.... killer who shot that insurance executive in the back, killing him, is going to be allowed an insanity defense according to the NYC judge in that case. If successful, Mangione would be housed in a psychiatric hospital for treatment. Obviously, the conditions at the hospital are way way better than a prison plus a lot less time served. The other route for an insanity defense if successful, would be a result of "manslaughter", thus reducing his sentence significantly down from a murder charge. So, either way, he could come out smelling like a rose. And we wonder why crimes like this keep recurring.........criminals know they don't do hard time anymore, even for murder. So, it's worth the risk to commit them.
OT: Looks like the Luigi Mangione......
- Thread starter leeinator
- Start date
The thing I'm interested to watch in that case will be how they handle the federal case after the state case. I mean if his insanity defense works in the state case, will the federal prosecutors come after him harder in that case or will they back off and try to cut a deal?
Thanks for keeping us up to date on the news, Lee
Being allowed an insanity defense and being given an insanity judgment are two different things. I know jurors can be idiots but i don’t see how anyone can see it other than premeditated.
3 American schools of thought I'll never understand:
- The idea that we should be any type of soft on violent crime;
- The idea that we no longer have mental institutions, instead they are allowed to wander the street as 'homeless';
- Anti-police rhetoric.
I enjoy safety, myself. I guess some folks do not.
- The idea that we should be any type of soft on violent crime;
- The idea that we no longer have mental institutions, instead they are allowed to wander the street as 'homeless';
- Anti-police rhetoric.
I enjoy safety, myself. I guess some folks do not.
The feds are going to nail his *** to the wall regardless of what the NY state does
He can try whatever defense he wants, but this is as open-and-shut premeditated murder as you ever see in a high profile case like this.
The only chance he walks is if he somehow convinces the jury to nullify, and that would require incompetent juror selection from the prosecution.
The only chance he walks is if he somehow convinces the jury to nullify, and that would require incompetent juror selection from the prosecution.
It sucks to have to hear ideas you find distressing, I'm sorry you experienced that.
The good news for you is that beyond whatever words you may have to endure, here in the land of the free we have 5% of the world's population and 20% of the prisoners. You can rest assured any rhetoric is not in alignment with action:
List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia
This is why you hurl your incessant opinionated insults from behind a keyboard.
Anything I found distressing or that I experienced or endured, got thrown out the window in 2020/2021. I accepted then what direction this country was headed.
You aren't going to find me stumping for anything political. But anyone who is alright with violent crime either is of a lesser intelligence or has a screw loose, and really doesn't deserve my attention other than entertainment.
Actually kinda funny watching the reels now (except that many have ads).
This is such a stupid stat. The percent of prisoners does not tell whether a country is tough on crime. We have people that are generally more violent. We are probably under policed and could have fewer prisoners if we had more police. It's also very jurisdiction dependent. Hell, even within a state, where you commit a crime goes a long way in determining whether you get an appropriate sentence or not.It sucks to have to hear ideas you find distressing, I'm sorry you experienced that.
The good news for you is that beyond whatever words you may have to endure, here in the land of the free we have 5% of the world's population and 20% of the prisoners. You can rest assured any rhetoric is not in alignment with action:
View attachment 1330042
List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There's a cultural reason for this that's not allowed to be discussed.It sucks to have to hear ideas you find distressing, I'm sorry you experienced that.
The good news for you is that beyond whatever words you may have to endure, here in the land of the free we have 5% of the world's population and 20% of the prisoners. You can rest assured any rhetoric is not in alignment with action:
View attachment 1330042
List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia
Judges are generally not activist. That's propaganda. A judge allowing a defense is not endorsing that defense, it's following legal procedure to ensure that the issue is not preserved for appeal. It's prudent.
If Mangione was denied the defense, tried, and found guilty, the issue would then most certainly be appealed.
Hey dorn - can you give us a summary of which one of those three general principles you feel is a good idea overall and makes our country better or safer? Is it one more than the others, or all three? I think all three are terrible policies, but that's just personal opinion and I'm genuinely curious how someone could think any of them are good for us.It sucks to have to hear ideas you find distressing, I'm sorry you experienced that.
