Guilty!

hungrymike posted...

Its a good thing new York spent their precious little resources prosecuting a guy who wrote down a payment to a lawyer as a legal expense instead of going after serial shop lifters and perpetrators of violent crime.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/06059e57.jpg

hungrymike posted...

Its a good thing new York spent their precious little resources prosecuting a guy who wrote down a payment to a lawyer as a legal expense instead of going after serial shop lifters and perpetrators of violent crime.

What is the name of this logical fallacy? The whole "You can only do one thing at a time" as if the resources which would address shoplifting is even remotely the same as this? Like do you think street cops were taken off the streets for this? Investigators for violent crimes are getting pulled to investigate paper crimes? Like how can anyone say stuff like this without realizing how profoundly ignorant it is?

BlackScythe0 posted...

What is the name of this logical fallacy? The whole "You can only do one thing at a time" as if the resources which would address shoplifting is even remotely the same as this? Like do you think street cops were taken off the streets for this? Investigators for violent crimes are getting pulled to investigate paper crimes? Like how can anyone say stuff like this without realizing how profoundly ignorant it is?

I think it reads as more of a critique on the priorities of new York prosocuters. Charging someone for classifiying a payment to a lawyer as a legal expense seems silly while refusing to prosecute shoplifters when stores are closing due to shoplifting and having to lock up toothpaste, all while downgrading over half of felonies to misdemeanors.

hungrymike posted...

Tell that to Bragg, who has down graded over half of felonies to misdemeanors and refuses to prosecute shoplifters.

He said that commercial robberies that involved the use of guns or even convincing-looking fake guns would be charged as felonies, as would some robberies committed with other weapons.

wow

He said that gun possession would be taken seriously and that those walking the streets with guns would be prosecuted. The default in gun cases is a felony prosecution, he said.

oh no

He reiterated that violence against police officers would not be tolerated and that anyone who harmed an officer, or tried to, would be prosecuted

gross

In 2021, under his predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., 47% of felonies were downgraded to misdemeanors. In 2020, when the city was strained by COVID-19 quarantines and related judicial delays, that figure was 35%. It was 39% in 2019 and 40% in 2018.

looks like he hasn't done anything differently than any other d.a does.

before Bragg took over, the rates of downgrading felonies to misdemeanors were higher in other New York City boroughs. Similar state data compiled by the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice shows that in 2021, the most recent year with available data, three other boroughs had higher rates: 56% in the Bronx, 57% in Brooklyn and 59% in Queens.

lmfao

darkknight109 posted...

Like, this is the guy responsible for actually deciding if Jesus is a criminal or not saying, in not so many words, "Guys, he didn't do anything, what's your problem?" Part of the reason why Jesus getting crucified was painted as a travesty was because he was dragged in front of what passed for a court in ye olde Rome, was found to be innocent of wrongdoing, but they decided "f*** it", and executed him anyways.

Which, y'know, is kind of the polar opposite of what happened to Trump.

Of course, certain people probably see that as being more or less exactly what happened to Trump: He didn't really do anything wrong, but because the masses were calling for his head the courts decided to punish him despite his innocence. That is, of course, demonstrably nonsense, but that's never particularly stopped these people.

hungrymike posted...

Tell that to Bragg, who has down graded over half of felonies to misdemeanors and refuses to prosecute shoplifters.

How much do you think it costs to prosecute somebody (bearing in mind that, at a minimum, you're looking at two lawyers and a judge that each make a couple hundred an hour)? How much do you think any individual shoplifter actually costs society?

Collectively, shoplifting is certainly a problem, but it's a problem spread out across thousands of small-scale criminals, each of which is far more expensive to prosecute than to leave alone. If resources are limited, disregarding any but the most egregious examples of shoplifting is precisely what any given court system should be doing, allowing those limited resources to instead be focused on higher-value cases (like fraud that results in a $350 million fine or a presidential candidate using campaign funds to bribe people to not say bad things about them).

