This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Sometimes you need a reminder about how bad the US criminal justice system can be.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/29/alvin-kennard-sentenced-to-...
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Seems harsh on the face of it but it is the 3 strike rule. A repeat offender put away for a long time no matter how trivial the crime is. One question is how trivial was the crime, the sum involved was only £50 but he used a knife to obtain it, in my opinion going equipped with a weapon but not using it should be treated the same as using it.
11
3
In reply to Dax H:
> Seems harsh on the face of it but it is the 3 strike rule. A repeat offender put away for a long time no matter how trivial the crime is. One question is how trivial was the crime, the sum involved was only £50 but he used a knife to obtain it, in my opinion going equipped with a weapon but not using it should be treated the same as using it.
No extra punishment for using the knife?
Supposing you have a couple of evil siblings Dax I and Dax J.
Dax I stabs somebody in a robbery, gets 5 years.
Dax J threatens but does not stab anybody in a robbery, also gets 5 years.
This teaches Dax J that he might as well stab somebody if it will help him commit the crime as he's "treated the same as using it".
I'm pretty sure any siblings you have are much nicer than that unless you are exceptionally unlucky!
Post edited at 12:12
12
4
In reply to Offwidth:
Inevitable consequence of 3 strike rule; sounds like there are loads of others in their prisons in a similar situation. And I'd bet that it was disproportionally used on black people (can I still use that term?).
I've not got any first hand experience (of America) but from what I've gleaned over the years of their justice system, it doesn't strike me as being very civilised.
Would be interesting to know whether people consider the 3 strike rule to have actually worked as a deterrent. Obviously it's "worked" in terms of keeping offenders off the street.
1
2
In reply to Dax H:
Slightly off topic - but the quoted sum of 50.75 dollars is also interesting - I'm wouldn't be surprised if at the time the prosecution case indicated it was - everything in the till - or the whole days takings. If he had taken 50 dollars - but left the baker with 12000 dollars - then I can see that the amount has a relevance. Looking back at the amounts taken often skews the severity - It was still an armed robbery with the intent of taking all the cash in the till.
3
In reply to Dax H:
> Seems harsh on the face of it but it is the 3 strike rule. A repeat offender put away for a long time no matter how trivial the crime is. One question is how trivial was the crime, the sum involved was only £50 but he used a knife to obtain it, in my opinion going equipped with a weapon but not using it should be treated the same as using it.
I can't help thinking that waving a knife at somebody to scare them, isn't quite the same as stabbing them and causing pain and increasing the risk of death.
Post edited at 12:33
5
7
In reply to Offwidth:
That’s what happens when you privatise prisons and have a culture of punishment rather than rehabilitation. Add in; people are either good or bad and let god be the judge, and you have some very odd looking rules.
9
In reply to Offwidth:
> Sometimes you need a reminder about how bad the US criminal justice system can be.
Whilst this is likely to make me unpopular, I'm not sure I can summon event the tiniest feelings of outrage on this. An armed robber, who had a record of previous crimes, got a nice long prison sentence. Seems reasonable to me.
8
4
In reply to rj_townsend:
You should be advising our own government with views like that; after all, we're surely going to follow US 'correctional practices' now that BJ appears to be firmly in Trump's pocket.
1
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> That’s what happens when you privatise prisons and have a culture of punishment rather than rehabilitation. Add in; people are either good or bad and let god be the judge, and you have some very odd looking rules.
I'm pretty glad I don't live in America.
Post edited at 13:55
5
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
> I can't help thinking that waving a knife at somebody to scare them, isn't quite the same as stabbing them and causing pain and increasing the risk of death.
Having once been threatened by someone pointing a loaded 12 bore at my chest I can assure you that being by a lethal weapon is extremely scary and disturbing . Unless you've experienced such a thing you really can't start to understand just how serious a crime it is, even the more so when the perpetrator has planned and premeditated the threatening action by being tooled up in the first place.
8
In reply to Trangia:
I didn't say, or intend to imply, that it wouldn't be very frightening to be threatened with a weapon. I questioned whether being threatened with a knife and being stabbed, were quite the same.
I have been in a situation where I feared a knife might be used on myself and/or my friends by the way, it was rather scary, but none of us suffered injuries, or had our lives put at risk due to injuries sustained.
