California Man Faces Life in Prison for Stealing Pack of Donuts

reply to post by Nohup


Yes because lack of pack of donuts has killed a great many people..........
From what I understood he thought they were paid for.

The end of the video is interesting. It says they downgraded a prior felony to a misdemeanor. So this is actually his fourth strike. I am tired of people whining about these criminals being treated unfairly. How many warning, breaks and slaps on the wrists do they need?

Were donuts worth the 3rd strike? I guess to Robert Fassbender the donuts were important enough to risk it.

reply to post by tjsteeler


Maybe his last "felony" was j-walking.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tjsteeler

 

Maybe his last "felony" was j-walking.

The last felony was a theft that the D.A reduced to a misdermeaner (sp).. an now he got caught again after the warning. So, I guess his parole officer got tired of the none-sense and off he goes.... he'll probably due 18 months and get released!

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I thought they had to be felonies. Does anyone here have anymore information on that ?

Look at it this way, if it was alright for him to freely walk down the street before he took the doughnut then why after taking the doughnut is life in prison O.K.?

If he had past offenses and already paid for them then the new offense and punishment should be considered on that new offense alone.

If the past offenses were so bad and he has not really paid for them already then why was he free at all?

The Logic of our system is starting to really not make any sense at all

[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

I find it so amazing that some people think it is a good idea to send someone to prison for life for a 50 cent theft. Regardless of their past offenses. Especially when we live in a country where CEOs and other corporate officers are stealing millions upon millions of dollars from the owners and shareholders of Corporations, dumping toxic crap on the innocent everywhere they get the chance, and getting off with little slaps on the wrist. Or, and THIS is a horrible punishment, being made to pay PART of their stolen loot back.

Dont you think there is something very convenient about the fact that "white collar crimes" that ruin the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals are treated differently than shoplifting? Someone mentioned "people who cant be morally trained" or some such. I would suggest he IS morally trained. He is simply following our leaders. Perhaps instead of throwing him in jail we should put him in charge of a corporation, where his skills would be praised instead of criticized.

Well gee I wonder what do you really need to steal before you can be sent to prison? Steal a child?

Think stealing donuts is just like some minor problem that we can all just ignore because its hurting nobody?

What else is he going to do now? Steal peoples' wallets? Somebody's bike? etc.

Perhaps I should steal a car and expect people to sympathize with me because my excuse is that it was a really nice Mercedes and I wanted one.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Well gee I wonder what do you really need to steal before you can be sent to prison? Steal a child?

Think stealing donuts is just like some minor problem that we can all just ignore because its hurting nobody?

What else is he going to do now? Steal peoples' wallets? Somebody's bike? etc.

Perhaps I should steal a car and expect people to sympathize with me because my excuse is that it was a really nice Mercedes and I wanted one.

The question is not whether stealing is wrong or not, but whether the punishment matches the crime or not.

Is he really just being punished for past offenses? Why is he free if his time for those offenses have not been paid? And if they have been paid, then why life in prison for stealing a doughnut?



[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

You know, I think it's stupid to spend life in prison over donuts.. but really is that what this is about?

When you steal you don't always get caught. Trust me, I know. I was only caught once, and that was enough for me to stop forever, and its done plenty of damage even 10 years later.

The thing is, he got nailed once in the 70's. That was unlikely his first time, just the first time he got caught. He got nailed in 99. That was unlikely his 2nd time, just the 2nd time he got caught. He got caught again recently. That was unlikely his 3rd time, just the 3rd time he got caught. He gets caught a 4th time, albeit over a pack of donuts and a possible misunderstanding. But do you honestly believe that that was his 4th time ever committing a crime?

Another poster mentions what does it take for him to go to prison? Do we wait until he gets CAUGHT doing a violent crime or bigger robbery? Why let it get that far if he's showing us the pattern?

Would 3 speeding tickets get you a similar ordeal at the courts in California? Or worse 3 drink driving offences (where there was no injury or accident?)?

I personally see people round here regularly who have way more than 3 offences - some on the less serious violent side, don't know anyone who has served more than a few moths - if this were California would some of them be lifers now?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Well gee I wonder what do you really need to steal before you can be sent to prison? Steal a child?

