Ridiculously Light Court Rulings

[Calladan]

People who get off light for their crimes?

Their called women.

Yeah - because the guy who raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster in an American college - CLEARLY a woman. Not sure why I didn't see it before.

And the woman who got sent to jail for jaywalking when a drunk driver hit her daughter (and he got - I think - 6 points, a fine and maybe six months?) - clearly not a woman.

I am not certain your argument holds water.

Ooops - sorry. Slight correction :-

The woman who was sent to jail lost her son when a drunk driver ran him over. And she was convicted of vehicular homicide, since he died by being hit by a car. The driver, who was drunk, on painkillers and blind in one eye, was convicted of hit and run and served six months. But - to be fair, he was white, she was black and the jury was all white, so the woman probably had it coming.

(And yes - THAT was sarcasm).

[Valgora]

People who get off light for their crimes?

Their called women.

I think you are mistaken.
(If this was the U.S. Congress: "I believe that the senator is confused.")

Unless by women you meant the rich, the cops, and those in power.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

People who get off light for their crimes?

Their called women.

Oh aren't you just adorable. Also, if we're to understand what you're attempting to get at, it would be 'they're'.

How about Brock Turner, and other similar instances? There's plenty of murder cases where the punishment didn't seem to fit the crime for whatever reason, though one of the most egregious has already been mentioned here.

The insanity plea - here's my problem with it. Sane people do not go out and kill others for shits and giggles. The lack of 'sanity' there is a fecking given. This idea that 'oh, lost my mind at the time, didn't know what I was doing' is a valid defense in a number of these cases is absolutely ridiculous. They knew exactly what they were doing, temporary insanity is largely a cop-out with rare exception, and the only people for whom a plea of mental deficiency ought to stick are those who have actual mental deficiencies, or the actual proven disability to understand what they were doing is wrong - another rarity, and not generally one associated with serial killers, or repeat offenders.

There are more crimes for which some people will never a) recover from, b) achieve full rehabilitation from, c) be able to reintegrate into society after. And for those, can't help but think we would all be better off without - no need to stockpile, no need to pay for a pointless stretch of imprisonment that all too often simply adds to their criminality and does nothing to actually rehabilitate in the first place, and no need to prolong their punishment, or the suffering of their victim's surviving kin at the taxpayer's cost. Those bolt guns they use on cattle? We're told those are 'humane'. Pretty certain the cost of that is a number of degrees less than the drugs that don't always work, no potential slip-ups like the chair, or hanging, no possible suffering from bullets gone amiss ...

Yeah. Not a popular position I'm sure, but there you have it. A quick relatively humane death seems preferable to me, all things considered. Certainly more humane than what happened to the victims in any case.

[Frenline Delpha]

DLN, you should know that arguments from emotion aren't good. Sure, Brock Turner happened, but that doesn't prove that it's a common occurrence. However, I'd say an entire study does:

Article on the study: https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... ities.aspx

Actual paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

Yep, Beock Turner is the rule instead of the exception, clearly.

[Calladan]

DLN, you should know that arguments from emotion aren't good. Sure, Brock Turner happened, but that doesn't prove that it's a common occurrence. However, I'd say an entire study does:

Article on the study: https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... ities.aspx

Actual paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

Yep, Beock Turner is the rule instead of the exception, clearly.

So a 5 year old study using data that ranges from 8 to 17 years old is enough evidence to suggest we should be treating men less harshly when sending them to prison for a wide range of offences. And to suggest that, Brock Turner is the exception to the rule.

[Fartsniffage]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39713202

[Camicon]

People who get off light for their crimes?

Their called women.

Oh aren't you just adorable. Also, if we're to understand what you're attempting to get at, it would be 'they're'.

How about Brock Turner, and other similar instances? There's plenty of murder cases where the punishment didn't seem to fit the crime for whatever reason, though one of the most egregious has already been mentioned here.

The justice system is biased against men. When men are getting away with shit, like Turner did, you can rest assured that women are getting away with more.

