But stories like this always make me wonder how society is ever going to find a path forward. The young idealist who saw a black man as a victim of the system ended up fleeing from him and living in hiding to protect herself and their child. But on the opposite end, some comments here feel this guy deserves no break at all.
How do we make a better world when it clearly doesn't work to say "You were just a victim and you deserve better!" but it also doesn't work to err on the side of "The beatings shall continue until morale improves."
I'm kind of glad to see he found some sort of path out, against very long odds. We seem to do such a poor job of that at the societal level.
I think this is an excellent observation and I agree that it's very hard.
I'm no expert whatsoever, but I think that the key to all of this stuff is nuance. Nuance, nuance, nuance. Nobody's totally good or totally bad, and you just need to dig deep enough to see the details. A jury can see all the nuance (if there's enough lawyer time/money to dig it up). A judge can (eg in contintenal European courts).
Here in NL there's a popular narrative that judges are old rich white dudes who are disconnected from reality (they're actually mostly middle-age white women, but OK). I never understood that narrative - these are people who get confronted with all the nasty parts of society in their full nuance, all day every day. They see that somebody commits wellfare fraud, but they do it out of desparation to keep their family afloat. They see that someone beats up their wife, but it's driven by harsh inescapable alcoholism. These are tragedies plain and simple, and it's extremely hard to just say either "you were just a victim!" or "lock you up forever!".
Personally I think mob outrage (eg on Twitter), or justice processes with too little money for proper lawyering, are a serious threat to society precisely because of this. If there's no time or space for nuance, everything becomes black&white and tragedies deepen.
> But stories like this always make me wonder how society is ever going to find a path forward.
Maybe the mere fact that you are thinking this way is a good sign.
In a sense we are the products of our time, in relation to our environment. It seems to me that people appreciate both the empathic and rational more and more.
Assuming the cash economy will be greatly reduced in the year 2029, and tech deeply entrenched in nearly everything we do, how will it be possible to live "underground," either out of necessity or a desire to stay anonymous?
I'm glad he got a break, for his sake and his family's, but if he had turned himself in in 2005 he would probably still be in prison. I like that this sentence encourages people to turn themselves in though, but I feel like it also rewarded him for running from the law. I think our sentencing is too harsh even for violent criminals. Even once violent people can change their life around.
Pre-paid debit cards. Also - buy from preppers. It's not like an iPhone with Facebook is a necessity. If you are looking for food, shelter and maybe a library, I don't think it is that hard. Maybe a little hermit-ey, but pretend you are living as a 1919 Wyoming homesteader, and you are still living a pretty decent (from 1750s standards) life!
> I faced 44 years to life, but when it came time to sentence me, the judge cited my family, my steady work, my character references, and most importantly, ten years being crime-free.
I'd give him a big break on sentencing for those reasons, too.
I am going to say something I know will be controversial: none of those should matter.
For one, his ability to evade justice for 10 years should not allow him to get off easier.
Nor should things like having a family. Why should I go to prison for longer just because I decided not to have kids?
As for working: that's what you're supposed to do. You don't get extra credit for that.
Everyone is willing to discuss racial disparities in sentencing. But what about family structure disparities? What about people who want to go live in the woods Unabomber style? Sentencing should not be a popularity contest. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you probably would not care either.
To be clear, he was guilty of every crime with which he was charged. Home invasion. Armed robbery. Leading cops in a high speed chase.
The words ‘sorry’, ‘regret’, ‘remorse’ or ‘responsibility’ appear no where in this piece. This man is practically drowning in his own self-regard and self-pity.
He didn't kill or injure anyone, and then he turned his life around -- on his own. The daily actions of living a better life outweigh mere words in a story.
He robbed a bunch of drug dealers. Should he go apologize to them? It's quite likely that they have turned out worse than him.
> After four years together, Kim and I had a daughter
To me this was probably the most reckless part of the story.
Why would a person facing the rest of his life in prison bring a child into the world, knowing he'd likely abandon her as painfully as his dad abandoned him?
Psychological pain per se doesn't seem like a good enough reason to decide that a child should not exist - because that pain takes all sorts of forms. And it's so npredictable. Children of parents who don't abandon them are often painfully hurt for many reasons. And some children whose parents cannot be with them are not particularly wounded by it. Otherwise think of all the children of military personnel, who only see their parent occasionally. Many grow up fine. Is it reckless to allow military personnel to breed?
