No it isn't. It's USA, snatch a chain (not trivial considering the trauma to the people but still...) while having a gun and you may get 99 years (Texas). Steal millions or billions and get a sentence of months.
It looks ridiculous on paper, but it does make sense in the grand scheme of things.
Aggravated assault/battery gone wrong has permanent consequences. Whether it's a $3 chain, a $3k necklace or a $30k car, when I steal it at gunpoint, an error in execution can result in loss of life. Life is not replaceable. There is no justice to be had, even if I'm caught.
An embezzlement or scam gone wrong results in a few more digits than intended getting shuffled around and an insurance claim gets filed; if it falls through maybe a company goes under, a retirement fund/livelihood is ruined but in the end, all the players victimized are free to try living again in some capacity and/or try to seek restitution. That's what justice is supposed to entail.
Knowing crime is a predictable behavior, we are much better off as a society guiding determined criminals towards the lesser consequences of white collar crime.
Would you rather someone open a $300k HELOC in your name or potentially kill you for the $20 in your wallet?
Yes, I would rather be mugged and have someone take $20 from my wallet than have someone take my entire retirement. Perhaps for you "a few digits" off your retirement isn't a huge issue because you can just send more money in, but that isn't true for the majority of the population.
The reason for these harsh sentences isn't because they were "risking someone else's life", if it were we would have similar penalties for drunk driving.
The basis for these disparities are clearly classism, racism and political fear mongering.
Not everybody survives muggings, carjackings or home invasions, even when they comply. It's a choice between paying $20 to play Russian Roulette with a twitchy felon on the side of the road, or being scammed out of $300k and walking away. If you only look at the financial outcomes, of course it's an easy choice to make.
I only have so many working years left. Not enough to recover from such a scenario. But I'd still choose to be old and destitute than risk orphaning my children for want of $20. Keyword being risk-- I'm aware most muggings do not end violently.
A loss of your retirement funds could just as easily happen due to general economic instability. Medical bills. Bain Capital. But you get to try to pick up the pieces however you can...because however your loss was incurred, it didn't actually kill you.
The basis for these disparities has more to do with criminal intent than you're admitting...and everybody wanting tougher DUI laws until they get charged with one.
> Not everybody survives muggings, carjackings or home invasions, even when they comply. It's a choice between paying $20 to play Russian Roulette with a twitchy felon on the side of the road, or being scammed out of $300k and walking away. If you only look at the financial outcomes, of course it's an easy choice to make.
That is pretty obvious and condescending to say. Obviously everyone has a different risk preference. I was responding to a question (which was attempting to be rhetorical), not trying to tell you what your risk preference should be.
> The basis for these disparities has more to do with criminal intent...
If the basis for the disparities is criminal intent, then we wouldn't have seen the 2 year sentence for stealing 10 million dollars that is under discussion.
A mugging for $20 has less criminal intent than a $10MM white collar crime and muggings kill far fewer people every year than drunk drivers.
Disparities in punishments are highly driven by political fear mongering, classism and racism. (though this has somewhat lessened in recent years)
It simply reflects social priorities. If physical violence were tolerated as commonplace and had few deterrents then a lot of people would feel much more unsafe all the time.
I wonder if you have ever lived day to day in a place where a few wrong words to virtually anyone would get you beaten with zero consequences to the attacker. I have and I absolutely don't miss it vs. living today in a place with virtually absolute physical safety but a more wild west financial industry.
My apologies, your response made it seem like you were ignoring key factors in the question.
> If the basis for the disparities is criminal intent, then we wouldn't have seen the 2 year sentence for stealing 10 million dollars that is under discussion.
Look at your state's sentencing guidelines for larceny. To use California's as an example, it doesn't matter if I steal $20 (petty larceny) or $20M (grand theft). Either way, it's the same crime, differing only in scale, and the sentencing guidelines proscribe probation to 3 years in prison, depending on the severity. Thus, a 2 year sentence for stealing 10 million dollars is an expected outcome. That is the punishment for larceny with criminal intent. Not having criminal intent gets its own category (receiving of stolen property) and sentencing of up to 1 year. 2 years is a long time to be institutionalized; it's not a trivial sentence. We often lose sight of that.
If I choose to muck things up by bringing a weapon into the mix and turning it into aggravated assault or robbery, the sentencing changes drastically. Nobody wants aggravated crime in their neighborhood, but we can tolerate a Madoff or Shkreli on the streets, even if their net damage is worse. This isn't about race or class, it's about what type of offender is less likely to be an immediate danger to our health and safety. Can a violent offender be rehabilitated? We don't know, and nobody wants to find out. So we lock them up for 99 years and revisit the matter once they're senile.
> A mugging for $20 has less criminal intent than a $10MM white collar crime and muggings kill far fewer people every year than drunk drivers.
You're comparing three different things. Theft is theft. If you intend to steal anything, it's criminal intent. Threatening your victim or pointing a gun at them demonstrates even more criminal intent. Drunk drivers have no intent, they are drunk.
As destructive as drunk driving is, I meant what I said about everybody wanting more restrictive sentences until they find themselves on the wrong end of these laws. It doesn't take much to get charged with DUI, and even if nobody got hurt it's still career-ending. You did something you shouldn't have, there were no victims, but your life is now radically altered for the worse. It boils down to a tragically negligent decision, not criminal intent, which is why in the best of cases you end up on probation with misdemeanor charges and losing your job, in other cases Joe Sixpack hitting a pedestrian gets sentenced for manslaughter and the guy who deliberately drove into protesters is facing murder charges. There are distinct differences in intent and consequences for our actions. We sentence in line with them.
I'd agree that the sentencing for DUI fatalities is lighter than it should be (as it lets politicians and debutantes off the hook when they get caught themselves), and policing of the drug wars has proven to be very clearly class- and race-driven, but I'm not seeing how disparities in sentencing guidelines are inherently discriminatory towards any demographic. The message is clear: shoplift if you must, but don't you dare stick a gun in the cashier's face. This applies to everyone.
> Yes, I would rather be mugged and have someone take $20 from my wallet than have someone take my entire retirement.
It's funny because I would make the exact opposite choice than you. Of course it isn't about just losing a $20 from my wallet, its about having a gun put on you.
I'd rather lose my retirement than have anyone I know be robbed at gunpoint. And I believe there are a lot of people agree with me which is why the law is like that in Texas.
The law is not like that in texas because people are concerned with the risk of injury or death. If it were there would be a much harsher penalty for a first time DWI than:
"After your first DWI offense in Texas, you may be fined up to $2,000 and spend between three and 180 days in jail."
These differences in penalties are not due a rational fear of the associated risks.
a retirement fund/livelihood is ruined but in the end, all the players victimized are free to try living again in some capacity and/or try to seek restitution. That's what justice is supposed to entail.
Before or after the heart attack for losing everything? Rent is due tomorrow and restitution 4 years later doesn't help much
Yes, but I believe armed robbery is something very different as you intend or at least calculate the risk in to use your gun.
This was "only" theft and lying to police.
No it isn't. It's USA, snatch a chain (not trivial considering the trauma to the people but still...) while having a gun and you may get 99 years (Texas). Steal millions or billions and get a sentence of months.