• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you arm rob a bank hold hostage should

you have to go to jail?

Yes or No
Assuming you're asking the following:

'If you rob a bank armed, and hold hostage(s), should you go to jail?'

Then, the answer is 'Yes.'
 
Well Libs if a man with a family breaks the law and robs a bank. Would enforcing the law putting him in jail be ripping a family apart? We cant do that can we?
Robbing a bank is a vastly greater crime, morally and to a lesser extent legally, than crossing an arbitrary line on a map without permission.

You have to think of it in terms of harm - how much harm does the crime cause? If it causes minimal harm, the punishment should be equally minimal.

For example, possessing/using weed/pot for personal use causes no harm, so the punishment should be nothing whatsoever.
OR for example, sexually molesting a 5 y/o will harm that child for the remainder of their life, so the punishment should be life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Robbing a bank potentially harms the bank, depending on their insurance, so the punishment would be whatever has been arbitrarily decided is necessary for taking some money from a bank (1-10 years? I have no idea).
If done armed, there is the potential that you would have hurt/killed a person, which should increase the punishment.
If you hold a person or persons hostage, that implies the intent and usually actual threat to kill them, so that would further increase the punishment.


Crossing a line on a map harms no one directly, and possible indirect harm is loosely defined, politically charged, and hard to pin down.
 
You have to think of it in terms of harm - how much harm does the crime cause? If it causes minimal harm, the punishment should be equally minimal.

.

How much harm does a 7th DUI cause with no wreck involved ?

Criminal Penalties

Illegal entry (or "improper entry") to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences (deportation and bars from future entry).

For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)

(1) People removed for a conviction of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.

(2) People removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony shall be fined, imprisoned for up to 20 years, or both.

Is it a Crime to Enter The U.S. Illegally? - AllLaw.com


People that commit a first offence crossing the boarder are breaking a law that calls for jail time and if they have a felony 10 years

Just like Bank robbing calls for jail time!


If u dont want to enforce the law on this law breaker why enforce it on the 7th DUI or the bank robber
 
Last edited:
How much harm does a 7th DUI cause with no wreck involved ?

Criminal Penalties

Illegal entry (or "improper entry") to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences (deportation and bars from future entry).

For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)

(1) People removed for a conviction of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.

(2) People removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony shall be fined, imprisoned for up to 20 years, or both.

Is it a Crime to Enter The U.S. Illegally? - AllLaw.com


People that commit a first offence crossing the boarder are breaking a law that calls for jail time and if they have a felony 10 years

Just like Bank robbing calls for jail time!


If u dont want to enforce the law on this law breaker why enforce it on the 7th DUI or the bank robber
I am aware that current law considers immigration without following the legal route a crime, and sets out a punishment for it.
I tend to disagree with the law in some areas - I think that legal entry should be streamlined, among other things.
And I think that it is foolish both economically and morally to forcibly remove contributing members of society simply because they entered the country illegally.


Regarding your mention of DUI laws, that is an interesting point.

In general I think the reason for DUI laws is that while a person DUI may not cause harm every time they drive under the influence, the mental/physical state caused by whatever they are under the influence of makes them a danger to themselves and anyone nearby. DUI laws, in short, are intended to strongly discourage such behavior, because it is a threat.

On a related note, it would be silly to charge someone with DUI if they are under the influence of something that does not negatively impact their ability to drive - although I have no doubt that in some cases people have been charged with DUI under those circumstances.
 
Back
Top Bottom