The problem with American justice..

[Mama Sumae]

Well the problem here is the unnecessary comparison between cases, the article is far too short to know the full implications of the crimes committed, the criminal history of the individuals involved and so on. It's far too time consuming but it would be far more responsible to replicate similar cases (to which we would know all the aspects) in the British legal frame and compare the respective fairness of punishments.

In this particular case what should be on the table are the broader aspects of white-collar crimes of this nature and the respective legal punishments. Perhaps most of us would agree they are no where near just, I agree there is no violent aspect in the crime but for the most part there isn't an immediate and desperate need (sometimes present in violent crimes) to justify and mitigate the crime and respective punishment.

Furthermore these are individuals who for the most part and for what we are told are paid and receive substantial rewards for occupying positions with considerable responsibilities. Even if responsibilities are taken in consideration do they carry the same value on a criminal aspect? from what I have seen and to what my opinion regarding these crimes is concerned I would hardly say so.

Not disregarding the actual victims who can be put to extreme distress, and I would argue losing your savings is no less traumatic than being mugged on the street, these are crimes with great implications to the fairness of our society and should be judged accordingly.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Moose misunderstood meaning of the previous post!

[Saracen]

The worst thing is that the $3 billion fraud is likely to have more of a negative effect on the lives of many people than the robber.

Two thousand people were made redundant when the mortgage firm went redundant and it causes the collapse of another bank too:

.....

On top of this all the people who had mortgages and savings with these companies would also have been affected.

How much suffering did this chap cause??

The government wanted 385 years for the fraud:

....

I personally think that white collar fraud of that level should mean a very long jail sentence.

However,it just shows you what having high end lawyers can achieve. Also,it did not help the homeless guy was also black.

I agree with virtually all of that ..... subject to the proviso about lack of detailed information. I certainly agree that while collar fraud on that scale, with that level of effect on so many people, deserves a very heavy sentence .... unless there's other factors we don't know about, perhaps left pout of press reports because they don't fit the impression the paper is seeking to impart, or sensationalise. After all, us here in the UK can't exactly claim to have a press in which all elements are paragons of impartiality in the nature of their reporting.

How much damage did the homeless guy cause? I don't know, because I wasn't the teller, wasn't in court and didn't hear the evidence. Was 15 years excessive? It certainly seems so, but ..... proviso as above.

[roachcoach]

You also need to consider that sentencing may be a message that armed robbery is NEVER acceptable. In addition to this is the likelihood of someone else being in a position to pull armed robbery being much greater than someone being in the position to collapse a fund, therefore increased likelihood of it being a message.

Who knows, judges are nuts - I don't think there's a country in the world where money can't buy an element of justice.

[Mama Sumae]

Actually I would consider it worse. Also,this the guy was committing fraud which is a crime. The fraud mentioned has affected thousands of people.

(...)

Large scale white collar fraud actually has greater implications for society actually in terms of the number of people who are affected and whose lives are wrecked.

CAT I probably didn't put my point across very well as it seems you misunderstood me, I was actually advocating the exact same opinion. I was trying to convey that I don't believe these sort of crimes are for the most part being correctly punished, furthermore and although the effects to the victims are terrifying (and would definitely consider them worse than getting mugged) the overall crippling effects on society and its fairness are also to be considered and should obviously aggravate the final court decision.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

CAT I probably didn't put my point across very well as it seems you misunderstood me, I was actually advocating the exact same opinion. I was trying to convey that I don't believe these sort of crimes are for the most part being correctly punished, furthermore and although the effects to the victims are terrifying (and would definitely consider them worse than getting mugged) the overall crippling effects on society and its fairness are also to be considered and should obviously aggravate the final court decision.

Oops! It must be the hot weather messing with my Moose senses!!

Moose plummeted on post.

[TooNice]

I think Saracen made the point that he doesn't have to be armed, only give the impressioon that he is. So using replica gun would be armed robbery.

It may be the case in the UK.. well, for all I know it may be how it is treated in Louisiana too, but my interpretation of the code you've quoted says nothing of sort ("while armed with a dangerous weapon", not "while armed, or giving the impression of being armed with a dangerous weapon").

