5 ms·

Everything about this is ridiculous, but this especially so: "Johnson’s release date was originally scheduled for earlier, but he ended up serving an additiona

Everything about this is ridiculous, but this especially so: "Johnson’s release date was originally scheduled for earlier, but he ended up serving an additional eight months at the age of 69 for a juvenile shoplifting charge he received when he was 17." How in any reasonable society is this justifiable? I re-read the sentence probably five times because I simply couldn't believe it.

badloginagain 11y ago
I'm surprised the sentences stack, I would have expected that if you have 5 jail-terms assigned to you, you would serve until the longest one. American law sure favours punishment.
- mrec 11y ago
  Once you'd committed one crime, that would remove the primary deterrent against committing more (as long as they were no more serious than the first).
  - newjersey 11y ago
    I'd still think the judge can and should be able to use discretion and allow concurrent sentences. Maybe the judge decided in this case that the sentences should not be concurrent. We don't know what judge had in their mind. I hate to go all PC (I swear I am not one of them) but I wonder whether mandatory sentencing isn't all bad. Perhaps mandatory sentencing is the most effective way to bring down sentencing rules and guidelines to make them more humane. This is getting a little off-topic but I don't have much sympathy for violent offenders (I'll lower the bar to those who actually commit battery or robbery as opposed to a threat). As far as non-violent crimes, especially victim less*, crimes go there should really be no jail time at all. I don't have all the answers but I think we really ought to limit our criminal justice system. Specifically (sorry for going off topic) copyright and such topics should not belong to the criminal justice system. Let those be civil lawsuits between two private entities.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      No jail time for non violent crime? I presume you've never been defrauded, burgled, etc.
      - WalterBright 11y ago
        I've been defrauded and burgled for substantial amounts. I've also been mugged at gunpoint. Only for the latter violent crime would I suggest jail time.
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Why do you draw a distinction between the two? (To be clear, I'm not trying to defend victimless 'crimes' here; rather, I don't understand why you would distinguish between someone stealing from you at gunpoint vs. raiding your home while you're out). Edited: With the obvious exception that the mugger is endangering your life by pointing a loaded weapon at you. Is that the only difference?
        WalterBright 11y ago
        I think someone pointing a gun at you and threatening your life is a big difference. Don't you?
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        I think it makes it worse, because of the physical endangerment involved. But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him. If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.
        alextgordon 11y ago
        Consider that if this hypothetical thief were to be put under house arrest instead of in prison, the state could save enough money to buy you a new phone.
  - vacri 11y ago
    It doesn't seem to be working that way as a deterrent, then, given that the US has an incarceration rate five times higher than it's developed-nation contemporaries (750/100k vs ~100-150/100k population).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - ewzimm 11y ago
      It's working well as a deterrent, but the goal is not to deter people from committing crimes; it's to deter minorities from going to white neighborhoods for fear of getting arrested. America's cities are very well segregated as a result.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- astine 11y ago
  It's possible to serve multiple sentences simultaneously in the American system. The courts have discretion in deciding on how a sentence must be served.
- ternaryoperator 11y ago
  It depends. The sentences can run consecutively (the case here) or concurrently. Typically, for unrelated crimes, they run concurrently. I believe this is true in most other countries too. You don't avoid serving your previous prison sentence because you subsequently committed an even greater crime.
staunch 11y ago
Don't forget the possibility that the reporting might be inaccurate. Did he shoot harmlessly in the air during a robbery, and then get 44 years for "attempted murder" because he's black? Or did he leave a police officer in a coma for life after torturing him for days? Or did he get 8 years for attempted murder and then commit additional crimes while in prison? We don't have enough information to know.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  Are you suggesting that in addition to the shoplifting and the attempted murder that you suspect there might be an additional crime that is bad enough to justify the courts sending him to prison for the shoplifting? Or are you suggesting that the badness of the attempted murder might be such that the 44 years was inadequate and so the additional 8 months is acceptable as additional punishment for the attempted murder? Your wording is somewhat ambiguous. I can tell there are some scenarios that you believe are possible and which justify the additional sentence, but I'm not sure what exactly those scenarios are.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  Actually, I think we do have enough information to know. Read it again, paying attention to the dates and ages. The shop lifting offense occurred 8 years before the attempted murder. Tacking an extra 8 months onto a 44 year sentence, for a minor crime committed 8 years earlier is just vindictive.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Is it just not to punish one offender for a crime just because they committed additional crimes whilst nonetheless punishing another offender for that same crime? I don't think it's vindictive to have a fixed sentence for a crime, shop-lifting say, and apply that to all shop-lifters who are convicted regardless of any other crimes they may also have committed and been convicted for.
    - rorykoehler 11y ago

badloginagain 11y ago

I'm surprised the sentences stack, I would have expected that if you have 5 jail-terms assigned to you, you would serve until the longest one. American law sure favours punishment.