The insanity plea - here's my problem with it. Sane people do not go out and kill others for shits and giggles. The lack of 'sanity' there is a fecking given. This idea that 'oh, lost my mind at the time, didn't know what I was doing' is a valid defense in a number of these cases is absolutely ridiculous. They knew exactly what they were doing, temporary insanity is largely a cop-out with rare exception, and the only people for whom a plea of mental deficiency ought to stick are those who have actual mental deficiencies, or the actual proven disability to understand what they were doing is wrong - another rarity, and not generally one associated with serial killers, or repeat offenders.

Insanity pleas are very rarely successful, often failing even in circumstances where it would seem to most people that it shouldn't.

There are more crimes for which some people will never a) recover from, b) achieve full rehabilitation from, c) be able to reintegrate into society after. And for those, can't help but think we would all be better off without - no need to stockpile, no need to pay for a pointless stretch of imprisonment that all too often simply adds to their criminality and does nothing to actually rehabilitate in the first place, and no need to prolong their punishment, or the suffering of their victim's surviving kin at the taxpayer's cost. Those bolt guns they use on cattle? We're told those are 'humane'. Pretty certain the cost of that is a number of degrees less than the drugs that don't always work, no potential slip-ups like the chair, or hanging, no possible suffering from bullets gone amiss ...

Execution is more expensive than life in prison. Not because of the method of execution, but because of all the legal hurdles that must be cleared in order for someone to actually be executed by the state. And even with all those legal hurdles, innocent people are being executed.

[Calladan]

Can I fund a new study?

This study will investigate whether the average random person on the street who thinks women get easier sentencing, without any evidence to back it up, or any proof other than their own biases, are men rather than women.

There will be a second part to this study, but that will come later.

[Camicon]

Can I fund a new study?

This study will investigate whether the average random person on the street who thinks women get easier sentencing, without any evidence to back it up, or any proof other than their own biases, are men rather than women.

There will be a second part to this study, but that will come later.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=justice+system+sentencing+disparity+men+and+women&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMt7SQ8MDTAhUM12MKHfL-CAsQgQMIITAA

Google is your friend. Self-imposed ignorance is not.

[Frenline Delpha]

DLN, you should know that arguments from emotion aren't good. Sure, Brock Turner happened, but that doesn't prove that it's a common occurrence. However, I'd say an entire study does:

Article on the study: https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... ities.aspx

Actual paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

Yep, Beock Turner is the rule instead of the exception, clearly.

So a 5 year old study using data that ranges from 8 to 17 years old is enough evidence to suggest we should be treating men less harshly when sending them to prison for a wide range of offences. And to suggest that, Brock Turner is the exception to the rule.

I'd like to focus on just one part here: what does the age have to do with anything? If it was ten or fifteen years, you might have a point, but times are very much similar to how they were five years ago. So, I ask what your bloody point is. And also, maybe you could actually refute what the study says instead of going, "Lol age." as if that means anything.

[Impireacht]

Oh aren't you just adorable. Also, if we're to understand what you're attempting to get at, it would be 'they're'.

How about Brock Turner, and other similar instances? There's plenty of murder cases where the punishment didn't seem to fit the crime for whatever reason, though one of the most egregious has already been mentioned here.

The justice system is biased against men. When men are getting away with shit, like Turner did, you can rest assured that women are getting away with more.

The insanity plea - here's my problem with it. Sane people do not go out and kill others for shits and giggles. The lack of 'sanity' there is a fecking given. This idea that 'oh, lost my mind at the time, didn't know what I was doing' is a valid defense in a number of these cases is absolutely ridiculous. They knew exactly what they were doing, temporary insanity is largely a cop-out with rare exception, and the only people for whom a plea of mental deficiency ought to stick are those who have actual mental deficiencies, or the actual proven disability to understand what they were doing is wrong - another rarity, and not generally one associated with serial killers, or repeat offenders.

Insanity pleas are very rarely successful, often failing even in circumstances where it would seem to most people that it shouldn't.

