Who deserves the harsher punishment?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:16:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Who deserves the harsher punishment?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Criminal A
 
#2
Criminal B
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 45

Author Topic: Who deserves the harsher punishment?  (Read 5977 times)
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 03, 2009, 03:09:16 PM »

Criminal A: A high-school dropout who has been hired and fired from many a low-wage job. One day, broke as usual, he walks into a Burger King, pulls out a gun, and exits with several hundred dollars in cash.

Criminal B: A Harvard-educated stockbroker who has steadily gained prestige (and clientele) over the years. One day, he starts pining for that private jet he's always wanted, and decides to pull a scam he's idly considered for awhile. A few months later, with no fuss or violence at all, he's several million dollars richer, thanks to too-trusting clients.

Who deserves the harsher punishment? (just to be clear, I'm talking about respective length of prison sentences, assuming both men were caught)
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2009, 04:02:25 PM »

They are both thieves, and neither of them actually killed anyone in the given scenarios. So, if I was to punish one more than the other, I would look to see which one's crime influenced more people.

A robbed one store for a few hundred dollars. B robbed several people for several million dollars.

Ultimately, A's crime won't change much. The money will likely be covered by insurance, and the people at the BK will get on with their lives. B's crime on the other hand will likely affect the livelihoods of many, many people, even if the money is insured, which it likely isn't.

So I'd say B.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2009, 04:49:59 PM »

B, of course. Much more severe of a crime and honestly Criminal A's was at least understandable.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2009, 06:02:33 PM »

Obviously Criminal B should get the death penalty, while Criminal A should be given a light sentence, for he only committed that crime because he was being kept down by the man.


Do I win the prize?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2009, 06:11:12 PM »

Obviously Criminal B should get the death penalty, while Criminal A should be given a light sentence, for he only committed that crime because he was being kept down by the man.


Do I win the prize?

the prize for ignorance, yes.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2009, 06:14:02 PM »

Obviously Criminal B should get the death penalty, while Criminal A should be given a light sentence, for he only committed that crime because he was being kept down by the man.


Do I win the prize?

the prize for ignorance, yes.

What am I ignorant of, Oh Wise One? Enlighten me in your infinite wisdom.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2009, 06:20:58 PM »

If A used his gun in an attempt to kill someone in the room, then A; otherwise B.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2009, 06:34:26 PM »

If I'm assuming A hasn't shot or killed anyone, then B. The latter's victims most likely outnumber As.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2009, 07:45:35 PM »

Obviously Criminal B should get the death penalty, while Criminal A should be given a light sentence, for he only committed that crime because he was being kept down by the man.

It's strange that a matter-of-fact description of class gets you (and many other libertarians, small-l/big-L alike) upset. The bias you sense is your own, Bono; I think the statements are open to more than one interpretation.

And to clarify, the gun used by Criminal A was not fired at any point in the robbery.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2009, 08:09:53 PM »

The threat of violence against the store clerk was very real, harrowing and should be punished accordingly. The store clerk may well need therapy to overcome their fears caused by this robbery. You shouldn't have to look into the eyes of a gunman merely for doing your job.

The scam was probably some sort of 'get-rich-quick' scheme peddled to gullible people who parted with their money on the promise of, I don't know, 110% interest rates or something like that. I pity them, but it was their choice to part with their money. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Criminal B is scum who preyed upon the gullible. Criminal A is scum who threatened violence against the defenceless. Of the two, Criminal A's crimes of violence are more likely to escalate and society should be protected from him. Criminal A should receive a harsher penalty.

Let's play another game. Who deserves the harsher punishment?

Person A: A store clerk at Burger King, who when confronted by an armed robber shoots him dead.

Person B: The victim of a scam, who when realising he's been conned out of tens of thousands of dollars by a financial advisor he trusted too much. The client methodically plans his crime, waits outside the advisor's office, and shoots him dead as he exits work preparing to flee the country on his private jet with his ill-gotten gains.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2009, 08:21:00 PM »

The threat of violence against the store clerk was very real, harrowing and should be punished accordingly. The store clerk may well need therapy to overcome their fears caused by this robbery. You shouldn't have to look into the eyes of a gunman merely for doing your job.

The scam was probably some sort of 'get-rich-quick' scheme peddled to gullible people who parted with their money on the promise of, I don't know, 110% interest rates or something like that. I pity them, but it was their choice to part with their money. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Criminal B is scum who preyed upon the gullible. Criminal A is scum who threatened violence against the defenceless. Of the two, Criminal A's crimes of violence are more likely to escalate and society should be protected from him. Criminal A should receive a harsher penalty.

Your entire rational for A getting a harsher punishment seems to be wrapped around the notion of Bs victims as being gullible. Neither situation is black/white. Both should be punished for the crimes they've committed, but don't downplay fraud as "buyer beware/just desserts".

Let's play another game. Who deserves the harsher punishment?

Obviously person B. A is self defense.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2009, 08:30:16 PM »

Let's play another game. Who deserves the harsher punishment?

Obviously person B. A is self defense.

