Fair and Equal Justice

[LustfulLord2011]

I don't know... I can't really grasp that level of theft. It really does boggle the mind, and to me, defy all rational suggestion for punishment, because anything I can think of would be too harsh, or not nearly harsh enough.

[TheGlyphstone]

Which is possibly why his defense lawyers are arguing he was just being used as a front-man while his underlings kept the details away from him so he couldn't rock the boat. Was he guilty of willful complicity? Was he just a moron who blew off his accountants when they insisted the books weren't adding up? Who's telling the truth? We can't really be certain.

For contrast, the guy at the top of the whole scheme was hit with 14 conspiracy charges and got 30 years in prison. And he knew what he was doing the whole way through, though I doubt he thought he'd actually get caught (obviously).

[LustfulLord2011]

Oh, well, let's be clear... For the top man, I would heartily recommend confiscation of all financial assets, life in prison, and at LEAST a five minute gangstomp from all the people who put their trust in him (no fatal wounds allowed).

[Callie Del Noire]

I have a LOT of misgivings on the lack of appeal on the Sex Offender's listing. Once you're on it.. you're.. to be crude about it.. totally fucked. You could have a completely overzealous DA out to win points for re-election.

I mean.. look at the way the DA went after the LaCross team at Duke, or putting a man in Jail for a decade for oral sex as a minor. (Wilson vs. State of Georgia).

There are people who merit being on the list but kids doing things like experimenting with sex aren't among them. Neither are assistant principals collecting evidence of students forwarding pictures of other students on their phone.

[LustfulLord2011]

I am sorry I doubted you. I just couldn't believe that, even in this country, things could have gotten so grossly fucked up as to permit that kind of legislation. I stand here, wiser and somewhat humbled by the sheer capacity our kind exhibits for such mindless stupidity it would make a slug look like a physicist by comparison.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am sorry I doubted you. I just couldn't believe that, even in this country, things could have gotten so grossly fucked up as to permit that kind of legislation. I stand here, wiser and somewhat humbled by the sheer capacity our kind exhibits for such mindless stupidity it would make a slug look like a physicist by comparison.

I had a law in the town I grew up in had an ordinance declaring snoring illegal if your neighbor could hear you.

Trust me.. legistlative stupidity goes all the way back to Ancient Rome and Greece.

[LustfulLord2011]

Yeah, but there's idiocy, and then there's "how the fuck did the moron who came up with this not die from sniffing too many Whippets?!?!?"

[TheGlyphstone]

Sometimes it's just the law of unintended consequences, or failing to write in exceptions that only become obvious after the fact - stuff like R+J cases, for instance, or petty criminals who mug three random people for their wallets and get sentenced to life without parole because of 'Three Strikes'.

[LustfulLord2011]

True. Still, the second these things were discovered, exceptions should have been written immediately and without quibbling.

[Anberlin]

This is precisely what Karl Marx was talking about when he exposed the conflict between the Capitalist class and the Working class. In reality the common man is always in conflict for his rights and freedom. Marxism reveals what true utopia is, the capitalists just deceive  the masses into thinking democracy is the solution for all conflict.

[LustfulLord2011]

The problem with socialism is that it flies in the face of human nature. It's a great philosophy, but that's all it can ever be... philosophy. Because without private wealth as a means of social stratification, there is no such thing as "status" in the sense we traditionally understand it... and all evidence seems to support the assertion that humans are inherently status seeking animals.

[Bayushi]

Sometimes it's just the law of unintended consequences, or failing to write in exceptions that only become obvious after the fact - stuff like R+J cases, for instance, or petty criminals who mug three random people for their wallets and get sentenced to life without parole because of 'Three Strikes'.

A California man was sentenced to life in prison after stealing golf clubs under Three Strikes.

and all evidence seems to support the assertion that humans are inherently status seeking animals.

Humans are social animals, and status is an integral part of social relations amongst humans.

I'm not sure how people can still think Marxism or Communism can work; what, people don't read history books any longer?

[LustfulLord2011]

I think that your assertion that status is an inherent part of being social among humans is correct. In fact, I think it's probably integral to being social AT ALL. All social animals that I know of stratify themselves in similar ways, just through different means.

[meikle]

True. Still, the second these things were discovered, exceptions should have been written immediately and without quibbling.

You can't be punished for something that wasn't illegal when you did it.

[TheGlyphstone]

You can't be punished for something that wasn't illegal when you did it.

He's arguing for the other way around - it was illegal when they did it, but shouldn't have been (for them).

[LustfulLord2011]

Yes, Glyph is correct. I was arguing the point that the logical exceptions to those laws should have been implemented immediately as soon as they were discovered. I personally, except in clearly coercive cases, think that the statutory rape laws are certifiable horse manure anyway. By the time a person is in their teens, they have learned enough to give informed consent. Our extensive sex education programs have insured that. Or at least, consent as informed as the average adult. More so, in some cases. There are still people my age, and older, out there who have no CLUE as to how sex, reproduction, and STIs work, and yet we decide, arbitrarily, that they are somehow competent to make decisions and give consent regarding their own sexual conduct, while well educated young men and women who know what they are doing are still, in many places, refused access to condoms and birth control without parental consent. It's patent insanity, but hey, that's the way it is.

[Oniya]

Unfortunately, there still exist regions in this country where the 'extensive' sex education program consists of 'You're not old enough.  Don't do it.  Class dismissed.'  Even when I was in 8th grade, your parents had to sign a permission slip for you to learn about puberty.  My parents signed, but I always sort of wondered at the time what would happen if they didn't.

Also, the brain is still developing during the teens - particularly the parts that govern decision-making.  This is why we even have a 'juvenile system' for offenders 17 and under.  Yes, the 17/18 cut off is fairly arbitrary, but it's there as a compromise to recognize that we have a longer developmental period than most mammals.

[LustfulLord2011]

Okay, that's true. In fact, as much a minority as they are, the regions you are talking about are large enough to cause real concern. Still, there is ZERO excuse for continued ignorance anywhere, because anywhere in this country, and most places around the world, there is ready information outside of the school system available even to minors about these sorts of issues. I do see your point, but then again, a lot of teens I know are more responsible and capable of making rational, well informed decisions on a LOT of topics than people my own age, or even older. I just think that the concept of "informed consent" needs to be redefined in a more sensible fashion. I haven't got a productive suggestion on HOW, unfortunately... But I am hoping that someday, someone out there will come up with one.

[Caehlim]

It's not the prison sentence that concerns me. I'm more concerned by the fact that he couldn't get $100 to stay at a detox center. Something's wrong with the welfare system there.

Also, focusing on the amount of money stolen is missing the point. The bank teller was threatened with what she likely believed was a legitimate threat of murder.

The bank is probably insured against theft. The insurance company uses combined group risk and a statistically calculated rate to ensure that they always make a profit. Whether you take $100 or $10,000 no one actually loses any money. (So long as there are other people robbing banks at a statistically normal rate).

[LustfulLord2011]

That's definitely the case, but insurance companies actually have a zero payout goal: any time they have to pay any money, they count it as a loss. Shrunk profits is the same as shrunk capital, from their perspective, and in certain ways, it's true. There's a difference between "a profit", "a big profit" and "an acceptable profit" (notice I placed that last one AFTER the first two... that's how it's thought of by insurance companies... if their profits aren't sinfully large, they are inadequate). If profit levels aren't at least "acceptable", something went wrong somewhere.