mrec 11y ago
Once you'd committed one crime, that would remove the primary deterrent against committing more (as long as they were no more serious than the first).
- newjersey 11y ago
  I'd still think the judge can and should be able to use discretion and allow concurrent sentences. Maybe the judge decided in this case that the sentences should not be concurrent. We don't know what judge had in their mind. I hate to go all PC (I swear I am not one of them) but I wonder whether mandatory sentencing isn't all bad. Perhaps mandatory sentencing is the most effective way to bring down sentencing rules and guidelines to make them more humane. This is getting a little off-topic but I don't have much sympathy for violent offenders (I'll lower the bar to those who actually commit battery or robbery as opposed to a threat). As far as non-violent crimes, especially victim less*, crimes go there should really be no jail time at all. I don't have all the answers but I think we really ought to limit our criminal justice system. Specifically (sorry for going off topic) copyright and such topics should not belong to the criminal justice system. Let those be civil lawsuits between two private entities.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    No jail time for non violent crime? I presume you've never been defrauded, burgled, etc.
    - WalterBright 11y ago
      I've been defrauded and burgled for substantial amounts. I've also been mugged at gunpoint. Only for the latter violent crime would I suggest jail time.
      - duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Why do you draw a distinction between the two? (To be clear, I'm not trying to defend victimless 'crimes' here; rather, I don't understand why you would distinguish between someone stealing from you at gunpoint vs. raiding your home while you're out). Edited: With the obvious exception that the mugger is endangering your life by pointing a loaded weapon at you. Is that the only difference?
        WalterBright 11y ago
        I think someone pointing a gun at you and threatening your life is a big difference. Don't you?
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        I think it makes it worse, because of the physical endangerment involved. But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him. If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.
        alextgordon 11y ago
        Consider that if this hypothetical thief were to be put under house arrest instead of in prison, the state could save enough money to buy you a new phone.
- vacri 11y ago
  It doesn't seem to be working that way as a deterrent, then, given that the US has an incarceration rate five times higher than it's developed-nation contemporaries (750/100k vs ~100-150/100k population).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    It's working well as a deterrent, but the goal is not to deter people from committing crimes; it's to deter minorities from going to white neighborhoods for fear of getting arrested. America's cities are very well segregated as a result.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
astine 11y ago
It's possible to serve multiple sentences simultaneously in the American system. The courts have discretion in deciding on how a sentence must be served.
ternaryoperator 11y ago
It depends. The sentences can run consecutively (the case here) or concurrently. Typically, for unrelated crimes, they run concurrently. I believe this is true in most other countries too. You don't avoid serving your previous prison sentence because you subsequently committed an even greater crime.

staunch 11y ago

Don't forget the possibility that the reporting might be inaccurate. Did he shoot harmlessly in the air during a robbery, and then get 44 years for "attempted murder" because he's black? Or did he leave a police officer in a coma for life after torturing him for days? Or did he get 8 years for attempted murder and then commit additional crimes while in prison? We don't have enough information to know.

erikpukinskis 11y ago
Are you suggesting that in addition to the shoplifting and the attempted murder that you suspect there might be an additional crime that is bad enough to justify the courts sending him to prison for the shoplifting? Or are you suggesting that the badness of the attempted murder might be such that the 44 years was inadequate and so the additional 8 months is acceptable as additional punishment for the attempted murder? Your wording is somewhat ambiguous. I can tell there are some scenarios that you believe are possible and which justify the additional sentence, but I'm not sure what exactly those scenarios are.
jlarocco 11y ago
Actually, I think we do have enough information to know. Read it again, paying attention to the dates and ages. The shop lifting offense occurred 8 years before the attempted murder. Tacking an extra 8 months onto a 44 year sentence, for a minor crime committed 8 years earlier is just vindictive.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Is it just not to punish one offender for a crime just because they committed additional crimes whilst nonetheless punishing another offender for that same crime? I don't think it's vindictive to have a fixed sentence for a crime, shop-lifting say, and apply that to all shop-lifters who are convicted regardless of any other crimes they may also have committed and been convicted for.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago