Hacker News Reader

Comment by fixxer | Hacker News Reader

> All I did was rob a bank

I totally understand how somebody might look at that situation and say "gee, he did only rob a bank because the guy who died was his accomplice", but at the same time... he robbed a bank! Had he not robbed it, that life might not have been lost and a body would not have been taken from the scene of a crime.

If you want to argue that the quality of one's lawyer plays a large part in the charges, hell, I agree with you and I think that sucks. But, I'm not about to toss out the legal system because a criminal had a shitty time in court. Fuck this guy.

View on HN

The legal system is supposed to make punishments fit the crime, not heap arbitrarily much punishment on anyone who ever breaks any law ever.

If you only never made any mistakes filling out your taxes, your moonshine business may still be thriving. If you only weren't selling loose cigarettes, you may still be alive...

As someone who was once an illegal immigrant (though not in the U.S.), I say this completely unironically: I'm grateful to be alive.

You're comparing violent crime (robbing a bank) with non-violent crime (illegal immigration).

I think it does fit the crime, and it's not arbitrary. You get charged with crimes you committed because you didn't want to be caught committing a crime. "I moved the body because I was being chased by the cops" isn't a good excuse.

>As someone who was once an illegal immigrant

This is perfectly analogous. People in countries illegally sometimes engage in identity theft, illegal labor, and a variety of other things so they can stay in the country. The fact that someone "had to" so they could remain illegally in a country isn't a mitigating circumstance. I'm not at all insinuating it should escalate until you get shot, but if you get caught, you're culpable for every law you broke. Why would you not be?

Like, this is the simplest thing in the world. If you don't want to leave your friend's body behind if he gets shot while robbing a bank, don't rob a bank. You're not supposed to be doing that anyway. It's a threshold that everyone can meet. If you take the body, well, now you've committed another crime. I actually think that law makes a lot of sense.

The problem here is that the punishment doesn't fit our collective understanding about the relative immorality of various crimes.

Years ago there was a movie review site called moviecritic.com (a demo site for early collaborative filtering technology). After you rated a movie from 1 to 10, it would show you your rating for several other movies and ask you if you're sure. Half the time you would think "wait a minute, no, I really didn't mean to rate this better than The Shawshank Redemption" and adjust the rating.

A guy robbed a bank. His friend who died understood the risk he was taking; his death is morally "on his own head", even if the "unlucky" robber may have a hand in it. The punishment for this needs to be put next to the punishments for "violent rape", "assault+battery", "willful murder" and adjusted accordingly. Otherwise the whole system feels unfair and arbitrary.

Why not just binary ratings?

Cake or death?

Any rating system is as arbitrary as the next, right?

> But, I'm not about to toss out the legal system because a criminal had a shitty time in court. Fuck this guy.

I don't think anyone is suggesting anything other than reform of how we prosecute laws in this country, there is an obvious imbalance at play here and cases like this highlight the problem.

Second.. sure, fuck that guy; but what about his family? His children? The community? Just because you put one person in jail does not mean that suffering and loss ends there.

What is the function of the justice system? To fulfill our base needs for revenge? Or is it a tool to improve society? If it's the latter, then "fuck that guy" is not a useful response.

Oh, the children! What about the children?

What does it matter? He robbed a bank! Someone died! He chose to break his contract with society. If I did that, I would expect zero considerations be made for my two kids. It is my responsibility to never put them in such a position.

The children who are going to grow up without a father, yea, I'm thinking about them.

Who's going to raise them? A single mother, if they're lucky. Think she's going to have an easy time re-marrying with an ex-con husband? How about getting a good job in the era of background checks? Think she was highly educated to begin with?

Taxpayers at large are going to foot most of bill for this domestic disaster. Further, these children are now more likely to end up in jail themselves. Now society gets to pay another $30,000 a year per child to house, feed and care for another inmate.

This isn't strictly touchy-feely stuff here, there's a hard cost to society when you jail people without any thoughts towards true justice. It's stupid, ineffective and perverse.

You are criticizing a negative feedback loop while simultaneously endorsing policies that would create equally detrimental feedback loops.

What is true justice?

Whatever justice is, it cannot be the vengeful, racist, wealth-centered system we have now. Nor can it possibly be found in the the mind of anyone prone to uttering the phrase "fuck this guy".

Whatever justice is, it cannot be forfeiting our own empathy and humanity.

I agree with you to an extent. Where was the robber's empathy and humanity when he decided to commit a violent crime?

I'm sticking with "fuck this guy".

If you really want to bear a cross, I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.

> Where was the robber's empathy and humanity when he decided to commit a violent crime?

Where was ours when we drove him to that crime?

> I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.

Unlike some people, I don't feel it is morally appropriate to pick and choose who gets justice.

I am responsible for my actions. I own my mistakes rather than blame society. Lots of people come from nothing and don't resort to crime. Your view is one of the worst types of liberal elitism and I honestly am repulsed by it.

Your view is one of the worst types of conservative inhumanity and I honestly am repulsed by it.

Where is the empathy of a well off white boy who runs over people with his car while drunk and gets away with merely a scolding - beceause his parents are rich and connected enough to get him a good lawyer.

One straw man argument after another... We're talking about a bank robber. We're talking about crimes committed during the robbery (preventing his accomplice from getting medical care, which resulted in his accomplice's death) being added to his list charges.

And I don't disagree with you! I hate injustice like you're referring to as well. But injustice is not some exchangeable capital. We can't correct one by neglecting to punish another.

Having a man locked up for 100 years for robbing two stores without actually hurting anyone is hardly justice. And the case of the bank robber is also hardly justice.

And it seems that this type of systemic overcompensation is exactly what is going on in your justice system.

I wish that persecutors would use same zeal to persecute all the crimes. Including police crime and white collar crime. Then, perhaps it would dawn on you that such random and strict distribution of justice is no justice at all.

I think you've confused this thread with the OP's article. My comment was in reference to a bank robber who was charged with the murder and kidnapping of his accomplice when he ran away from police with his friend (who was shot). His friend died and he was charged with robbery (the original crime) as well as the subsequent crimes, as is policy in American juris prudence.

This might get 14 to 20 years in India even if we consider him as murderer. I am not sure what makes people think that lifetime prison helping. Atleast in India i would expect the guy to comeback after 14 years as clean person most probably more useful to society if he had taken the punishement seriously. What is the use of putting some one for the rest of the life in jail? if the jail was not for correction but to revenge then you may execute him right away and may be save prison cost.

Yea, but it's not really about pity for "the poor children." It's about making sure those children do not grow up to commit more crimes against you or me. It's selfish preservation on our part.

Suppose he didn't go to prison for kidnapping and murder. He's still going to prison for bank robbery and those imaginary kids are going to grow up without a daddy regardless.

Your argument is moot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com