> it starts with an unnecessary felony conviction from a poor decision, which initiated a chain reaction that ultimately destroyed people rather than helped the

> it starts with an unnecessary felony conviction from a poor decision, which initiated a chain reaction that ultimately destroyed people rather than helped them. The crux of the author's argument seems to be that the punishment outweighs the crime. But I am still hard-pressed to see how the alternative of not pursuing criminal charges is any better. > Many of those kids who participated are probably suffering from anxiety right now, knowing any day the police will show up to their door and arrest them, let alone the aggressive media coverage they’re getting. For many of those youths, that terrible anxiety or a simple arrest is enough to never do it again. Yet the Bay Area’s DAs are all announcing felony charges for those involved. Would they be 'suffering' the anxiety if the consequences were less severe? How do we know they would never do it again? In fact, aren't they just as likely to be pulled into a life of crime if the punishment is too lenient as too severe?