Two time bank robber released back into Dormont, shooting last night there... (Pittsburgh: felony, attorneys)

[ditchdigger]

I guess the confusion is there's no such thing as "armed robbery" in Pennsylvania.

Ok.

Enactment. Chapter 37 was added December 6, 1972, P.L.1482,

It apparently changed shortly after my experience.

Off topic anecdote, but since nobody else has spoken up as a holdup victim...


I was told what I said about the "armed" part above, by the police, after being held up at (what was obviously, in retrospect), fingerpoint, in the spring of 71. Me and another kid my age were working at the Zoo parking lot, and two guys walked up with their hands under their t-shirts and told us to give them the money. They said they had guns, and at that moment, while my first reaction was to ask to see the actual gun, I thought better of it. I wasn't holding the money anyway. My partner had about 50 bucks in his shirt pocket, which he handed over, but didn't mention the bag with a couple hundred in his back pants pocket. I don't know what would have happened had we refused.

Also, my Mom worked as a bank teller, and her branch was held up once, and after they added an off duty police officer as security, a second attempt was aborted when the man in the hoodie, with it drawn up around his face, in July, ran away when the branch manager screamed for the cop as the would be robber walked in the door.

I'm a little less sympathetic about these things.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Ok.


It apparently changed shortly after my experience.

Off topic anecdote, but since nobody else has spoken up as a holdup victim...


I was told what I said about the "armed" part above, by the police, after being held up at (what was obviously, in retrospect), fingerpoint, in the spring of 71. Me and another kid my age were working at the Zoo parking lot, and two guys walked up with their hands under their t-shirts and told us to give them the money. They said they had guns, and at that moment, while my first reaction was to ask to see the actual gun, I thought better of it. I wasn't holding the money anyway. My partner had about 50 bucks in his shirt pocket, which he handed over, but didn't mention the bag with a couple hundred in his back pants pocket. I don't know what would have happened had we refused.

Also, my Mom worked as a bank teller, and her branch was held up once, and after they added an off duty police officer as security, a second attempt was aborted when the man in the hoodie, with it drawn up around his face, in July, ran away when the branch manager screamed for the cop as the would be robber walked in the door.

I'm a little less sympathetic about these things.

When I was a teenager, a guy held a gun to my face, an inch away. It wasn't a robbery. He did it for thrills. Not sure which is worse. At least in a robbery, you know what you can do to please the gunman. When some wacko is holding a gun to your face for the thrill, there's nothing you can do but hold your breath and pray.

I might not have been robbed, but I have sufficient experience with being a victim of a firearm (and a victim of other unrelated violent crimes) to not have my sympathy invalidated by others who think they have more experience in the matter.

You know I adore you, Ditchdigger. This is just one of those topics where we're going to agree to disagree.

[ditchdigger]

When I was a teenager, a guy held a gun to my face, an inch away. It wasn't a robbery. He did it for thrills. Not sure which is worse. At least in a robbery, you know what you can do to please the gunman. When some wacko is holding a gun to your face for the thrill, there's nothing you can do but hold your breath and pray.

It wasn't quite that close, but in a bar one night, back in the 80s, a buddy and I were sitting having a couple of beers. Two guys came in and sat down on the other side of him. After a few minutes, without any other words having been exchanged, the one nearest him pulls out a gun, holds it in view and says to him, "Do you know what this is? Well then don't **** with me!" My buddy got up and walked right out, without even getting his coat off the back of the chair. (It was winter.) In a few minutes, I finished my beer, nonchalantly reached over and got his coat, and left too. I found him about a block up the street, peeking out from behind a telephone pole.

I only mention that so you know I've had experience with the random gun toting nut job too. And I agree, that was scarier than being held up.

Still six months for bank robbery, twice in a week, seems light to me. I know a guy, a construction inspector, who got three times that much for taking bribes. And that's not quite the same as looking somebody in the eye and telling them to give you money so they won't get hurt.

I'm not out to invalidate anybody else's sympathy and I apologize if it came across that way. Brian expressed his more explicitly than you did, and commented about how long sentences aren't really a deterrent. As I pointed out in my initial reply though, I can see how somebody who's trying to make up their mind to commit a criminal act might be encouraged by their perception of a light sentence for a similar crime. I wonder if there have been any studies on that?

