3 ms·
but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
by whimsicalism 3y ago
but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
- giantg2 3y ago"but penalties stack :)" Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT? "not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass" True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
- singleshot_ 3y agoRelevant search terms: “lesser included offense” or “multiplicity” or “double jeopardy.”
- giantg2 3y agoNot sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
- singleshot_ 3y agoHow are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
- giantg2 3y agoSo why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
- singleshot_ 3y agoNow we will see why my previous comment was relevant. A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy. This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law. Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.
- giantg2 3y agoI didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758 You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas
- singleshot_ 3y agoTalking to Computer Guy about legal principles yields unsurprising results. Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.
- giantg2 3y agoThe principle is well understood. You could have pointed out how that principle applied - that the lesser included offense of criminal trespass existed under 2d. Researching principles does nothing if there is a missing fact. Or are you referring to yourself as "Computer Guy"? If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.