[QUOTE=Lankist;35802425]i feel so loved[/QUOTE]
you're a part of the Kool Kids Krew now, congratulations
[QUOTE=Lankist;35798933]ITT Facepunch thinks it knows more about the justice system than someone who is in the justice system.[/QUOTE]
You never cited a sentencing matrix or the easily available data on what constitutes "average sentences" in different states in this country.
Learn how to convey a point in [I]a post[/I] rather than acting like a twat for [I]five pages.[/I] Being right doesn't mean anything if nobody understands why you're right but you.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35802600]You never cited a sentencing matrix or the easily available data on what constitutes "average sentences" in different states in this country.
Learn how to convey a point in [I]a post[/I] rather than acting like a twat for [I]five pages.[/I] Being right doesn't mean anything if nobody understands why you're right but you.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28ggdsaiakswvbcx55kq0zaufg%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-328-of-1931]Feel free[/url]
I'm talking about the underlying philosophy of the american justice system.
Michigan's parameters for punishing attempted murder:
[I]Assault with intent to commit murder—Any person who shall assault another with intent to commit the crime of murder, shall be guilty of a felony, [B]punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any number of years.[/B][/I]
Michigan Penal Code. Chapter 750, section 83.
This, like most deadly assault laws, permits discretion of the judge to establish an appropriate sentence with no specified maximum.
In [I]most[/I] states, Assault with Intent to Murder carries a sentence with a maximum of [B]ten years[/B] imprisonment, and the average sentence across the board fluctuates somewhere between 5 and 10 depending upon the circumstances. Usually premeditation factors into that spectrum, with spur-of-the-moment attempts falling on the shorter side and premeditated attempts falling on the upper end. Considering this guy plead guilty to two counts of this crime, 14 years minimum is about what someone would get [I]max[/I] elsewhere for the same charges. This is the case of a pissed off cop not knowing what laws he's enforcing.
I referenced no specific law because nobody was talking about any specific law. Everyone was talking about the general ideology of the American justice system, and so I addressed that.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35798599]Frankly, still not as bad as the people who are murdered by police and the police get paid leave for it.
I mean, it's 14 fucking years. For not killing a man, I think that sounds pretty fair.
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
I think in my state attempted murder only carries a minimum penalty of 5 years in prison, so he got longer than he would have got in my state.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand the difference between attempted murder and murder. Why is one worse?
Let's say me and a friend go to the top of the Empire State Building, ignoring signr not to throw shit over the edge, and we each throw two roughly identical stones over the edge. Both accelerate at roughly 9.8 meters per second squared before attaining terminal velocity, which is pretty damn respectable from that height, and as the Empire State is so tall, there's virtually no "aim" possible. Mine lands harmlessly in a trash can, quite miraculously. His, on the other hand, smacks a kid on the head, caving it in and killing him.
Who's a worse person? Me, who threw a stone over the edge? Or him, who threw a stone over the edge and happened to kill someone? If you [I]meant[/I] to kill someone and failed to do so, you're just as bad as someone who did.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35802843]I don't understand the difference between attempted murder and murder. Why is one worse?
Let's say me and a friend go to the top of the Empire State Building, ignoring signr not to throw shit over the edge, and we each throw two roughly identical stones over the edge. Both accelerate at roughly 9.8 meters per second squared before attaining terminal velocity, which is pretty damn respectable from that height, and as the Empire State is so tall, there's virtually no "aim" possible. Mine lands harmlessly in a trash can, quite miraculously. His, on the other hand, smacks a kid on the head, caving it in and killing him.
Who's a worse person? Me, who threw a stone over the edge? Or him, who threw a stone over the edge and happened to kill someone? If you [I]meant[/I] to kill someone and failed to do so, you're just as bad as someone who did.[/QUOTE]
Because in one case someone is dead and in another case they aren't.
The court doesn't give two shits about what might have happened or what would have happened under [I]X[/I] circumstances. The only thing that matters is what [I]did[/I] happen.
If a man you just shot 5 times says "You just shot [me in any form]" and comes at you, give up.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35802851]Because in one case someone is dead and in another case they aren't.
The court doesn't give two shits about what might have happened or what would have happened under [I]X[/I] circumstances. The only thing that matters is what [I]did[/I] happen.[/QUOTE]
Then I believe the court is going about it the wrong way.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35802897]Then I believe the court is going about it the wrong way.[/QUOTE]
You also love to suck piss off girls' toes so I think I'll trust the judge on this one.
}:(
[QUOTE=Lankist;35798891]Pleading guilty on all fucking charges earns a certain degree of respect from the justice system.[/QUOTE]
So if I go outside and shoot a police officer 5 times I should only get 10 years prison if I admit I did something wrong?
If I do that to a normal person I should only get like 5 years cool bye guys see you in 5 years.
I know a lot of you guys are trolling about the "fuck the police" shit, and "the cops suck." But people do really think that, so here...
Everyone needs to stop bitching about how cops suck at their job. Shut the hell up, they don't. It's really just a general stereotype. The ratio of good cops to bad cops is probably 65 to 1. Don't get me wrong, there's definitely officers that don't deserve to have their position. Most of these guys take their jobs seriously and want the best for their department and their city. Please take your ugly spotted dick, shove it where the sun don't shine, and quit fucking crying.
Anyways, this guy's sentence is lenient as shit. :)
that is a very specific ratio
[QUOTE=Mon;35798651]we shouldn't be locking these people up for punishment, we should be locking them up for rehab
yeah what the kid did was pretty godawful, and i can sympathize with the officer, especially since he was permanently injured, but wanting a longer sentence out of some kind of need for revenge just shouldn't be part of society today[/QUOTE]
they have to want to change first. Rehab isn't going to work
yeah that's why rehabilitory penal systems abroad have the lowest recidivism rates in the world
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35798929]Less time for him to be back out on the street.[/QUOTE]
And once he gets out, he'll most likely fail to integrate with society and commit more crimes because since:
1. His background prevents him to get a job, he'll most likely aim for quick cash.
2. Society progresses extremely fast, making him unable to adjust to the changes
Not saying that you should feel sorry for him, but locking him in a prison for a long time will make him more worse off.
25 +14 +25 = 64
seems like a long time to me
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1128_aic.pdf[/url]
I'm not sure if anyone outside of Australia can view the document, so i'll quote some of the conclusion just to make sure. If you still don't believe me I will get another Australian to verify it.
The basic outline of the study is whether the media-informed public view that sentences are too lenient is substantiated when people with more intimate knowledge of the case are asked (i.e: the jurors)
[Quote="AIC"]Public opinion surveys conducted worldwide over the last four decades have consistently
found that between 70 and 80 percent of respondents believe that sentences are too
lenient (Gelb 2006). Responding to research suggesting that judges are out of touch with
public opinion, Chief Justice Gleeson of the High Court of Australia suggested that, instead
of surveying uninformed members of the public, it might be more useful if jurors—as more
informed representatives of the public—were asked about the sentences in the particular
cases they have deliberated on[/quote]
the conclusion itself is interesting, as it says:
[Quote="AIC"]The results show that a
substantial majority of jurors with firsthand
experience of judges consider that sentences
are appropriate and that judges are in touch
with public opinion. By surveying members
of the public who have engaged directly
with the criminal justice system in a much
more meaningful way than those who form
their perceptions secondhand via the mass
media, the study has shown that the jury
survey methodology provides a better
approach to finding a reliable source of
informed public judgment of judicial
sentencing.[/quote]
So shut the fuck up about it being too lenient you uniformed troglodytes
I know the law is set up where attempted crimes get lesser sentencing, but I can see why people disagree with that. The criminal has the same intent, just did not succeed in their goal. It seems like we are saying "Well you cant even get killing right so you get off earlier!" I think that in this case where the suspect was offered way out and still chose to fire five shots into a man deserves to be punished more severally. He was willing to take a human life for cash; To me any person willing to fire multiple shots at close range into another human being deserves to spend a long time locked up. Yes I wish we had a legal system focused on rehabilitation but because we don't we need to punish people in a way that better fits their crime.
There seems to be a lot of flaming in this thread, I wish people would just calm down and discuss it rather than trying to act like the biggest kids on the playground.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35800045]your family sounds lovely by the way[/QUOTE]
Oh, [I]you have no idea.[/I]
So fucking glad I joined the Navy and got the hell out of there.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;35801560]What exactly does it mean to deserve something? And I very much so disagree. Criminals are not born with a criminal mentality, they are thrust into it (or exposed to sufficient stimulus). If you can change someone into a criminal, you can change one back.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's completely true as personally I believe while some people are pushed towards crime, there are some that have something wrong with their body that doesn't give them all that much of a chance.