Here's another counterargument:
Perhaps it would be ultimately reckless to reduce diversity in the gene pool (or meme pool) by only allowing people who are a good fit for current society's ever-varying codes to pass on their genes.
(That's a variation on the "are you sure it's healthy for humans if only rich people breed" argument.)
I tend to think the attraction-and-breeding instinct is best treated with great respect and allowed to proceed if the people involved want to do it, as though it carries some kind of evolutionary wisdom greater than our small-minded culture. Like one of those "meta" rules of the game; if they're in love, let them be, even if they're judged criminals. I suspect that the enormous variation in how children turn out confirms this, especially when outcomes over multiple generations are tracked, but I'm no sociologist so I don't know.
Why would a person ... bring a child into the world
Do you believe that people are descended from ancestors in the Garden of Eden?
If not, the most rational explanation is that we are descended from ancient organisms on primordial Earth. Perhaps not even Earth (i.e. panspermia).
How many billions of generations of asexual reproduction as single celled organisms? How many millions of generations of multi celled animals? How many thousands of generations of Homo Sapiens?
Each and every one of your ancestors reproduced. They survived long enough to reproduce. Probability 1. Not probability 0.9999999999. Probability 1.
That is such an astonishing thing that it is literally inconceivable (not capable of being imagined or grasped mentally; unbelievable) by me, at least not fully.
And yet, here we are. All of us. We've all won the lottery of life. We, each and every one of us, are here because each and every one of our ancestors brought a child into the world.
That's why he had a child. Because each and every one of his ancestors had a child. And many of those children survived in a far far more difficult environment than what we find ourselves in today.
That biological imperative outweighs everything else. This isn't usually conscious. This doesn't have to be rational. It's hardwired deeply into our DNA. Because we wouldn't be here unless it was.
It doesn't exactly work like that — you can't just go into hiding to wait out the time. Since there was a warrant out for his arrest, and marshals were actively looking for him, I'm assuming the limit was suspended.
That general involves the authorities too not know if the person comitted the crimes or call it off. Also some crimes dont have a statue of limitations. Like a lot states have no statue of limitations on armed robbery or something like 20 years. An other thing is the statue of limtations general require the accused to remain in the jurisdiction that the crime occured. So fleeing to an other state or country will just stop the clock. Stopping the statue of limtations acruing time. There are other things that can stop the clock as well.
Also if the accused is not careful they could wave statue of limitations as a defense. So just let your lawyer do things or take the 5th till one is appointed.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|6 years ago|reply
But stories like this always make me wonder how society is ever going to find a path forward. The young idealist who saw a black man as a victim of the system ended up fleeing from him and living in hiding to protect herself and their child. But on the opposite end, some comments here feel this guy deserves no break at all.
How do we make a better world when it clearly doesn't work to say "You were just a victim and you deserve better!" but it also doesn't work to err on the side of "The beatings shall continue until morale improves."
I'm kind of glad to see he found some sort of path out, against very long odds. We seem to do such a poor job of that at the societal level.
[+] [-] skrebbel|6 years ago|reply
I'm no expert whatsoever, but I think that the key to all of this stuff is nuance. Nuance, nuance, nuance. Nobody's totally good or totally bad, and you just need to dig deep enough to see the details. A jury can see all the nuance (if there's enough lawyer time/money to dig it up). A judge can (eg in contintenal European courts).
Here in NL there's a popular narrative that judges are old rich white dudes who are disconnected from reality (they're actually mostly middle-age white women, but OK). I never understood that narrative - these are people who get confronted with all the nasty parts of society in their full nuance, all day every day. They see that somebody commits wellfare fraud, but they do it out of desparation to keep their family afloat. They see that someone beats up their wife, but it's driven by harsh inescapable alcoholism. These are tragedies plain and simple, and it's extremely hard to just say either "you were just a victim!" or "lock you up forever!".
Personally I think mob outrage (eg on Twitter), or justice processes with too little money for proper lawyering, are a serious threat to society precisely because of this. If there's no time or space for nuance, everything becomes black&white and tragedies deepen.
[+] [-] dgb23|6 years ago|reply
Maybe the mere fact that you are thinking this way is a good sign.
In a sense we are the products of our time, in relation to our environment. It seems to me that people appreciate both the empathic and rational more and more.
[+] [-] kstenerud|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|6 years ago|reply
Assuming the cash economy will be greatly reduced in the year 2029, and tech deeply entrenched in nearly everything we do, how will it be possible to live "underground," either out of necessity or a desire to stay anonymous?