There are more crimes for which some people will never a) recover from, b) achieve full rehabilitation from, c) be able to reintegrate into society after. And for those, can't help but think we would all be better off without - no need to stockpile, no need to pay for a pointless stretch of imprisonment that all too often simply adds to their criminality and does nothing to actually rehabilitate in the first place, and no need to prolong their punishment, or the suffering of their victim's surviving kin at the taxpayer's cost. Those bolt guns they use on cattle? We're told those are 'humane'. Pretty certain the cost of that is a number of degrees less than the drugs that don't always work, no potential slip-ups like the chair, or hanging, no possible suffering from bullets gone amiss ...

Execution is more expensive than life in prison. Not because of the method of execution, but because of all the legal hurdles that must be cleared in order for someone to actually be executed by the state. And even with all those legal hurdles, innocent people are being executed.

Alrighty, where to start? I guess I'll start with your first post, where you compared a man who murdered and raped over a hundred women to a child who accidentally pulled the trigger on a gun. One is clumsiness, the other, whether caused by madness or not, is pure evil... I'll bet if it was your daughter, sister, friend, or such, you'd be all for his execution whether he claimed "insanity" or not.

Secondly, I see no reason that the execution of mass-murderers of any mental health should be considered an ill-informed or unjustified position
The purpose of execution, in my opinion, should not be to discourage crime (though it certainly does help with that), but rather to increase public safety and deal with crime without putting additional burden on taxpayer's backs. I don't care if the guy the OP was talking about had mental issues or not, executing him would have permanently neutralized his threat to society, very likely would have been cheaper than keeping at a mental hospital for 18 years, and would have at least provided some consolation to the friends and family of the victims, who now have to live with the fact that the victim's killer is on the loose thanks to a claim of insanity that was very likely BS.

Thirdly, if you're going to make an outrageous claim like life in prison being cheaper than execution, then please enlighten us all with a link to a reliable source, or I (along with any others who aren't ridiculously gullible) will dismiss it as something you probably read on someone's low-quality rant blog and decided to repeat back.

If you're going to dismiss other people's opinions as garbage and whine about the thread being a dick measuring contest, at least do it with credibility and tact.

[Calladan]

So a 5 year old study using data that ranges from 8 to 17 years old is enough evidence to suggest we should be treating men less harshly when sending them to prison for a wide range of offences. And to suggest that, Brock Turner is the exception to the rule.

I'd like to focus on just one part here: what does the age have to do with anything? If it was ten or fifteen years, you might have a point, but times are very much similar to how they were five years ago. So, I ask what your bloody point is. And also, maybe you could actually refute what the study says instead of going, "Lol age." as if that means anything.

Okay - reread what I wrote and I will dignify your post with an actual answer.

Here's a hint :- She could redo the study today, using the same data, and I would still have the same objections.

[Calladan]

Can I fund a new study?

This study will investigate whether the average random person on the street who thinks women get easier sentencing, without any evidence to back it up, or any proof other than their own biases, are men rather than women.

There will be a second part to this study, but that will come later.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=justice+system+sentencing+disparity+men+and+women&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMt7SQ8MDTAhUM12MKHfL-CAsQgQMIITAA

Google is your friend. Self-imposed ignorance is not.

Pretty sure none of those studies will actually answer my request

[Valrifell]

People who get off light for their crimes?

They're called affluent, athletic, white kids.

FTFY

[Frenline Delpha]

People who get off light for their crimes?

They're called affluent, athletic, white kids.

FTFY

'Cause black, affluent athletes never get off easy. You are so in-tune with reality that I feel like you should become a deity.

[Valrifell]

FTFY

'Cause black, affluent athletes never get off easy. You are so in-tune with reality that I feel like you should become a deity.

I could open that up to affluent athletes in general, because you're probably right.

[Calladan]

'Cause black, affluent athletes never get off easy. You are so in-tune with reality that I feel like you should become a deity.

I could open that up to affluent athletes in general, because you're probably right.

Never let reality get in the way of a good story

[Frenline Delpha]

I could open that up to affluent athletes in general, because you're probably right.

Never let reality get in the way of a good story

Do you mind not posting one article, or even ten, like they mean anything other than some people in the justice system are mouth-breathing mongoloids? Perhaps show a study that backs up your claims. That would actually mean something.

[Calladan]

Never let reality get in the way of a good story

Do you mind not posting one article, or even ten, like they mean anything other than some people in the justice system are mouth-breathing mongoloids? Perhaps show a study that backs up your claims. That would actually mean something.