To me, there ought to be a difference. If someone pointed a loaded gun, then it would be harder for him to credibly argue that if it comes to it, s/he wouldn't be willing to use it and make this a physically violent crime. Whereas if they were merely using their index finger, it becomes somewhat more credible that the intent is solely robbery with no physical violence involved. Yes, the victim may well be just as distressed at the time (perhaps even after), and taking that into account, perhaps the punishment ought to be more severe than had the victim been robbed without noticing (after all, no matter how nicely they ask, the victim would still need to view it as intimidation to do as told). However, taking into the account that the robber is more credibly prepared to cause fatal/mortal injuries in one case over another, I still think the verdict need to take it into considerations.

[Saracen]

I think Saracen made the point that he doesn't have to be armed, only give the impression that he is. So using replica gun would be armed robbery.
....

Not quite what I said, I think, but it's pretty close.

For a start, the Firearms Act 1968 said (s.16)

16. It is an offence for a person to have in his possession any firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, or to enable another person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, whether any injury to person or property has been caused or not.

That section was explicitly amended in 1994, adding

16A. Possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.

It is an offence for a person to have in his possession any firearm or imitation firearm with intent—(a)by means thereof to cause, or(b)to enable another person by means thereof to cause, any person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person.

The purpose of that addition is clear. The original section relates to intent to cause injury. The obvious rejoinder is that if you can't cause injury, that section doesn't apply, and an imitation firearm can't cause injury. So, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994 added section 16A, specifically to criminalise using either a firearm or imitation firearm, and no distinction is made, "with intent to cause fear of violence".

In other words, the injury suffered is the fear of what the firearm may do. This is the same basic requirement as the intent required for assault, which is not (as many people think) when you thump someone (that adds the "battery" element, or worse). The assault is the creation of a credible, imminent fear of attack.

Next, of course, is a closer look at what "imitation firearm" means. It could be something indistinguishable from a real firearm (though "replica" is the more apt term in that case), or it could be a child's toy gun. In fact, the definition (as per the Firearms Act) is quite a lot broader than that.

“imitation firearm” means any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm (other than such a weapon as is mentioned in section 5(1)(b) of this Act) whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile;

So, in the UK, "imitation" is anything that has the appearance of being a firearm .... including a finger inside a pocket, pointed at someone and pretending it's a gun because of the fear that results from it, because the person it's pointed at doesn't know if it's a finger, or a kid's toy, or a replica incapable of firing, or a lethal real weapon.

Reading that definition in s16A carefully makes clear, though, that the offence requires the intent to cause the fear, so a kid mucking about with a pretend firearm isn't committing an offence, but if an adult sets out to cause that fear, they are committing a serious offence, even if the "weapon" is indeed a child's toy.

A salutary lesson can be had from R v Duffy (2005), in which Duffy brandished a "weapon", took a hostage and threatened to shoot police officers. He got 5 years. The "weapon" was a toy gun.

Another example is R v Mernin (2001). The defendant asked a patrol station attendant what they would do if he had a gun and wanted money from the till. When an alarm, button was pressed the defendant cleared off brandishing what turned out to be a blank-firing imitation. He got three years.

Or R v Roker(1998). Waving a stolen imitation handgun about outside a pub and threatening people got Roker 3 years.

In 2003, a bloke fired two blanks at a doorman. He got 12 months. R v Ings (2003).

The Firearms Act has been modified in several places over the years, specifically to add coverage for offences with imitation firearms that, in fact, are incapable of causing the injuries people will fear, but because they don't know that, they still suffer exactly the same fear.

Oh, and if you wave what appears to be a gun about and/or threaten people with it, don't be too surprised if armed police treat it as is the weapon was real and you end up getting shot. They, clearly, will be more discriminating before opening fire than the Firearms Act is about banging people up but, nonetheless, they are out to protect people and themselves from someone waving what appears to be a real gun. If they can be sure it's not, then presumably they will not fire, but if they can't be sure .... it could be a catastrophic mistake if they refrain and the weapon being brandished turns out to be real.

