Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Half of 28 isn't 5. And it's "very common" to serve a half sentence anyway? I see loads of hearsay and generalizations being spewed out today. I didn't say 5, I said he could be out as early as his mid 70's. That's about 15 years. Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Half of 28 isn't 5. And it's "very common" to serve a half sentence anyway? I see loads of hearsay and generalizations being spewed out today. I didn't say 5, I said he could be out as early as his mid 70's. That's about 15 years. Nope. Quote: Prisoners serving sentences of more than a year but less than life can earn up to 54 days per year off their sentences for good behavior. (18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).) When you math it out, the bare minimum is close to 24 years.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Did you miss our follow-up discussion earlier? Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Half of 28 isn't 5. And it's "very common" to serve a half sentence anyway? I see loads of hearsay and generalizations being spewed out today. I didn't say 5, I said he could be out as early as his mid 70's. That's about 15 years. Nope. Quote: Prisoners serving sentences of more than a year but less than life can earn up to 54 days per year off their sentences for good behavior. (18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).) When you math it out, the bare minimum is close to 24 years. It's 15% per sentenced year. Federal crimes have lower sentences in the "truth in sentencing" model and sentences run concurrently. If a person is convicted of a crime that nets 10 years and a crime that nets 20, they serve 20, not 30. And they are able to earn good behavior credit on both sentences. They're already getting a lower sentence than state or district courts give, they serve them concurrently, and they compound good behavior. Jassik said: » It's 15% per sentenced year. Federal crimes have lower sentences in the "truth in sentencing" model and sentences run concurrently. If a person is convicted of a crime that nets 10 years and a crime that nets 20, they serve 20, not 30. And they are able to earn good behavior credit on both sentences. They're already getting a lower sentence than state or district courts give, they serve them concurrently, and they compound good behavior. You need to cite the bolded. Compounding good behavior on multiple concurrent sentences would mean that committing multiple crimes as opposed to one would be advantageous, as it could lead to getting you out earlier. That makes no sense. Edit: Also, concurrent (as opposed to consecutive) sentences aren't guaranteed. It's up to the judge.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » It's up to the judge. And we again come circle to the sentencing problem. Mandatory sentencing has its own problems, but the broad range of options and discretion judges have in sentencing at many levels is disturbing.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » It's up to the judge. And we again come circle to the sentencing problem. Mandatory sentencing has its own problems, but the broad range of options and discretion judges have in sentencing at many levels is disturbing. Agreed. But I'm still waiting to hear how the guy in question has any means whatsoever to get less than 24 years at this point (barring an appeal).
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » It's 15% per sentenced year. Federal crimes have lower sentences in the "truth in sentencing" model and sentences run concurrently. If a person is convicted of a crime that nets 10 years and a crime that nets 20, they serve 20, not 30. And they are able to earn good behavior credit on both sentences. They're already getting a lower sentence than state or district courts give, they serve them concurrently, and they compound good behavior. You need to cite the bolded. Compounding good behavior on multiple concurrent sentences would mean that committing multiple crimes as opposed to one would be advantageous, as it could lead to getting you out earlier. That makes no sense. Edit: Also, concurrent (as opposed to consecutive) sentences aren't guaranteed. It's up to the judge. Correct, concurrent sentences are granted, not entitled. Apparently, good behavior credit is only applied to concurrent sentences if they don't start at the same time. In any case, if the guy serves even 24 years it's still incredibly weak if you consider that 9 cases of voluntary manslaughter would net him an absolute minimum of 27 years (maximum of well over 100) in federal court all by themselves, leave out the 700+ counts of criminal negligence for the people that didn't die and any crimes associated with transporting biohazardous material across state lines, etc. The guy got off incredibly light. That's almost like saying someone who got 5 life sentences for killing 10 people got off light. I'm putting money on the fact that he dies in prison, which would render the whole thing moot. If not, you can make fun of me in 24-28 years for being wrong.
[+]
It's more like saying someone who has been proven to have directly caused the death of 9 people and significant injury to hundreds more getting a sentence well below the absolute minimum for the combined crimes is getting off light. Even if he dies in prison, he's getting off light and more than likely his sentence will be the cause of even more leniency in federal courts.
Pretty sure I'm the one who said 5 years + good behavior.
That was not a specifically-researched comment, however. Point being that one way or the other it seems like there's wiggle room there. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Quote: "Crappy posts are against the rules...etc. I see.... A sweeping indictment of every post I ever made... /points at fonewear how tall are you foney? I'll have the undertaker get cracking on a pair of pine boxes for us....
[+]
If those people can't afford the newly jacked price of this drug then maybe they should work harder, gain new job skills and stop begging for lifesaving handouts. When I was 12 I was already running my own hot dog truck, balancing school while preparing for my unborn puppy and I didn't need my parents or the government to come to my aid.