Nope. Because even if I post every example of this for the past ten years it would still not convince people who have made their minds up.

If you are rich, white and/or male in America then you are going to be treated far better than if you are not. Story after story after story in the press backs this claim up. But no study is ever going to prove this because even if one was done it would either have to be done by a rich, white male (and why would they want to upset the status quo?) or by someone who isn't rich or white or male, and it would be written off as biased or the rantings of a deluded SJW.

It's called institutionalised racism for a reason.

[Camicon]

The justice system is biased against men. When men are getting away with shit, like Turner did, you can rest assured that women are getting away with more.

Insanity pleas are very rarely successful, often failing even in circumstances where it would seem to most people that it shouldn't.

Execution is more expensive than life in prison. Not because of the method of execution, but because of all the legal hurdles that must be cleared in order for someone to actually be executed by the state. And even with all those legal hurdles, innocent people are being executed.

Alrighty, where to start? I guess I'll start with your first post, where you compared a man who murdered and raped over a hundred women to a child who accidentally pulled the trigger on a gun. One is clumsiness, the other, whether caused by madness or not, is pure evil... I'll bet if it was your daughter, sister, friend, or such, you'd be all for his execution whether he claimed "insanity" or not.

I didn't do that, actually. And regardless of what crime someone might commit, I don't think that the state should be executing them.

Secondly, I see no reason that the execution of mass-murderers of any mental health should be considered an ill-informed or unjustified position

It opens the door to executing people who are mentally incompetent because of age. You know, children. Plus, what good does a punishment do if you don't understand what you're being punished for in the first place? Answer: none.

The purpose of execution, in my opinion, should not be to discourage crime (though it certainly does help with that), but rather to increase public safety and deal with crime without putting additional burden on taxpayer's backs. I don't care if the guy the OP was talking about had mental issues or not, executing him would have permanently neutralized his threat to society, very likely would have been cheaper than keeping at a mental hospital for 18 years, and would have at least provided some consolation to the friends and family of the victims, who now have to live with the fact that the victim's killer is on the loose thanks to a claim of insanity that was very likely BS.

Executions are more expensive, and retribution is not the purpose of the justice system.

Thirdly, if you're going to make an outrageous claim like life in prison being cheaper than execution, then please enlighten us all with a link to a reliable source, or I (along with any others who aren't ridiculously gullible) will dismiss it as something you probably read on someone's low-quality rant blog and decided to repeat back.

Google is your friend.

If you're going to dismiss other people's opinions as garbage and whine about the thread being a dick measuring contest, at least do it with credibility and tact.

Haven't done that either.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=justice+system+sentencing+disparity+men+and+women&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMt7SQ8MDTAhUM12MKHfL-CAsQgQMIITAA

Google is your friend. Self-imposed ignorance is not.

Pretty sure none of those studies will actually answer my request

Self-imposed ignorance it is, then.

[Frenline Delpha]

Do you mind not posting one article, or even ten, like they mean anything other than some people in the justice system are mouth-breathing mongoloids? Perhaps show a study that backs up your claims. That would actually mean something.

Nope. Because even if I post every example of this for the past ten years it would still not convince people who have made their minds up.

If you are rich, white and/or male in America then you are going to be treated far better than if you are not. Story after story after story in the press backs this claim up. But no study is ever going to prove this because even if one was done it would either have to be done by a rich, white male (and why would they want to upset the status quo?) or by someone who isn't rich or white or male, and it would be written off as biased or the rantings of a deluded SJW.

It's called institutionalised racism for a reason.

All I'm hearing from you is your feelings on the topic. You've yet to provide any evidence that would convinve even the most open-minded jury in the world of the charges you have set against all rich, white males in America. Also, don't you think you're tap-dancing that all x are y line right now?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

DLN, you should know that arguments from emotion aren't good. Sure, Brock Turner happened, but that doesn't prove that it's a common occurrence. However, I'd say an entire study does:

Article on the study: https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... ities.aspx

Actual paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

Yep, Beock Turner is the rule instead of the exception, clearly.