But my point was more that if it's the former, and they have gotten to the point where they are willing to kill someone over nothing then they are likely very deeply ingrained with the "criminal" mentality and, while perhaps some can be saved, I for one wonder if it really is worth it. After all, if they weren't pre-disposed to it, then they let any number of outside factors influenced them into a life of crime (although there's different circumstances and such, but anyway).
I suppose it's wrong to so judge someone I've never met and say what they do or don't deserve as I don't really have the full picture; but going off of what I know, that's simply what I think.
Hey Lankist, what are the 3 elements are needed to determine what degree of murder or manslaughter a person is charged with?
Possibly off topic and I may be wrong but here goes nothing:
If a family member, or a close friend was a victim of [i]attempted murder[/i], has suffered several gun related injuries, and is undoubtedly traumatized through the ordeal, you honestly think you want the convict to server less time in jail? Regardless of our legal systems, your own moral consciousness wants to see a potential murderer go out and actually commit a murder?
On a different note:
Fourteen years may be a short sentence, but its quite a long time retrospectively. Just imagine, fourteen years behind bars, without the stimulation of friends and family, surrounded by contempt.
Lankist you are so fucking terribad at explaining yourself
Even if he gets minimum of 14 years, he's still going to be fucked when he's out. 14 years is a long time, shit changes. Plus as a past criminal he will have trouble getting a job, thus chances of reoffending are high. Simply imprisoning does not help anything but sense of revenge and false justice. True the cop has every right to complain, I'd be pissed too if I got disabled by some shithole, but emotions of one person should not override law.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799848]How are the actions from the killer behind attempted murder, and murder any different?[/QUOTE]
One killed and the other didn't manage to kill.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35798599]Frankly, still not as bad as the people who are murdered by police and the police get paid leave for it.
I mean, it's 14 fucking years. For not killing a man, I think that sounds pretty fair.
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
I think in my state attempted murder only carries a minimum penalty of 5 years in prison, so he got longer than he would have got in my state.[/QUOTE]
You truly are everything that annoys me.
Are you the person who starts recording a cop every time you get pulled over for a broken tail light or something?
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;35808384]Are you the person who starts recording a cop every time you get pulled over for a broken tail light or something?[/QUOTE]Care to explain why not? If anything does happen there's solid evidence. Otherwise if something happens there's lack of proof and nothing is done. I don't see anything wrong with recording shit.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;35807242]Hey Lankist, what are the 3 elements are needed to determine what degree of murder or manslaughter a person is charged with?[/QUOTE]
Depends upon the state. Some states require [I]x[/I] number of witnesses to determine first-degree, for instance. Others add stipulations by which the murder of an official or a cop (in which the suspect is both aware of their profession and acts specifically upon it) can get an automatic first-degree charge.
I'm not sure where you're getting the three that you've decided to quiz me on, but in general: homicide charges are determined by motive, intent and premeditation. Intent defines the lower levels of homicide, i.e. the difference between voluntary and involuntary homicide. Motive (greed, anger, etc) tends to make the difference between manslaughter and second (or third, depending upon the state's nomenclature) degree murder. Premeditation is the primary requisite for first-degree, meaning that the individual being charged must be proven to have conspired to kill well before whatever altercation or incident took place.
This is to say:
Someone who gets into a barfight and defends himself a little to rigorously has committed manslaughter.
Someone who made a snap-judgement to take a life is charged with second-degree as a maximum
And only someone who has conspired to kill another will get first-degree.
This is all, of course, irrelevant considering nobody died in this case and thus no homicide charges were levied.
[QUOTE=Mon;35798651]we shouldn't be locking these people up for punishment, we should be locking them up for rehab
yeah what the kid did was pretty godawful, and i can sympathize with the officer, especially since he was permanently injured, but wanting a longer sentence out of some kind of need for revenge just shouldn't be part of society today[/QUOTE]
Um no, he deserves 50 years, then life probation, charges need to be much harsher for attempted murders.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.