Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42556
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 2 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:


    Rewound during that walk of hers to point out her fucking giant ass to my wife. It didn’t look real

    They've been hiding it well, but white girls dont have asses like that without being chonkers.  If anyone does.

  2. Unpopular opinion:  I don't like Shiv.  She's smug and arrogant.  So I am enjoying watching her eat a ration of shit.

    Also, while she is striking of face, there's a hefty chonk about to splode out that gal.

    • Like 5
  3. 7 hours ago, Okie State said:

    Yeah, the interiors look very nice. Only available with four bangers though. Probably fine, but I've never owned anything except V8's or V6's so it just seems wrong.

    Quite a few of them used to have five-bangers.  Fucking Swedes.

    • Like 2
  4. 4 minutes ago, Okie State said:

    I always want to buy one, but shy away after reading horror stories. I have the same issue with Volvo. Love their design, but worry about reliability. I, of course, am not like most on here who buy new every two years so reliability matters to me. We'll still at least test drive an Audi and Volvo though.

    I havent really heard bad things about Volvo, but for the most part I haven't known anyone who had one since the old boat style.  On the rare occasion I ride in one, I am usually impressed, though.

    • Like 1
  5. 13 hours ago, Okie State said:

    Seriously. One chance and fuck you. Zero brand loyalty.

    I've just heard too many anecdotes about BMW and Audi along those lines.  I won't even let myself look at them seriously.

    One of my parents' friends pined for a Benz back in the 60s-70s when they weren't as ubiquitous as today.  He finally got one, I presume a 230, and it was a complete POS, in the shop constantly and he only had it a couple of years.  They giggled at and pitied Mack for years.

  6. 31 minutes ago, Sandman said:

    Do you think the courts look at the cost of prosecuting this crime and think "Fuck it, take the $500K and we're outta here with minimal effort"? Honest question, because I always read about how the cost of drawn out trials is such a burden on the state, plus the cost of incarceration. Is taking a big fine from a rich person (even though they won't feel the sting) just a better business decision for the state? Especially for what many consider a "victimless crime"? 

    It's not so much the effort as the time.  A federal court probably has six month's trial time, annually, tops, tippy tops, waaaay conservative number.  And if even 50% of what's in the criminal (ignoring civil altogether) pipeline went to trial, it would swiftly grind to a screeching halt.

    So, a prosecutor has to face the reality that s/he cant try everything, or even a significant percentage of cases indicted, no matter how badly they might want to.  Any decision to not offer a plea and force a trial probably means that at least two other cases that were trial candidates absolutely must be pled.

    Then maybe stir in some laziness.  Trials are really fucking hard work, and they involve a group of people on your side, some of whom may not share your enthusiasm.

    And there is some extra cost attendant to even the government trying a case, but most of it is "sunk" in salaries.

    In some cases, particularly high-profile ones, the government gets a bit out over their skis with their indictments.  Generally only well-financed defendants can take them on, and if they do, theres a decent chance the government gets gouged.  See, e.g. Skilling.  Even Manafort wasn't convicted of some of his counts.  And the enhanced charges against Aunt Becky for money laundering and honest services fraud might actually be a bit of a stretch, possibly resulting in acquittal or bad law for the government on appeal, see again Skilling, see also Virginia Gov. McDonnell.

    On the rare occasion the feds are taken to trial, they get their shit pushed in with some regularity.

    Hell, in Huffman's case, the government lost a significant ruling, that could have broad implications, that the "bribe money" here didn't constitute a financial loss to any party (in the way a theft of $100 is a loss to the victim).  The loss figure is a big part of sentencing in any financial crime.  It's why Madoff got life.

    All prosecutors, unfortunately, are politicians to one degree or another and are very much concerned with appearances and win-loss records, and how those things can be spun or otherwise utilized to further their political career.

    So, you take all those factors encouraging the government to compromise with a plea and there you have it.

    Similar factors apply in state court criminal cases, but it tends to be a more seat-of-the-pants thing because of the sheer volume. No case is usually that high-profile and there are just so many that individual junior prosecutors are given pretty wide discretion.

    You notice in none of this is "justice," going either way, really a big factor or consideration.

    • Like 2
  7. 11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I think that's connected with a frustration of watching folks do bad and get away with it.

    For example, I play it straight, and we bust our ass to educate our kid and give him opportunities, and he makes it into Local State College.  But again, we play it straight.  Hell, we don't have the assets to do anything but that.

