Need some spending cash?

[HarryHawk]

Manhattan DA to stop seeking prison sentences in slew of criminal cases

Armed robbers who use guns or other deadly weapons to stick up stores and other businesses will be prosecuted only for petty larceny, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there’s no “genuine risk of physical harm” to anyone. Armed robbery, a class B felony, would typically be punishable by a maximum of 25 years in prison, while petty larceny subjects offenders to up to 364 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

 

[Aunt Bea]

“The government you elect is the government you deserve.” - Thomas Jefferson

 

[rgp]

“The government you elect is the government you deserve.” - Thomas Jefferson

I agree but ........ one half of electable considerations are slowly being eroded ......... leaving only the other half & they are exactly the half that promotes this kind of thing. And the rest of us do not deserve the outcome.

We are ....... circling the drain.

 

[old medic]

You mean you can get more time for defending yourself with a weapon than the criminal threatening you with a weapon committing the crime to begin with????
Make sense ...and turn a child rapist free to make room for me.

 

[Alligatorob]

I do believe we incarcerate too many people, and often for too long.

However the problem is for non-violent no guns involved crimes, not armed robbery!

 

[HarryHawk]

I've never been able to understand the logic of folks who propose the best way for a safer society is to defund police, take away the guns from law abiding citizens while releasing convicted criminals back on the streets.

 

[Jules]

I do believe we incarcerate too many people, and often for too long.

However the problem is for non-violent no guns involved crimes, not armed robbery!

No real answer or opinion on this, just mulling it over. It does seem that the system is overloaded because the severity of punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Let them out and put the next ones in. In theory, if the first criminals were helped, they wouldn’t be coming back. At least the new criminals would know they were going away.

 

[Alligatorob]

No real answer or opinion on this, just mulling it over. It does seem that the system is overloaded because the severity of punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Let them out and put the next ones in. In theory, if the first criminals were helped, they wouldn’t be coming back. At least the new criminals would know they were going away.

I once sat next to a retired sheriff on a flight. He said that most sentences were too long.

He believed keeping people more than a year usually created career criminals. However, particularly for the first time, incarceration even for a few months was quite hard on people and made a significant impression. On the other hand he thought that there were a minority of criminals who just were not reformable.

His opinion was that we should greatly reduce sentences for first and second time offenders, but have the three strikes and your out thing to keep repeat offenders in jail for life. I can see the logic in that.