All those, by the way, are UK cases, and illustrate that firearms offences are taken very seriously by the courts, even if it's an imitation firearm or not even a firearm at all .... such as a finger in a coat pocket during a bank robbery, because the gear it causes is just as real. As Duffy found out, 5 years for a toy gun.

[Saracen]

It may be the case in the UK.. well, for all I know it may be how it is treated in Louisiana too, but my interpretation of the code you've quoted says nothing of sort ("while armed with a dangerous weapon", not "while armed, or giving the impression of being armed with a dangerous weapon").

To me, there ought to be a difference. If someone pointed a loaded gun, then it would be harder for him to credibly argue that if it comes to it, s/he wouldn't be willing to use it and make this a physically violent crime. Whereas if they were merely using their index finger, it becomes somewhat more credible that the intent is solely robbery with no physical violence involved. Yes, the victim may well be just as distressed at the time (perhaps even after), and taking that into account, perhaps the punishment ought to be more severe than had the victim been robbed without noticing (after all, no matter how nicely they ask, the victim would still need to view it as intimidation to do as told). However, taking into the account that the robber is more credibly prepared to cause fatal/mortal injuries in one case over another, I still think the verdict need to take it into considerations.

There are offences over here (UK) that require the weapon to be real, such as intent to cause injury, etc. But there are lots of offences where the offence is about the fear where it's irrelevant to the offence if the weapon was real or not, because the fear is the same.

....

However, taking into the account that the robber is more credibly prepared to cause fatal/mortal injuries in one case over another, I still think the verdict need to take it into considerations.

That's exactly it. At one level, there's an intent to cause fear. That's the imitation level. At the next level, with a gun, it's evidence of an intent to (or intent to be willing to) cause injury, fatal or otherwise.

As for "armed robbery", think about it by breaking it down. What's "robbery", as opposed to stealing? It's stealing by use of force, violence or intimidation. So, armed robbery adds the element of using a weapon while committing the robbery, thereby escalating the level of fear, the likely level of potential injury to be feared.

If you actually use the violence, you risk adding other serious (possibly more serious) charges, from actual or serious bodily harm, wounding with intent, attempted murder, manslaughter (loosely, murder2 in the US) or murder (murder 1 in the US).

The armed robbery charge, therefore, is actually all about stealing using the fear, threat, intimidation. And, if someone believes you've got a weapon like a gun because you use a finger in a pocket and tell them it's a gun, it's treated pretty much as it is were a gun, because the fear it causes is just the same, if they believe you.

[aidanjt]

Remember, justice is independent of incentives and law. You can speculate about all manner of micropoints all day, but ultimately they're irrelevant, these cases aren't the exception. The statistics speak for themselves, white collar crime rarely sees any of its perpetrators, even corrupt politicians, do any significant jail time, if they do any at all, while poor black males frequently receive very long sentences over significantly less damaging acts, and further, the arrest and conviction rates confirm that bias.

Of interest: http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/intro/wc-crime.htm

And lets be clear, ~$1m represents the life work of a typical high school graduate, so the theft of $1m means someone's life work was stolen. White collar crime means more than tens of billions a year is wiped out of the economy. Money which could have went into aid or creating jobs suitable for the poor, which adds more pressure on the poor to survive by committing crime.

[TheAnimus]

The problem is here your looking at the relationship between certain SIs without really looking at the whole picture, in a way its almost pirates vs global temperature.

So white collar crimbos don't get collar'd as much. Yes that's going to be the case, its much harder to detect and ultimately 12 average joes aren't going to understand whats going on. If we're talking a complex accounting fraud I doubt half of them would be able to stay awake.

Certain ethneticities are going to fall foul of certain prohibition laws I'm not fond off, but they just do more than others. Its a hard topic to discuss without been labeled a racist, because ultimately thats what the whole topic is about. Compare say the asian migrants which are coming in to the US, poorer, than some of the ex slave communities, yet their children do better, their children are less likely to be caught drunk/high.

Then with laws such as the three strikes rule, they will get harsher sentences, this skews the population somewhat, but we know it isn't just about money, because how come all the Koreans aren't suffering the same levels of criminal involvement.