[+] [-] rosybox|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ci5er|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerry1979|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|6 years ago|reply
I'd give him a big break on sentencing for those reasons, too.
[+] [-] Gunax|6 years ago|reply
For one, his ability to evade justice for 10 years should not allow him to get off easier.
Nor should things like having a family. Why should I go to prison for longer just because I decided not to have kids?
As for working: that's what you're supposed to do. You don't get extra credit for that.
Everyone is willing to discuss racial disparities in sentencing. But what about family structure disparities? What about people who want to go live in the woods Unabomber style? Sentencing should not be a popularity contest. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you probably would not care either.
[+] [-] Mirioron|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JackFr|6 years ago|reply
The words ‘sorry’, ‘regret’, ‘remorse’ or ‘responsibility’ appear no where in this piece. This man is practically drowning in his own self-regard and self-pity.
He and he alone is the author of his misfortune.
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|6 years ago|reply
He robbed a bunch of drug dealers. Should he go apologize to them? It's quite likely that they have turned out worse than him.
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|6 years ago|reply
Criminal cases have HIGH levels of subjectivity.
Is murder in self defense the same as shooting a person for their watch?
Is robbery to take care of your family or for survival the same as robbery for wealth?
Life is not black and white there are many shades of grey, it's not a simple this/that alogorithm in my opinion.
How many people make stupid mistakes when young and their brains aren't even fully formed and pay for it their entire lives?
[+] [-] newsbinator|6 years ago|reply
To me this was probably the most reckless part of the story.
Why would a person facing the rest of his life in prison bring a child into the world, knowing he'd likely abandon her as painfully as his dad abandoned him?
[+] [-] cthaeh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlokier|6 years ago|reply
Psychological pain per se doesn't seem like a good enough reason to decide that a child should not exist - because that pain takes all sorts of forms. And it's so npredictable. Children of parents who don't abandon them are often painfully hurt for many reasons. And some children whose parents cannot be with them are not particularly wounded by it. Otherwise think of all the children of military personnel, who only see their parent occasionally. Many grow up fine. Is it reckless to allow military personnel to breed?
Here's another counterargument:
Perhaps it would be ultimately reckless to reduce diversity in the gene pool (or meme pool) by only allowing people who are a good fit for current society's ever-varying codes to pass on their genes.
(That's a variation on the "are you sure it's healthy for humans if only rich people breed" argument.)
I tend to think the attraction-and-breeding instinct is best treated with great respect and allowed to proceed if the people involved want to do it, as though it carries some kind of evolutionary wisdom greater than our small-minded culture. Like one of those "meta" rules of the game; if they're in love, let them be, even if they're judged criminals. I suspect that the enormous variation in how children turn out confirms this, especially when outcomes over multiple generations are tracked, but I'm no sociologist so I don't know.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 77pt77|6 years ago|reply
Very few people are able to escape that.
[+] [-] PhantomGremlin|6 years ago|reply
Do you believe that people are descended from ancestors in the Garden of Eden?
If not, the most rational explanation is that we are descended from ancient organisms on primordial Earth. Perhaps not even Earth (i.e. panspermia).
How many billions of generations of asexual reproduction as single celled organisms? How many millions of generations of multi celled animals? How many thousands of generations of Homo Sapiens?
Each and every one of your ancestors reproduced. They survived long enough to reproduce. Probability 1. Not probability 0.9999999999. Probability 1.
That is such an astonishing thing that it is literally inconceivable (not capable of being imagined or grasped mentally; unbelievable) by me, at least not fully.
And yet, here we are. All of us. We've all won the lottery of life. We, each and every one of us, are here because each and every one of our ancestors brought a child into the world.
That's why he had a child. Because each and every one of his ancestors had a child. And many of those children survived in a far far more difficult environment than what we find ourselves in today.
That biological imperative outweighs everything else. This isn't usually conscious. This doesn't have to be rational. It's hardwired deeply into our DNA. Because we wouldn't be here unless it was.
[+] [-] concordDance|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] crb002|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdf21|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austinl|6 years ago|reply
See: https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-bas...
[+] [-] PeterisP|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anfilt|6 years ago|reply
Also if the accused is not careful they could wave statue of limitations as a defense. So just let your lawyer do things or take the 5th till one is appointed.
[+] [-] roywiggins|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codezero|6 years ago|reply
That said there are always ways to cook up new charges.
[+] [-] n8henry|6 years ago|reply