Quantcast

Public Opinion Supports Jailing Seven-Cent Robber [INFOGRAPHIC]

SodaHead Infographics 2011/09/03 00:00:00
Earlier this week we asked SodaHeads if they thought a New York juvenile should get two-to-six for using a BB gun to rob seven cents from a 73-year-old man, and the votes poured in.

If you missed the original story, we'll get you up to speed:

[Anthony] Stewart had the chance to plead guilty and be sentenced as a youthful offender. He refused, and Judge Walsh threw down a two-to-six-year sentence in a juvenile facility -- and a lifelong felony conviction.

Prosecutors maintain that Stewart and Ninham attacked the man and stole all the money he had on him: seven cents. The teens had BB guns that looked like hand guns.

Stewart isn't old enough for prison, so he'll serve his years in a juvenile facility.


The results are in, and it looks like the majority sided with Judge Walsh.

Now that everyone on SodaHead has access to demographic breakdowns, today we thought we'd branch out and tap into some external sources as well for a fuller perspective.

Let's dive.

access demographic breakdowns branch tap external sources fuller perspective dive
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • sglmom 2011/09/03 05:59:48
    sglmom
    +14
    Here's a thought ....

    The kid deliberately targeted an ELDER .. doesn't matter what was taken .. he used a weapon on the elder ..

    DO The CRIME .. do the TIME ..

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/09/17 03:33:04
    jimrthy BN-0
    These facts were not pulled out of my butt, though they did come off the top of my head, because they're the ones that bother me the most at the moment.

    Source Prisoners per capita

    Prisoners per 100,000 people
    US: 715
    Russia (closest behind us): 584
    Mexico: 169
    Brazil: 169
    China: 119

    Absolute numbers:
    US: 2,019,234
    China (closest behind us): 1,549,000
    Brazil: 308,304
    Mexico: 172,888

    I can't remember the source, but it seemed fairly legit when I ran across it. 1 out of 11 American males can expect to spend time behind bars. 1 in 4 African-American males can expect the same.

    One of the relevant wikipedia entries.

    The UK has been a surveillance society since 2006. They're probably much worse than the US. Yet again, wikipedia is your friend. Even if isn't something to base a masters' thesis on, it's a good place to start.

    The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled we have no right to privacy in public is irrelevant. The courts have been packed by statists since Washington took office. The 9th and 10th Amendments are very clear, even if almost everyone ignores them. We legally have every right we have not explicitly given away. Reality works differently than the legal system: we actually have every right we're willing to defend.

    The Supreme Court justice was Scalia.
    Texas sodomy
    "http://www.rawstory.c...















    These facts were not pulled out of my butt, though they did come off the top of my head, because they're the ones that bother me the most at the moment.

    Source Prisoners per capita

    Prisoners per 100,000 people
    US: 715
    Russia (closest behind us): 584
    Mexico: 169
    Brazil: 169
    China: 119

    Absolute numbers:
    US: 2,019,234
    China (closest behind us): 1,549,000
    Brazil: 308,304
    Mexico: 172,888

    I can't remember the source, but it seemed fairly legit when I ran across it. 1 out of 11 American males can expect to spend time behind bars. 1 in 4 African-American males can expect the same.

    One of the relevant wikipedia entries.

    The UK has been a surveillance society since 2006. They're probably much worse than the US. Yet again, wikipedia is your friend. Even if isn't something to base a masters' thesis on, it's a good place to start.

    The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled we have no right to privacy in public is irrelevant. The courts have been packed by statists since Washington took office. The 9th and 10th Amendments are very clear, even if almost everyone ignores them. We legally have every right we have not explicitly given away. Reality works differently than the legal system: we actually have every right we're willing to defend.

    The Supreme Court justice was Scalia.
    Texas sodomy
    "http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2... vs. Wade

    The torture thing wasn't an actual decision. Just an opinion by (big surprise) Scalia again.
    Smack face

    Not related. And from a liberal news source. But...OMFG!

    Interrogation is not punishment is what I was thinking about.


    Anwar al-Awlaki got a death sentence from Obama without a trial. He probably deserves it.