Edit: I'm sure being threatened with a loaded shot gun would be very frightening, but in an agreeable way, that's not what my post was about. Having a knife waved at you and being stabbed cannot be considered to equally serious by the law, it'd be a crazy situation. Either certain dangerous people will think 'Fuck it, I might as well stab them', or frightened people who carry knives because other people do, will face the same harshness of the law as the more dangerous people who think 'Fuck it' if they pull them out to try and scare somebody off so they can escape.
Post edited at 15:27
3
2
In reply to Timmd:
You’re quite correct.
In the UK we have this view and our laws reflect that. In the US they don’t. Just look at the mentality that allows you to carry firearms and stand your ground and shoot someone if you feel your life is in danger. They just don’t think the same way that we do.
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
"I've not got any first hand experience (of America) but from what I've gleaned over the years of their justice system, it doesn't strike me as being very civilised."
If you have Netflix, watch 13th, very interesting , also for a longer watch, The Staircase follows a murder trial which is frankly shocking in how it pans out.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
If the usa system worked, no one would reach their third offence because the deterent worked. Only it doesn't work, the prisons are rammed, reoffending is frequent and the streets aren't likely to feel any saver, because the next generation will grow up with one or more parent/s in prison and an increased likelihood to offend. It's just a loop. Just like their gun laws, they couldn't help themselves if the tried.
4
In reply to rj_townsend:
>"Whilst this is likely to make me unpopular, I'm not sure I can summon event the tiniest feelings of outrage on this. An armed robber, who had a record of previous crimes, got a nice long prison sentence. Seems reasonable to me."
I feel the tiniest bit sad for anyone that feels robbing a bakery is there best option right now. Maybe he's a wrong un' and maybe he got what's coming but it's still sad on some level and slightly disconcerting when you look at the correlation with race.
4
In reply to Timmd:
> I didn't say, or intend to imply, that it wouldn't be very frightening to be threatened with a weapon. I questioned whether being threatened with a knife and being stabbed, were quite the same.
No they are not the same but the guy went taking a knife, is he willing to use it? We don't know but the fact that he took it in a high adrenaline situation tell me that lives were put at risk and the sentence should reflect that.
> Edit: I'm sure being threatened with a loaded shot gun would be very frightening, but in an agreeable way, that's not what my post was about. Having a knife waved at you and being stabbed cannot be considered to equally serious by the law.
Okay I see your point, maybe taking and not using could in cure a 20% lesser sentence than using. Going armed should always incure a high sentence though.
7
In reply to Offwidth:I'm thinking that 30 years is a very, very long time. The equivalent of leaving university, going in and coming out a pensioner.
The more I learn about the American penal system the less I like it, and theres not really much evidence it's an effective deterrent
2
In reply to wbo2:
> I'm thinking that 30 years is a very, very long time. The equivalent of leaving university, going in and coming out a pensioner.
> The more I learn about the American penal system the less I like it, and theres not really much evidence it's an effective deterrent
Well they lock more people up than anyone else and still kill people in a lot of states.
A prison governor once said he didn't believe deterrents worked because no one in his prison committed their crime thinking they would be caught. In other words, if you're convinced you'll get away with it you don't need to worry about a possible sentence.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
A few more and different examples.
http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-longest-ever-wrongfully-incarcerated-woma...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj-qMe...
Post edited at 19:46
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> "I've not got any first hand experience (of America) but from what I've gleaned over the years of their justice system, it doesn't strike me as being very civilised."
> If you have Netflix, watch 13th, very interesting , also for a longer watch, The Staircase follows a murder trial which is frankly shocking in how it pans out.
We loved the Staircase but were still none the wiser at the end. Did he or didn’t he?
In reply to BnB:
"We loved the Staircase but were still none the wiser at the end. Did he or didn’t he?"
*Spoiler alert for anyone thinking of watching this series* (and apologies to you BnB if you did some follow up research on the case and was aware of this)
Me and my wife spent a couple of weeks pretty gripped watching the 13 hours (!!) of this documentary and were stunned when he was found guilty mid way through due to the lack of evidence. How anyone in the jury could have been in anyway certain that he murdered her was beyond us, there was simply zero credible evidence.
