5 ms·

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:

by 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
  With all those extremely serious crimes, how many people got hurt? And remember, if he'd taken the original deal he would have been out in two years.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    > With all those extremely serious crimes, how many people got hurt? Several families at least had their livelihoods directly undermined. I can't speak to plea bargaining, it seems to be a largely American feature. (IANAL, TINLA)
  - kahawe 15y ago
    That would mean: Just because you did not succeed in murdering someone, you are allowed to go free?
    - tsotha 15y ago
      He didn't try to murder anyone. He made some threats, and he tried to get his neighbor in trouble with the law. I'm not saying he should go free. But I am saying 18 years is incredibly harsh in light of the crime.
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  He did not threaten to kill. I disagree with your definition of extremely serious. To me, this seems like harassment, worthy of a slap on the wrist. If he does it again, take away his computer privileges or something. But prison time? You have to be kidding me.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    > He did not threaten to kill. He was the author of an email threatening to kill the vice-president -- he is responsible for 'uttering' the words. In many jurisdictions that is the complete crime (strict liability). Furthermore he aimed to pervert the course of justice by framing someone else. Both these crimes are considered serious pretty much everywhere. Judges tend to look unflatteringly on perversion in particular. (IANAL, TINLA).
  - talaketu 15y ago
    From the article: > The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.” “I swear to God I’m going to kill you!,” part of the message to Biden said. Not sure why you think he didn't threaten to kill. Seems he was found guilty.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    To me, this seems like harassment, worthy of a slap on the wrist. Had his plan succeeded, the victim would be in prison for the rest of his life on the combination of kiddie porn and threatening the vice president. That's way beyond "harassment".
- tsotha 15y ago
  >The sentence is up to the judge, within the limits set by the legislature. That's not necessarily true, or rather the legislature often sets minimum sentences. If you're brought up on enough charges you can end up in jail for life with no discretion on the part of the judge.

by tsotha 15y ago

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
With all those extremely serious crimes, how many people got hurt? And remember, if he'd taken the original deal he would have been out in two years.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  > With all those extremely serious crimes, how many people got hurt? Several families at least had their livelihoods directly undermined. I can't speak to plea bargaining, it seems to be a largely American feature. (IANAL, TINLA)
- kahawe 15y ago
  That would mean: Just because you did not succeed in murdering someone, you are allowed to go free?
  - tsotha 15y ago
    He didn't try to murder anyone. He made some threats, and he tried to get his neighbor in trouble with the law. I'm not saying he should go free. But I am saying 18 years is incredibly harsh in light of the crime.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
He did not threaten to kill. I disagree with your definition of extremely serious. To me, this seems like harassment, worthy of a slap on the wrist. If he does it again, take away his computer privileges or something. But prison time? You have to be kidding me.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  > He did not threaten to kill. He was the author of an email threatening to kill the vice-president -- he is responsible for 'uttering' the words. In many jurisdictions that is the complete crime (strict liability). Furthermore he aimed to pervert the course of justice by framing someone else. Both these crimes are considered serious pretty much everywhere. Judges tend to look unflatteringly on perversion in particular. (IANAL, TINLA).
- talaketu 15y ago
  From the article: > The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.” “I swear to God I’m going to kill you!,” part of the message to Biden said. Not sure why you think he didn't threaten to kill. Seems he was found guilty.
- orangecat 15y ago
  To me, this seems like harassment, worthy of a slap on the wrist. Had his plan succeeded, the victim would be in prison for the rest of his life on the combination of kiddie porn and threatening the vice president. That's way beyond "harassment".
tsotha 15y ago
>The sentence is up to the judge, within the limits set by the legislature. That's not necessarily true, or rather the legislature often sets minimum sentences. If you're brought up on enough charges you can end up in jail for life with no discretion on the part of the judge.