Appeals court upholds 4,060-year sentence for Springtown man

Bryan · 10-26-2009, 04:10 PM

Appeals court upholds 4,060-year sentence for Springtown man | Top Stories | Star-Telegram.com

**Epaphras** · 10-26-2009, 04:44 PM

Interesting. I haven't yet come to understand the advantage/benefit to doing this kind of thing. I mean, if one count carries 100 years, why sentence consecutively on 43 counts? Concurrent would mean 100 years (+20 for the other counts). Either way, he ain't coming out.

I would be just-as deterred knowing I could go in for 120 years or 4,060 years. Any years beyond 0 is enough to deter me!

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-26-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Interesting. I haven't yet come to understand the advantage/benefit to doing this kind of thing. I mean, if one count carries 100 years, why sentence consecutively on 43 counts? Concurrent would mean 100 years (+20 for the other counts). Either way, he ain't coming out.

I would be just-as deterred knowing I could go in for 120 years or 4,060 years. Any years beyond 0 is enough to deter me!

I think it is to block parole, or early release.

Ax · 10-26-2009, 04:53 PM

Holy S*(t. That is brutal. Honestly, I think a LWP sentence is more brutal than a death sentence.

bravesfan007 · 10-26-2009, 06:32 PM

That is one long sentence. I can't imagine being put into jail for any length of time, much less that long. That's like an almost eternal sentence.

Ak_Man4Jesus · 10-26-2009, 06:37 PM

Well, if he is not a christian it will be eternal

jthomas1600 · 10-26-2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Interesting. I haven't yet come to understand the advantage/benefit to doing this kind of thing. I mean, if one count carries 100 years, why sentence consecutively on 43 counts? Concurrent would mean 100 years (+20 for the other counts). Either way, he ain't coming out.

I would be just-as deterred knowing I could go in for 120 years or 4,060 years. Any years beyond 0 is enough to deter me!

This indeed seems ridiculous, but generally the point of double or triple life sentences is that one or two of the convictions may get overturned on appeals. At least that's the way I understand it.

**Epaphras** · 10-26-2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

This indeed seems ridiculous, but generally the point of double or triple life sentences is that one or two of the convictions may get overturned on appeals. At least that's the way I understand it.

That makes sense.

MrCrabby · 10-26-2009, 10:46 PM

Geez, talk about a run-on sentence!

Bryan · 10-27-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCrabby

Geez, talk about a run-on sentence!

booooooooooo

Nate · 10-27-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

I would be just-as deterred knowing I could go in for 120 years or 4,060 years. Any years beyond 0 is enough to deter me!

Is the thought of serving jail time what is really keeping you from performing crimes?

Not likely.

This statement "I would be just as deterred" implies "If I were a criminal, I would be..."

But you're not.

And if you were a criminal, intent on committing crimes, this would still not deter you.

Proof in pudding.

Something is missing in our understanding of crime deterrent, though I don't know what.

Jail doesn't work.

It's not what deters normal people from crime, and it doesn't, in fact, deter criminals from crime.

Bryan · 10-27-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate

Is the thought of serving jail time what is really keeping you from performing crimes?

Not likely.

This statement "I would be just as deterred" implies "If I were a criminal, I would be..."

But you're not.

And if you were a criminal, intent on committing crimes, this would still not deter you.

Proof in pudding.

Something is missing in our understanding of crime deterrent, though I don't know what.

Jail doesn't work.

It's not what deters normal people from crime, and it doesn't, in fact, deter criminals from crime.

that seems like poor logic to me. Part of the reason why I've never wanted to do drugs was because of the possible jail time. It's also part of the reason why I don't drive drunk. It's not the sole reason, but it is part of it.

Nate · 10-27-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

that seems like poor logic to me. Part of the reason why I've never wanted to do drugs was because of the possible jail time. It's also part of the reason why I don't drive drunk. It's not the sole reason, but it is part of it.

What about non-victimless crimes?

Is jail time part of the reason you've never wanted to kill someone? Rape someone? Shoot someone?

I believe in original sin. I believe in human frailty. I believe in self-interest. I believe that evil resides in us.

"I shouldn't do that" stops most of us.