Ignoring the fraudulent blood spatter expert and the earlier life in Germany, the prosecutions case was pathetically weak as her injuries just didn't fit with the accusation of being beaten to death with a blow poke. No skull fractures and no brain injuries, just lacerations to the scalp and a lot of blood. But the defence also couldn't explain what happened with much credibility (although they really only had to prove reasonable doubt which they did easily) because the death scene was so gruesome with so much blood. Probably like you, we spent hours watching the episodes struggling to understand how she could have fallen down the stairs and ended up with those injuries and blood all over the walls.
When we had finished the last episode (I felt it was a few episodes too long) still none the wiser I looked up Michael Peterson on wiki to see if he was still alive and my head exploded when I came to a section titled "Owl Theory" . After reading it and looking at some more stories on the owl theory of the case, I looked at my wife and told her that where they lived is an area common for owl attacks and the lacerations on her scalp fitted with being attacked by talons, in her hands they found owl feathers, her own hair with roots that had been pulled from the scalp and bits of tree.....basically, a far more plausible explanation with credible evidence that (inexplicably and rather annoyingly to us) got a three second mention in 13 hours of television. She looked at me and said "Well that explains it!" lol
We felt a bit robbed (but nowhere near as much as Michael Peterson must have felt) 13 hours of tv and the film maker didn't cover it at all!
The defence lawyer explains why here...
https://davidsrudolf.com/thestaircase/the-owl-theory/
and more on it here
https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a21343954/the-staircase-netflix-owl-...
Post edited at 07:55
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> "We loved the Staircase but were still none the wiser at the end. Did he or didn’t he?"
> *Spoiler alert for anyone thinking of watching this series* (and apologies to you BnB if you did some follow up research on the case and was aware of this)
> Me and my wife spent a couple of weeks pretty gripped watching the 13 hours (!!) of this documentary and were stunned when he was found guilty mid way through due to the lack of evidence. How anyone in the jury could have been in anyway certain that he murdered her was beyond us, there was simply zero credible evidence.
> Ignoring the fraudulent blood spatter expert and the earlier life in Germany, the prosecutions case was pathetically weak as her injuries just didn't fit with the accusation of being beaten to death with a blow poke. No skull fractures and no brain injuries, just lacerations to the scalp and a lot of blood. But the defence also couldn't explain what happened with much credibility (although they really only had to prove reasonable doubt which they did easily) because the death scene was so gruesome with so much blood. Probably like you, we spent hours watching the episodes struggling to understand how she could have fallen down the stairs and ended up with those injuries and blood all over the walls.
> When we had finished the last episode (I felt it was a few episodes too long) still none the wiser I looked up Michael Peterson on wiki to see if he was still alive and my head exploded when I came to a section titled "Owl Theory" . After reading it and looking at some more stories on the owl theory of the case, I looked at my wife and told her that where they lived is an area common for owl attacks and the lacerations on her scalp fitted with being attacked by talons, in her hands they found owl feathers, her own hair with roots that had been pulled from the scalp and bits of tree.....basically, a far more plausible explanation with credible evidence that (inexplicably and rather annoyingly to us) got a three second mention in 13 hours of television. She looked at me and said "Well that explains it!" lol
> We felt a bit robbed (but nowhere near as much as Michael Peterson must have felt) 13 hours of tv and the film maker didn't cover it at all!
> The defence lawyer explains why here...
> and more on it here
Thanks. Amazing that the film doesn’t examine the hypothesis in detail.
In reply to Trangia:
We got burgled while we were all asleep in bed. When I got up the next morning various objects which were obviously weapons had been placed strategically around the rooms.
I'd be more than happy for the perp to get a 25 year stretch.
E
4
In reply to Enty:
That's understandable.
In reply to Enty:
Likewise; when I got burgled, various kitchen knives were found around the house. They had broken in via the kitchen window, and had armed themselves from my knife block. The police took a dim view of this, and said it would increase the severity of charges if they ever caught the perpetrators (they didn't, of course).
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> If you have Netflix, watch 13th, very interesting , also for a longer watch, The Staircase follows a murder trial which is frankly shocking in how it pans out.
The guy is so guilty though.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...