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

Yes and no. We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

 

If that is what prison is being used for, in many cases, then there really should be two different tiers of prison—one designed to punish people, and the other designed to be as pleasant as possible while the person is kept away from the rest of society for the rest of their lives. But that is not what exists right now.

 

Whaaat? As pleasant as possible? Absolutely not. Prison is NOT supposed to be pleasant, and these people are law breakers and criminals.

- - - Updated - - -

How in the world does this reply make any sense at all? Are you suggesting that we NOT lock up armed robbers?

 

Sentences can become more emotionally based than rationally when you have witnessed or was victim of multiple robberies. There are people that are so sick of crime, they would pick the first answer, there are people that cannot understand what crime really is, they haven't witnessed it, they would not even pick the last answer.
Perhaps you could ask the robber itself how high the sentence must be he/she deserves, ofcourse the robber would pick the lowest possible sentence. Then you tell the robber, you don't deserve such a low sentence.
The sentence is always emotionally based when citizens have to judge, and when judges have to judge there can be political pressure, and politics is also about emotion (but the other way around; that crime can be used as a political tool to gain power, which raises emotions in the citizen again)

 

Step by step guide to stopping crimes such as theft/breaking entering.

Step 1: Catch the offender.
Step 2: Give them a fair and balanced trial.
Step 3: If found guilty allow them to choose which hand they want to lose.
Step 4: Cut off the other hand. Don't reward a criminal with the benefit of choice.
Step 5: Make it public that all thieves will lose a hand if caught.

Eventually we will either be out of hands, or out of thieves.

For breaking and entering I'd recommend cutting off the foot, it would be a lot harder to burglarize a home with a prosthesis.

 

So what you are saying is that there is no real objective way to know how long of a prison sentence a robber should be sentenced to?

Another option is we could try to approach this from a utilitarian perspective, what results in the most optimal outcome for society, including the robber himself. But even that type of approach has challenges, it is difficult to assign an accurate value to every facet of the effects.

 

A long time. How about that long? Most people don't really care about the robber to be honest. Most people are more concerned with his victims and the safety of our society as a whole. Perhaps your "worrying" would be better put to use elsewhere?

 

I am just concerned this same mentality will carry over to all the "victimless" crimes, where no one was hurt or had anything stolen. These days there seems to be an ever growing number of victimless crimes being added to the law books.

 

A robbery is NOT a victimless crime.

 

Not really. Prison serves three purposes: 1) punishment of the criminal; 2) protection of society; 3) lastly and least importantly reforming the criminal. Society has no obligation to those who break the social contract.

 

I believe the punishment should be in proportion to the damage actually caused and the intent of the person causing that damage, and to a lesser degree the risk that the person incurred on other people.

And I believe that if we punish all robbers for the risk they incurred to other people, then by equal measure we should punish robbers less in the cases where that risk they caused actualized into injury. That is only logical, unless you are just looking for any and all excuses to just add more punishment to the criminal.

 

In some cases criminals just need to be punished, but society does not need to be protected from them. In other cases, society needs to be protected from them, but the criminal may not truly deserve a lifetime of punishment. Yet America has created a one size fits all cookie-cutter solution.

 

The intent in armed robbery is to murder you if you don't give up your possessions. For that reason it's a major crime--maybe not life in prison, but at least 30 years.

 

But a robber carrying a gun with him does not exactly necessarily mean he is threatening to use that gun if the victims do not give up their possessions. The robber is only threatening to use that gun if someone else reaches for a gun. Presumably as long as the victims do not pose a threat to the robber, the robber will not use the gun, unless the robber specifically sends the message otherwise.

 

It's not armed robbery without the threat to use violence. Robbery is theft with the threat or actual use of force. Armed robbery is theft with the threat or actual use of a weapon. Having a gun in your pocket while trying to steal something isn't armed robbery. Please look things up instead of making them up.
While there may be states that differ slightly, here is the Florida definition of armed robbery:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.13.html

 

In what case would a criminal require punishment but be safe in society? He has already proven himself dangerous to society by his actions.

In what case would society need to be protected from someone who does not deserve punishment? If a person does not deserve punishment, he has committed no crime.

Cookie cutter situations deserve cookie cutter solutions. However, America does in fact have a tiered penal system. Minimum, medium, maximum and supermaximum security prisons do exist. Inmate privileges are highest at minimum security and lowest at supermax prisons.