    "Probably" does not cut it. Not in a free country. GWB got the "I can declare anyone I want an enemy combatant" doctrine accepted. Obama took it several steps further.

    Do I *really* need to keep going here?

    Take your head out of the sand and look around.
    (more)
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/09/18 00:21:11
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/09/21 11:50:47
    jimrthy BN-0
    +1
    I don't have time to discuss this in any depth.

    If you don't think you've lost any rights, gather a bunch of your friends to protest a political rally somewhere that hasn't been sanctioned. Heck, go try to have a prayer group on the Supreme Court steps.

    Sling a rifle on your back and go mosey around downtown.

    Remove your car's license plate(s), cut up your driver's license, and cancel your insurance. See how long you can drive around without it (the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that these requirements are not Constitutional).

    I'm out of time, but those examples are just off the top of my head.
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/09/21 20:13:03
    TheTailor
    Those examples don't ring true, I was at a rally in Austin within the month and had a weapon with me, openly. Driving is a privilege, not a right, if you don't like the fees associated, ride a horse.
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/10/18 18:29:46
    jimrthy BN-0
    Sorry this took me so long to get back to. I *did* warn you I was out of time.

    Driving *is* a right. The Supreme Court has declared it so several times. The states absolutely do not have any authority to interfere with our travel in any way, shape, or form. The fact that they do so anyway is just an example of the tyranny.

    Riding a horse around town brings its own issues. I don't think you'd get in trouble for it in most places, but...there have to be good reasons we pretty much never see it.

    Was that rally properly licensed and sanctioned? If so, you weren't exercising your rights. You were enjoying a privilege. And I was not talking about openly carrying at a "rally".

    Last Christmas, one of the guys with whom I work was hanging out at a restaurant downtown. I bunch of cops also happened to be there. A guy walked by carrying an ax. The cops disarmed and arrested him. They came back in joking that they're really surprised he survived.
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/10/18 19:13:33
    TheTailor
    What USSC decision declares driving a 'right'? The reason people don't ride horses is that they are slow, but you are free to do it without license. The 2nd amendment protects our right to bear arms, and of course all tea party rally's are in proper legal standing.
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/10/19 04:26:14
    jimrthy BN-0
    You're being horribly lazy here.

    Right to drive

    Personally, I don't ride a horse in town because I'd have to drive out to get one in the first place, it would *really* suck to commute to work on one (think about all those cars whizzing past you at 60 mph), and there aren't any hitching posts these days.

    I'm going with the benefit of a doubt and assuming there aren't any BS legal regulations involved. Want to make a bet about that?

    The 2nd amendment protects the RKBA as much as its fans are willing to exercise it.

    If you're ignoring your 1st Amendment Rights, I'm guessing you ignoring all the others as well. Most Americans do.
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/10/19 04:35:23
    TheTailor
    Typically you distorted even your own link by writing "Right to Drive" when the link you cite doesn't say that nor do any of the 4 cases cited on that link, it says clearly "Right to TRAVEL" not 'drive'. Nice try.
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/10/19 21:14:06
    jimrthy BN-0
    We seem to have a very different opinion about what the word "right" means. Especially when we're talking about "inalienable."

    Then again, you're putting a great deal of effort into avoiding what I'm saying by splitting hairs.

    CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    If I'm alone, how am I supposed to travel in an automobile that I'm not driving? What if none of the other potential drivers have bothered to ask the government for a permission slip?

    Privileges are subject to restrictions. Rights are not.

    I think you're living in the wrong state. Pretty much every other Texan I've ever met has at least a passing acquaintance of what the word "freedom" means.
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/10/19 21:34:10
    TheTailor
    CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to *** travel *** ..."
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/10/18 19:37:01
    jimrthy BN-0
    Finally got time for an actual answer.

    I don't know how reliable this source is. But it seems pretty balanced. World Prison Populations

    Wikipedia isn't a be-all end-all source. Certainly nothing I'd trust for any sort of meaningful scholarship. But it's a good finger-in-the-wind source. There's an army of highly educated editors ready and able to fix any vandalism on the more visible pages. It's generally conceded to be a lot more reliable than, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. All things considered, I'm not sure how "politically charged" the numbers are. Pretty much every source I can find is pretty close. And they all have the US at the top.

