. I simply showed that the law does seem to take it into account.

For the record, the idea of hate crimes is utterly stupid and shouldn't be in the law.

im not gonna comment on the idea of hate crimes. The law does take it into account sometimes most of the time it does not and in this case it wouldnt. so the point is valid to a certain extent but irrelivent.

Hey I don't disagree with what you just said. I think hate crime legislation is fucking retarded, too. But I don't see how that ties into Irish's comment or this story. If I understood correctly, Irish was saying that the reason a man should do 15 years for stealing $100 is because he was just going to use the money on drugs. That implies that had Paul Allen intended to spend 3 billion dollars on a coke habit, he would get 15 years instead of a 3 and a half year sentence. I know, I know. Nobody can snort 3 billion dollars worth of coke, but that just adds to the ridiculousness of the augment.

Lets take into account that Roy Brown robbed a teller for $100 with nothing more than his hand in his pocket. If he had a gun aimed at a teller, I could understand the stiff sentence, but it isn't the case. Also, Mr. Brown turned himself in. He physically hurt no one, stole very little, and his impact on society was minimal.

Now, lets take into account that Paul Allen was part of the economic breakdown of not just America, but the entire world. Think of how many people are out of work, financially ruined, hungry, and stuck in poverty due to the greed and immoral actions of people like Allen. The impact can't even be measured, because it is so big. You really think 3 years is fair punishment for someone who has caused so much suffering?

I completely agree with you. But just so you know in case you decide to act like you have a gun during a robbery (unlikely i know), it does not matter. if you make the person belive that you are armed it contitutes armed robbery

§ 16-8-41. Armed robbery
A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon. The offense of robbery by intimidation shall be a lesser included offense in the offense of armed robbery.

this is GA law which is very similar to the federal law

 

[minimal]

this thread has gone a lot further than i expected... lol

 

[LAM]

Seems like Roy got a very raw deal.

and this is what happens when a large bank deemed "to big to fail" breaks the law.

Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal - Bloomberg

 

[Zaphod]

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

If you read the article the money was for food and to cover what was needed to stay at a detox center. He was trying to get OFF a drug habit, not feed an addiction.

 

[AdmiralRichard]