Think stealing donuts is just like some minor problem that we can all just ignore because its hurting nobody?

Completely beside the point. But nice try. I dont think anyone has a problem with him getting punished for stealing. I know I dont. But the punishment should fit the crime. And it doesnt. We live in a country where the criminals who are doing the most damage in terms of impact on people both here and abroad are basically walking away without even a prosecution in many cases.

Is the guy a habitual criminal? I dont think anyone is saying he isnt. Do we have better things to do with our courts and tax dollars than to put him in prison for life? I would say we absolutely do. Humanity has made it this far without life sentences for shoplifters, I think we can manage now without them. It does impact us when people steal, even little items, but incarceration for life should reserved for the truly dangerous criminals who are a serious threat to life and limb, and clearly he isnt that.

It may sound like I disagree with those who do not want the three strike laws, but actually I agree that we should do away with the three strikes rule altogether. This guy would not have had time for a second or third crime strike if he was put away for 10 to 20 years on his first felony conviction. And that should be how the system works. We need to stop giving multiple breaks to these criminals in the first place.



[edit on 7-3-2008 by zerotime]

reply to post by zerotime


I disagree.

We need to prosecute less for non-violent offenders. The amount of non-violent offenders currently clogging up our system is unreal. It makes no sense.

I'm sorry that your pack of donuts got stolen, but I'm not putting him in jail for even 1 year for it if I'm recommending the sentence.

If you hear, "Man steals donuts, possibly facing jailtime", and your first thought isn't, "What the hell?", something is wrong with you.

reply to post by zerotime


I have a novel idea - why don't we just make sure the punishment fits the crime. No strikes. When the time is done the time/punishment is served. The end. If they are convicted of breaking another law then they get the punishment that fits the crime. I don't like the idea of being punished twice for the same thing.

To hear some of you talk - at the first sign of any probability of a person even leaning toward stealing they should be locked up - I mean after all look at all the crime we could prevent if we just put that wannabe career criminal in jail for the rest of his life.


[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

reply to post by Sovereign797


So are we now in the process of "pre-emptive jailing". Is this what this country is coming to?

First we're bombing other countries because "they may be a threat" (but we don't have to prove it), now we're going to start jailing people because you think "they may become a violent offender since they are stealing"?

That's a slipperly slope my friend. The founding fathers of this country would be ashamed.

Originally posted by Sublime620

I'm sorry that your pack of donuts got stolen, but I'm not putting him in jail for even 1 year for it if I'm recommending the sentence.

If you hear, "Man steals donuts, possibly facing jailtime", and your first thought isn't, "What the hell?", something is wrong with you.

I don't care about the donuts. I care about the his first two felony convictions. That's what this is about really. It isn't about donuts. It is about a man who cannot stop committing crimes. He didn't just steal donuts. He committed two felonies and then stole some donuts. See the difference? This wasn't his first crime and if he was locked up for those first couple crimes like he should have been those donuts would never have been stolen.

Originally posted by zerotime

Originally posted by Sublime620

I'm sorry that your pack of donuts got stolen, but I'm not putting him in jail for even 1 year for it if I'm recommending the sentence.

If you hear, "Man steals donuts, possibly facing jailtime", and your first thought isn't, "What the hell?", something is wrong with you.

I don't care about the donuts. I care about the his first two felony convictions. That's what this is about really. It isn't about donuts. It is about a man who cannot stop committing crimes. He didn't just steal donuts. He committed two felonies and then stole some donuts. See the difference? This wasn't his first crime and if he was locked up for those first couple crimes like he should have been those donuts would never have been stolen.

Again, why is he being punished for crimes he already committed and served time for?

reply to post by 2 cents


Exactly, he served his time for his first two convictions. That is what the justice system is for! You punish the individual in manner that pays back society for the crime committed.

On that note, the other crimes are irrelevant.

Originally posted by 2 cents
Again, why is he being punished for crimes he already committed and served time for?

Because he wasn't punished. If you watch the video the DA says they gave him breaks because of the three strike rule and because his felony convictions were more than 10 years apart. In 1999 he was convicted of felony burglary. Even with this conviction there is no automatic sentence of life in prison. He is looking at 25 years to life for his third conviction.