Home » Archives » January 2003 » Long day

[Previous entry: "Finally the weekend"] [Next entry: "Men smell rancid"]

01/27/2003: "Long day"

I was up at 8:30 this morning to get ready for a long day of sorority business; the exec council had a workshop that lasted from 10 am to 5 pm. It was incredibly informative and really helped us get together what we want our chapter to accomplish this year. A half hour after we finished, we had to have our weekly Chapter meeting, which lasted an hour and a half. After that I took a nap, and ended up DREAMING of sorority busines and trying to get rules and policies in place. I ABSOLUTELY hate it when I go to sleep to try and take a break from something, and I end up dreaming about it. One of my least favorites was when I would be putting in over 40 hours per week at Limited Too and then I'd spent my nights dreaming about working there. Man that was miserable.

Question: If one man attempts to steal a wallet from a person's pocket and succeeds, should he receive a greater sentence than a man who attempts to steal a wallet but finds the person's pocket empty (as has traditionally happened)?

Replies: 6 Comments

They should all be punished under the Fucktard Clause in the Constitution. Oh wait, there isn't one. Maybe THAT would be a reason to "re-write" it. :D

melantha, Monday, January 27th

Statutorily (per California's Penal Code), the facts convey two seperate violations of the law by an individual. Sentencing disparities do not apply here. :)

dot, Monday, January 27th

I'm not talking about what is already in the law books, I'm talking about, do you personally think it's the right thing to do? Why should one man be punished less simply because the person he pickpocketed failed to put a wallet in their pocket for him to take?

Brooke, Tuesday, January 28th

They both *attempted* the same crime- there should be punishment for attempting the crime, although there could be an argument for whether then laws should be enacted to make laws for crimes 'attempted' rather than actually committed. I, personally, don't think it is right to punish someone without viable evidence, and if the person has no evidence to convict the person who attempted the crime (and this has to be some strong evidence to even make it stand in court) then they shouldn't go punished. I mean, then there's the idea that people that attempt murder can and are tried in court- so I think the underlying question is (because indefinately, the one person that did steal the wallet is going to be convicted, and there is reasonable evidence to convict him) whether a person who *attempts* to commit a crime should be convicted. In that case, I think ppl who commit some minor misdemeanors don't need to be convicted because there are other crimes that are worse and more tragic such as murder that deserve more attention in court rather than minor misdemeanors.

You made me think. Damn.

Shannon, Tuesday, January 28th

BTW, whatever happened to the pic of us from the 80's party? I never got to see it!

4@osu.edu">Shannon, Tuesday, January 28th

To clarify further on the "law of attempts." The basic premise is: any attempted violation of a statute brings the actor into the same criminal justice system (LE, Courts, Corrections) than if the actor had succeeded. The punitive sanctions are obviously less harsh when the actor is caught in (the act) an attempt, than when the actor is caught ex post facto.

From what I remember when I took Criminal Law a few years ago, there are several elements that must be satisfied: intent, overt act in preparation for succeeding in the criminal act, and failure of succeeding in the criminal act.

Shannon, defendents who are convicted absent direct evidence, may still be convicted via the weaker, circumstantial, or secondary evidence. A party can not bring suit against another, and expect to win unless they satisfy a certain standard of proof: civil cases require a preponderance of evidence, and criminal cases require 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Any judgement in favor or against a party that comes from a case where the burden of proof has not been satisfied by either party, can be immediately appealed to the next higher court.

(Negating the law, and adopting an analytical response)

The analytical response provides for "there are no valid, nor invalid answers." Logic would thusly dictate that there are as many valid answers, as there are invalid answers to the aforementioned question to determine what sanctions should be taken against two seperate acts of cleptomania.

I love law. :D

dot, Wednesday, January 29th