    The only real debate seems to be what those numbers mean. As that article points out: China and North Korea may be worse. But that's scarcely a ringing endorsement of our freedom.

    The UK has embraced their surveillance society, as one glaring . I suppose you'll also dismiss the BBC and the British government as imaginary sources. But, really, it's blindingly obvious just from talking to Brits on here. They've embraced socialism, hate capitalism, and cheerfully believe the government is the solution to every problem.

    The evidence behind the Supreme Court comment is the decisions they've made. How often do they throw out a law as unconstituti...









    >
    >



























    Finally got time for an actual answer.

    I don't know how reliable this source is. But it seems pretty balanced. World Prison Populations

    Wikipedia isn't a be-all end-all source. Certainly nothing I'd trust for any sort of meaningful scholarship. But it's a good finger-in-the-wind source. There's an army of highly educated editors ready and able to fix any vandalism on the more visible pages. It's generally conceded to be a lot more reliable than, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. All things considered, I'm not sure how "politically charged" the numbers are. Pretty much every source I can find is pretty close. And they all have the US at the top.

    The only real debate seems to be what those numbers mean. As that article points out: China and North Korea may be worse. But that's scarcely a ringing endorsement of our freedom.

    The UK has embraced their surveillance society, as one glaring . I suppose you'll also dismiss the BBC and the British government as imaginary sources. But, really, it's blindingly obvious just from talking to Brits on here. They've embraced socialism, hate capitalism, and cheerfully believe the government is the solution to every problem.

    The evidence behind the Supreme Court comment is the decisions they've made. How often do they throw out a law as unconstitutional? How often have they decided "Well, the constitution says 'shall not', but obviously this is reasonable"?

    The Constitutional Convention debated authorizing a central bank. They specifically decided against it. Since it isn't in the list of Congress' enumerated powers, Congress does not have that authority. Congress decided to authorize one anyway and let the court decide. Despite well-documented clear evidence of the original intent, the Supreme Court decided it was OK anyway, since so many other countries have one.

    If the Constitution doesn't mean what it says and what the authors intended, then it does not mean anything at all. How many times have the Justices talked about it as a "living document" that evolves with the times?

    Yes, it is supposed to be. That's what the Amendment process is for. There's a reason it's supposed to be so difficult.

    So, yeah. I stand by what I said: stacked with statists from the very beginning.

    > We haven't given any rights away because they are
    > inalienable, they can't be given away, they simply exist.

    It may not be possible to give them away, but it's absolutely possible to give them up. The only rights that we actually have are the ones we're willing to exercise and defend.

    Every time anyone pays a fee, applies for a license, or fills out a permit form they are requesting a privilege. They are not exercising a right, so they might as well not have it.

    On Scalia: You're trying to dodge the point by making fun of Buzzflash's conclusions. The point was his words.

    As for the torture bit, I know youtube isn't exactly a reliable source either, but his own words. I don't have audio here, but that doesn't seem doctored.

    You may or may not be right that the don't apply to Iraq. But we certainly seemed to expect them to. Let me guess. Yet another source you will dismiss as meaningless.

    The official position was that it didn't apply to non-Iraqis in Iraq.

    Obama was the responsible individual for Anwar's name being on that death list. Whether he put it there, some intelligence operative, or whatever. He may have been an enemy combatant. He may even have been the evil mastermind they're trying to pretend.

    We'll never know. He'll never get a trial. All we have is their words as evidence. Obama pointed at an American citizen, openly declared him to death, and sentence was carried out. This is worse than being able to declare anyone a combatant and throwing them into prison indefinitely without a trial.

    Go read some history. Pay attention to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Red China and Pol Pot. Look at the patterns.

    You're the one with your head in the sand. You seem to have a few news sources you trust. They tell you the news you want to hear, that helps you draw the conclusion that we still live in a free country.

    I'm offering some alternative ideas that you apparently haven't run across before, and all you can come up with in response are insults and rants about sources.