 

I think the armed robber should die of acute lead poisoning at the hands of his intended victim, immediately upon the perpetration of his crime. Future victims will be spared his spree, aspiring young armed-robbers will be given something to dissuade them from pursuing this particular career path, and the police can strike another worthless thug from their watch-lists.

 

This is in fact a principle of American justice.

You appear to be saying we should punish crooks who actually hurt people less than crooks who merely put them at risk. That is an asinine idea. What kind of fool thinks the armed robber who shot his victim deserves a lesser sentence than one who stopped short of violence? There are such things as aggravating circumstances.

 

In what state does a criminal have the right to defend himself from his victims during the commission of a crime? The fact is that the victims have the right to defend themselves from him, not the other way around. You have some weird ideas about the rights of felons, amigo.

 

Not saying that he does, just that the punishment should be much less. A robber shooting someone who is reaching for their gun is a completely different thing from a criminal who shoots someone who is not trying to pose any threat. The latter of which is clearly murder.

That is the way I see it.

 

There is no difference if the robber is in process of robbing. Robbing, as I've pointed out before, is theft with the threat of force. If a robber shoots a victim, it doesn't matter if the victim was reaching for a gun or not. The robber is responsible for all violence committed in the process of a robbery. If I'm being robbed, and draw my gun and kill my friend accidentally, the robber is responsible, because his action of robbery is the cause for me drawing my gun

 

But the threat can be explicit or just suggestive.
According to your definition of robbery, I would argue that just because a criminal is carrying a gun with them while in the process of stealing something while there are people present does not necessarily mean he is committing robbery per se.

I disagree. You do not see how it is so much more terrible if the victim was trying to be fully cooperative and the robber still shot them?
I'm not saying it's truly "self defense" if a robber had to shoot someone in a robbery, but it's not quite "murder" either. There is sort of a gray zone.
Of course it should be a severe crime to shoot someone in a robbery, but should it really be treated like murder ? I do not think so.

I would posit that there might even be some hypothetical situations where robbery could be morally justified, all the more reason unlawful killing should not necessarily be classified as murder.

To some extent yes, but I mostly disagree. The robber might be partially responsible, but you want to put responsibility where it does not deserve to be (in my opinion). It may be true the situation would not have arisen if not for the robbery, but the situation also would not have transpired the way it did if it were not for the actions of other people too, even if the intentions of these other people were perfectly justified.

I really do not agree with holding someone fully responsible for any and all of the results that their criminal actions may have indirectly caused. (But I know many people think this way)
Just because their actions were criminal is not enough reason in and of itself to hold them liable for the everything that may have resulted. Just like if someone commits actions that were not illegal that indirectly contributed to something else bad happening. We can say that those actions were reckless, and the person should be held partially accountable for that reason, but that is a substantially different matter from criminal intent.
I would compare armed robbery more to drunk driving on a crowded road full of cars than I would to the crime of attempted murder.

 

I've never claimed that. But the subject of this thread is armed robbery, not theft while carrying a weapon. It's only armed robbery if a threat is made. If the weapon is concealed, then that weapon is not being used to threaten.

It doesn't matter if the victim cooperates or not. If a victim is defending himself, the crime of killing him should be the same as if the victim was being compliant. The criminal has no expectation of compliance by their victim. The crime is the same no matter what. What you want is for victims to stop defending themselves against criminals, obviously.

In this welfare society, there are almost no realistic situation where robbery could be morally justified. Any killing committed while committing another crime should be murder. Not all murders are capital crimes, but they should all involve the possibility of life in prison.

The robber is totally responsible for any harm that occurs due to his committing criminal actions. Any other result makes self defense less legal.

Armed robbery (not theft with a weapon) involves threatening to kill people for their money or goods. It's not like drunk driving on a crowded road. It's intent is to commit murder if not given goods.

 

Okay, then in what type of situations could the robber carry a gun with him without it being considered armed robbery?
Could the gun just be in a conspicuous holster at his side?
Could the gun actually be in his hand? Would he have to clearly state to his victims that he did not plan to use his gun unless he had to (either to protect himself or to escape) ?

 

I disagree with that , if you shoot your friend that is on you... what the criminal did is on the criminal