Homeless man gets 15 years

[mayeram]

http://www.ktbs.com/news/Man-who-took-on e-bill-and-handed-rest-back-to-bank-tell er-gets-15-year-sentence-23655/

Unarmed homeless man stole 100 dollars from the bank, later turned himself in and plead guilty in court. He received 15 years in prison.

In other news an AIG executive got only 4 years for $500 million fraud.

4 years/$500000000 * 365 days/year * 24hour/day * 3600seconds/hour * $100=25.2288 seconds
If justice were fair the homeless man would only be in jail for 25.2 seconds. I am not saying that the homeless man shouldn't be punished, only that the punishment should fit the crime.

Where did having the punishment fit the crime go in this country?

If anything the homeless man was more justified for breaking the law as he was homeless, hungry, and desperate. The executives at AIG were none of these. They were simply greedy.

[Idiot-Finder]

There's a chance he did it so he can at least find shelter

That's my take

[morefngdbs]

At 2/2/09 11:28 AM, mayeram wrote: Where did having the punishment fit the crime go in this country?

If anything the homeless man was more justified for breaking the law as he was homeless, hungry, and desperate. The executives at AIG were none of these. They were simply greedy.

;;;;;;;
Once again blatent proof that there is a completely different set of Laws & punishments for the rich connected thief, than there is for the poor stupid citizens of this & most other so called democratic countries.

If there were ever a cause that should be seeing protesters & massive amounts of PROTESTS, over such blatent discrepencies in judicial judgements...this is it ! ! !

[Idiot-Finder]

At 2/2/09 12:33 PM, KemCab wrote: Who says the justice system is fair? Even if it were fair, it's not the same person who's doing the sentencing.

I remember one judge have ordered the taxpayers' money to fund a convict's sex change surgery

[ThePretenders]

The justice system just isn't fair. Some people could afford good lawyers and recieve a lighter sentence or accquital as a result. Just look at the OJ case, he got off because he was rich and so did Paris Hilton, Ken Lay etc. The man was a easy target for the courts and rightfully made an example of because no one will feel sympathetic to him and he'll be forgotten in a couple of weeks.

At least he got what he wanted which was free food and shelter.

[animehater]

At least he isn't homeless any more.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Money buys power, the CEO who commited fraud has more money thus he can buy a better defense lawyer.

That lawyer can then spend more time and effort, since he's being paid well, to either work out a deal, influence the jury/judge and try to get the lightest sentence possible.

The homeless man got a public defendant who probally just didn't care about the welfare of the homeless man. The judge was probally sick of seeing those type of people and decided to simply get rid of him, ala 15 years.

The system is geared towards the rich, it always has been. It's just something you have to accept.

[poxpower]

Sometimes it feels like there should be more random vigilantes who kill rich people who fuck over the little guys.

But other times I remember that to be a vigilante you have to be pretty fucking stupid and when pretty fucking stupid people start trying to do justice, they fail hard.

[Kev-o]

15 years for $100?

There's no justice in this country, which is why I've lost all faith.

[Ericho]

They probably thought going to jail would be good for him as he had no home.

But seriously, that is way too much time. It's most likely because the fraud guy has more money to get a much better lawyer than the homeless dude.

[Psycho-Medic]

Not as much about how much money as that he pretended to rob someone at gunpoint. Which is where the first degree robbery comes from. 15 years for pleading guilty is a bit much though unless he asked for it or was acting like a douche to the judge to get more time or something.

[Kev-o]

At 2/2/09 06:03 PM, Ericho wrote: They probably thought going to jail would be good for him as he had no home.

But seriously, that is way too much time. It's most likely because the fraud guy has more money to get a much better lawyer than the homeless dude.

Public defenders don't actually "defend" you, they almost ALWAYS tell their clients to plead guilty.

[Al6200]

At 2/2/09 11:28 AM, mayeram wrote:

Where did having the punishment fit the crime go in this country?

While I believe that white collar justice needs to be more severe, there is a problem with your assumption that their jail time should be proportional to the money they stole. Part of the crime that the homeless man committed was making people feel unsafe to walk on the streets. Safe streets, in general, are more important than completely honest financial institutions.

Think about it this way. Would you rather I stole $500 from your bank account electronically or walked up to you on the street and grabbed $500? They'd both be bad, yes, but surely the later would be less pleasant and more discomforting.

[erooMeoJ]

Well now he has a home to call his own ;P GO HOMLESS GUY DADADADA

[Achilles2]

At 2/2/09 11:34 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: There's a chance he did it so he can at least find shelter

That's my take

I was thinking the same thing, too.

Either way, 15 years is definitely excessive. If he wasn't looking for shelter in prison, he'd be wise to appeal such a ridiculous ruling.

[mrawesomedude]

law is unfair. and the only people who can do something about it choose not to. judges and other law-related people are S.O.B.'s. end of story.

[Brick-top]

jails will be criticised today as no more than costly bed-and-break-fast lodgings as new figures show that thousands of prisoners a year reject the chance of early release.

It's true, prisons are just hotels with steel bars and wardens. You'd have a harder life being on the street than in prison.

[Snicp]

At 2/2/09 01:48 PM, poxpower wrote: Sometimes it feels like there should be more random vigilantes who kill rich people who fuck over the little guys.

But other times I remember that to be a vigilante you have to be pretty fucking stupid and when pretty fucking stupid people start trying to do justice, they fail hard.

agree, but pretty fucking smart people are smart enough to get money, or at least not get caught

[rainmaker]

Says a lot about socio-economic status in this country, hmph. Same reason you get 10 more years for crack cocaine than just a bullet or so.

[awerz]

You don't go to prison based on the amount of money you steal (unless it is a difference between grand theft and petty theft)

They should be going to jail for the exact same amount of time.

[Ericho]

At 2/2/09 06:06 PM, Kev-o wrote: Public defenders don't actually "defend" you, they almost ALWAYS tell their clients to plead guilty.

Now you tell me.

[Kev-o]

At 2/3/09 02:05 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 2/2/09 06:06 PM, Kev-o wrote: Public defenders don't actually "defend" you, they almost ALWAYS tell their clients to plead guilty.

Now you tell me.

I actually read somewhere that in certain places in California, public defenders often don't even show up for court.

[LazyDrunk]

.....uhhh, who's more likely to re-offend?

I'm just sayin'...

[se7enty]

At 2/3/09 03:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: .....uhhh, who's more likely to re-offend?

I'm just sayin'...

if the homeless guy turned himself in, I doubt he would go doing it again.

[aviewaskewed]

At 2/3/09 04:26 PM, se7enty wrote: if the homeless guy turned himself in, I doubt he would go doing it again.

Unless prison for him is way better then the street as several people pointed out. Unless he's in with truly and horrible violent criminals (which I doubt, does a thief really need to be in a maximum security facility?) then jail is probably better then the street because he has shelter, he has guaranteed meals and all sorts of neat priviledges he has no access to on the street if he behaves.

With that kind of a deal? I'd say hours after he gets out he steals another hundred bucks, turns himself in, and repeats the process.

[JoS]

White collar crime is usually seen as a victimless crime, which is general no where near the truth. If you take $100 out of an old ladies purse you get a much harsher penalty then if you trick her into giving you her life savings.

Unfortunately the government does not seem concerned with fixing this imbalance. This is probably due to the fact the people committing white collar crime are more affluent and better represented in government or can buy more influence then a homeless man.

[stafffighter]

I think the real difference comes from the fact that one crime is much more viseral than the other. Running up to someone and grabbing their purse is much more visual and dramatic than a business man tryping something wrong into his computer. One of course does more damage than the other but emotionally the other just seems much more directly wrong.
What also keeps a level of reality from touching it is that it takes specific knowledge to do. You putsome random guy infront of a complicated financial system he isn't going to know how to both take money and hide that it happened. It seems almost mystical in a way.

[JustLettuce]

At 2/2/09 06:06 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 2/2/09 06:03 PM, Ericho wrote:

Public defenders don't actually "defend" you, they almost ALWAYS tell their clients to plead guilty.

They tell you to plead guilty so you can get a plea bargain, if you do that you will get a lighter punishment then if you go through the system and get a sentence

[hongkongexpress]

Well at least he has a home now!

[ZJ]

At 2/4/09 01:09 AM, hongkongexpress wrote: Well at least he has a home now!

Daggone! How many people are going to keep saying that? The joke is old!!!