Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnamazon123 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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.

> 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.)

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;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&...

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.h...

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.)

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 !

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.

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.

And 8 years is justified because of it? Why not 1 year? Or none?

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.

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.

Problem is, there always will be murderers, abusers and thieves. Preventing crime is the right thing to do, but I don't think it is the answer for determining right degree of punishment if a crime is committed.

Okay, consider this: you're talking about punishment.

What, exactly, is the point of punishment?

Are you trying to prevent future crimes? Great, we're actually talking about crime prevention and severity of punishment is a red herring (because we actually need to consider punishment as merely one option among many).

Are you trying to satisfy victims? Okay, but now you're saying the punishment basically serves as a synthesised substitute for mob justice -- so why pretend there's anything humane about it at all?

Are you trying to deter other would-be criminals from doing the same? Great, we can actually measure the effectiveness of that empirically (spoiler: it's not great) and adjust punishments accordingly.

Or we can just build more prisons and put more people in jail (or murder them if we really don't like them) because that has worked out so well in the US.

Actually that absolutely is one of the stated purposed of state justice. This also has the benefit of preventing private vendettas, if the victims feel the criminal has been punished enough.

In Europe, that is not true. The stated purpose of the justice system is that of deterrence. Exerting justice for the reason of revenge is nothing more than catering to the lower instincts of people and that is very much at odds with a civilized society. If you really believe that people are locked up so that the victims feel better, you have watched too many bad American TV dramas.

Well, it is widely documented in introductory criminal law courses as a part of the three Rs (removal, retribution, retaliation) or in more accessible material such as

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=156

Accomplish something? Oh yes it does! It served to attenuate the absolute day by day anguish of living with the fact that the murderer who blotted out the existence of the person you knew is set to enjoy a new life out of prison while their victim continues to rot. It also solves the potential for recidivism.

That's not actually true. The three purposes are rehabilitation, punishment and deterrence. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5

That is not at all how it goed. If someone mills all your children they gets a much higher sentence. It all depends on what you killed or what you stole. (Stealing two AA batteries vs stealing 10 million dollars with years of planning) But you don't get 5 years or more in prison for driving under influence.

If 8 years changed nothing, 15 years likely won't change much. Then you can say "but we can put him for life !", so just kill him then, same result except he won't suffer. (also French)

Show us the example where a person has killed multiple children and got an 8 year sentence.

Perhaps you should look at the US system where rich privileged kids can drive drunk, kill other passengers and avoid prison because of 'affluenza'.

The US prison system is corrupt, racist and run for the benefit of prison companies and if you don't realise that then perhaps you have been living under a rock.

The thing is, murders of kids by strangers are so extraordinarily rare and horrific that people talk about them for decades afterwards, but that makes them a bad precedent to build your ideas of justice around.

Kids are far more likely to be killed by their parents or step-parents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com