The good news for you is that beyond whatever words you may have to endure, here in the land of the free we have 5% of the world's population and 20% of the prisoners. You can rest assured any rhetoric is not in alignment with action:
View attachment 1330042
List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia
And I'm not trying to put you on the spot, only asking you because (a) you responded with some seeming interest in the topic; and (b) you're the only one on your side of the aisle who I don't have muted.
I agree the prison population here is way too large. We should be executing many, many more. All convicted pedophiles. All convicted 1st degree murderers. That would solve it quickly in two ways:It sucks to have to hear ideas you find distressing, I'm sorry you experienced that.
The good news for you is that beyond whatever words you may have to endure, here in the land of the free we have 5% of the world's population and 20% of the prisoners. You can rest assured any rhetoric is not in alignment with action:
View attachment 1330042
List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia
1. Less prisoners bc they’re dead
2. Fewer criminals bc they know 17A17O
On top of that, violent criminals should do hard time. Back-breaking labor. Gruel to eat. The prospect of prison should be terrifying. No television. No creature comforts. We punish violent crime harshly and it will go down quickly. Not rocket science.
Say more on this, please.
30seconds of googling shows Judge Carro is known to be tough on crime and it was reported that Mangione got a 'tough draw' for a judge.
Are you referring to someone else?
Law enforcement needs to spend more money on surveillance drones. Set 'em all up and fly 'em through the high crime areas and every now and then send 'em into the more affluent areas and business districts. Just to keep folks honest.
I mean, I think the anal rape is generally pretty terrifying.
I actually think we have this backwards. We should have more prisons that are punishing, but not cruel. Once a criminal gets to a point that we are ready to lock the door and throw away the key, whatever. I still would prefer that they not be at regular risk of rape, but I get that there are lots of places that need money. But we need more prisons where we can send people to be punished but not traumatized to the point that they are likely to carry baggage back into the free world when they get out.
How often are these sort of shooting crimes taking place? I dont hear about a lot of C-suite execs being gunned down.
Anyways, if you dont want people to shoot others, you could ban the manufacturing of guns and bullets in the US and ban the importation of guns and bullets. In conjunction, there would be mandatory minimums for the manufacture or importation of guns and bullets. That would, over time, significantly reduce shootings.
^ I am not advocating for this to happen. Do not claim I am advocating for this to happen. I am simply saying that would reduce all sorts of shootings(not just business execs) over time.
Many judges are. But yeah. You have to let him present his defense, just about no matter how ridiculous it may be.
To tell you how 17ed up this is, "insanity" isn't even a medical diagnosis, but a legal term. How is a psychiatrist/psychologist going to treat him for his legal condition? Man I can't stand our legal system.
Jail should be like boot camp. you should get up at 6am. you should be required to be trained in something. you should do work in that training. There should be constant discipline within those walls. I just read an article about how there are so few trained construction workers that it makes the cost of building housing higher than it could be. Teach them trades.
I agree that's how it "should" be... You're going to find it hard to convince a lot of those guys inside that they need to learn to work for pay. But I agree with you.
I wasn't making the case they are good. Goat was concerned about them, and to me the actions of our government clearly indicate they have no qualms about incarcerating Americans.
Now with that being said: you're a reasonable person. If I told you a given country had 5% of the world's population and 20% of all the prisoners, you might think that sounds high? I do. Solutions? I don't see where we are in a good place to start working on that as a country, honestly.
Anything from armed robbery up, including rape and pedo, should be a capital offense.
How do you suggest measuring "tough on crime"? Using "prisoners per 100k pop" seems pretty reasonable to me. Hardly stupid. I would have expected better from you.
You think Americans are just hard-wired to be more violent? I'm not saying you're wrong, at least that would be a justification.
