Do you think an armed robber should spend the rest of their life in prison?

13 years for robbery is harsh. I am a big fan of sentence minimization. This generations obsession with punishment and retribution is very counter-productive. Mercy makes allies while punishment doesn't solve anything.

 

No, when you commit a crime with a dangerous weapon and make threats, the sentence should be longer because you have shown you a dangerous person. (I use "you" generally of course).

 

The type of people committing armed robbery (aka a violent crime that involves the threat to kill somebody if they don't give up their property) don't value mercy. They view it as weakness, and a reason to prey on you again.

 

{epe
Perhaps they are like that because no one had the decency to give them second chances in life. Almost everyone has sincerely vowed to change their lifestyles before being put on the chopping block

 

I could buy that with simple theft, or even strong-arm robbery. I don't buy it with armed robbery, but then again I value innocent people over criminals.

 

But there are some types of robbery where the robber basically has to have a gun (like bank robbery).

And then we can look at how the justice system treats criminals who were not carrying a gun:
Injustice: homeowner shoots unarmed burglars, burglars guilty of murder
and we can begin to ask what robber in their right mind would not bring a gun with them?

I have always assumed robbery was with a gun, or at least with some sort of weapon. But if that's not the case, if there's a completely separate criminal statute for using a gun during the commission of a crime, then maybe the punishment for committing robbery should be much much less.

Of course, none of the legislators will bother to fix this.

Perhaps, but there is also the matter of justice and right and wrong. Excessive punishment is not right, it is no more right than the crime that the criminal committed to begin with.

We could try to keep all criminals behind bars for as long as possible, but then that would turn all criminals into potentially dangerous fugitives. The line does need to be drawn, but we need to be careful where we draw it.

 

You are conflating robbers and burglars. A burglar in his right mind doesn't burglarize an occupied dwelling (at least in a Castle Doctrine state). Bringing a gun to a burglary in Florida, makes it a first degree felony that can get you life in prison. Burglary unarmed to a occupied dwelling is a second degree felony (15 years), and unarmed burglary to an unoccupied dwelling is a third degree felony (5 years)

I haven't heard anybody suggesting excessive punishment. Using a gun to threaten to kill somebody to get their property is pretty heinous. Life imprisonment is appropriate. IMHO, our low crime rate is because imprisonment has gotten longer.

 

What if the robber does not explicitly threaten to use his gun? What if the gun is just for his own protection, in case someone else at the scene happens to have a gun, or the police show up?
Assuming none of his victims are armed, it is unlikely he would have to kill anyone.

 

The thing about carrying a gun is, they're showing they're willing to hurt or kill people to steal the money. It is a dangerous escalation. This is why armed robbery is punished more harshly than theft. It could be argued that the thief just wants the money too.

 

This is facetious. The people have the right to protect themselves from felons. A criminal has no right to protection from his victims while he is victimizing them. He has no right to shoot police in the line of their duty. On the contrary, he is bound to obey them.

If he never committed the crime, he wouldn't have to kill anyone. Guaranteed. Nor would they need to kill him.

 

Then it's not armed robbery.

http://thelawdictionary.org/armed-robbery/

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.13.html

To be considered armed robbery, a threat has to be made.

 

Rather vauge---too many variables---but this sounds like a bad person overall.

If this is his first prison sentance, I'd limit it to mabye a few months of hard labor on a chain gang working dawn to dusk 6 days a week.

 

Keep in mind he will probably lose a third of the sentence for good behavior, That leaves 9 years so he could easily be paroled in 3, Your state may vary.

 

The laws are so complicated it's really impossible to know exactly what will happen. And this is the problem. Because the rule of law has essentially ceased to become relevant. The legislators have essentially handed over all the power to other officials to decide what will happen. The principle of this concept is concerning from a civil liberties perspective. If the prosecutor and judge wanted they could probably give even low level criminals 50+ year prison sentences. The laws are there, if the prosecutor wants to use them. I am not sure many people understand this.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to bringing back chain gangs either. Prison life is supposed to be miserable, absolutely miserable.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Good post!

