4 ms·

I'm not a legal expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik the US system essentially treats individual charges as individual crimes when it comes to se

by inoop 15y ago

I'm not a legal expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik the US system essentially treats individual charges as individual crimes when it comes to sentencing. Note that a lot of other legal systems don't have such clear cut 'stacking' of sentences, because there is considerable overlap between the charges they correspond to. Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article?

anseljh 15y ago
Nope, there are often sentence enhancements when there are multiple crimes involved or if the defendant has prior convictions. Very common.
smallblacksun 15y ago
>Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article? Posting child porn and death threats? Yeah, that's worth 18 years.
- inoop 15y ago
  You're oversimplifying. 'Posting child porn' for example turns out to be 'posting a single picture of a pubescent girl having sex with two young boys'. Note that we have not seen the picture, so the girls' age can be anywhere between 10-17 (age range according to Wikipedia article on puberty). Note also that this picture was selected for shock value, and no other child pornography was reported found on the guys' computer. The death threat was to a prominent politician who probably gets such emails on an hourly basis by cooks from all around the country. So basically what you're saying is that eighteen years is appropriate punishment for being a 4chan troll?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    In other words, "posting child porn" for example turns out to be "posting child porn". Full disclosure: I stopped reading here and downvoted you. I've also immediately revised my (previously more measured) take on all your previous comments.
    - Confusion 15y ago
      Grumpy today, are we? I would've thought someone like you would be able to go beyond "omfg, kiddie pr0n", but apparently possessing a single image that is legally child pornography (we'll probably never know what the actual contents were, so we can see if we agree with that legal judgment), that he may very well have downloaded from an a place like 4chan, where it was publicly available, is enough to morally justify sentencing someone for possession of child pornography? I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. Irregardless of whether you agree with the above argument, completely 'revising your opinion of me' for a single argument in a single case where you are conversing via a rather incomplete/miscommunication prone medium like this, seems rather like overreacting.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        No, I'm not going to get past someone intentionally keeping and trafficking in child pornography. If anything, I'm perturbed that I've given you the impression that I'd be sanguine about it. When I read someone suggesting that the state has sentenced someone abusively, then later find a comment where that same person says posting actual images of child pornography isn't a big deal --- or, as I found even further downthread, that physically molesting a child is something that warrants a stern conversation rather than police intervention --- I'm inclined to believe that person has very little to say about sentencing that I am going to find reasonable. You are free to your own opinion about this case, and about 'inoop's comments.
      - lotharbot 15y ago
        > I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. You think wrong. There are two crucial differences between the average porn owner and the vindictive neighbor. The relevant laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 2252A, and others[0], repeatedly use the word "knowingly". The vindictive neighbor did in fact knowingly possess and distribute a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual activity. A person who has a large stash of porn that happens to include a pic of a 17 year old that they don't know about is legally safe. In particular, the law allows a person in possession of fewer than 3 pieces of material to make an "affirmative defense"[1] if, upon discovering it, they either take reasonable steps to destroy the material or immediately report its existence to law enforcement. So the average owner of a stash of porn, upon discovering kiddie pics in his stash, can avoid all