Do you think an armed robber should spend the rest of their life in prison?

Do you think an individual who commits robbery with a gun should be locked away in prison for the rest of their life?
Suppose no one actually got hurt, and the robber did not actually point the gun directly aiming at anyone. And suppose in the course of committing the crime, the robber broke multiple laws. 8 felonies were committed involving this single case of robbery, and the robber took the security guard's gun too.

The robber has never been convicted of robbery before, but has a criminal history of buying drugs multiple times, and a prior charge 5 years earlier of carrying a weapon without a permit.

 

Nope, the sentence depends on many factors, 3-5 maybe.

 

Glad to hear you say this. I know there's many people in this forum that just want keep robbers locked up for the rest of their lives, and not let them out until they're really really old. The justice system in America is often very harsh as well. Doesn't really seem right.

I was originally going to put a 'less than 8 years' in the poll, but I feared there wouldn't be that many people who would want to go that lenient on an armed robber. I hoped that by making the lowest option 'not more than 13 years', it could get more votes.

The thing about robbery is, they usually don't really want to hurt anyone, they just want to steal the money.

 

They should have to serve a harsh sentence, as they are a danger to society. However, it depends on many different factors, having a criminal history, especially of violence.

 

IMO of the common major crimes theft is the most understandable. It depends on the motives though, theft out of desperation is quite understandable. Thieves who aren't thrill seekers or addicts can be rehabilitated.

 

Robbery and theft are two different acts. Robbery is an act of violence. Theft is merely taking property. I understand theft, I fear robbery.

 

A fair point, but even as violent crimes go robbery is rather low on my list. I consider assault, rape, etc. much worse crimes.

 

Armed robbery results in more murders than any other violent crime. It's the most dangerous to you.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls

 

If true, then the murder is the crime that deserves a very harsh punishment not the robbery.

Our sentencing structure leads to more armed robberies becoming murders. Cause we sentence armed robbers so harshly and murderers not much more harshly then a robber figures he's better off killing his victim to lessen his chances of being caught and/or convicted cause even if convicted the sentence isn't that much worse.

 

No, too harsh.

 

I agree.

But that does lead to some questions. For example, if someone with a gun tries to be the hero and the robber is basically forced to shoot them, and then they end up dying, is that more like murder or self defense? Of course I am not saying it should not be punished, because the robber played a big part in creating the situation in the first place, but surely it's not quite the same thing as killing an unarmed person? Especially if the robber gave them a chance to surrender.

And part of the reason armed robbery is punished so severely is that it could have led to someone getting shot, even if no one was actually hurt, the robber created a potentially very dangerous situation. I think, to some extent, there should be an inverse relationship between the punishment the robber gets for creating a dangerous situation (whether anyone was actually hurt or not) and the discount in punishment a robber gets if his killing during the robbery was necessitated. In other words, it does not seem to be fair to put a blanket punishment on all armed robbers for creating a dangerous punishment, and then if the robber is forced to defend himself hold him 100% responsible for the murder.

I realize some of you may still be a little confused about what exactly I mean, so I will try to create a quantifiable example. Suppose for every 6 armed robberies committed, on average 1 security guard dies. Suppose the punishment just for stealing the money is 2 years. The punishment for murder, when it's not an armed robbery, is 18 years. That means committing armed robbery is like taking a 1 in 6 chance of committing reckless murder, so if the robber is to be punished for creating a dangerous situation, that additional punishment should not be more than 3 years. Now suppose the punishment for a robber who kills someone during a robbery in "self defense" is 6 years. That 6 years should be subtracted from the 18 years, to give 12 years, which would then be divided by 6, which means that the additional punishment for creating a dangerous situation should not be more than 2 years. 2 + 2 = 4, so the standard punishment for committing armed robbery (assuming no one gets hurt) should be 4 years.

To calculate it any other way would just be inconsistent and illogical. All these specific numbers are just examples, I was just showing the process that should be used to calculate it.

 

Evidence for the above contention? Doesn't ring true for Florida. Here, committing murder while in process of committing other felonies (robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.) is a capital crime. Armed robbery by itself is not.

 

Whoa hold on a sec there cowboy. There is no such thing as self defense for an armed robber. The risk of a fight and the results of that fight are a risk assumed holey by the robber when the robber commits the crime. If the robber kills someone or the robbers partner dies then the robber is guilty of murder, that's completely the robbers responsibility. Murder is murder period, all murders(and attempted murders) that aren't accidental should get the death penalty,

 

There is no difference--a criminal has no self defense right while committing a violent crime. There is no legal or moral difference between shooting the person trying to do a public good by shooting the criminal than if he shot a cowering bystander. If a criminal is killed by a citizen, the criminal's accomplices can and should be charged with the criminal's murder.