Leeches. All of 'em. All I see is a CEO once again having to answer for being successful. Because he had an idea that turned out to be a huge boon for his shareholders. You're all just upset you work shitty dead end jobs and can't think past your pre-programmed responses. As for the peanut butter guys? Bravo. Nothing goes to waste from the plant and keeping customers paying millions trumps a few people who didn't contribute much to society anyway. Boo hoo, bacterial infections? Perhaps your body should work harder.
[+]
Shiva.Nikolce said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Quote: "Crappy posts are against the rules...etc. I see.... A sweeping indictment of every post I ever made... /points at fonewear how tall are you foney? I'll have the undertaker get cracking on a pair of pine boxes for us.... Tall enough to ride on the big people roller coaster rides !
[+]
How dare someone not sell their product to me at the price I think is fair!
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » How dare someone not sell their product to me at the price I think is fair! The drug should pay for the cost to research it, not to pay to research new drugs. But that's me. It's moot, the multiplier and volume of money is irrelevant to his attitudes, it the near Gaul that the market sets the rules instead of his idea of "fairness".
This drug has gone generic meaning the grace period to profit expired quite a while ago. So why are we talking about R&D recoup again?
This CEO has bought up the supply chain and jacked the price to corner a temporary monopoly on his product, a product that has a limited consumer base. Similar schemes have been pulled elsewhere. Any competitor would take years to get online and wouldn't want to pay the upfront costs on a drug with such a small market and complex manufacturing scheme. By the time they were viable, our CEO would have already made a min and could squish the competition via efficiency. Gaming the system for that phat loot baby. This CEO is just an open psychopath rather than the veiled ones. I like him.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » So why are we talking about R&D recoup again? The additional money is going to be used for current research of the same medicine. Let me guess someone is mad cause big pharma kidnapped their sister ?
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » You asked why we are talking about R&D. I gave you an answer that was reported. Regardless of it being true or not is up to the company that manufactures the drug. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » This drug has gone generic meaning the grace period to profit expired quite a while ago. So why are we talking about R&D recoup again? This CEO has bought up the supply chain and jacked the price to corner a temporary monopoly on his product, a product that has a limited consumer base. Similar schemes have been pulled elsewhere. Any competitor would take years to get online and wouldn't want to pay the upfront costs on a drug with such a small market and complex manufacturing scheme. By the time they were viable, our CEO would have already made a min and could squish the competition via efficiency. Gaming the system for that phat loot baby. This CEO is just an open psychopath rather than the veiled ones. I like him. Don't look now but you just made an argument for "de-regulation". Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » This drug has gone generic meaning the grace period to profit expired quite a while ago. So why are we talking about R&D recoup again? This CEO has bought up the supply chain and jacked the price to corner a temporary monopoly on his product, a product that has a limited consumer base. Similar schemes have been pulled elsewhere. Any competitor would take years to get online and wouldn't want to pay the upfront costs on a drug with such a small market and complex manufacturing scheme. By the time they were viable, our CEO would have already made a min and could squish the competition via efficiency. Gaming the system for that phat loot baby. This CEO is just an open psychopath rather than the veiled ones. I like him. Don't look now but you just made an argument for "de-regulation". Edit: found a good use of the [ rainbow ] tag! Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Don't look now but you just made an argument for "de-regulation". He was satirizing the existing argument for deregulation. You really want to completely deregulate an industry that has high upfront costs and meticulous methods by which drugs need to be proven 'safe'? Cause I'm sure you'll love when drugs with 'unforunate' side effects pour into the market to make quick profits with little to no accountability.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » You asked why we are talking about R&D. I gave you an answer that was reported. Regardless of it being true or not is up to the company that manufactures the drug. The spokesmans answer is ***. This is not an R&D recoup scenario, it's one of monopolizing a limited supply and raising the price to astronomical levels to make profit. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » You asked why we are talking about R&D. I gave you an answer that was reported. Regardless of it being true or not is up to the company that manufactures the drug. The spokesmans answer is ***. This is not an R&D recoup scenario, it's one of monopolizing a limited supply and raising the price to astronomical levels to make profit. I don't agree with the method, but seriously, what can we honestly going to do about it? Other than to buy generic, which is what is going to happen 99.9% of the time. I'm just reporting what was told. Don't jump down my throat because you didn't like the answer that was given... Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » You really want to completely deregulate an industry that has high upfront costs and meticulous methods by which drugs need to be proven 'safe'? Cause I'm sure you'll love when drugs with 'unforunate' side effects pour into the market to make quick profits with little to no accountability. It's already happening minus the accountability, there is still some of that. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
