Same crime, same punishment

[We Never Know]

IMO punishments shouldn't vary so widely.
Example..
1. Joe gets busted with some pot. $300 fine
2. Bob gets busted with the same amount of pot, 3 years DOC

If the crimes are the same, IMO the sentence should be the same too.

Thoughts?

Edit.... BOTH are first time offenders.

 

[Left Coast]

IMO punishments shouldn't vary so widely.
Example..
1. Joe gets busted with some pot. $300 fine
2. Bob gets busted with the same amount of pot, 3 years DOC

If the crimes are the same, IMO the sentence should be the same too.

Thoughts?

This usually depends on criminal history, e.g. if the person is on probation or parole already.

 

[Estro Felino]

In the United States there is this thing which is called juridical doublestandardism.

That is a judge is allowed to apply different penalties to two identical situations, that is, two perfectly identical penally relevant situations.

To be more specific: a woman steals a packet of cigarettes. She gets three days of jail.
The same day, a man steals the same packet of cigarettes. The same judge is allowed to give him one year of jail, as sentence.

In my country, a judge cannot do that. If they do, they are suspended after five seconds. In the most serious cases, they are dismissed.
Because in every courtroom in my country there is a big inscription.
Instead of In God we Trust, it is written The Law is equal for all.
Which means: you cannot apply two standards to the same situation. There is just One.

 

[Estro Felino]

This usually depends on criminal history, e.g. if the person is on probation or parole already.

It has nothing to do with relapse, recidivism or probation.
There is a complete disproportion between a fine and three years of jail.
It's the American judges that are allowed to apply penalties at random.

It's absolutely unacceptable, in my humble opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

It has nothing to do with relapse, recidivism or probation.

But it does though.

There is a complete disproportion between a fine and three years of jail.
It's the American judges that are allowed to apply penalties at random.

Lol. No, no they are not.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, no they are not.

Of course they are.
I have read about a woman in Georgia who was condemned to 20 years of jail just for telling racist things to a black family.

Chauvin was condemned to 22 years of prison.

There is complete disproportion, because saying something racist is not the same thing as killing an innocent person.

 

[Left Coast]

Of course they are.
I have read about a woman in Georgia who was condemned to 20 years of jail just for telling racist things to a black family.

I will bet there is more to that story. Got a link?

Judges cannot just randomly assign whatever sentences they feel like. Sometimes there is explicit law they must follow in terms of minimum or maximum sentences. Other times there are less specific guidelines, and/or they use precedent to determine how similar charges have been sentenced in the past.

 

[Estro Felino]

I will bet there is more to that story. Got a link?

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/27/us/georgia-couple-confederate-flags-threats/index.html

Judges cannot just randomly assign whatever sentences they feel like. Sometimes there is explicit law they must follow in terms of minimum or maximum sentences. Other times there are less specific guidelines, and/or they use precedent to determine how similar charges have been sentenced in the past.

They do.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Left Coast
What do you think of the principle The law is equal for all?
Do you agree with it?

 

[Left Coast]

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/27/us/georgia-couple-confederate-flags-threats/index.html

Ah. So as I said, way more to that story than just "saying racist things." :

"The drivers parked the trucks near the house, prosecutors said. Torres was part of a smaller group that “threatened to kill the party goers while repeatedly using derogatory racial slurs against them,” said the statement.

“Torres, who had retrieved a shotgun from his vehicle, pointed his shotgun at the group of African American party-goers and stated he was going to kill them while his co-defendants stated that ‘the little ones can get one too,’ referring to the young children at the party,” the statement said.

Norton was accused of making similar threats. The victims said some member of Torres’ group was armed with a knife and a tire tool."

They do.

Do you ever get tired of being demonstrably wrong? Like, all the time?

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast
What do you think of the principle The law is equal for all?
Do you agree with it?

Of course.

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course.

Good. Because in the US the law is not equal for all.
That is a judge is allowed to apply different penalties to two identical situations, that is, two perfectly identical penally relevant situations.

To be more specific: a woman steals a packet of cigarettes. She gets three days of jail.
The same day, a man steals the same packet of cigarettes. The same judge is allowed to give him one year of jail, as sentence.

In my country, a judge cannot do that. If they do, they are suspended after five seconds. In the most serious cases, they are dismissed.
Because in every courtroom in my country there is a big inscription.
Instead of In God we Trust, it is written The Law is equal for all.
Which means: you cannot apply two standards to the same situation. There is just One.

 

[Left Coast]

Good. Because in the US the law is not equal for all.
That is a judge is allowed to apply different penalties to two identical situations, that is, two perfectly identical penally relevant situations.

To be more specific: a woman steals a packet of cigarettes. She gets three days of jail.
The same day, a man steals the same packet of cigarettes. The same judge is allowed to give him one year of jail, as sentence.

In my country, a judge cannot do that. If they do, they are suspended after five seconds. In the most serious cases, they are dismissed.
Because in every courtroom in my country there is a big inscription.
Instead of In God we Trust, it is written The Law is equal for all.
Which means: you cannot apply two standards to the same situation. There is just One.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more correct. You're still just wrong here.

 

[Estro Felino]

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more correct. You're still just wrong here.

If a pupil is wrong, the teacher corrects them.

 

[Left Coast]

If a pupil is wrong, the teacher corrects them.

I know, that's what I'm trying to do.

 

[Estro Felino]

I know, that's what I'm trying to do.

The OP has presented a case of two different penalties for the same crime.

You cannot apply two different penalties for the same crime. It's doublestandardism.

 

[We Never Know]

This usually depends on criminal history, e.g. if the person is on probation or parole already.

If a prior conviction then it isn't really the same crime, its a second offense. Its only the same if its a second offense for both.

 

[Left Coast]

The OP has presented a case of two different penalties for the same crime.

You cannot apply two different penalties for the same crime. It's doublestandardism.

The OP presented a hypothetical, not an actual, difference in penalty.

I explained why things like this can happen, and reasonably so.

 

[Estro Felino]

The OP presented a hypothetical, not an actual, difference in penalty.

I explained why things like this can happen, and reasonably so.

He hasn't specified that Bob was recidivist or something.
Or whether he was on probation.

 

[We Never Know]

The OP presented a hypothetical, not an actual, difference in penalty.

I explained why things like this can happen, and reasonably so.

Take a DWI
-first offense usually a class A misdemeanor
-second offense usually a class D felony
-prior offender usually a class C felony
-chronic offender now we are getting into class B or A felony

They all are different levels. Now one can argue they are the same crime but the levels makes them different.