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Still six months for bank robbery, twice in a week, seems light to me. I know a guy, a construction inspector, who got three times that much for taking bribes. And that's not quite the same as looking somebody in the eye and telling them to give you money so they won't get hurt.

None of our sentencing and penalties makes sense. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why a college student who has a drug record, even a small possession charge, can't get grants, but a rapist or murder can.

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

I'm not out to invalidate anybody else's sympathy and I apologize if it came across that way. Brian expressed his more explicitly than you did, and commented about how long sentences aren't really a deterrent. As I pointed out in my initial reply though, I can see how somebody who's trying to make up their mind to commit a criminal act might be encouraged by their perception of a light sentence for a similar crime. I wonder if there have been any studies on that?

What I do know is that there are studies comparing the US to other countries that have lighter sentences, and the US doesn't fair well by comparison. It's because stronger sentences perpetuate crime instead of rehabilitating. Jail and prison is where you go to crime college. It's where they learn more things and make connections. If they are in there too long, they are more likely to come out of prison and get involved in worse crimes.

This example might help. When parents of teenagers catch their children smoking marijuania at experiment stages, some send their child directly to rehab. But other parents chose to not send their children to rehab because they know their children will be exposed to children are addicted to harder drugs. Fast forward years later, the ones who were parented more strictly and introduced to children who were into more severe drugs are often not doing as well as the ones whose parents handled it themselves. By not doing so well, that could mean addicted to more severe drugs or even dead due to overdose. I don't know if there are any official studies on parenting styles influence on drug addiction. I've merely observed this as a parent of adult children who had many friends and acquaintences. The parents who are too linient (allow their children to do drugs) and the parents who are too strict, both have worse results than the parents who handle this issue in a more moderate fashion.

Let me put it this way. Our murder rate is very high. We incarcerate with life sentences. There are other countries where they highest sentence for murder is a few years. The murder rates aren't high in those countries. That tells me that the risk of harsh sentences doesn't influence the decisions to commute a crime in the US.

It's too late or I would post links to this stuff.

[Goinback2011]

If the guy had a gun or said he did when he robbed a bank, he committed armed robbery.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

If the guy had a gun or said he did when he robbed a bank, he committed armed robbery.

Based on what statute?

[BrianTH]

It is hard to decisively determine the effect of the length of prison sentences on crime rates, because so many other factors can go into determining crime rates. The best study I have seen looked at the effects of people turning 18 and suddenly being exposed to longer "adult" sentences, which effectively controls for every other factor. It turns out there was not much discontinuity in crime rates from before to after turning 18, which suggests the length of prison sentences is not a large factor.

I might note that as I recall there is better evidence that the perceived likelihood of being caught for a crime DOES make a difference, which in turn can be a function of policing policies (although that again gets tricky). Also, I believe there is evidence that SOME prison versus no prison can make a difference, but that doesn't show that even more prison will make a lot more of a difference.

Finally, this is just anecdotal, but I have done a bit of white collar work, and one thing that became very clear to me is these guys did not want to do any actual prison time if they could possibly avoid it (which, incidentally, was very useful in conspiracy cases). If anyone would fit the model of the "rational" criminal it would be these folks (most criminals are not exactly clear-thinking types), and my experience does support the view that what mattered most when explaining their criminal behavior was their perception that they wouldn't get caught, because when it came down to it, even a little jail was plenty frightening to them.

[Goinback2011]

Sometimes the lack of common sense here is astounding and apparently the ability to do a google search is beyond many people's abilities:

Criminal Resource Manual 1349 Bank Robbery -- General Overview

Subsection (d) states that anyone who assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device while committing any offense described in subsections (a) or (b) is subject to a fine and up to twenty-five years imprisonment. Toy weapons and hoax bomb devices fall within the purview of this subsection.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Sometimes the lack of common sense here is astounding and apparently the ability to do a google search is beyond many people's abilities:

Criminal Resource Manual 1349 Bank Robbery -- General Overview

That's federal law, not PA law. He wasn't tried in Federal Court.

[Goinback2011]

Good then maybe you can research why someone who committed a federal crime with a gun would not be prosecuted by the feds and would be let off so easily by a Pennsylvania court without said criminal having connections that led to this outcome.