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/903fd638.jpg

ConfusedTorchic posted...

wow

oh no

gross

looks like he hasn't done anything differently than any other d.a does.

lmfao

"Under Bragg, the percentage of felonies downgraded has increased to 60 - up from 53% percent under his predecessor."

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d1e72223.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7bd18666.png

yeah so you're very clearly and obviously wrong then, especially since i used actual quotes

you should stop getting your news from a gossip tabloid

adjl posted...

How much do you think it costs to prosecute somebody (bearing in mind that, at a minimum, you're looking at two lawyers and a judge that each make a couple hundred an hour)? How much do you think any individual shoplifter actually costs society?

Collectively, shoplifting is certainly a problem, but it's a problem spread out across thousands of small-scale criminals, each of which is far more expensive to prosecute than to leave alone. If resources are limited, disregarding any but the most egregious examples of shoplifting is precisely what any given court system should be doing, allowing those limited resources to instead be focused on higher-value cases (like fraud that results in a $350 million fine or a presidential candidate using campaign funds to bribe people to not say bad things about them).

I appreciate your well thought out and measured response.

While charging shoplifters may come with a large expense, not doing so only encourages first time and reapet offenders. Not prosecuting smaller crimes leads to the commission of more serious crimes. While the cost of each individual shoplifter may not be much, collectively it leads to higher prices, lost tax revenue, store closures and businesses shutting down, and lost time and a more inconvienient shopping experience. Its analogous to death by 1000 paper cuts.

hungrymike posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/97fbca44.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b49728d8.jpg

Blightzkrieg posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b49728d8.jpg

Lol

hungrymike posted...

Not prosecuting smaller crimes leads to the commission of more serious crimes.

This sounds like the sort of claim that's empirically verifiable enough that people feel comfortable saying it, but they feel so comfortable that they never bother to actually substantiate it. It's very similar to "weed is a gateway drug" in that regard. With that in mind, are you able to substantiate the claim that failing to adequately prosecute shoplifting increases the risk of shoplifters graduating to more serious crimes on an appreciable scale? Or are you just regurgitating the claim as a matter of feel-good dogma?

hungrymike posted...

While the cost of each individual shoplifter may not be much, collectively it leads to higher prices, lost tax revenue, store closures and businesses shutting down, and lost time and a more inconvienient shopping experience.

And what would the cost to taxpayers be if every shoplifter were prosecuted? How much would prices increase to cover that? How many stores would close because they couldn't afford the higher taxes? For that matter, what happens when more people end up with criminal convictions and can't find work (or are forced to settle for lower-paying jobs) as a result, reducing the tax revenue they can provide and placing more strain on taxpayer-funded support systems?

I'm not suggesting shoplifters should never be prosecuted, but it's a balancing act. You can't bring the full might of the judicial system to bear on every minor crime. Even putting aside the question of morality, it's just not practical. As you pointed out, resources are limited, and that means making decisions about what to overlook so more important things can be prioritized.

It's about time, but he will still get away with it.

the first step in any successful appeal is one hell of a guilty verdict.

hungrymike posted...

I think it reads as more of a critique on the priorities of new York prosocuters. Charging someone for classifiying a payment to a lawyer as a legal expense seems silly while refusing to prosecute shoplifters when stores are closing due to shoplifting and having to lock up toothpaste, all while downgrading over half of felonies to misdemeanors.

BlackScythe0 posted...

What is the name of this logical fallacy? The whole "You can only do one thing at a time" as if the resources which would address shoplifting is even remotely the same as this? Like do you think street cops were taken off the streets for this? Investigators for violent crimes are getting pulled to investigate paper crimes? Like how can anyone say stuff like this without realizing how profoundly ignorant it is?

My dog actually said "stop wasting time going after corrupt politicians committing felonies and go after shoplifters" with a straight face

There's some concentrated kool-aid out there.

hungrymike posted...