 

Nobody should spend the rest of their lives in prison-- that runs counter to the very moral foundations the prison system was built upon.

You have to leave open the possibility that a criminal can reform and rejoin society; otherwise, prison is nothing but pointless cruelty.

 

Well, if you are talking about the moral foundations of our legal system, cool. Then we really need to bring back the corporal punishments, lynchings, and public executions. Back in the day, execution was an acceptable punishment for all sorts of things such as stealing grapes and killing chickens. No need to put somebody in prison, and especially no reason to give them all of those expensive appeals.

 

Lynchings were always illegal, and were a source of great injustice when the law turned a blind eye to them. Corporal and capital punishment I have no problem with-- some crimes are beneath prison and some crimes are beyond it. But the "expensive" appeals for condemned prisoners are absolutely essential-- we already make far too many miscarriages of justice with the appeals process, and I shudder to think of how much injustice would result from eliminating that process. On principle, I support capital punishment but I do not trust the State-- in its current form-- to execute capital punishment in a just fashion; I would rather see indefinite sentences, until such time as we can trust the system, but never a system which provides no mechanism by which a convicted criminal can ever regain their rights and rejoin society.

 

All irrelevant to the point I was addressing, specifically your allusion to the 'morals of those who founded our penal system' not intending for lifelong imprisonment. Those morals have changed radically over time, so I have no idea why you want to apply that standard in this one instance (life time in prison) while dismissing the simple fact that the at the same period, people were executed, summarily without appeal, for petty offenses.

There are people who most certainly do not deserve to ever set foot out of a prison again. To think that a child rapist and murderer 'deserves' the chance to regain their rights is simply laughable.

 

Well what if the person has done this before or has a long record of violent crimes? I don't think life in prison would be too harsh in such a circumstance. How many chances should a person get? Should we wait until they actually DO commit a murder, whether accidentally because they were frightened or on purpose?

 

And drunk drivers never get behind the wheel intending to kill a family in a crash. Intent is only one factor in sentencing. Someone with a repeating history of felonies and becoming more and more violent as moving towards armed robbery indicates need to be locked up for life. The only way I would see otherwise if it was his first crime and he was doing it for some reason like getting money for his kids kidney transplant or something. If it was not his first offense or he did it or no other reason than he wanted the money then lock him up forever. Once we release the real victims who have been unnecessarily put behind bars like marijuana users then we will have space for the losers of society and we won't have to ever hear from them again........EVER!

I believe anyone is entitled to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. Once someone crosses that line though in a violent and life threatening nature then you lose any right to continue to exist in that society. That person should be locked up or just killed outright to save money.

Some of your parameters are also pie in the sky nonsense. Not waving a gun around is somehow less threatening than just walking in with one pointed at the ceiling or the floor? Grabbing the security guards gun? Seriously, way to many TV crime show cliches there.

 

No, the reason for the prison system is to isolate the troublemakers from the rest of us and punish them, in order to discourage others from doing the same.

 

Right, I was thinking the same. Prison is to separate the criminals from the rest of society, so they can't harm us or our family members/friends or steal our property, etc.

 

But there are some types of robbery where the robber basically has to have a gun (like bank robbery).
And then we can look at how the justice system treats criminals who were not carrying a gun:
Injustice: homeowner shoots unarmed burglars, burglars guilty of murder
and we can begin to ask what robber in their right mind would not bring a gun with them?

>>>>>>>>>

His own protection? The robber is already doing something illegal. He was wrong from the start. Bringing a gun says if he doesn't get his way or get away with this crime, just means he will harm the victim/s. People like that need to be stopped.
A homeowner has the right to have a gun for his protection. Not a thief.



oops! I messed up the quoting. I pasted the post I was referring to vs. just responding into thin air. =>

 

You might feel differently if you had been through an armed robbery.