Man do you like criminals. The armed robber is the only one responsible for any injuries committed during his actions.

No, the robber who kills somebody while committing a robbery, (if I take your first premise as true (the 3 years for armed robbery, which IMHO is ridiculously low), and the figure for murder as 18 years), minimum sentence should be 21 years. There is no such thing as self defense to someone in the process of committing a felony.

You really do love criminals.

 

I agree. If a robber is likely going to be sentenced to 30 years in prison, there's really not that much legal incentive not to kill people. If the robber is caught, either way he is basically going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Most robbers do not really want to hurt anyone. But suppose they are surrounded and only have a small chance of escape. If the robber knew the prison sentence was only going to be 6 years, the robber would probably just surrender. But if the robber was facing life in prison, he would likely have no problem killing if it meant even a small chance of escape. Excessive prison sentences result in people getting killed, and make the job of law enforcement officers much more dangerous.

The justice system in America is very harsh. In a real life situation, the robber in the story would likely get charged with breaking multiple different laws and could easily get sentenced to 40 years, even though he never actually hurt anyone. I believe these harsh sentences need to be reexamined and questioned. That is why I started this thread.

 

Evidence it's not true?

Armed robbery often includes other crimes/enhancements, most important of all is gun crimes/enhancements. These often add a mandatory 10+ years to the sentence. So the choice is risk 20+ years for armed robbery + gun enhancements and let them live to identify and testify against you, or risk 20-death but leave nobody to identify or testify.

 

if only we could educate our criminals better so they would understand this
it is, imo, yet another failure of our schools

 

And you just want to lob punishment at them to keep them in prison as long as possible, even if the exact reasons for that punishment do not make much coherent sense.
That's why the problem of unfair charge stacking in the justice system has never been solved.

 

I do want somebody that is willing to kill somebody in order to get money from them to be in prison as long as possible. Non-violent criminals I can see having more compassion for.

 

Are there? And they just don't vote in your poll ?

 

When most people hear the word 'robbery' they just assume there was a gun involved, which likely explain why robbery can carry such a long sentence. But if there is a separate gun enhancement that carries such a long additional sentence, then why is the sentence for robbery so high? Seems like grossly excessive punishment. How is a robber supposed to commit robbery without using a gun?

I think this a prime example of the phenomena of what happens when legislators continue to pass more and more laws, and do not give enough thought into how they overlap. And no one bothers to go back and revise things, because there are plenty of people more than happy to see the robber put away as long as possible. The whole point of the law is to provide a framework within which the courts can operate, where would-be criminals have fair prior notice as to how much prison time they will get if they commit a crime. But the way things are now, if someone commits a crime such as robbery, the prosecutor and judge basically have complete discretion and can sentence the lawbreaker to as long a prison term as they want. Going in this direction is really erosive to the rule of law.
Sure, it's armed robbers now, but decades from now it could become ordinary people committing low level crimes. In fact this has already started to happen, to some extent.

 

We have a revolving door justice system that puts criminals that use guns in the commission of a felony back out on the streets to soon.
It should be known by all who are contemplating using a gun in a robbery, that if caught, there is a minimum of 15 years without the possibility of parole.
That is if the gun is not fired, far longer if it is used.

People want to talk about gun control. The conversation needs to start by reducing the gun violence stats by keeping armed robbers and intruders behind bars for longer periods of time. There are far to many gang bangers and violent criminals that are repeat offenders.

 

I believe that criminals who were stupid enough to get caught three times committing a crime should be locked up for life.

Not so much for the crimes but for just being stupid.

 

Then don't be surprised if criminals go on killing sprees. With that type of penalty, there's not much incentive not too.
Think about it, a 15 year sentence is basically like half of a life sentence. If a bank robber has greater than a 50% chance of escape, why not kill anyone standing in their way?

I don't think there has to be gun control, nor do I think criminals with guns need to be put behind bars for longer periods of time.
I think all too often the mistake people make is thinking that just because there is a problem the government always needs to do something to solve it. Robbers are punished, and crime is just a fact of life. The criminal should be punished in proportion to the degree of risk they took, and considering their prior intentions.

 

Well, i think - no! If thug killed somebody while robbing - yes(Of course i'm "For" executions for serious crimes, but if to talk "without") It's a very soar question and i think our government should better reform judicial system before.
Maybe this guy who tried to rob, was not guilty, maybe somebody told that he will kill his family, or something else... It all depends on the situation!