LurkersWillLurk t1_ixiogzx wrote
Reply to comment by Franklinia_Alatamaha in Police: Man, 25, charged in connection with string of robberies at off-campus Temple residences by Franklinia_Alatamaha
Incapacitation is great and all but he would have been let go in two or three years. Do you have a crystal ball to show that the same result wouldn’t have happened later down the line? I’m sure you would’ve complained had he been arrested later on that the sentence of three years for aggravated assault was a joke.
Secondly, there are plenty of other counties that would’ve given that low of a sentence, for a wide variety of reasons. Reasons like limited prosecutorial resources, unwillingness of witnesses to testify, or just generally weak evidence from the police.
The guidelines are merely just guidelines - if he took it to trial and lost, he would’ve gotten a longer time in prison, but he gave up his right to a trial in exchange for a reduced sentence. And he still managed to get a probation violation warrant that Philly Police and the Sheriff’s Office ignored until after he was picked up for robbery.
Franklinia_Alatamaha OP t1_ixipi1f wrote
>Incapacitation is great and all but he would have been let go in two or three years. Do you have a crystal ball to show that the same result wouldn’t have happened later down the line? I’m sure you would’ve complained had he been arrested later on that the sentence of three years for aggravated assault was a joke.
You went from "you don't have a crystal ball" to "you would have complained if the situation was different", and I think you did it unironically. You're completely off base with this, and you're now trying to use that crystal ball you hate so much.
If he was sentenced to a minimum like he should have been, he would have still been locked up. He physically could not have done what he did. He would have been sitting up at Phoenix or Coal Township or wherever.
The guy got 10% of the sentence that the sentencing guidelines called for. Objectively, unless you're Larry Krasner or Jane Roh, that is insanely stupid.
​
>Secondly, there are plenty of other counties that would’ve given that low of a sentence, for a wide variety of reasons. Reasons like limited prosecutorial resources, unwillingness of witnesses to testify, or just generally weak evidence from the police.
Respectfully, this is wrong. Philadelphia has a very well known reputation state wide for exactly these types of sentences. It is by far the most lenient county in the state. Anyone arguing the contrary isn't doing so from a good faith position.
LurkersWillLurk t1_ixiry6g wrote
No, what I’m saying is that you are fundamentally not happy with a sentence that’s not life plus cancer for any kind of violent crime. You think that any time a criminal reoffends that it’s a policy failure, yet you also probably don’t think that it’s a policy failure to keep someone incarcerated longer than necessary to prevent them from reoffending. Where are the righteously indignant Fox29 stories about elderly inmates taking up space in Laurel Highlands?
Bottom line is, this case is not a policy failure by the DAO. The severity of punishment is insignificant compared to the certainty of punishment. You’re missing the forest for the trees if all you consider is that this particular person wouldn’t have participated in this particular robbery if he had been given a marginally longer sentence.
xaesk t1_ixj5xts wrote
>You’re missing the forest for the trees if all you consider is that this particular person wouldn’t have participated in this particular robbery if he had been given a marginally longer sentence.
I think you're just straight-up missing everything. If he's locked up for 3 years, he physically couldn't do something like this for... 3 years. I'd rather have him commit a crime once every 3 years over once every 3 months.
Though you're right, I do wish they could just give bozos like this life plus cancer. Whatever keeps violent criminals off the street the longest is best.
LurkersWillLurk t1_ixjats9 wrote
Well, you finally said the quiet part out loud, so I’ll give you credit for that.
xaesk t1_ixjjpiv wrote
What's the quiet part? Keeping violent criminals, especially repeat ones, out of society for as long as possible?
LurkersWillLurk t1_ixjlcxq wrote
The quiet part is that you support mass incarceration
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
xaesk t1_ixkkf1n wrote
I said that I support life for a person who's committed arson, aggravated assault, and broken into college student's homes and robbed them at gunpoint. I also said that we should keep repeat violent criminals out of society for as long as possible. What are you talking about?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments