20 year old gets sentenced to 161 years

Another case of American racism against Black people, just like Travon Martin who was killed. Shameful.

lol bite idiots

That includes some elderly people who require full time nursing care, for crying out loud. I find that quite disgusting.

It certainly isn't too late for this young man. If he was shipped out, away from bad influences, his mental and social problems dealt with, and given a job to do - he would never reoffend. Do you disagree?

Armed robbery is a horrible crime, people underestimate this. It is certainly not victimless.

Some people are so traumatised by it that they can go on to have psychiatric problems, their lives totally messed up. He may not have killed anybody but I don't think we should underestimate the suffering of he may have caused.

That said - because that suffering can be so underestimated, he may not be fully aware of it himself. I don't think you have to be evil to commit armed robbery (although he might be evil, I don't know).

Assuming that he isn't a psychopath, it seems a great shame to transform a young man, with his life ahead of him, into a pathetic institutionalised wreck who will die in prison, no use to anybody. When I believe it is possible he could be reformed and make up for his mistakes.

Also - I think stacking the punishments is totally ridiculous. The reason each concurrent offence is 25 years is presumably to act as a strong deterrent against reoffending after someone's already been convicted once and left the prison system. He hasn't had the opportunity to be deterred from reoffending, as he hasn't previously been convicted.

I also don't understand why he has been found guilty of so many robberies at once. If they had enough evidence to convict him of each robbery, why wasn't he put away at the time he committed them? I can't help but suspect he's been given bad or no legal advice, and so has been duped into confessing to many robberies when actually there was no benefit to him in doing so. Which isn't how a legal system should work - people should be rewarded, not punished for confessing their crimes.


EDIT: When you look into his background, he is actually quite a sad, inadequate person. Sending him to prison for ever is a waste, when with enough support he might be able to lead a helpful life, not dependant upon criminal activites for income. He probably isn't intractably bad, treating him as such is just foolish, and also quite heartless.

EDIT: It seems the real crime he is being punished for, is not being savvy or rich enough to work the American legal system.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time lol

I think your being dishonest in your statistical analysis. Of course the number is going to be reduced because the vast majority of the population need minimal amount of social care. It costs £20,000+ for each person in full-time care at a minimum. There's nothing disgusting here unless those in full-time aren't getting there needs taken care of. All this shows is how minimal we all generally need social care.

Yes. Is he being shipped out as voluntary? Or is he being shipped out as a criminal? If the former, what's to make him stay there? His family won't be there. And there would be a lack of women (assuming his heterosexual) thus can't even start a family (most people want to start a family). His friends won't be there. If his being shipped there as a criminal akin to Norway's prison Island, then I don't see the point. All your doing is giving him a more cushy prison experience, not rehabilitating him. If his only there temporarily, again what's to stop him going back to his bad environment? His family and friends are there. How are you going to guarantee him a job out of prison? Subsidize companies to encourage them to take on prisoners? What if he messes up? Your going to have to pay the company who knows how much in damages. The income inequality and consumerist culture would still be alive thus still have that drive to have more and more than you can afford.

That is the result of a law system without so called "concurrent criminal offence" (loosely translated).

Yes you are right sorry this is misleading My mistake.

The average user cost per year of those social care mediums is something like £12,000. It's a little under 4 times cheaper than prison, and this includes those in full time nursing care.

I don't mean its disgusting in that its not enough to spend. I mean I think its disgusting that for the sake of punishment, we are spending so much more on imprisoning people than just helping them with their problems (some social support does NOT cost £12,000 a year).

I don't mean shipping him out literally, to an island! Lol. I mean taking him away from that negative environment. Into a scheme that will support him to live a decent life in a quieter community. I think he would rather live in a community than go to prison for life...

This isn't just the mad daydreaming of an idealist.. schemes like this already exist and are successful, they're also cheap (certainly compared to prison). But atm they are funded by charities, and the provision is not high enough.

Probably will be in and out of jail anyway. Makes no difference.

America does have concurrent sentencing. It only implies when all the offences occurred in the course of a single criminal event, like if you murder someone and steal a car during a bank robbery. If multiple crimes are distinct and seperate events, such as on this case, then they are sentenced consecutively.

Okay thanks, good to know.

We have "Tateinheit" (one crime which realises different criminal offences or the same criminal offence multiple times -> the sentence is the one from the most serious realised criminal offence) and "Tatmehrheit" (multiple seperate crimes which are tried all at once -> is there a lifetime sentence for one of the realised crimes, you get lifetime; are all the sentences time sentences, you get a sentence which is higher than the highest sentence for one crime but not more than 15 years ) in Germany.

The offender in this case would have probably got sentenced to 5-15 years (5 is the minimum and 15 the maximum possible for this case) here in Germany with the possibility to be released earlier. Pretty big difference to 161 years...

How **** must his lawyer of been

So hang on, just to clarify, for 'Tatmehrheit', is that an extra of 15 possible years on top of the highest sentence, or is that a maximum of 15 years overall for everything? So say if someone does five 10 year crimes, will he get 25 years (10 for all the crimes + 15 years as the extra), or 15 years because because they can only add 5 years as the limit is 15?

If someone does five 10 year crimes the maximum he can get is still 15 years. The jude would take the highest sentence (in your example are they all the same -> 10 years) and add some years to that but more than 15 years is not possible. 15 years is the absolute limit for time sentences (but "preventive detention" can be added in some rare cases for very dangerous criminals) .

Don't get me wrong I think American sentences are a bit harsh at times, but on the complete opposite end of the scale I think 15 years maximum no matter how many different 'minor' crimes someone commits is a bit lenient.

Jesse Jackson's gonna hear about this. If he were a Christian he would have got 2 years with an xbox and a plasma. But because hes Muslim they gave him life.