Is this fair or not?

Jiro said:
interesting question!

the common view? "goddamn rich people can get away with anything as long as they have $$$$ and $$$$ lawyer"

the other perspective view? the rich person gets a slap on the wrist because there is a strong likelihood that he will not commit the crime again. why? because he is most likely a highly-visible person in his community and now that he's being shamed/shunned by his peers. That alone is good enough to tarnished his reputation.

As for a poor man? well - obviously... he's a nobody and he's got nothing to lose - thus he's more likely to commit the crime again... thus he goes to jail to get punished. A rich man being shunned by his community is somewhat as bad as being sentenced to jail.
Click to expand...

its probably true, but i dont buy it

what say if we imagine such a drastic change to take EVERY rich offenders into jail AND their MONEY (fines) to donate to the running of the very prison they go to. (make policy changes, FINE the rich, but throw them ALL in jails) With this donations, none of it would be returned as cakes adding to their three square meals a day. On top of that if what we change the rules regarding access to lawyers(that would be nice too, less rich lawyers laughing at us), in criminal courts, so this means EVERYONE gets the SAME treatments of punishment fitting the crime, not the class. Serving of justice right from the beginning to end, that is; from courtrooms to jailcells to their release-from-jail day. So imagine this, as the rich gets locked up, they will lose contacts with their significant others, this create a domino effect which comprises of weakening of their financial control, creating far more damage than just merely reputations - their wealth from business would start to crumble. Depending on how much is reliant on the this person being in contact So, I dont think the tarnishing, the shunning by their peers is 'about the same' as going to jail. Also all the experiences of the horrors of just being IN Jail would be "FELT" more in society, because it would no longer be hidden or 'quieten down' into the underbelly of society.
There would be less denial and further, less condoning of 'white collar crimes' simply because they would know they WON'T get away with it. With tighter protocol on access of money of this level would change the way people would think of exploiting capitalism.

I disagree about 'tarnishing of rich people' there has been thousands in the past, rebuilt everything from nothing all over again, simply because they know how, even if tarnished, they can create new connections and reframe their reputations, so nah i dont think its bad enough for the crime, lets treat them all, ALL the same. Punishment must fit the crime, not the money.

I would bet, (but this 'bet' is hypothetical because we know this would never happen, society is locked in an iron cage of sorts) besides this - if all the ways of dealing with rich offenders were change in this manner as described above, the cultural effect would change also, perhaps even the class structure -over time- so it would get to the point no body would have the 'upper class' ruling the justice system, it would might may well, change the attitudes to a point that rich people would not be as lazy, thus getting more physical simply because they would KNOW if they got done for the crimes this they have to face, thinking about how the money in the banks would look after them would indeed be a foolish thought, as it is the case at present, they DO have it so easy. But if this was changed, they have to look after themselves in jails, and survive it, with more stress on contemplating use of bribery, promises would make it even more interesting in jails. That would be justice, heck, they would likely to have an unprecedented rise in promises, attempted bribery inside and out, that would be oK in my books, it will keep the police even more busy, obvisouly with far less far cops eating donuts lol because there's less waiting for the poor joker to do something stupid, all this would be changed they would be eyeing everyone.
 
the man pays monetarily, poor man pays with time.

The reason it is set up the way it is, is because the Judicial system assumes that it will the state an estimated 10,000 per year to house, clothe, and feed the poor man for one year. Remember in jail you have bare necessities.

But in reality for a 10,000 fine, it looks to be a 6 month jail term rather than a year-long jail term.
 
missywinks said:
well, some street people eat food out of the garbage can, shit/pee in front of the public and sell their bodies for drugs or food to support themselves (just as bad as being raped). no big difference is there?
Click to expand...

big difference is - there's no Big Brother telling them what to do. Even though it's a shit life they're living in, they're free to do whatever they want to do. They don't get to do that in prison.
 
jillio said:
Again, punishment should not be decided based on a person's personality, but on the mandated sentence for the crime committed.

And, that deaf person is entitled to have an intepreter in the courtroom, as well as a lawyer that is familiar with deaf culture and can properly represent that person to the court. Don't let the courts violate your rights.
Click to expand...

that's why the punishment is left at judge's discretion. That's why the mandated sentence has minimum and maximum time allotted for the crime committed. The person's attitude, the circumstance of the situation, and everything else determines the fitting punishment for him/her at judge's discretion.
 
Jiro said:
that's why the punishment is left at judge's discretion. That's why the mandated sentence has minimum and maximum time allotted for the crime committed. The person's attitude, the circumstance of the situation, and everything else determines the fitting punishment for him/her at judge's discretion.
Click to expand...

Minimum and maximum are intended for extenuating ceircumstances, not for cultural considerations. Likewise, if there is a minimum and a maximum, it should be applied equally no matter SES. It isn't.
 
Removing judges' discretion to impose appropriate sentences does not result in equality in sentencing. Instead, prosecutors have unfettered power to decide which crime an offender is charged with because unlike decisions made by judges, prosecutors' decisions are not reviewable and lack accountability. Furthermore, prosecutors retain sole power to grant a sentence reduction for providing substantial assistance.

Although Congress intended mandatory sentences to target "king pins" and managers in drug distribution networks, this is rarely the case. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions. Low-level offenders, such as drug mules or street dealers, often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.