Thought we were talking about specific instances, not 'the norm', so ... about that, hm? My post also isn't about gender disparities, nor is it coming from an emotional space, so much as a longstanding frustration with the overall inequality in our supposed justice system.

Want a general? How about the penalties for marijuana possession vs a plethora of other 'crimes'? There's one you can take and view studies on, then tell me there isn't a problem with things out there.

[Kilobugya]

While there are occasional case of murderers who had a "light ruling" according to some (but who usually don't look at the whole details of story), the main class of "light court ruling" isn't about mass-murders or rapists, but about white collar crime. People doing massive tax fraud, people stealing public money, employers not respecting the rights of their workers, company owners doing fraudulent bankruptcy to avoid paying their creditors, banks doing money laundering and therefore facilitating terrorism and drug trafficing, ... all those crimes actually have much worse consequences on societies than the serial killers (who are a very, very occurrence) and tend to have no or very light penalties for their crimes.

[Telconi]

Everyone who's committed homicide and not been executed.

[Impireacht]

Alrighty, where to start? I guess I'll start with your first post, where you compared a man who murdered and raped over a hundred women to a child who accidentally pulled the trigger on a gun. One is clumsiness, the other, whether caused by madness or not, is pure evil... I'll bet if it was your daughter, sister, friend, or such, you'd be all for his execution whether he claimed "insanity" or not.

I didn't do that, actually. And regardless of what crime someone might commit, I don't think that the state should be executing them.

Secondly, I see no reason that the execution of mass-murderers of any mental health should be considered an ill-informed or unjustified position

It opens the door to executing people who are mentally incompetent because of age. You know, children. Plus, what good does a punishment do if you don't understand what you're being punished for in the first place? Answer: none.

The purpose of execution, in my opinion, should not be to discourage crime (though it certainly does help with that), but rather to increase public safety and deal with crime without putting additional burden on taxpayer's backs. I don't care if the guy the OP was talking about had mental issues or not, executing him would have permanently neutralized his threat to society, very likely would have been cheaper than keeping at a mental hospital for 18 years, and would have at least provided some consolation to the friends and family of the victims, who now have to live with the fact that the victim's killer is on the loose thanks to a claim of insanity that was very likely BS.

Executions are more expensive, and retribution is not the purpose of the justice system.

Thirdly, if you're going to make an outrageous claim like life in prison being cheaper than execution, then please enlighten us all with a link to a reliable source, or I (along with any others who aren't ridiculously gullible) will dismiss it as something you probably read on someone's low-quality rant blog and decided to repeat back.

Google is your friend.

If you're going to dismiss other people's opinions as garbage and whine about the thread being a dick measuring contest, at least do it with credibility and tact.

Haven't done that either.

Pretty sure none of those studies will actually answer my request

Self-imposed ignorance it is, then.

1.

So I can't be for the death penalty for certain crimes and express it in a simple way?

Advocating the execution of people who are mentally unable of understanding what they were doing is an opinion that is generally frowned upon, because to be held responsible for the things you've done you have to be able to understand them.

This is why a young child who accidentally kills someone when playing with Daddy's unlocked and loaded handgun isn't put on death row. This is why people who are the mental age of young children, and are similarly unable to understand cause and effect, aren't put on death row.

Really, you didn't say that? Because this post says otherwise.

2. I was stressing the point that the justice system isn't for retribution, but rather to decrease crime rates and increase public safety. This is usually done through rehabilitation, but in cases that rehabilitation would be risky, execution is an efficient way of dealing with a criminal's threat to society.

3. Seeing as most of that cost is due to our complex legal system and the pretty damn massive expense of hiring lawyers, is that really a problem with capital punishment, or rather with our legal system?

4.

Didn't take long for this thread to turn into an ITG dick measuring contest. How quaint.

Again, pretty sure that you did say that... I mean, if you can't remember what you said a day ago, at least check the previous page and read your own posts.

5. While I actually agree with you on the point of women being treated with more leniency, calling someone ignorant repeatedly is a good way to get a mod in here warning you, and we all know once a mod enters a thread it's only a matter of days before things escalate and we have a few bans and a locked thread.