Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavel_lishin | Hacker News Reader

Cultural heritage aside, it's incredible that someone can rob someone to the tune of eight million dollars, and their punishment is a few years of house arrest, while someone who steals candy from a bodega gets to spend years if not decades in prison.

I don't want these two dingdongs to rot in prison; I want our justice system to treat all criminals proportionally.

View on HN

> while someone who steals candy from a bodega gets to spend years if not decades in prison

it's usually because the bodega thief is waving a gun around and threatening to kill someone, while the library thief isn't.

Would be interested in seeing how many robberies are violent and armed vis a vis sentence lengths

While the parent is correct that the person robbing a store is very likely using a weapon to do it, they left out that the US uses a rather extreme increasing punishment system for repeat offenders.

People robbing stores, I'd wager, are often repeat offenders. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws over the last few decades have dramatically increased the prison-time durations for those people, even for many lesser/low violence crimes.

I believe it's an example of a "3 strikes" type rule where it really was just shoplifting.

Here's a couple examples. No violence, just shoplifting:

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/04/473004950/new-orleans-man-fac...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-04-26-000427...

Second link just goes to the CT home page for me.

The 3 strikes rule is indeed a problem, but besides that the parent still has a point. A lot of the low-value robberies involve threats or violence, where as high-value art thefts pretty much never do.

What's worse, Nuisance crime or high impact crime? Do we come down on the fellow who stole a Twix bar for the n-th time or do we lock up the guy who proved that we really need million-dollar locks and alarms for the library holdings?

To play devils advocate, part of the purpose of prison is to shield society from people who are particularly damaging to society. Repeat offenders have shown that even after being given repeated negative reenforcement, they will still carry out activities damaging to society.

I'm not sure life in prison is the answer, but it does make sense that repeated aggressions would be met with stronger negative feedback.

This seems to be a case of "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

Perhaps the crux of the issue is in the "repeated negative reenforcement" and its failure to rehabilitate a person with anti-social behavior.

To bring it back to the library, the thefts occurred over 25 years.

I think the main reason the US throws people in prison for extended periods for petty crimes is if those crimes were repeat offences - so you have ridiculous situations where people serve years behind bars for stealing toothpaste.

This case is kind of odd though, as the perpetrator committed the same crime many times over a quarter of a century. The items stolen were also of great cultural value. So here we have a person who has repeatedly stolen cultural items, yet they get a very lenient sentence - I very much doubt the sentence would have been the same had he been a black man from a working class family.

This case really highlights the two-tier legal system that exists in the US.

> This case really highlights the two-tier legal system that exists in the US.

Like a life sentence for stealing hedge clippers. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/us/louisiana-supreme-court-tr...

Or they have the wrong skin color.

Stealing culturally significant items from the public like this case is more similar to graft or corruption, or breach of fiduciary duty. White collar crime. Far from victimless, it hurts everyone.

Imagine being sentenced to house arrest in 2020 of all years.

How about a teller who steals $20 from the till at a Chase Bank? They will do jail time.

I want these two plunders to rot because people have done time for far less serious non-violent crimes.

This is rotten and perhaps crooked. Someone called in favor from the judge.

> I want these two plunders to rot because people have done time for far less serious non-violent crimes.

I would rather the lenience they experienced be extended to those who have done time for less serious crimes.

I am sorry but that is just wishful thinking. The exception here is the light sentences for these folks and the norm is jail time for others.

> that is just wishful thinking

Of course it is. That's kind of the point of my comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com