3 ms·
> No. Society was a threat to this non-violent minor. You can't go around breaking into other people's computers and causing them massive headaches. He had inv
by throwawaygh 5y ago
> No. Society was a threat to this non-violent minor.
You can't go around breaking into other people's computers and causing them massive headaches. He had investigators flying all over the world and utility providers planning around the possibility of a state-sanctioned attack on the country's emergency response system.
Many countries are horrendously punitive in general, and of course also over-criminalize and over-incarcerate computer-related mischief. Totally granted. But I just can't get my head around why folks think that's the case here.
A bit of community service as punishment/recompense for breaking into ISPs and university computer systems seems... downright reasonable?
> (By the way, the incomplete capacity to comprehend the negative consequences of actions isn't "nihilism" -- it is "innocence").
I think the word you're looking for is "ignorance". I'm disinclined to accept that being ignorant is a form of innocence. Ignorance doesn't lessen the load of one's criminal mischief on the rest of society.
- perihelions 5y ago>"But a bit of community service as" The OP said 240 days in prison. (Easy to misread, as it was a "suspended" sentence... that ended up being served anyway).
- throwawaygh 5y agoHe was given the option to do community service and chose prison instead. He should've chosen the community service, and his choice of prison over community service should've triggered some sort of mental health review. But in any case the option was "contribute to society or go to jail" and he chose jail. I doubt that was the intention or expectation of the judge.
- Nullabillity 5y agoWould you pick "contributing to society" (where, mind you, the value of that contribution is often questionable anyway) right when getting what you believe to be an unreasonable sentence? I'm pretty sure my only thought in that kind of moment would've been "No, fuck you".
- throwawaygh 5y ago> where, mind you, the value of that contribution is often questionable anyway Examples given in another post included: graffiti cleaning, litter picking, cleaning other outdoor areas (e.g. derelict land), assisting in a care home or home for disabled people. Which of those is remotely controversial? Even graffiti removal isn't controversial per se, even if prosecutions and lack of venues for legal graffiti are controversial. > Would you pick [things from the above list] right when getting what you believe to be an unreasonable sentence? Absolutely, in a heart beat. I spent $700 of my own money and five weekends on graffiti removal along last year (in a local state owned forest with a heavily tagged cliff face... this wasn't art on the side of a drab building, it was ugly unimaginative tags on trees and rocks). I also volunteer at park litter cleanups very regularly and volunteer with several different organizations that focus on improving the quality of life for disabled folks. I do those things by choice, because I care about my community and its people. > I'm pretty sure my only thought in that kind of moment would've been "No, fuck you". It's pretty sad that you'd rather sit in a cell than improve your community, but whatever. BTW, most of those activities can be as social or isolated as you want... scrubbing graffiti can be done in an entirely solitary fashion, and if you're using a sand blaster talking to others isn't even an option! Anti-social community service kid with a bug up his butt doesn't want to talk to anyone? No worries at all; here's the sandblaster, go at it -- I hate wearing the PPE on a hot summer day anyways :)