4 ms·

Aaaand... watch the nerd indignation rise in this thread - 'omg they're putting him away for 10 years!'. Reporters use the maximum statutory sentences to repor

by roel_v 14y ago

Aaaand... watch the nerd indignation rise in this thread - 'omg they're putting him away for 10 years!'. Reporters use the maximum statutory sentences to report on yet-to-be-convicted people for maximum headline sensationalism. Very seldom will somebody, especially a first-time offender, actually be sentenced that. For example, in my jurisdiction the maximum statutory sentence for rape is 12 years; yet prison terms of a few years are common. The reasons the maximums are set so high is to allow leeway for the judge for especially egregious cases.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. Do you know why? Because the actual sentences these folks tend to end up with are often similar to folks convicted of homicide, rape, violent robbery, etc. One of the Steubenville rapists was sentenced to around 2-4 years, for example. And he is the same age as the accused here. The idea that the punishment for rape should be similar to the punishment for white collar crimes where no one was materially injured is preposterous. The system is broken in a very fundamental way and jabbering on about the subtleties of the difference between maximum and expected sentences is not contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way, in my opinion.
- dchichkov 14y ago
  I'm curious, how can you discourage kids from hacking into core infrastructure and accidentally breaking things? It is very natural for kids and teens to test their boundaries and try to get as much access and control over any system that they could get into. And from a kid perspective it doesn't feel like a particularly dangerous or wrong thing to do. Hacking into stuff feels just like an elaborate and very rewarding game. Game that requires specialized knowledge and skills, but a game nevertheless. I think we all remember the feeling. But in reality this is not a game. Damage that can be done by an accident involving a such a game/hack that goes awry can be catastrophic. That includes loss of life and likelihoods of a large number of people. Examples? Say, can a hack interfere in a subtle way with remote surgery? Or with hospital power supply? Or chemical plant? The answer is unfortunately, yes. Our systems a networks are not secure enough and not kid-proof. And probably will never be. So there must be some policy that discourage kids from hacking into stuff that matters. And yet it should be friendly, because it is preposterous to put people in jail for 'games' that are very unlikely to cause any harm most of the time.
  - markyc 14y ago
    how about we work on making that infrastructure kid-proof, instead of demolishing the kids?
    - dchichkov 14y ago
      Difficult. What system can really stand against a determined 17 year old with some ten years of experience, including a few years of hacking and network security? Hacking and network security is a relatively shallow and yet specialized skill. Relatively shallow, because it doesn't require years and years of studying, like, say theoretical physics or modern math. And specialized, because your regular developer is not necessarily stays current with all the latest security practices and exploits. Because of that properties a determined teen can outmatch skills of people maintaining and designing the system by orders of magnitude. And with that kind of mismatch in skills, what can really stand against that kid?
      - lucian1900 14y ago
        If our systems aren't able to stand casual, playful attack, they have absolutely no chance at surviving a real, concerted attack. And there's plenty of evidence that the latter happen all the time nowadays.
    - b0ttler0cket 14y ago
      Yeah. That. But let's make sure we understand the point of his example. The whole point of the law is to take trials on a case by case basis. More often than not there is no broadly sweeping rule that will dictate the outcome of the case. The phrase "a rule sweeps too broadly," is common in legal parlance. (I studied law for 4 years. I have some experience with this). The kids who cause more damage will get a heavier punishment. That is simply just. What is unjust is robbing them of a huge chunk of their lives. Justice is about contextualization. We have to ask questions like; is it reasonable that they should have known better? Did they intend to bring down a power plant? Did they mean to cause bodily harm? But 10 years for a 17 year old. Can't seem to wrap my head around that.
    - 14y ago
- belorn 14y ago
  Agree. Here we got a juvenile offending doing vandalism to a website. (The suggested claim). Normally, if a youth do a first time offense, and its a Misdemeanor (which vandalism is grouped as), the act is generally punished by a small monetary fine. Even trespassing, ie unlawful access, is a Misdemeanor. Society need to stop treating things "on the Internet" different from actions "not done on the Internet". vandalism and trespassing is no different if its done to a store, or a webshop. If the police house wall was spray painted, or their website defaced, why should the first one give a small fine and the other several years in prison? It makes no sense.
  - b0ttler0cket 14y ago
    Think about what you're writing. There's a huge difference. One is writing a few pieces of code. The other exists in the physical world. That means the person spray painting the police station ("house") effects a greater magnitude of real-world consequences. For example, a person who is willing to tag a police station is more likely to be involved in violent behavior involving lethal weapons than the prankster who changes a few lines of code. The one and the other are NOT the same. Saying they are is a really dangerous idea...think about why. How could you possibly treat the street hood and the 17 year old prankster in the same way... What theory of justice would that fall under?
    - belorn 14y ago
      So long both teenagers are first time offenders, then the justice system should treat them the same. Its true that the crowd surrounding a street hood tagger is likely to be much worse than the prankster, but we don't normally add harsher punishment depending on the people the accused hangs around (except in regard to conspiracy charges).
    - b0ttler0cket 14y ago
      "So long both teenagers are first time offenders, then the justice system should treat them the same." Once again, I can't agree. That is not the only consideration taken into account. Absolutely not. That doesn't even begin to skim the surface of what's taken into consideration in sentencing and during the trial. Here's a classic counter-example to this assertion. PersonA steals prescription medicine to sell so he can buy more drugs to deal. PersonB steals prescription medicine so he can sell them and pay for his wife's dialysis. That's the same crime, and let's say they're both first time offenders. Would they be treated the same? No. It's called mitigating factors. PersonB has more mitigating factors than PersonA, and is therefore not treated the same.
friendly_chap 14y ago
Hehe, nice to know that! However, I think even a couple of years can be disastrous: you become a convict, and you can get your first "unwanted" experience on the first night. If you know what I mean.
derleth 14y ago
How disenfranchised are convicts in Australia after their time has been served? Can they find a job? Can they live wherever they want? Can they find a good job? Can they vote? It isn't always about the time in prison; the time after prison can ruin you, too.
jeltz 14y ago
Young first time offenders for violent crimes rarely get more than a couple of years so I would say both maximum and typical sentences are in the same ballparks.