There is a heck of a lot of racisim in the police, its silly to pretend otherwise, but and this is a problem a hell of a lot of it is simply saving time. If you've got a car full of black guys and a car full of white guys, one has a higher probability in the states of having drugs and illegal firearms. The police are not resourced to stop both, so they just stop.... and so the system perpetuates.

I just really don't think its fair to try and compare the two kinds of crime. Its silly.

Also with sentencing someone who has lost a really good job, kept apart from their family which they were previously living with, is going to have a much higher punishment from a 2 week spell in jail, than someone who has already served 3 months previously.

[aidanjt]

How far from grace they fall is irrelevant. They don't have a right to a free wealthy existence when they break the law any more than the poor. Poor people can have families as well, also irrelevant. Poor criminals can also have jobs, also irrelevant.

[TheAnimus]

I'm not saying they don't at all, just that on average they are less likely too.

That means when your looking at big average sets of data, you have to be understanding to that.

An example would be suggesting that because a large proportion of African decent americans are in jail means that white people get away with commiting crime, they don't, they commit less.

One that I always find funny, is the rabid socialists who want to "clamp down on those evading taxes", a good example is of course straight from Gordon Brown, and that is IR35. This tax measure has cost more to administrate than it has brought in revenue. And this is a good example because if you don't pay your tax due, your a criminal, but few willingly pay more than they must (nor should they!) and its frighteningly complex, so you can easily make an honest mistake.

Being caught dealing crack thou is less complex, cheaper to detect, and less likely to be an honest mistake.

There is also the other thing which is the individual cost of the crime. If I stole £100 worth of goods from anyone in the UK odds are they would survive, if I stole £100 worth of seeds from a farmer who was already mortgaged up to have them in the first place, I've created more of a problem.

The value of the crime can be the same, but the impact much worse. If you defraud a large multinational only a few million, then that cost will be split out amoungst many people, each shareholder might notice a fraction of a pence loss. You can't just quote the cost of each crime as a sign of seriousness.

And finally, I'd say that they do come down on white collar crimbos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/bu.../30madoff.html
He could have murdered a few people and gotten a lessor sentance.

[aidanjt]

Complexity might have a baring on detection and conviction. But it doesn't explain the soft sentencing.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Complexity might have a baring on detection and conviction. But it doesn't explain the soft sentencing.

One had much better lawyers.

[Saracen]

Remember, justice is independent of incentives and law. You can speculate about all manner of micropoints all day, but ultimately they're irrelevant, these cases aren't the exception. The statistics speak for themselves, white collar crime rarely sees any of its perpetrators, even corrupt politicians, do any significant jail time, if they do any at all, while poor black males frequently receive very long sentences over significantly less damaging acts, and further, the arrest and conviction rates confirm that bias.

Of interest: http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/intro/wc-crime.htm.....

It's not speculating about micropoints when the entire point of this thread was to take TWO cases, compare and contrast and condemn a whole justice system based on a sample of two. That is simply intellectually lazy.

If you want to argue broad-brush points, use statistics (and credible ones, at that).

But even then, you have to be VERY careful what conclusions you draw from statistics.

For instance, suppose that statistics show that a far higher proportion of young black males end up in prison than young white males. That might indicate a racial bias, but it equally might indicate a social one. If, as appears to be the case, wealth levels vary significantly, then it may well be that the actual correlation is between prison population and poverty, not prison populations and skin colour. And you'd then need to look at why there is a difference in wealth levels? Maybe that comes down to skin colour, or maybe it comes down to lack of educational opportunities or population densities in city centres.

In any event, you have to be extraordinarily careful in drawing cause from statistics. And, a statistical population of two is certainly woeful;y inadequate for drawing any conclusions.

You may well be right about the way the justice system treats white-collar crime and violent crime, though the opening post got nowhere near demonstrating anything other than a disparity between two cases we don't know anything like enough about. And, I said ages ago, the results appear perverse. But appearances can be perceptive.

I haven't disagreed with your premise about US justice .... or, for that matter, agreed with it. Just the notion that comparing those two cases in isolation, and without fuller background, proves the claim you made, that there is no justice in the US.