NYC man gets 75 years for mugging 101-year-old

[Morcheeba]

That I can agree with. :|

I hope you understand, I'm a fair person. I'm extremely fair and fight for peoples rights left right and centre with little thought of repercussions I may suffer.

But I just have a really hard time seeing scum of the earth getting off with little to no accountability for their actions because of the PC and legal mumbojumbo.

All cases are judged on a case by case basis, with all guidelines accounted for and followed (most of the time). But there are TOO many cases where the guilty get away with murder because of red tape, that when I see a case that holds no doubt of the guilt I say fuck em.

 

[Khajit]

I hope you understand, I'm a fair person. I'm extremely fair and fight for peoples rights left right and centre with little thought of repercussions I may suffer.

But I just have a really hard time seeing scum of the earth getting off with little to no accountability for their actions because of the PC and legal mumbojumbo.

All cases are judged on a case by case basis, with all guidelines accounted for and followed (most of the time). But there are TOO many cases where the guilty get away with murder because of red tape, that when I see a case that holds no doubt of the guilt I say fuck em.

It's not red tape specifically that gets people out, it's having enough money for a great lawyer.

I did a quick search and apparently there's a 50% chance of getting the death penalty when you're actually innocent so while idk how many cases you see where guilty men run free the fact that it's so easy to convict innocent people is far more scary to me. Add this in conjunction with the new-found power of prosecutors to label something a hate crime to essentially hand out life sentences as will and you have something truly terrifying. How many people get convicted with barely any evidence? It's apparently EASY to convict a guy of anything once you get them to court.

Eyewitnesses are the worst kind of evidence due to how transient memory actually is unless their testimony is recorded withing hours if not minutes. Each time they try to remember what happened and get a detail wrong the false information rewrites over the real info. Each time they try to remember after that it actually reinforces the false memory even more until they are completely 100% sure that Stretch Armstrong was the first man to land on the moon.. TLDR: eyewitnesses are shitty evidence technically but great for obtaining convictions.

Is it really worth seeing one guy locked up extra long in exchange for the potential and probable abuse such a conviction can bring?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

 

[Morcheeba]

It's not red tape specifically that gets people out, it's having enough money for a great lawyer.

I did a quick search and apparently there's a 50% chance of getting the death penalty when you're actually innocent so while idk how many cases you see where guilty men run free the fact that it's so easy to convict innocent people is far more scary to me. Add this in conjunction with the new-found power of prosecutors to label something a hate crime to essentially hand out life sentences as will and you have something truly terrifying. How many people get convicted with barely any evidence? It's apparently EASY to convict a guy of anything once you get them to court.

Eyewitnesses are the worst kind of evidence due to how transient memory actually is unless their testimony is recorded withing hours if not minutes. Each time they try to remember what happened and get a detail wrong the false information rewrites over the real info. Each time they try to remember after that it actually reinforces the false memory even more until they are completely 100% sure that Stretch Armstrong was the first man to land on the moon.. TLDR: eyewitnesses are shitty evidence technically but great for obtaining convictions.

Is it really worth seeing one guy locked up extra long in exchange for the potential and probable abuse such a conviction can bring?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

You bring up excellent points. You really do, and I do agree with you.

While I can see the issue with reliability of eye witnesses, having been one myself the process in which I had to go through was pretty strict. Not only did I submit a statement, but because the court day was far after the initial investigations, I was then asked to recall my original statement without reading over it to see how accurate my memory was. There was quite a bit of importance (that's what the detective said) in my detailed memory and sometimes it meant they would keep from using certain eye witnesses.

It's sad that it is so easy to find an innocent person guilty with everything we have in place today. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is according to your findings, and I believe that, however that being said, when there is concrete proof (like video footage) a crime was commited by a particular person and to this degree I do not feel we should offer any sort of deals. They are not deserving of them regardless whether they can afford the best defense lawyer in the country.

The 'Hate Crime' thing is a mess. Obviously. And while they should have just been more focused on increasing the pre-existing sentences of such crimes so they truly fit the crime rather that introduce a new charge that's next to impossible to prove for or against in most cases.

I wrote a blog a while back about one guy I knew when I was younger.

Long and short of it was, he confessed to poisoning 3 adults with the intention of killing 1 of them. He was unaware the other 2 had also injested said poison. He did not serve anytime or punishment. Law and 'Justice' is truly warped.


E- sorry I didn't answer your question.

I couldn't possibly give a blanket answer on whether it's worth seeing one man serve a longer sentence if it gave way to innocents serving undeserved time. But due to this specific case having found this particular man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime he has been charged with I'm going to say yes. Only because there is nothing worth seeing someone like this POS walk the streets when we know what kind of savage he truly is.

 

[Uzor]

I agree with what Khajit and Tyrath's said before, 75 years is way too high a penalty for said crime.

I will, however, say that if there's any doubt that the accused person is guilty, he should be freed, no matter how serious the crime is. And you should never speculate as to why said person permitted the crime, be it for or against his case. Otherwise you'll get cases like this.

I mean, if a person murders his father, there should be no speculation about why he did it. No "But maybe it was because he was raped by his father and beaten every day?!", unless there's any evidence that shows that's what happened. Nor should you speculate that a person commit a hate crime because he happened to perform a crime on someone not fitting his own exact profile.

Really now, if a 100-year old man beat up a 18-year old, would that be considered a hate crime? Or if the 18-year old in return defended himself and ended up knocking out the 100-year old, would that be a hate crime?

Speculating does not have its place in court. Outside court you can speculate however much you want, though, so go right ahead.

 

[Morcheeba]

I agree with what Khajit and Tyrath's said before, 75 years is way too high a penalty for said crime.

I will, however, say that if there's any doubt that the accused person is guilty, he should be freed, no matter how serious the crime is. And you should never speculate as to why said person permitted the crime, be it for or against his case. Otherwise you'll get cases like this.

I mean, if a person murders his father, there should be no speculation about why he did it. No "But maybe it was because he was raped by his father and beaten every day?!", unless there's any evidence that shows that's what happened. Nor should you speculate that a person commit a hate crime because he happened to perform a crime on someone not fitting his own exact profile.

Really now, if a 100-year old man beat up a 18-year old, would that be considered a hate crime? Or if the 18-year old in return defended himself and ended up knocking out the 100-year old, would that be a hate crime?

Speculating does not have its place in court. Outside court you can speculate however much you want, though, so go right ahead.

So because he was charged with a Hate crime and no matter what way you look at it the 'evidence' is strictly speculation (this will be every case unless the accused themselves says otherwise) he should be let go? Regardless of the video footage and eye witnesses, as unreliable as they may be, he should be let go? We're discussing this case and the evidence and charges brought upon this man in particular.

*it's fair to say I'm trolling

 

[Thelona]

I did a quick search and apparently there's a 50% chance of getting the death penalty when you're actually innocent

Where the hell did you get that? is this a mistype? because it sounds absurd and makes me think "i did a quick search" means "I just made this up off the top of my head".

your telling me, in our justice system, with all the lawyers and protections, you got a 50/50 chance of being sentenced to death for a crime you didn't commit.

Sorry, i don't buy that.

I realize of course there are innocents, who are convicted of things they haven't done, but 50% is beyond absurd.

and no its not "incredibly easy" to get a guilty conviction in our courts, infact its incredibly hard, with all the lawyers and laws protecting the defendant. the prosecution, constantly has to watch their shit so that they don't violate some law that lets the defendant off on some technicality. and the overall theme of our justice system being, "if theres any doubt, let em go"

also, all the talk of "he might be innocent" is pretty much meaningless, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers, so therefor is in societies eyes, he is guilty. There are appeals processes like ANY convict gets, but outside that, hes guilty, end of story.

Overall i agree with you here khajit, all this "speculation" goes to show exactly why hate crimes are bullshit, because its ALL speculation.

 

[Uzor]

So because he was charged with a Hate crime and no matter what way you look at it the 'evidence' is strictly speculation (this will be every case unless the accused themselves says otherwise) he should be let go? Regardless of the video footage and eye witnesses, as unreliable as they may be, he should be let go? We're discussing this case and the evidence and charges brought upon this man in particular.

*it's fair to say I'm trolling

No, that's not what I said. The hate crime part is speculation, and should not be included in the punishment he get. There's plenty of evidence to convict him of assault and robbery, such as eyewitness reports and the video. Those aren't speculation, those are facts.

And Thelona, I agree, 50% chance sounds a bit high. I'm guessign the 50% was more a "If an innocent man is accused of murder, he has a 50% chance of receiving death penalty" or something like that. But even that sounds a bit high, so I'm guessing on a 50% risk of being convicted for murder.

Personally, I think hate crime laws are bullshit all-in-all. If a white man beats a black man up, its still assault, no matter the intention. There should be no extra law to give him a more severe punishment simply because the other guy was black. That's practically saying the black guys are worth more than white guys, which is bullshit. Which part of that is "Equality in the face of justice"?

Basically, we've gone from attempting to make white, black, homosexual etc. have equal rights, and now suddenly we have given everyone but white men higher rights and worth simply because they're not white? In my opinion, a crime is a crime, no matter who did it to who, and there should be no special consideration unless its a child.

 

[Morcheeba]

No, that's not what I said. The hate crime part is speculation, and should not be included in the punishment he get. There's plenty of evidence to convict him of assault and robbery, such as eyewitness reports and the video. Those aren't speculation, those are facts.

So he needs to be acquitted of the Hate Crime Charge. I already said the charge may not fit the crime but the punishment does. All and all that's all I care about. It would be nice if our Judges were in such a position to use their discretion in cases such as this to hand out fair sentences. Having known an Assault & Robbery is not harsh enough for the nature of the crime. I guess that's what it comes down to severity with me. The nature.

But is 5, 10 or even 15 years fair punishment? nah

E-

Basically, we've gone from attempting to make white, black, homosexual etc. have equal rights, and now suddenly we have given everyone but white men higher rights and worth simply because they're not white? In my opinion, a crime is a crime, no matter who did it to who, and there should be no special consideration unless its a child.

I agree. But the sentences need to fit the crime more-so. Not just because it's cookie cutter and fits perfectly within 'Robbery & Assault' but because not only is it Robbery and Assault but look at the sheer violence involved and nature of the assualt. It calls for a stiffer punishment than the 5 or 7 he may have originally been looking at.

 

[Khajit]

The link to the main site was on the bottom of the post>.>
Here i've even found the exact page with the 50% rate on it WITH a link on said page to a pdf detailing the report.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions
Read it slightly wrong since i was just glancing and didnt read the pdf the first time.

Meh i shouldnt speed read when looking up facts.
anyway it seems from taking the number of people executed per year/exoneration that it's more like a 10~15% chance of being falsely convicted of murder and executed which is still way too damned high and inaccurate if you ever become the defendant in such a case..

 

[Thelona]

your right, 10-15% is still to high, but its alot lower then 50 =P


also from reading this site for about 1 min is obvious that whoever put this together has a bit of a bias. one of the bars on the graph being labeled "Snitch" didn't seem like a scientific name for it, so i decided to click their link on snitches.

In old England, snitches
were ubiquitous.Their motives, then as now, were
unholy.

somehow I get the feeling this wasn't put together by the most professional of statisticians.

 

[Khajit]

True enough. hence I've been ignoring everything except the actual hard data from the site since something like X people with death penalty + x people exonerated because of innocence are much harder facts to be skewed without outright lying.

Just found an interesting report on some "general knowlege" everyone thinks about the criminal system and some expansion ox them being true or false. Eg being rich gets you out of jail easier. The one i'm gonna copypasta is one about criminals getting loose on technicalities.



EDIT: just read the link on my next post. The subject matter seems interesting anyway and there's a table of contents to pick out what's relevant.

 

[Uzor]

So he needs to be acquitted of the Hate Crime Charge. I already said the charge may not fit the crime but the punishment does. All and all that's all I care about. It would be nice if our Judges were in such a position to use their discretion in cases such as this to hand out fair sentences. Having known an Assault & Robbery is not harsh enough for the nature of the crime. I guess that's what it comes down to severity with me. The nature.

But is 5, 10 or even 15 years fair punishment? nah

How does the charge not fit the crime but punishment do? I'd say its the other way around. The indictment of assault and robbery (but not hate crime) is fine, but the punishment is way too harsh.

Personally, I would attempt charge him with aggravatedrobbery on three accounts. As for the punishment, it varies greatly from state to state. In Minnesota, aggravated robbery results in no more than 20 years in prison and a fine of no more than $35000. New York is a lot stricter, and it can lead to life imprisonment. So while it is fully within the judge's right to give him 75 years of prison, I think its too harsh.