    Hollywood Family doesn't really spend much effort on their kid, but writes a $500k check to get the badminton coach to give their kid a full scholarship to Rich Connections University.  And when they're busted, they have to pay a fine and hang their head, and that's it.

    That's pretty rage-inducing -- people expect fairness.  And when the system demonstrates obvious unfairness, and blatant favoritism for certain folks, that understandably pisses people off.  So, your thoughts on retribution aren't wrong....you just need to expand them to include our frustration with unfairness.  A more fair system would go a long way to dialing down that desire for retribution.

    I agree that's infuriating.  But I think a lot of our criminal justice system is the result of a national fit of pique, if you will.  Egged along by lickspittle legislators happy to render statutory that fit of pique for a couple of votes.

    We just have to be better and understand that getting nationally raked over the coals for a year or more, paying double what you put into the scheme in fine, and some probation or a couple weeks in jail or both are adequate punishment.  Along with having your kid kicked out of school and PNG everywhere.

    Also convicts can't go to Canada.  🤬

  8. 7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    That makes sense.  But I bolded the part that matters.  If you are worth $50 million, then a $500k "restitution" order isn't shit.  Quiet probation isn't shit.  So, if that's all that's on the table, you only have to fear apprehension...punishment isn't even in play.  So, it's necessary to have some punishment out there that matters in that calculus.  Yes, the biggest hurdle is "will I or won't I get caught," but "and what will happen to me IF I get caught" matters too -- as your own statement acknowledges.

    I tend to agree that the severity is often given way to much weight.  For someone like Aunt Becky, 1 month in a cell is as humiliating as 1 year in a cell.  And while she'd hate the food and the crappy mattresses, the humiliation element is the biggest driver.

    Pretty much agree with that last paragraph.

    For some reason we're in love with over-long sentences and deterrence is frequently cited as the reason, because it's utilitarian and kind of value-neutral.  And it's way overblown.  Its effect is diminishingly small.

    We need to admit that we're in love with retribution, face that fact and what it says about us, and recalibrate.

  9. 6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    I remember seeing the movie Scared Straight way back when, and the one thing I remember was the producer bringing up the deterrent effect of jail.  Dudes in jail just laughed at him and one said, "There is not one single person in the prison right now who thought there was any chance of getting caught committing the crime that he's in here for."

    Those guys literally thought that was the stupidest thing they'd ever heard.  

    Yeah, most of the scholarship agrees that certainty of apprehension and punishment have far more deterrent effect than the type or severity of punishment.

    Jail time could have a deterrent effect in theory, but it's too attenuated from the actual commission of the crime.  And, criminals of all stripes aren't big on super-rational thought, taking into account all consequences and the likelihood thereof.

  10. 3 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

    Gotta call bullshit on that.

    No effect? Not even some effect?

    Bullshit.

    Minimal.  

    Insufficient deterrent utility to justify jail sentences and long ones in particular.

    To believe that it has more than minimal deterrent effect, you have to believe there's someone out there who is contemplating a bribery scheme to get their kid into college** but won't do it if someone gets jail time.

    **or name your crime

  11. 5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    That sounds absolute. Are you saying that in an absolute sense? As in, do you believe that jail time never serves as a deterrent for anyone?

    Rarely.

    And, as to financial criminals, if you're a big enough greedhead to commit a crime that gets you $500MM, and you have to pay that in restitution and another $1MM or so in fines, that would seem to hit you where it hurts.

    But it has no deterrent effect because more often than not, they don't think they'll get caught.

    The scholarship generally agrees.

  12. 6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Not to that individual, not anymore.

    But it is to their circle and their peers.  It really is.  Prison is not a deterrent to people who give zero fucks about going to jail.  To others, it IS a deterrent - the degree is different to different folks, but it IS a deterrent.  I would suggest that it's the ONLY deterrent with respect to wealthy people who can usually just write a check to get out of any situation.

    I disagree.  We can never know exactly the thought processes of defendants, but I suspect that the notion that a) it isn't wrong and b) I won't get caught are the dominant thought processes in this type of crime, long before "If it is illegal, and I do get caught, oh shit I'm going to jail."

    I don't doubt that two weeks in the hoosegow would be life changing for you, me, or Felicity Huffman, but as far as deterring as yet uncommitted crimes, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the publicity and embarrassment.

    That is not to say that it's an inappropriate punishment.  I just disagree that it deters other crimes by other defendants.

×
×
  • Create New...