    All news sources are biased. They cannot help it. They can't print the full story, even if they know it--the full story is always far too complicated and messy. They can't keep their own prejudices out of the slant. Ultimately, they're really providing entertainment for their viewers to boost ratings. One important way to do that is tell your viewers what they want to hear. Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias.

    If you want to get a clue about what's "really" going on, you have to consult a variety of sources. Weigh their accuracy as appropriate, sure. Consider their inevitable bias. Even then you're only getting glimpses of the smoke and mirrors.

    I haven't run across anyone arguing with the basic facts. You might very well disagree with my conclusions. That's fine. But willfully ignoring any or all of this because you don't like my conclusions and refuse to actually consider the possibility...that's just stupid.
    (more)
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/10/18 19:40:05
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/10/19 04:32:42
    jimrthy BN-0
    Like I said: you are being lazy. Driving is a right I mentioned the top google reference to the USSC decisions above.

    Anyone who doesn't want to look like an idiot can spend about half a second looking it up for ourselves.
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/10/19 14:49:35
    TheTailor
    That's moronic, I pointed out to you that NONE of those decisions said 'driving' was a right. TRAVEL is a right, and that's what the FOUR cases in your link showed. You are typically dishonest as it's a tenet of the leftist platform to be so, "Right to drive" isn't even mentioned.

    As this banter has degraded well past the subject at hand and your complete dishonesty is tiresome, I'm not going to respond further to this thread. However, rest assured I'll be looking for more of your falsehoods and I'll be here to debunk them so that others can learn of your mendacious nature, and that of the leftist lunatics you fully represent.
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/10/19 21:16:37
    jimrthy BN-0
    You didn't debunk anything, you government-worshiping idiot.
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/10/19 21:36:03
    TheTailor
    More drivel / insult.

    CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to *** travel *** ..."
  • jimrthy... TheTailor 2011/10/20 03:42:52
    jimrthy BN-0
    Not very good at the "I'm not responding to this thread again" thing are you?

    At this point, you've reached troll status. Go stroke your government idol some more and beg for permission for life. Or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

    Just quit sending your jack-booted thugs to try to steal mine.
  • TheTailor jimrthy... 2011/10/20 04:00:33
    TheTailor
    Boor.
  • pjwinkl... jimrthy... 2011/10/18 19:43:29
    pjwinkler65
    +1
    Part of reason our population is so high is that county and state official make ridiculous rules to make money. You wouldn't believe how many people go to prison on a technicality and how many of them get sent right back home because there isn't room
  • jimrthy... pjwinkl... 2011/10/19 21:18:01
    jimrthy BN-0
    +1
    Oh, absolutely. And prosecutors have to win elections by showing they're "tough on crime."
  • pjwinkl... TheTailor 2011/10/18 19:40:05
    pjwinkler65
    No, it is definitely broken
  • pjwinkl... jimrthy... 2011/10/18 19:39:28
    pjwinkler65
    Absolutely. Well communicated.
  • jimrthy... pjwinkl... 2011/10/19 04:33:48
    jimrthy BN-0
    +1
    Thanks...today's been rough.

    That's a bright spot, and I appreciate it more than you can imagine. :-)
  • pjwinkl... jimrthy... 2011/10/18 19:37:37
    pjwinkler65
    it is likely. The guys you know just enjoy their freedom but prison evidently was not such a bad place that it deterred them from committing more crimes which means that for some, it is a better place than home. The prisons are full of crack whores who get busted on purpose for the winter. Not hear say...I did six months (Not for being a crack whore. lol) Those girls came and went more than once while I was there and it was common knowledge that some of them were there to stay out of the winter streets to keep from freezing or starving.
    Your friends weren't homeless.
  • jimrthy... pjwinkl... 2011/10/19 12:50:00
    jimrthy BN-0
    You could be totally correct about the crack whores looking for a warm place to stay. The ones I've known were just addicted to risk, which included flaunting their lifestyles in front of cops.

    Thanks to the way SH is designed, I can't figure out what you were actually responding to. It sounds like it was something about repeat offenders. I've never served any real time. All my experience there is second- or third-hand.