In Sweden, it would result in 4-10 years and a sum of money for the victims, but as America is a lot harsher, I would say a fitting punishment is 10 year per account, as well as a sum of money for the victims. The highest sum for aggravated robbery in New York is $10000, which I personally find a bit low, so it would equal to roughly 3300 per person. So 5000 to the lady in the video and 2500 per other victim.

And Khajit, the reason being rich gets you out of jail easier, has nothing to do with wealth in and by itself. It has more to do with the fact they can afford much better lawyers.

 

[Khajit]

Yeah i knew the part about getting a better lawyer already. I for some reason assumed everyone would assume i said that for the same reason. Version update up. i might take a while editing the rest of that snippet. I'll add in a link to the pdf so that anyone who's bored can take some time and read it. It's actually somewhat interesting.
EDIT: Actually screw it. That just looks like a wall of text noone would read. at least in the pdf it looks better generally and i can include the footnotes without wasting tons of time editing.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/SSRN-id912310.pdf.
I'm gonna read the part relating to Oj getting out of being convicted based on him being rich later.

The"OJ" section is pretty interesting so far. It seems money doesn't guarantee a good lawyer, the reason less rich people plead guilty is because they can afford to get a new lawyer vs giving up and going to jail like a poor person might have to do when they run out of money(regardless of innocence), and the extra money spent usually proves their innocence via pointing out errors in the prosecution that would have proved the defendant innocent whether or not he was rich because the errors were ones that would have made the prosecution realize they had the wrong man in the first place.
The whole disparity between rich and poor conviction rates seems to stem less from the rich being able to get off scott free than the poor being unable to prove their innocence via affording a competent lawyer and plea bargaining when faced with either a lesser sentence or having an incompetent dumbfuck defending them at trial with a much worse conviction.

 

[Morcheeba]

Uzor, the reason I believe the punishment DOES fit the crime is because of the brutal nature of it. Not because for Robbery and/or Assault he'd only be facing X number of years. Just due to the sheer violence this man exhibited towards a completely defenseless elder. Personally I don't think there's room on this planet for scum such as him, but I have yet to cry death penalty!

If a physically fit grown man wants to beat the living fuck out of an old lady for shits n giggle because lets face it, he could have easily just made off with his purse without having to beat her to a pulp, then YES 75 years behind bars to mull over the terror he caused is fitting.

 

[Khajit]

A mugger/carjacker with a gun/weapon with enough experience to use it properly and uses it. A professional or at least experienced marital artist/boxer. Any guy 7 feet tall or with huge enough muscles that x victim is helpless. A gang of people robbing you. They could just as easily make you give-up the car/money. You're just as helpless in those situations whether you're elderly or not especially if you get ambushed like the old lady did.
You would logically feel just as much terror of any of those examples started attacking you. Do any of the above examples get 75 years if they did that to 3 people for hate crimes or just crimes in general?
The "helpless" reasoning used simply because she was elderly can be easily recreated for a person who isn't and undoubtedly happens everyday.

 

[Morcheeba]

A mugger/carjacker with a gun/weapon with enough experience to use it properly and uses it. A professional or at least experienced marital artist/boxer. Any guy 7 feet tall or with huge enough muscles that x victim is helpless. A gang of people robbing you. They could just as easily make you give-up the car/money. You're just as helpless in those situations whether you're elderly or not especially if you get ambushed like the old lady did.
You would logically feel just as much terror of any of those examples started attacking you. Do any of the above examples get 75 years if they did that to 3 people for hate crimes or just crimes in general?

Sure. If they acted just as heinously then yes. If they merely scared the victim into giving up their possessions but ultimately caused no physical harm, then no.

That's where I feel it's important the Judges have more say and more pull in using their discretion when handing out sentences.

I was once held up in a mall, in the middle of the day by about 6 young black guys, one had a knife. They got $20 from me and I got a good scare. I don’t think 75 years fits that crime, but had they jumped me and beat me near death then yea. They got away with it. I would have said a fiar sentence for all those involved would be 5-10 years. Easily.

I'm not going to feel sorry they're serving a harsh sentence. Sorry you fucked up and landed yourself behind bars for actions you could have decided against.

Uzor mentioned no one being treated differently except for perhaps children.

I have often believed that the elderly are much like children. Not all are as dependent as others, but in cases such as this I think after a certain age they should be exceptions and considered exceptionally.