I think it reads as more of a critique on the priorities of new York prosocuters. Charging someone for classifiying a payment to a lawyer as a legal expense seems silly while refusing to prosecute shoplifters when stores are closing due to shoplifting and having to lock up toothpaste, all while downgrading over half of felonies to misdemeanors.

You'll recall that they got Capone on tax evasion charges.

it is kinda surprising this topic hasn't vanished yet ngl

Notice how the "tough on crime" folks are actually "tough on poor people crime, not rich people".

Zareth posted...

My dog actually said "stop wasting time going after corrupt politicians committing felonies and go after shoplifters" with a straight face

Maybe just apply the law equally. Why was Trump charged with felonies for doing the same thing clinton was slapped with a fine for?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps

Where's the poll?

Failing to disclose spending is not the same thing as falsifying business records but keep on coping!

adjl posted...

For that matter, what happens when more people end up with criminal convictions and can't find work (or are forced to settle for lower-paying jobs) as a result

A slippery slope in answering this, but you would have some people (at the top) say that is the point. It is more a lasting punishment/prosecution.

As with everything though, the choice would be to just put the product back on the shelf and leave, and this is coming from somebody who used to work in a dollar store (and was expected to watch everybody as well as try to stock a @%# shelf).

that means making decisions about what to overlook so more important things can be prioritized.

In the case of shoplifters though, the 'overlooked' ones can be the ones that don't get blatantly caught (or the ones who don't open canisters up and then leave the stuff open on the shelf).

hungrymike posted...

Maybe just apply the law equally. Why was Trump charged with felonies for doing the same thing clinton was slapped with a fine for?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps

The Clinton campaign and the DNC never conceded that they violated campaign finance laws, but they agreed to drop their pushback and accept the civil fines, according to the FEC letter.

that's why.

but also, that situation and Trump's situation are two completely different situations.

trump falsified business records to hide hush money payments made to women during the 2016 election. these payments aimed to prevent damaging stories from surfacing and thus, influence the election outcome. this includes using shell companies and disguising transactions to conceal the true nature of the payments which is considered election interference by deceiving voters.

an internal only document like the steele dossier is not remotely the same.

captpackrat posted...

Notice how the "tough on crime" folks are actually "tough on poor people crime, not rich people".

"Tough on crime" is a dogwhistle for "put those minorities in prison where they belong."

Roachmeat posted...

A slippery slope in answering this, but you would have some people (at the top) say that is the point. It is more a lasting punishment/prosecution.

If you punish somebody for failing to be a productive member of society by preventing them from becoming a productive member of society, you've given up all pretense of trying to solve the problem and are just looking for meaningless catharsis. That's stupid and should never be the basis of a justice system.

You'll also notice that the half of the sentence you cropped out framed that outcome in terms of impact on society, not as an undue punishment for the criminal. Preventing somebody from becoming a productive member of society hurts society. It means they don't contribute taxes, have to rely more on social services (a tax drain), and are more likely to end up committing further crimes (with both direct costs to society and further tax drains responding to those crimes). Even without considering the morality of how a criminal is punished, considering the simple practical reality of the situation tells you that focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration is a better idea than focusing on punishment for punishment's sake.

Roachmeat posted...

In the case of shoplifters though, the 'overlooked' ones can be the ones that don't get blatantly caught (or the ones who don't open canisters up and then leave the stuff open on the shelf).

The ones that get blatantly caught are indeed marginally cheaper to prosecute than those that don't, but the bulk of the cost is still on the prosecution end, not in simply catching them. Unless they've stolen several hundred dollars worth of stuff, even sending a couple of emails between the lawyers handling the case costs more than would be lost by leaving them alone. This isn't a matter of "it's too expensive to prosecute every shoplifter," it's "the majority of shoplifters aren't enough of a problem to justify the expense of prosecuting any of them."