    But I do know homeless when I run across it. I learned about that the hard way.
  • hunter 44 Anonymo... 2011/09/06 00:47:20
    hunter 44
    +1
    ", at juvenile detention they get put in a place with lots of druggies and rapists and thugs and have to co-exist with them. "


    Sounds more like public school.
  • Anonymo... hunter 44 2011/09/06 01:29:02
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    +1
    I don't know what state school you went to, but my upper school is rather nice. BTW, public school has a completely different meaning to me.
  • jimrthy... Anonymo... 2011/09/06 17:00:35
    jimrthy BN-0
    It really depends on where you fall on the social spectrum.

    http://www.paulgraham.com/ner... describes it pretty well.
  • Anonymo... jimrthy... 2011/09/06 17:05:46
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    I've seen this before. unluckily I'm closer to the bottom than the top, but that's because of the fact I don't like socialising with the shallow sporty types at the top, the fact I'm not sort and that I'm an intellectual. Being gay doesn't help either... But I have a nice school and I don't get bullied.
  • jimrthy... Anonymo... 2011/09/07 18:29:29
    jimrthy BN-0
    Awesome for you!

    Keep your chin up. It really does get better. Every once in a while, I run into people who were the shallow sporty popular types. They look back on high school and get wistful, because it was the best years of their lives. I feel sad for them.
  • Anonymo... jimrthy... 2011/09/07 19:04:32
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    Unfortunately, half of the shallow sporty types are also as clever, a few more so, than I am. They're going to have an awesome life at school and get a good job. I do believe that everyone is equal in their own way, someone who appears to be good at everything will have divorced parents, or are poor, or insecure or will have something bad happen to them in the future as a result of being happy and complacent at school, but for some of them, I don't see that happening. That's what annoys me.
  • jimrthy... Anonymo... 2011/09/11 20:29:54
    jimrthy BN-0
    That seems like the wrong way to look at it to me.

    You have a world of opportunities in front of you.

    What other people do with theirs does not matter. Your life. Your decisions. Your choices.

    Make of them what you will.
  • Anonymo... jimrthy... 2011/09/11 22:53:46
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    I know, it is the wrong way to look at it, but I can't help it, I'm a pessimist.
  • jimrthy... Anonymo... 2011/09/12 20:03:54
    jimrthy BN-0
    Of course you can help it.

    Pretty much the only things we have any control over in our lives are the way we view the world and how we react to all those other things that we don't have any control over.

    We can try to make plans, but things almost never work out the way we expect.
  • Anonymo... jimrthy... 2011/09/12 20:31:36
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    I can't help my outlook on the world, I naturally look on the dark side of life.
  • jimrthy... Anonymo... 2011/09/17 03:39:00
    jimrthy BN-0
    Actually, you can. That is completely and totally your choice.

    I won't judge you for it, though I'll continue to urge you to look for the silver linings.

    But it's your life to live.

    You have to choose how to choose to live it.

    FWIW, I'm "naturally" inclined to "look on the dark side of life" myself. I've decided to play there on occasion, but I spend most of my time enjoying rainbows and songbirds.

    It's a decision we each have to make for ourselves.
  • hunter 44 Anonymo... 2011/09/13 21:33:16
    hunter 44
    I've been to many schools in several States.
  • Anonymo... hunter 44 2011/09/13 21:53:06
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    I haven't been to any.
  • jimrthy... hunter 44 2011/09/06 16:51:50
    jimrthy BN-0
    +1
    It's pretty similar.

    The biggest difference is that they're at juvie 24/7.
  • pjwinkl... TheTailor 2011/10/18 19:30:59
    pjwinkler65
    Exactly and why does everyone act like a first offense is so acceptable? Offenders already know its wrong they just don't know they are going to get caught. If they were judged based on moral decisions alone a first time offense would be no less at least not in the instance of serious crimes against others.
    You can say that you didn't know the speed limit was whatever...you can never say that you didn't know you weren't supposed to intimidate an old man into giving you what belongs to him.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/30 13:52:02

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals