11 ms·

> Also in continental law sentences are shorter and more reasonable; 8 years for murder etc. This may be the most European thing I've ever read.

mysterypie 10y ago
Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Yes, life for a pack of AA batteries. He was a twice convicted felon who had already served his time but got mandatory life for a third crime, even a misdemeanor like shoplifting, under California's three strikes law.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Note that this is not something that "regularly happens in the US", it seems to be an illustration of a failure mode of California's particular implementation of a "three strikes" law under Prop 184 of 1994, which was abnormally severe (not requiring the third felony strike to be "serious or violent", as most three-strikes laws in the US do) -- and it seems to be a seriously misremembered one, at that, since even when this version of three strikes existed in CA, it still required the third strike to be a felony. Also, this rule was changed to align CA's three strikes implementation with the common rule requiring the third strike to be a "serious or violent" felony in by Prop 36 in 2012 (which also provided a process for after-the-fact sentence adjustment for those sentenced under the old version for a third strike that would not have been subject to the enhanced sentence under the reformed version of the three strikes.)
  - mysterypie 10y ago
    Thank you for the insightful reply. However, I am not misremembering the story about the AA batteries. There was something in the original story about the third crime automatically getting elevated to a felony. So, yes, it needs to be a felony, but a minor third crime gets elevated to a felony. I can't find the original 60 Minutes video, but here's a partial transcript of the episode (search for the word "batteries"): https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9ef1a.0207 https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9e... And a book that recounts the same incident. The author is a Senior Fellow in Criminal Justice at the University of Southern California, so I assume he knows what he's talking about and has checked the accuracy of the story. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&searchurl=&cmtrack_data=cm_abecat%3D100203556 http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&... And someone's letter to the Governor of California with a list of three strike convictions, a number of which are not felonies: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.html http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.h...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Actually, your transcript refers to a provision which elevates any theft (not any crime), with a prior theft, to a felony. This is a separate rule that predates and operates separately from the three-strikes law. (Though, obviously, before the reform to three strikes requiring the third felony to be violent or serious, had an interaction with it: but the conviction was, itself, a felony independently of the three-strikes law.)
Majestic121 10y ago
I think you are right, it seems perfectly reasonnable to me (French) while the comments like "he could kill 10 people in his lifetime" seems ludicrous. That's cultural differences for you !
- afsina 10y ago
  Sure when a low-life kills your children with cold blood and get away with it for 8 years, I would like to see your reaction after murderer goes out of jail and smiles at you.
  - bambax 10y ago
    The purpose of the legal system is NOT to offer retribution to victims. Making the murderer suffer won't bring back your kids. It will accomplish exactly nothing, in fact.
    - afsina 10y ago
      And 8 years is justified because of it? Why not 1 year? Or none?
    - Artoemius 10y ago
      It won't accomplish anything for the victims' relatives, that's true. But other people will feel safer knowing that at least some percentage of children murderers are locked out for good. It's not about making the murderer suffer either, it's about preventing future crimes. When you have cancer, you don't kill cancer cells because you want them to suffer. You kill them to prevent them from killing you.
      - pluma 10y ago
        If harsher penalties were the solution to preventing serious crimes, you'd think the death penalty would have fixed that, right? Turns out the only thing harsher penalties do (beyond a certain threshold) is make it more likely for crimes to escalate because there's no point restraining yourself (if it means leaving witnesses) if you're already going away for life / going to be murdered by the state anyway. As a matter of fact, the best way to prevent crimes is actually preventing crimes. Figure out why people commit crimes, then try to fix that. E.g. if you stop treating addicts as criminals you can solve their underlying psychological/social problems and they don't end up robbing people to pay for drugs.

mysterypie 10y ago

Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Yes, life for a pack of AA batteries. He was a twice convicted felon who had already served his time but got mandatory life for a third crime, even a misdemeanor like shoplifting, under California's three strikes law.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Before laughing too much at the European idea of justice, think of the absurd sentencing that regularly happens in the US: A "60 Minutes" story some years ago reported that a California man was sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting two double-A batteries. Note that this is not something that "regularly happens in the US", it seems to be an illustration of a failure mode of California's particular implementation of a "three strikes" law under Prop 184 of 1994, which was abnormally severe (not requiring the third felony strike to be "serious or violent", as most three-strikes laws in the US do) -- and it seems to be a seriously misremembered one, at that, since even when this version of three strikes existed in CA, it still required the third strike to be a felony. Also, this rule was changed to align CA's three strikes implementation with the common rule requiring the third strike to be a "serious or violent" felony in by Prop 36 in 2012 (which also provided a process for after-the-fact sentence adjustment for those sentenced under the old version for a third strike that would not have been subject to the enhanced sentence under the reformed version of the three strikes.)
- mysterypie 10y ago
  Thank you for the insightful reply. However, I am not misremembering the story about the AA batteries. There was something in the original story about the third crime automatically getting elevated to a felony. So, yes, it needs to be a felony, but a minor third crime gets elevated to a felony. I can't find the original 60 Minutes video, but here's a partial transcript of the episode (search for the word "batteries"): https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9ef1a.0207 https://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=JUSTWATCH-L;16e9e... And a book that recounts the same incident. The author is a Senior Fellow in Criminal Justice at the University of Southern California, so I assume he knows what he's talking about and has checked the accuracy of the story. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&searchurl=&cmtrack_data=cm_abecat%3D100203556 http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8356210389&... And someone's letter to the Governor of California with a list of three strike convictions, a number of which are not felonies: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.html http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-39951.h...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Actually, your transcript refers to a provision which elevates any theft (not any crime), with a prior theft, to a felony. This is a separate rule that predates and operates separately from the three-strikes law. (Though, obviously, before the reform to three strikes requiring the third felony to be violent or serious, had an interaction with it: but the conviction was, itself, a felony independently of the three-strikes law.)

Majestic121 10y ago

I think you are right, it seems perfectly reasonnable to me (French) while the comments like "he could kill 10 people in his lifetime" seems ludicrous. That's cultural differences for you !

afsina 10y ago
Sure when a low-life kills your children with cold blood and get away with it for 8 years, I would like to see your reaction after murderer goes out of jail and smiles at you.
- bambax 10y ago
  The purpose of the legal system is NOT to offer retribution to victims. Making the murderer suffer won't bring back your kids. It will accomplish exactly nothing, in fact.
  - afsina 10y ago
    And 8 years is justified because of it? Why not 1 year? Or none?
  - Artoemius 10y ago
    It won't accomplish anything for the victims' relatives, that's true. But other people will feel safer knowing that at least some percentage of children murderers are locked out for good. It's not about making the murderer suffer either, it's about preventing future crimes. When you have cancer, you don't kill cancer cells because you want them to suffer. You kill them to prevent them from killing you.
    - pluma 10y ago
      If harsher penalties were the solution to preventing serious crimes, you'd think the death penalty would have fixed that, right? Turns out the only thing harsher penalties do (beyond a certain threshold) is make it more likely for crimes to escalate because there's no point restraining yourself (if it means leaving witnesses) if you're already going away for life / going to be murdered by the state anyway. As a matter of fact, the best way to prevent crimes is actually preventing crimes. Figure out why people commit crimes, then try to fix that. E.g. if you stop treating addicts as criminals you can solve their underlying psychological/social problems and they don't end up robbing people to pay for drugs.