Who deserves the harsher punishment?

[dead0man]

I'm kind of amazed and certainly saddened that so many people here are willing to overlook the threat of violence, especially in a situation where that threat often turns to action.  Is it because you guys like the (presumably) rich investors and dislike the poor guy working behind the counter at the 7-11?

We aren't talking about all situations, but the one described above, so it's irrelevant to bring up "often turns to". My decision, most likely others that feel the same, consider the gravity of scenario B to be worse than a robbery without physical harm.

Yet you said nothing to jokerman who made an even bigger leap than I did.

From the position of the clerk, he knows these kinds of robberies often end poorly for the guy behind the counter.  It didn't happen in our fantasy scenerio, but our clerk did excist and his fear did happen. 

Is a noose hanging on a black coworkers office door worse than stealing $10 in office supplies?  I think it is, you guys don't seem to.

[2952-0-0]

If this were in China, Criminal A would take a bullet in his mouth. Criminal B would be put into a lethal injection van. Take that as you will.

[dead0man]

Is a noose hanging on a black coworkers office door worse than stealing $10 in office supplies?  I think it is, you guys don't seem to.

Anybody going to touch this?

[John Dibble]

Is a noose hanging on a black coworkers office door worse than stealing $10 in office supplies?  I think it is, you guys don't seem to.

Straw man, and really not comparable to the situations presented in this thread. Both of these are really localized, compared to the situations presented where one is localized and the other isn't.

It's true that A may have killed the clerk, but he didn't. We can't charge someone for something they may have done, otherwise we'd all be criminals. Certainly armed robbery adds to the risk of the situation escalating though, and so we do increase the charge from "robbery" to "armed robbery" and the punishment increases accordingly for the reasons you presented. Criminal A should receive a greater punishment than someone who attempted a robbery without a weapon. That doesn't mean Criminal B shouldn't receive a greater punishment than Criminal A.

Criminal B's crime is not localized - it has far reaching effects. Stealing millions of dollars affects the world far more than stealing $10 of office supplies. First off it will harm multiple companies and individuals, potentially putting many people out of work and into the poorhouse. How many families will that damage or destroy? How many Criminal A's will be created because they lost their money to the scam and become desperate? How many of those new A's will actually end up killing the clerk? Is the harm done to Criminal B's victims any less real because a gun wasn't involved? As I see it, Criminal B will likely have done more harm in the grand scheme of things than Criminal A, so his punishment should be more severe. It certainly shouldn't be any less.

[dead0man]

Criminal B's crime is not localized - it has far reaching effects. Stealing millions of dollars affects the world far more than stealing $10 of office supplies. First off it will harm multiple companies and individuals, potentially putting many people out of work and into the poorhouse. How many families will that damage or destroy? How many Criminal A's will be created because they lost their money to the scam and become desperate? How many of those new A's will actually end up killing the clerk? Is the harm done to Criminal B's victims any less real because a gun wasn't involved? As I see it, Criminal B will likely have done more harm in the grand scheme of things than Criminal A, so his punishment should be more severe. It certainly shouldn't be any less.

Aye.  That may have done it.  I'm going to think on it a bit, but I'm pretty sure your "greater bad" argument may have won me over.

[Gustaf]

A, pretty obviously. Threatening to kill someone is a severe crime in my opinion, which deserves much harder punishment than it does (at least here in Sweden). You're being a bit unclear on what the "scam" here is and what kind of clients we're talking about. B could be a very appaling criminal or just mildly so depending on the answers here.

Now, I'm gonna add this: suppose B comes from a working-class background but got into Harvard on a scholarship. He has worked hard all his life and has managed great success but can't quite get to the top (that private jet) due to not having the right family connections. So one day he decides to scam those super-rich CEOs he work for who have made great fortunes out of bonuses from now near-bankrupt banks and auto-makers.

Let's say A comes from a rich family but his family lived like capitalist pigs and spent all their money and he dropped out of high school because he was dumb, like most in-bred upper-class twits. And let's say the guy at Burger King is a black woman and had a traumatic childhood and kills herself as a result of the robbery. The poor restaurant manager who made this his life-work gets sued by the relatives, loses customers and has his life destroyed.

Isn't this fun? I can reverse it for the next post, if you like.

[RosettaStoned]

Criminal B.

[Nym90]

B, though it's not as simple as the amount of money stolen. Person A did at least give the impression that they intended to directly kill or injure someone by brandishing a gun, which B did not do. Overall, though, B certainly caused far more damage, and thus deserves the greater punishment.

[Rob]

Isn't this fun?

Yeah, but I think my scenario is a lot more likely in the United States.

[Gustaf]

Isn't this fun?

Yeah, but I think my scenario is a lot more likely in the United States.

What does the likeliness have to do with it? I thought it was all about framing a situation to make some kind of political point.

But, allright, I'm willing to count both A and B as helpless victims of the society in which we live. Would that be cool with you, or are you too caught up in hating the rich?

[DownWithTheLeft]

A deserves a harder sentences as the main purpose of a prison to keep the public safe from criminals.  B is a danger, but people simply will know not to invest money with him, his punishment should be levied in the forms of hefty, hefty fines.  Criminal A is a danger to society as his crimes are random, unpredictable, and likely to repeat.

[War on Want]

Isn't this fun?

Yeah, but I think my scenario is a lot more likely in the United States.

What does the likeliness have to do with it? I thought it was all about framing a situation to make some kind of political point.

But, allright, I'm willing to count both A and B as helpless victims of the society in which we live. Would that be cool with you, or are you too caught up in hating the rich?

The thing is that people hate the rich for a pretty good reason. I can't say that I do, but most of Rob's stereotypes posted for this scenario are true. Find me more than 5 people in the last 20 years who have had conducted major scams and are from working class backgrounds in the United States.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Find me more than 5 people in the last 20 years who have had conducted major scams and are from working class backgrounds in the United States.

Well starters, um, gee I can't think there was that guy, son of Polish immigrants whose father was a plumber, damn what's his name...o yea

BERNIE MADOFF!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Did either criminal shoot a Mexican during the process of carrying out their crime?

Because if they did, they'll get a Presidential pardon one day, so what difference does it make who gets which sentence?

[??????????]

B, of course. Much more severe of a crime and honestly Criminal A's was at least understandable.

Understandable?