This is more what I was aiming at ^ - Criminal A in the scenario used violence/threat of violence, which is worse. I'm not trying to downlplay fraud, I'm trying to show that violence and the threat of violence is worse. That's why I put forth the other scenario - if it's self defence, it's means that in the initial scenario, the fact the gun was not discharged doesn't make the threat of violence any less real than actually using the gun. It still has serious consequences. The argument most seem to be making is that burglary is worse than a mugging because the burglar has robbed more people than the mugger. I'm trying to say that even the threat of violence makes the first crime worse.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2009, 09:38:55 PM »

The argument most seem to be making is that burglary is worse than a mugging because the burglar has robbed more people than the mugger.

That's not what I'm saying at all, since there's no way of knowing or inferring that since the situations are deliberately vague. My rational is dependent on the fact that in situation, the original A, no one was harmed, other than psychologically. B, on the other hand, bilked his clients out of money. It leads me to believe the consequences of Bs actions are of greater harm, with farther reach. Both deserve prison time, but on these grounds, since I have nothing else to work with, B should get a longer sentence compared to A.

I'm trying to say that even the threat of violence makes the first crime worse.

I don't consider the threat of violence to be of the same or greater gravity as actual violence, regarding your example. B obviously commits the crime in cold blood, while A kills in self defense. I don't see how you could link scenario A (bob's post) with your scenario if the two situations differ so much, other than setting. A is a crime in bob's scenario, while your A  is justifiable.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2009, 10:53:03 PM »

B, though A would almost certainly get a harsher punishment in real life Sad
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2009, 11:10:32 PM »

I agree with SMID.  There have been many cases of store clerks tied up and killed. The threat of violence is real.  What if Mr Valjean's gun goes off accidentally and kills someone? What id an off duty cop is smacking down some BK, a shoot-out ensues killing the 16 year old behind the counter. 

A more fair scenario for me would be a three card monte street hustler vs. Mr. Gulfstream V in which the later should be punished more. 
Logged
Nixon in '80
nixon1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,308
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2009, 11:49:16 PM »

Violent robbery is always more dangerous, and thus more potentially damaging, than nonviolent larceny, regardless of the circumstances.

They should both be punished about the same; but, assuming no extenuating circumstances: criminal A.

EDIT: And then I voted for the wrong option...
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2009, 12:48:36 AM »

B, but both deserve punishment.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2009, 01:51:37 AM »

I'm with Smid as well.  Violence (even just the threat of it) is worse than trickery.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2009, 05:16:24 PM »

Obviously Criminal B should get the death penalty, while Criminal A should be given a light sentence, for he only committed that crime because he was being kept down by the man.

Do I win the prize?

A better way to put it is that 'crime' is caused by the rich.
Logged
Coburn In 2012
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,201


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2009, 04:03:04 PM »

First of all, if B is the wealthy success you say he is -- his "crime" is highly unlikely.  Wealthy people are hard working members of the earning class.  Theirs are not the faces you see on the evening news for holding up banks or liquor stores or stabbing their "baby daddy".

Obviously, as with the Enron criminals, such crimes DO occur but they are very very very rare indeed.  Its the left wing media and the whiners like Olberman and Madcow who keep the stereotype of the greedy rich alive.  Heck, it's the rich who keep our museums and orchestras and charities going with there generous donations.  So yes if a rich executive commits a crime he should pay the same sentence as any other thief.

But realistically if we are being honest about who the crooks and criminals are in our society, criminal A is truest to life.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2009, 04:36:09 PM »

Let's play another game. Who deserves the harsher punishment?

Obviously person B. A is self defense.

This is more what I was aiming at ^ - Criminal A in the scenario used violence/threat of violence, which is worse. I'm not trying to downlplay fraud, I'm trying to show that violence and the threat of violence is worse. That's why I put forth the other scenario - if it's self defence, it's means that in the initial scenario, the fact the gun was not discharged doesn't make the threat of violence any less real than actually using the gun. It still has serious consequences. The argument most seem to be making is that burglary is worse than a mugging because the burglar has robbed more people than the mugger. I'm trying to say that even the threat of violence makes the first crime worse.
Libertarian minimalist nonsense.  Physical violence isn't so clearly seperate from the rest of human relations by a iron curtain.  Suppose the money stolen by Person B prevented the access of one of his clients to a life-saving operation, actually casuing death.  This is why a utilitarian approach is necessary, and the crime of Person B is more egregious.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2009, 06:10:06 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2009, 06:25:45 PM by Earth »

First of all, if B is the wealthy success you say he is -- his "crime" is highly unlikely.  Wealthy people are hard working members of the earning class. 

Madoff?

Theirs are not the faces you see on the evening news for holding up banks or liquor stores or stabbing their "baby daddy".

That's true. Different class, different crimes.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You lost me at "left wing media", and the dismissal of the idea that the rich are possibly greedy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The non-existence of the predatory rich in your post, even as a possibility, is astounding.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2009, 12:44:21 AM »

Libertarian minimalist nonsense.  Physical violence isn't so clearly seperate from the rest of human relations by a iron curtain.  Suppose the money stolen by Person B prevented the access of one of his clients to a life-saving operation, actually casuing death.  This is why a utilitarian approach is necessary, and the crime of Person B is more egregious.
So how much is murder worth?

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?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2009, 01:00:34 AM »

Neither of them deserve punishment, assuming they give proper restitution to their victims. Of course, Criminal A would have to compensate them for assault and theft, whereas Criminal B would only have to compensate for fraud and theft.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2009, 01:34:02 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 14 queries.