liability and culpability merely by destroying it or turning it over to the cops. The vindictive neighbor did neither. I would argue both of these legal points are also moral points -- knowing you possess child pornography, and knowingly keeping it, is a whole different offense than accidentally possessing it and then destroying it or turning it over to the cops when you realize the situation. EDIT: as to the broader point as to whether the sentence is justified, you can read the government's entire argument[2]. It describes the photo in detail on page 8; the individuals depicted are prepubescent, not "almost legal". It also describes the rest of the case; note that the sentence is not merely a child porn sentence, but includes identity theft, threats to the VP, violation of his initial release conditions, lying under oath, coaching witnesses, etc. The government explains the length of sentence starting on page 27. [0] http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476 http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?L... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense [2] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolffedssentencingmemo.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...
tsotha 15y ago
I agree with you. 18 years is ridiculous for what the guy actually did. I think part of the reason is they wanted to send a message. Not the one you'd think: "Don't terrorize your neighbors" or "Don't threaten politicians". The message is "You'd better take the plea bargain. Or else." Prosecutors don't have time to take every case to trial, so they threaten everybody with 100 little charges that add up to 150 years in jail. Then they offer you a deal, where you plead guilt to some subset and spend enough years in jail to satisfy the government. It's grossly unfair. Nobody knows how many innocent people are wasting away in prison because they didn't want to risk spending the rest of their lives there.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  Threat to kill and perversion of justice are extremely serious crimes. So too is being a menace to society. And so too is maliciously causing distress. The sentence is up to the judge, within the limits set by the legislature. The prosecution can push for a plea bargain by quoting scary totals, but the judge decides whether the worst case comes about. Of course, IANAL/TINLA etc.
  - Terretta 15y ago
    > Threat to kill and perversion of justice are extremely serious crimes. So too is being a menace to society. And so too is maliciously causing distress. Killer band and album names there.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    Surely threats to kill should attract less punishment than actual killing, though.
    - jacques_chester 15y ago
      In general they do; the exact terms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. (IANAL, TINLA).
  - tsotha 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jacques_chester 15y ago
Many jurisdictions have a great many crimes which are very similar, differing only in small details. These are written into law because nobody likes someone getting 'off on a technicality'. For example, suppose I kill somebody. What will I be charged with? Depending on the case, I might be up for murder, manslaughter or in some places "dangerous act leading to death". Each of these crimes has a different complexion and different punishments; the effect is that if I maliciously or carelessly hurt someone I could easily be hooked on one of them. Quite often the prosecution might charge me with all of them at once, then drop charges as the case unfolds. However, for those crimes which make it to the "finish line", judges may be in a position to consider them separately or jointly. It varies wildly depending on jurisdiction. Supposing this was a jurisdiction where crimes must be sentenced in isolation, a high total is not impossible. My gut feeling is that the judge has selected the higher end of potential jail terms because of the pattern of malice this individual has repeatedly displayed. One function of imprisonment is to remove the ability to cause more harm to society. (IANAL, TINLA)
- inoop 15y ago
  Thanks for the clarification!
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    In a previous life I was a law student. If you're in a "code" jurisdiction, criminal law is about as straightforward as it gets. Pretty much the opposite end from torts.

