I was wondering how someone can commit the same crimes as someone else, but somehow they can hire a great attorney and they can get off with a slap on the wrist. Somone I know got 15 years for robing a bank. Then I heard on the news that someone got 30 days for the same crimes. How is this possible to get a lesser punishment if they commited the same crime. How do sex offenders get off with only a few years and some have to serve longer. shouldn't they all serve the same if they commited the same cime. How do people often get off due to loop holes and technicallities that the attorney finds to get them off. I just don't understand it.
2006-11-20 06:33:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It would be very difficult to find two identical crimes.
was the first bank robbery an armed robery?
did the robbers have similar criminal records?
how much money was stolen?
those are some circumstances that pop into mind, but there are hundreds of little facts that could change the sentencing
2006-11-20 06:36:15 · answer #1 · answered by BigD 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's a lot that can explain the differences.
Two crimes may look the same when reduced to a headline, but the facts may be a lot different. Whether or not a weapon was used, whether or not anyone got hurt, whether or not the stolen property was recovered, all these are differentiating facts.
Different evidence makes a difference, too. If the only evidence is that a single $20 was found in the accused's possession, they aren't likely to get as much time as someone who was captured at the scene.
Also, different plea bargains are treated differently. If one person pleads guilty and all they have to offer is the trouble they will save the state in going to trial, they don't get much of a break. One who can rat out other accomplices or even unrelated crimes of others might get truly favored treatment.
2006-11-20 14:40:41 · answer #2 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I doubt that the crimes were exactly the same. There are sentencing requirements that judges usually follow for bank robbery. Either the news story was wrong or you misheard it.
Before the DA's office sentences someone they look at their record. Past misdameanors and felonies. If they have a past record and live in a "three strikes" state they are screwed.
People who practice law are just people. They all bring personal views to the job and I think that sometimes has a little to do with how things are in the end.
2006-11-20 14:47:17 · answer #3 · answered by Loli M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The legal system is not about justice - it's an adversarial system in which two sides present arguments, and a jury (or judge) makes a decision based on the facts presented.
If you can afford a great lawyer, you are less likely to face a stiff sentence. It also helps if you are white and in a white-collar job.
It is the best we can do - but it is certainly not going to give the correct result every time. Nor will it ever avoid inconsistency in sentencing, because we have subjective decisions controlling how much time is given to a particular felon.
The other option - to give mandatory sentences for everything - removes any mercy that might be appropriately built into the system.
2006-11-20 14:41:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Innocent until proven guilty. In the US we would rather let guilty people go than risk innocent being condemned.
2. Government must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that all of the elements of the crime were present. Any reasonable doubt on a single element is enough to fail.
3. There are sentencing guidelines for Federal crimes and most states. You can look them up and see the factors involved. It accounts for all sorts of things, like previous crimes, what weapons, harm to the victim, etc.
2006-11-20 14:43:10 · answer #5 · answered by Aggie80 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the top reason is snitching, they go after the one that doesn't have a felony or any priors, it does have a big effect on the crime if a gun is involved. i know 2 people that have been charged with multiple drug charges and set someone else up to take their charges. this particular person works a full time job and supports 2 kids alone, she was gone all day into late evening and these jokers were going into her house putting crap in there. she's being charged with all of it and she's looking at 16 years and never has done anything. that's called criminalization of America.
2006-11-20 15:57:28 · answer #6 · answered by nellie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Each crime is different in the manner, people involved, degree of injury, laws broken and involved, police work, witnesses, etc. The point of our system is that you are considered innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecutor cannot prove a certain degree of guilty, then it is their problem.
2006-11-20 15:04:26 · answer #7 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Convictions and sentencing are based on the strength or weakness of the State's case, as well as the record of the criminally accused.
2006-11-20 15:01:25 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the law is very complex. Starting with the evidence attimitance to verification to eye wittness testimony. Many things can even be fabricated. it's ruthless.
2006-11-20 14:37:12 · answer #9 · answered by Curious George 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the guy that got 15 years was working on his 15th arresst/conviction
2006-11-20 14:37:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