Well if someone did feel the urge to discuss it this might come in handy
Individuals in the Federal Bureau of Prisons
I haven't kept up with it but what would be the federal charges? One person murdered another person in NYC right? I thought it was a state case just like any other murder.
"Jail" is one thing, for minor offenses. I agree.
I'm more talking about violent offenders, who should be in there for life and no chance to get out. I don't really care what they do in there, except maybe access to some religious material. It shouldn't matter, their life as a free person on this planet should be over.
I think you'll find that myself, and most people, are concerned mainly about violent criminals. That is where the lackadaisical part comes in, while we probably over-incarcerate for minor crimes. I don't think that's a hot take, we probably agree. That's supported by your numbers.
Honestly, despite what I said above, my problem is not really with the number of people jailed. I don't get into the details of why there, in my mind, you do the crime, do the time, even if it's just stealing baseball cards. I'd probably lean on the conservative side of that, when in doubt.
My beef is with people that support violent criminals, and ANY changes or reform that are aimed at making those people's lives easier and give them more chances to walk the streets again. Of all the things to complain about in this life, this is the hill those people are going to die on? There's just no rational explanation for it, thus my statement that they are less intelligent or mentally unstable.
I think you nailed it here- we over-incarcerate for minor crimes (crimes of opportunity, drug possession/purchases, etc.). The problem there is that incarcerated people learn how to be much better better criminals, as well as more likely to reoffend, in jail than they do otherwise.
The worst thing you can do is send people convicted of minor offenses into a system that perfects criminal behavior.
As an aside, another portion of our incarcerated population is the mentally ill that traditionally (50 years ago) would have been housed in asylums/sanitariums.
I would need to know a few qualifier stats to even know whether our number is high, such as:
- how many of said prisoners are foreign citizens with a prior criminal history (i.e., maybe a certain % of that number shouldn't have even been on US soil to commit crimes in the first place). Deport them, you can't really allow them in, then blame the mean old US for having "too many prisoners".
- what % of those incarcerated are in because they're "insane" or whatever the PC term is these days? We need more mental institutions, which was on Goat's list. Put them where they belong and remove them from the numbers.
- what % of those incarcerated are for violent offenses? I would want to separate the non-violent out in a separate category, and I probably wouldn't jail as many for non-violent crimes anyway (other than repeat offenders). Claiming we put too many poor black kids in jail (which some people do) but also including the broad number of drug or traffic offenders in the "confirmation" of that claim doesn't make sense to me.
- speaking of, how many said prisoners are repeat offenders (maybe certain policies have allowed or led to more career criminals, who need to be eliminated if they just refuse to live in civilized society.)
- how many in that number are serving life sentences because of the heinous nature of their crimes, but their particular state has chosen to outlaw capital punishment? I'd eliminate them almost immediately. That's how Iran keeps their prisoner numbers low - although I assume we'd have a higher threshold of what calls for capital punishment than "she showed her eyes to someone on the street".
I could probably come up with more, but my main point is this: using such a broad stat ("too many prisoners!") against our country seems a little prejudiced. Our government, or the people running it, have created the jail overpopulation problem in many ways -- we've allowed or even invited many of these people who are in prison into the system ourselves -- and now we're complaining that there are too many of them in the system.
While our correctional system could use a massive overhaul, study after study has shown that harsher penalties do not reduce crime. In general, criminals are not weighing the nature of their potential.punishment when they are deciding to commit a crime. And there is no evidence the death penalty has any impact on the commission of capital crimes.
Criminals generally DO consider the probability of getting caught, though. The extent of the penalty is not significant, but the certainty of serving some type of penalty is. So, sacrificing our personal freedom by increasing police presence and surveillance techniques should have a direct impact on crime statistics. The trick is finding the balance between security and living in a police state.
Criminals generally DO consider the probability of getting caught, though. The extent of the penalty is not significant, but the certainty of serving some type of penalty is. So, sacrificing our personal freedom by increasing police presence and surveillance techniques should have a direct impact on crime statistics. The trick is finding the balance between security and living in a police state.