by roel_v 14y ago

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. Do you know why? Because the actual sentences these folks tend to end up with are often similar to folks convicted of homicide, rape, violent robbery, etc. One of the Steubenville rapists was sentenced to around 2-4 years, for example. And he is the same age as the accused here. The idea that the punishment for rape should be similar to the punishment for white collar crimes where no one was materially injured is preposterous. The system is broken in a very fundamental way and jabbering on about the subtleties of the difference between maximum and expected sentences is not contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way, in my opinion.

dchichkov 14y ago
I'm curious, how can you discourage kids from hacking into core infrastructure and accidentally breaking things? It is very natural for kids and teens to test their boundaries and try to get as much access and control over any system that they could get into. And from a kid perspective it doesn't feel like a particularly dangerous or wrong thing to do. Hacking into stuff feels just like an elaborate and very rewarding game. Game that requires specialized knowledge and skills, but a game nevertheless. I think we all remember the feeling. But in reality this is not a game. Damage that can be done by an accident involving a such a game/hack that goes awry can be catastrophic. That includes loss of life and likelihoods of a large number of people. Examples? Say, can a hack interfere in a subtle way with remote surgery? Or with hospital power supply? Or chemical plant? The answer is unfortunately, yes. Our systems a networks are not secure enough and not kid-proof. And probably will never be. So there must be some policy that discourage kids from hacking into stuff that matters. And yet it should be friendly, because it is preposterous to put people in jail for 'games' that are very unlikely to cause any harm most of the time.
- markyc 14y ago
  how about we work on making that infrastructure kid-proof, instead of demolishing the kids?
  - dchichkov 14y ago
    Difficult. What system can really stand against a determined 17 year old with some ten years of experience, including a few years of hacking and network security? Hacking and network security is a relatively shallow and yet specialized skill. Relatively shallow, because it doesn't require years and years of studying, like, say theoretical physics or modern math. And specialized, because your regular developer is not necessarily stays current with all the latest security practices and exploits. Because of that properties a determined teen can outmatch skills of people maintaining and designing the system by orders of magnitude. And with that kind of mismatch in skills, what can really stand against that kid?
    - lucian1900 14y ago
      If our systems aren't able to stand casual, playful attack, they have absolutely no chance at surviving a real, concerted attack. And there's plenty of evidence that the latter happen all the time nowadays.
  - b0ttler0cket 14y ago
    Yeah. That. But let's make sure we understand the point of his example. The whole point of the law is to take trials on a case by case basis. More often than not there is no broadly sweeping rule that will dictate the outcome of the case. The phrase "a rule sweeps too broadly," is common in legal parlance. (I studied law for 4 years. I have some experience with this). The kids who cause more damage will get a heavier punishment. That is simply just. What is unjust is robbing them of a huge chunk of their lives. Justice is about contextualization. We have to ask questions like; is it reasonable that they should have known better? Did they intend to bring down a power plant? Did they mean to cause bodily harm? But 10 years for a 17 year old. Can't seem to wrap my head around that.
  - 14y ago
belorn 14y ago
Agree. Here we got a juvenile offending doing vandalism to a website. (The suggested claim). Normally, if a youth do a first time offense, and its a Misdemeanor (which vandalism is grouped as), the act is generally punished by a small monetary fine. Even trespassing, ie unlawful access, is a Misdemeanor. Society need to stop treating things "on the Internet" different from actions "not done on the Internet". vandalism and trespassing is no different if its done to a store, or a webshop. If the police house wall was spray painted, or their website defaced, why should the first one give a small fine and the other several years in prison? It makes no sense.
- b0ttler0cket 14y ago
  Think about what you're writing. There's a huge difference. One is writing a few pieces of code. The other exists in the physical world. That means the person spray painting the police station ("house") effects a greater magnitude of real-world consequences. For example, a person who is willing to tag a police station is more likely to be involved in violent behavior involving lethal weapons than the prankster who changes a few lines of code. The one and the other are NOT the same. Saying they are is a really dangerous idea...think about why. How could you possibly treat the street hood and the 17 year old prankster in the same way... What theory of justice would that fall under?
  - belorn 14y ago
    So long both teenagers are first time offenders, then the justice system should treat them the same. Its true that the crowd surrounding a street hood tagger is likely to be much worse than the prankster, but we don't normally add harsher punishment depending on the people the accused hangs around (except in regard to conspiracy charges).
  - b0ttler0cket 14y ago
    "So long both teenagers are first time offenders, then the justice system should treat them the same." Once again, I can't agree. That is not the only consideration taken into account. Absolutely not. That doesn't even begin to skim the surface of what's taken into consideration in sentencing and during the trial. Here's a classic counter-example to this assertion. PersonA steals prescription medicine to sell so he can buy more drugs to deal. PersonB steals prescription medicine so he can sell them and pay for his wife's dialysis. That's the same crime, and let's say they're both first time offenders. Would they be treated the same? No. It's called mitigating factors. PersonB has more mitigating factors than PersonA, and is therefore not treated the same.

friendly_chap 14y ago

Hehe, nice to know that! However, I think even a couple of years can be disastrous: you become a convict, and you can get your first "unwanted" experience on the first night. If you know what I mean.

derleth 14y ago

How disenfranchised are convicts in Australia after their time has been served? Can they find a job? Can they live wherever they want? Can they find a good job? Can they vote? It isn't always about the time in prison; the time after prison can ruin you, too.

jeltz 14y ago

Young first time offenders for violent crimes rarely get more than a couple of years so I would say both maximum and typical sentences are in the same ballparks.