When a person commits a crime, we say "he has no conscience", not "he has no regard for consequences".

Criminals fear jail as much as you, probably moreso since they might actually face it. Yet they commit crimes.

Why? What's the difference from you?

All of us are one step away from ignoring our conscience and committing unspeakable acts. Criminals take the step.

Once the step is made, I don't see that any threat of punishment will act as a deterrent. Punishment is for punishment.

Bryan · 10-27-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate

What about non-victimless crimes?

Is jail time part of the reason you've never wanted to kill someone? Rape someone? Shoot someone?

I believe in original sin. I believe in human frailty. I believe in self-interest. I believe that evil resides in us.

"I shouldn't do that" stops most of us.

When a person commits a crime, we say "he has no conscience", not "he has no regard for consequences".

Criminals fear jail as much as you, probably moreso since they might actually face it. Yet they commit crimes.

Why? What's the difference from you?

All of us are one step away from ignoring our conscience and committing unspeakable acts. Criminals take the step.

Once the step is made, I don't see that any threat of punishment will act as a deterrent. Punishment is for punishment.

I agree that punishment is for punishment. I have no issue with that. Saying only criminals commit crime begs the question of why do law-abiding citizens not commit crimes. Most people who don't kill, steal, and rape probably do it because they believe they shouldn't, but to say that applies to everyone is naive. I believe there are people who if it weren't illegal to kill, probably would. To claim otherwise is to deny the selfish nature of man. If you decriminalized murder, the number of murders would probably go up.

Nate · 10-27-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

Saying only criminals commit crime begs the question of why do law-abiding citizens not commit crimes. Most people who don't kill, steal, and rape probably do it because they believe they shouldn't, but to say that applies to everyone is naive. I believe there are people who if it weren't illegal to kill, probably would. To claim otherwise is to deny the selfish nature of man. If you decriminalized murder, the number of murders would probably go up.

I don't know the answers. I'm not sure that I know the questions either.

I just think the statement "Any years beyond 0 is enough to deter me" ignores or obscures issues.

Obviously, Epaphras doesn't need the threat of jail time to prevent him from molesting young girls.

Obviously, this criminal didn't care about the threat of 4 millennia of jail time and molested anyway.

The economizing of punishment, treating it like a [dis]incentive structure rather than righteous vengeance, doesn't seem to work.

You can't put crimes committed on the x-axis, jail time on the y-axis, draw supply and demand curves and pick the optimal point.

Crime doesn't work like that. We don't commit crimes because the benefits exceed the costs. We commit crimes wholly irrationally.

To apply a theory which depends on rational choice [namely, economics] simply won't work for this.

How many people do you know who would commit murder if the legal incentive structure were changed?

How many people can you even imagine who would? There are some on the tipping point, but not many.

This is why death penalty debates are often pointless; they're malformed.

The death penalty doesn't exist to deter crime. [In fact, it doesn't deter crime.] It exists to punish crime.

There's no reason [that I can see] to consider any other punishment differently. They don't disincentivize.

How should we treat a child molestor? Kill him in vengeance. Not to deter others, but to punish the bastard.

I think the tipping point is when a normal person stops caring whether it's wrong.

We don't punish people for economizing their scarce resources and maximizing their utility functions.

We punish people for ignoring the content of a just society, for ignoring our collective moral compass.

If criminals had just weighed the costs and benefits and chosen rationally, we could use disincentives.

But they don't. They commit crimes because they [we] are mean, nasty, dirty people.

The deterrent is that we want to be seen [by ourselves and by others in society] as other than what we are.

We have a huge moral [and evolutionary, if you want to take the secular approach] incentive to be nice.

Nice people get ahead in life. They get better evolutionary mates [or, for creationists like me, helpmeets].

I think the desire to be liked [loved?] is probably the greatest ultimate deterrent of crime.

It seems to be the reason we commit crimes in secret; not so we won't be found out and punished, but simply so others won't know.

It seems to be the reason criminals congregate together in gangs and crime families, to replace social status with their own milieu.

It seems to be the reason we find that people who don't experience love [bad childhoods, rough life experiences] commit more crime.

I think we would do better to frame the issue in these moral terms, since it is a moral problem.