Again, collectively, shoplifting is a significant problem. In the example Mike gave of locking up toothpaste, that's generally a response to stores having hundreds or thousands of dollars of toothpaste stolen frequently enough to justify the cost, inconvenience, and lost business from locking them up, and that's really hard for businesses to deal with. But that's not one or two people stealing $1000 worth of toothpaste. That's 1-200 people each stealing 1-2 $5 tubes, and to prosecute any of them requires a minimum of a few hundred dollars in legal costs each (which you can try to recover from them, but odds are if they need to steal toothpaste, you're not getting that money any time soon). Whether that means you're spending $5000 to prosecute the ten you caught easily or catching all of them and spending $50-100,000, you're still spending far, far more than was lost (and, in turn, than can be mitigated by those efforts).

Higher-value theft? Sure, prosecute that. Serial cases? Go for it. But when it comes to smaller-scale petty theft, there are generally more cost-effective interventions than prosecution, like reimbursing businesses for their losses to keep insurance premiums down, community building efforts that help teenagers have more interesting things to do than steal random crap, and making sure support services have enough toothpaste to give out that nobody needs to steal it (noting that if toothpaste has become a high-theft item, that's almost entirely due to the cost of living crisis, not any sort of epidemic of people thinking it's fun to steal toothpaste).

exactly. he could have just settled it up out of court, but he refused, claiming he was above the law.

no one is above the law.

Quite a few people are above the law, but they're all a lot richer than Trump and a lot better at keeping a low enough profile to get away with it. Trump likes to think he's that rich, but he really isn't, and he can't keep his mouth shut to save his life.

There was a juror that Trump's attorney was absolutely banking on. They said they got thier news from Truth Social.

Seems like their bubble popped when they saw the real Donald Trump.

Sarcasthma posted...

Hey @MagicalPrincess , doesn't supporting an adulterous, Bible-selling felon go against your Christian faith?

C'mon now, I know you're there.

GameLord113 posted...

My favorite so far is someone saying Jesus was found guilty too

I've seen this in my fees a couple times now lol

Crazy that he's somehow managed to cultivate this fanatical christian cult despite being pretty obviously not christian. It seems like he rarely even tries that hard to appear christian. Just occasionally makes a generic reference to the bible but I guess that's all it takes for these people

Marcster1994 posted...

There was a juror that Trump's attorney was absolutely banking on. They said they got thier news from Truth Social.

Seems like their bubble popped when they saw the real Donald Trump.

I would have thought such a juror would have been screened out for being obviously biased, but I guess not. I guess it also wasn't really a problem if it didn't affect the outcome.

Trumps Lawyer: "It's my first day!"

...lulz

Hes now claiming that he never said Lock her up! This fucking guy.

well he has dementia, so he probably really doesn't remember doing that

He "Doesn't Recall(tm)"

I like how he tries to frame it as a smaller crime as "writing down a payment to a lawyer as a legal expense" and then goes on bitching about not prosecuting smaller crimes

Pretty sure that was him trying to frame it as not being a crime at all. I've seen quite a few people take that approach, insisting that Trump did nothing wrong because all he did was call a payment he made his lawyer a legal expense. Such people seem unfamiliar with both the concept and the limitations of plausible deniability.

"He hasn't committed any crimes!" - People who have no legal experience whatsoever except for that one Judge Judy episode they watched in the waiting room at their eye doctor

I never really played Guilty Gear much.

Icoyar in shambles

lmao round 2!

I'm not in some sad cult so I can appreciate our justice system regardless of who the defendant is

Well Im certainly never voting for Hunter Biden!

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/cc1fc88c.jpg

something tells me you think that people are upset about hunters trial verdict

no one is lmao

ConfusedTorchic posted...

something tells me you think that people are upset about hunters trial verdict

no one is lmao

ConfusedTorchic posted...

something tells me you think that people are upset about hunters trial verdict

no one is lmao

I wouldn't be surprised if somebody on Twitter was.