 

[Khajit]

That's completely ignoring the fact that assaulting you adds another crime to be punished with in addition to the original crime of theft/mugging.
If you wish to say that assault should carry a 75 year sentence then go right ahead though. At the end of the day the sentence for assault according to the law itself is much lower. I'm fine with a 25~75 year sentence if that's what robbery+ assault gets but it doesn't.

 

[Morcheeba]

That's completely ignoring the fact that assaulting you adds another crime to be punished with in addition to the original crime of theft/mugging.
If you wish to say that assault should carry a 75 year sentence then go right ahead though.

Wha?

Are we not discussing a Robbery/Assault?

You give examples of cases where I (or anyone for that matter) would myself helpless but leave out the assult factor.

My opinion this entire thread has been based on the Assault having been as nasty as it was. So I'm somewhat lost now.

A robbery on it's own is going to carry it's own sentence. Couple a beating a severe as this and the sentence should triple.

At the end of the day the sentence for assault according to the law itself is much lower. I'm fine with a 25~75 year sentence if that's what robbery+ assault gets but it doesn't.

That's where things really are warped with law. Currently in which ever state it may be, perhaps that is what the crimes offer as such punishments. But it shouldn't be so.

lol okay one more time. I really truly honestly believe the punishment fits the crime.

I think some of you may keep misunderstanding exactly what that means.

It does not mean in the literal sense of how the law is currently in place for such a crime. It means that karama is a bitch ;p and if you want to be a POS and you get slapped with a hefty sentence such as this OH WELL.

Don't be scum and you won't get treated like scum?

E- I understand that it's 'not fair' to give a sentence that does not fall into the guidelines or parimetres of the crime but imo, you've been found guilty, just be happy you're not being sent to survive on a deserted island. Be happy you'll be getting your free 3 squares a days, free cable and schooling.

 

[Khajit]

From what i've been gathering the main argument/motivation being tossed around by "your side" for it being "ok" to sentence the man to such a ridiculous sentence has been that it's ok because the victim was old and therefore helpless.
My examples pointed out that the same amount of helplessness happens to several different types of victim regardless of age.

Assault is assault. At the end of the day it's still a person attacking another regardless of who it is as the helpless threshhold gets passed the second the attacker is winning. If the attacker loses does that mean they deserve a lesser sentence? They had the exact same intent to do the exact same crime and as such deserve the same exact punishment. Whether the attacker won of not is inconsequential except to the victim and/or any damages incurred for medical expenses.

In the end advocating extra years being added to a sentence(over the maximum for the proper charges for the case) simply because you dislike the crime is the same as ignoring that there are already "fair" sentences for the crime in place that can be given.

In the end there's still the fact that this opens the gateway for more corruption of the legal system.
It gives far too much power to get people in jail simply because they don't like you or the actions you are accused of(when innocent) and allows prosecution more leverage to threaten innocent defendants into plea bargains. When you're faced with a possibility of 30extra years tacked onto a crime you didn't commit you're more likely to not gamble with your life in court.
So A) unfair abuse is allowed via harsher sentencing than is "fair", B) innocent people are more likley to agree to plea bargain out of fear of lifetime imprisonment.

Let's take your scumbag ideal further. If you truly believe that mans life to be worth so little then what ratio are the years of his life vs the years of life for innocent or less scum baggy people sentenced to extra time as a result?
Is 75 years of him being locked up worth 5 people less deserving of the sentence being locked away for 75 years each?
1? 2? 20? His life is not worth even one life that can and will be potentially ruined by this imo.

 

[Thelona]

for one moment lets just pretend we live in a perfect world where a sentence handed down is tailor made for the crime committed. All unfit use of hate crime legislation and w/e aside. who thinks that 75 years is to much for nearly beating a 101 year old woman to death?

I don't. and i wouldn't wanna live in a country where beating a 101 year old woman nearly to death gets you 10 years and a fine. Especially considering the fact that this man already had a sheet a mile long, and assaulted 2 other people prior to this woman. that alone would be enough to get you 3 strikes and thus life in prison in many states here.


I don't like the way they did this, and what it means for future hate crime legislation.

but this man definitely deserves what he got, and then some.

Edit:: i saw khajits post after i posted.

Yes khajit, bassiclly its the helplessness of the victim wich makes the punishment fit here, yes i would be for the same type of sentance if he had beaten to near death say. A mentally handicapped person, a person in a wheelchair, or a small child etc. etc.

if we can't have a justice system that protects those who can not protect themselves, what good is it?