Focal Point: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

And sentencing for drug crimes is but one example. This applies across the board.
 
Grummer said:
its probably true, but i dont buy it
Click to expand...

of course not... this doesn't apply to handful of other rich people. what I said in the post is just a scratch of the surface.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
That's the thing, U.S. don't decide the amount of cash you have either. It's a matter of if you can pay for the crime with cash. You can be very poor and still get out of jail if you have the money (sell your car, beg for money, etc.) If amount of cash did matter, they would charge crime by your income (but homeless would get out for free).

The real punishment is fine. Can't pay it, you go to jail. They really don't want to put these people to jail anyway... it's too expensive to keep them there.

kinda like how someone has to pay for damages on your property. They have to pay for it to fix it somehow. If they can't and the owner ended up paying for it themselves, then something have to be done
Click to expand...

I wrote "your amount of cash don't decide if you have to go to prison or not after a sentence". I never said the sentence depends on your amount of cash, but the consquences of the sentence depends on your amount of cash, ok? :)

This system is pretty similar to justice systems in Yemen(where Osama bin Laden is born) and Somalia. Not sure if it's a good sign.
 
Grummer said:
its probably true, but i dont buy it

LONG AND GOOD POST FROM GRUMMER
Click to expand...

If I got you right, want to add some few more perspectives here. It does exist justice systems that are more fair to rich and poor people than the one in usa. But I can't see it have large consquences in those countries. Rich people got relatives that take care of business.

A friend of mine got a relative that is a sort of kingpin. It's interesting to hear stories about all those "honest" rich people that really makes parts of their fortune on crime. It's some truth in the saying that it's hard to make a fortune without commiting some kind of crimes.

Rich people should definitely go to prison, but I don't agree it have large consquences in this way. Most of time they are put in, get out, and say "oh, i did something stupid, let's move on, I can still make you rich, can't I", and people around cheers and and want gold, no matter who offer the gold.
 
flip said:
I wrote "your amount of cash don't decide if you have to go to prison or not after a sentence". I never said the sentence depends on your amount of cash, but the consquences of the sentence depends on your amount of cash, ok? :)

This system is pretty similar to justice systems in Yemen(where Osama bin Laden is born) and Somalia. Not sure if it's a good sign.
Click to expand...

There are cases where you go to jail no matter what (rather you can pay or not). Like murder.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
There are cases where you go to jail no matter what (rather you can pay or not). Like murder.
Click to expand...

yep. on serious cases like DUI that resulted in death of pedestrian/passenger/driver, manslaughter, pedophile, etc..... - rich people are treated as equally as poor people and no matter how many lawyers you have.... you're going to jail (ok well OJ Simpson was an exception)
 
Lighthouse77 said:
That's not what I am saying.. I am saying that I think some judges have a hard time reading people because of cultural differences. NOT because he is prejudice (sp?).

Like this, on the outside surface, people see deaf people as whiny and emotional but on the inside, we don't hear ourselves and we use more visual expression than hearing people. Hearing people don't always realize that.

So if a deaf person go to court and the judge sees a whiny and emotional person, he wonder if he suspend his license or not because he certainly do not want an unstable person on the road. Or if he should add extra points to their driving record But if a hearing person comes in all calm and cool, he think the person is rational and probably just made an honest mistake. So less driving point for her. (yes, I had extra driving point than the other person who did the same thing.. I don't think I've worded it correctly like the other person did. It just came out wrong)
Click to expand...

Yeah, you pretty much said it yourself. You did word it word and it didn't come out right. :eek3:


Deaf people are just like hearing people.

Put them in a situation without any accommodation and you'll bet they'll be very emotional.

:hmm: Try going to a foreign country without any advance knowledge of their customs or the language itself. How do you think you'll respond?
 
No what we need is harsher punishments to deter people from committing crimes!

The chance that you might be publicly hanged for murder is a pretty good deterrent I would think.

In some countries your hands will get chopped off if you steal. Those places tend to have a low-rate of theft.
 
Jiro said:
yep. on serious cases like DUI that resulted in death of pedestrian/passenger/driver, manslaughter, pedophile, etc..... - rich people are treated as equally as poor people and no matter how many lawyers you have.... you're going to jail (ok well OJ Simpson was an exception)
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a plea bargain?
 
Jiro said:
interesting question!

the common view? "goddamn rich people can get away with anything as long as they have $$$$ and $$$$ lawyer"

the other perspective view? the rich person gets a slap on the wrist because there is a strong likelihood that he will not commit the crime again. why? because he is most likely a highly-visible person in his community and now that he's being shamed/shunned by his peers. That alone is good enough to tarnished his reputation.

As for a poor man? well - obviously... he's a nobody and he's got nothing to lose - thus he's more likely to commit the crime again... thus he goes to jail to get punished. A rich man being shunned by his community is somewhat as bad as being sentenced to jail.
Click to expand...

That's just plain discrimination based on SES. Cant do that.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
What I like to see is less laws so that so many people don't have to go to jail for it.
Click to expand...

Can you give us a example of what laws are useless and dont do any good and always filling up the cell blocks? I am really interesting of your point of view here.
 
Back
Top