by inoop 15y ago

anseljh 15y ago

Nope, there are often sentence enhancements when there are multiple crimes involved or if the defendant has prior convictions. Very common.

smallblacksun 15y ago

>Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article? Posting child porn and death threats? Yeah, that's worth 18 years.

inoop 15y ago
You're oversimplifying. 'Posting child porn' for example turns out to be 'posting a single picture of a pubescent girl having sex with two young boys'. Note that we have not seen the picture, so the girls' age can be anywhere between 10-17 (age range according to Wikipedia article on puberty). Note also that this picture was selected for shock value, and no other child pornography was reported found on the guys' computer. The death threat was to a prominent politician who probably gets such emails on an hourly basis by cooks from all around the country. So basically what you're saying is that eighteen years is appropriate punishment for being a 4chan troll?
- tptacek 15y ago
  In other words, "posting child porn" for example turns out to be "posting child porn". Full disclosure: I stopped reading here and downvoted you. I've also immediately revised my (previously more measured) take on all your previous comments.
  - Confusion 15y ago
    Grumpy today, are we? I would've thought someone like you would be able to go beyond "omfg, kiddie pr0n", but apparently possessing a single image that is legally child pornography (we'll probably never know what the actual contents were, so we can see if we agree with that legal judgment), that he may very well have downloaded from an a place like 4chan, where it was publicly available, is enough to morally justify sentencing someone for possession of child pornography? I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. Irregardless of whether you agree with the above argument, completely 'revising your opinion of me' for a single argument in a single case where you are conversing via a rather incomplete/miscommunication prone medium like this, seems rather like overreacting.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      No, I'm not going to get past someone intentionally keeping and trafficking in child pornography. If anything, I'm perturbed that I've given you the impression that I'd be sanguine about it. When I read someone suggesting that the state has sentenced someone abusively, then later find a comment where that same person says posting actual images of child pornography isn't a big deal --- or, as I found even further downthread, that physically molesting a child is something that warrants a stern conversation rather than police intervention --- I'm inclined to believe that person has very little to say about sentencing that I am going to find reasonable. You are free to your own opinion about this case, and about 'inoop's comments.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      > I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then. You think wrong. There are two crucial differences between the average porn owner and the vindictive neighbor. The relevant laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 2252A, and others[0], repeatedly use the word "knowingly". The vindictive neighbor did in fact knowingly possess and distribute a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual activity. A person who has a large stash of porn that happens to include a pic of a 17 year old that they don't know about is legally safe. In particular, the law allows a person in possession of fewer than 3 pieces of material to make an "affirmative defense"[1] if, upon discovering it, they either take reasonable steps to destroy the material or immediately report its existence to law enforcement. So the average owner of a stash of porn, upon discovering kiddie pics in his stash, can avoid all liability and culpability merely by destroying it or turning it over to the cops. The vindictive neighbor did neither. I would argue both of these legal points are also moral points -- knowing you possess child pornography, and knowingly keeping it, is a whole different offense than accidentally possessing it and then destroying it or turning it over to the cops when you realize the situation. EDIT: as to the broader point as to whether the sentence is justified, you can read the government's entire argument[2]. It describes the photo in detail on page 8; the individuals depicted are prepubescent, not "almost legal". It also describes the rest of the case; note that the sentence is not merely a child porn sentence, but includes identity theft, threats to the VP, violation of his initial release conditions, lying under oath, coaching witnesses, etc. The government explains the length of sentence starting on page 27. [0] http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476 http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?L... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense [2] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolffedssentencingmemo.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...

tsotha 15y ago

I agree with you. 18 years is ridiculous for what the guy actually did. I think part of the reason is they wanted to send a message. Not the one you'd think: "Don't terrorize your neighbors" or "Don't threaten politicians". The message is "You'd better take the plea bargain. Or else." Prosecutors don't have time to take every case to trial, so they threaten everybody with 100 little charges that add up to 150 years in jail. Then they offer you a deal, where you plead guilt to some subset and spend enough years in jail to satisfy the government. It's grossly unfair. Nobody knows how many innocent people are wasting away in prison because they didn't want to risk spending the rest of their lives there.

jacques_chester 15y ago
Threat to kill and perversion of justice are extremely serious crimes. So too is being a menace to society. And so too is maliciously causing distress. The sentence is up to the judge, within the limits set by the legislature. The prosecution can push for a plea bargain by quoting scary totals, but the judge decides whether the worst case comes about. Of course, IANAL/TINLA etc.
- Terretta 15y ago
  > Threat to kill and perversion of justice are extremely serious crimes. So too is being a menace to society. And so too is maliciously causing distress. Killer band and album names there.
- barrkel 15y ago
  Surely threats to kill should attract less punishment than actual killing, though.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    In general they do; the exact terms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. (IANAL, TINLA).
- tsotha 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jacques_chester 15y ago

Many jurisdictions have a great many crimes which are very similar, differing only in small details. These are written into law because nobody likes someone getting 'off on a technicality'. For example, suppose I kill somebody. What will I be charged with? Depending on the case, I might be up for murder, manslaughter or in some places "dangerous act leading to death". Each of these crimes has a different complexion and different punishments; the effect is that if I maliciously or carelessly hurt someone I could easily be hooked on one of them. Quite often the prosecution might charge me with all of them at once, then drop charges as the case unfolds. However, for those crimes which make it to the "finish line", judges may be in a position to consider them separately or jointly. It varies wildly depending on jurisdiction. Supposing this was a jurisdiction where crimes must be sentenced in isolation, a high total is not impossible. My gut feeling is that the judge has selected the higher end of potential jail terms because of the pattern of malice this individual has repeatedly displayed. One function of imprisonment is to remove the ability to cause more harm to society. (IANAL, TINLA)

inoop 15y ago
Thanks for the clarification!
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  In a previous life I was a law student. If you're in a "code" jurisdiction, criminal law is about as straightforward as it gets. Pretty much the opposite end from torts.