4 ms·

Yes what he did is wrong. But prison for non-violent offenses is violence itself, cruel and unusual punishment. This would make monarchies proud. Hardline ca

Yes what he did is wrong. But prison for non-violent offenses is violence itself, cruel and unusual punishment. This would make monarchies proud. Hardline can deter people but do you really want to support solitary confinement and prison for non-violence? The cost is too great on many levels not just monetary. Money spent on locking up non-violence is money lost for other public services. We are all going to pay at least $30,000 per year in taxes for this one instance. Why create criminals? This is no rehabilitation, this is creating life long criminals. Maybe there is something I am missing, but find no value in locking up non-violence unless it is repeat offenses or crimes that result in violence.

robflynn 13y ago
It's really sickening how things play out. I have a friend who was jailed for counterfeiting. He weed from someone and received counterfeit bills as change. Next day, he bought a pizza with the change. After he got home, he realized the money looked weird. He tried to do the right thing and called the pizza place and told him that he thinks he received counterfeit bills as change from somewhere and told them that he was going to bring them some new money. When he arrived he was jailed. He refused to give up his friend and ended up jailed for a while. Thankfully, his attorney was able to work some magic after his initial sentencing and get him switched to house arrest at a significantly reduced sentence. It just seems weird to me that unintentional possession of something can get you into so much trouble. What happens if I end up with a counterfeit bill from somewhere and a cop decides to search me? Does he notice? If so, then what? What if I honestly don't know where it came from?
- rayiner 13y ago
  He got jail because he refused to give up his friend and thus became an accessory.
  - qwerta 13y ago
    It is basic human right to refuse testify against yourself or family member.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      It's a Constitutional right to refuse to give testimony that would incriminate yourself. In certain contexts it's a statutory or common law privilege to refuse to give testimony that would incriminate a spouse. There is no privilege recognized for family members or friends, nor has there ever been in the Anglo-American tradition, nor am I aware of any other country in which there is a privilege against testifying against family or friends. In refusing to tell the police where he got the counterfeit bills, the person in the story above helped cover up his friend's crime. Helping other people commit crimes is bad and deserves punishment--whether they are your friends or not.
      - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
        You have a strange sense of justice. He didn't help anyone commit any crimes. He simply opted out of participating. It's not his problem, and he did nothing wrong. To punish him defies reason. There is a threshold at which you could make the argument that there is a moral obligation to turn in one's friend if they are committing atrocities, but no one can argue that this is an example.
        rayiner 13y ago
        It's not my particular sense of justice, it's how our justice system is structured and how it always has been. There is a strong presumption that individuals will cooperate with police to help investigate crimes. That's why the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination even exists--it's an exception to our general practice that people can be compelled to testify about crimes. As a general rule, our society does not consider it acceptable to "opt out" of participating in a criminal investigation, especially in a case like this one where the person being asked to help is a suspect by virtue of the circumstances.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- mmagin 13y ago
  Sadly, the real lesson here is that he should have just forgotten about it, disposed of the remaining counterfeit money, and hoped nothing ever came of the matter. Doing the "right thing" in these situations just opens the door to someone with more power or authority misinterpreting the situation or acting maliciously. I learned this during my first week of high school, fortunately in a manner not involving law enforcement or anything more severe than school rules involving attendance. :)
- liquidcool 13y ago
  Story I heard from a social worker. Guy's mom calls him up and asks for her prescription medication. Takes a few in a ziploc, drives it over and is stopped by a cop on the way. Gets out his registration, cop sees the baggie and arrests him. Crime #1 was having prescription meds not prescribed to him, but simply by putting it in a ziploc it's automatically raised to intent to sell/distribute. Seems like something a lot of people would have done innocuously.
quackerhacker 13y ago
>prison for non-violent offenses I agree with you to an extent. Justice still needs to happen at some level, whether it's restitution, home confinement (which most hackers, like me hope for), halfway house, or prison. What I agree with is that some white collar crimes, shouldn't see the inside. But to be so black and white...what if you invested in Bernie Madoff, would you still think the same? I would've gotten a reduction in my points for sentencing if I could've helped out Google (not the others, only Google).....I would have volunteered and worked for them my entire sentence (15mnths) if I could've. In the words of the judge that sentenced me "I am sentencing you in an effort to deter others...," so in the PR sense, my lawyer was right to tell me NOT to do what weev did, and talk to Wired and the media.

robflynn 13y ago

It's really sickening how things play out. I have a friend who was jailed for counterfeiting. He weed from someone and received counterfeit bills as change. Next day, he bought a pizza with the change. After he got home, he realized the money looked weird. He tried to do the right thing and called the pizza place and told him that he thinks he received counterfeit bills as change from somewhere and told them that he was going to bring them some new money. When he arrived he was jailed. He refused to give up his friend and ended up jailed for a while. Thankfully, his attorney was able to work some magic after his initial sentencing and get him switched to house arrest at a significantly reduced sentence. It just seems weird to me that unintentional possession of something can get you into so much trouble. What happens if I end up with a counterfeit bill from somewhere and a cop decides to search me? Does he notice? If so, then what? What if I honestly don't know where it came from?

rayiner 13y ago
He got jail because he refused to give up his friend and thus became an accessory.
- qwerta 13y ago
  It is basic human right to refuse testify against yourself or family member.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It's a Constitutional right to refuse to give testimony that would incriminate yourself. In certain contexts it's a statutory or common law privilege to refuse to give testimony that would incriminate a spouse. There is no privilege recognized for family members or friends, nor has there ever been in the Anglo-American tradition, nor am I aware of any other country in which there is a privilege against testifying against family or friends. In refusing to tell the police where he got the counterfeit bills, the person in the story above helped cover up his friend's crime. Helping other people commit crimes is bad and deserves punishment--whether they are your friends or not.
    - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
      You have a strange sense of justice. He didn't help anyone commit any crimes. He simply opted out of participating. It's not his problem, and he did nothing wrong. To punish him defies reason. There is a threshold at which you could make the argument that there is a moral obligation to turn in one's friend if they are committing atrocities, but no one can argue that this is an example.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        It's not my particular sense of justice, it's how our justice system is structured and how it always has been. There is a strong presumption that individuals will cooperate with police to help investigate crimes. That's why the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination even exists--it's an exception to our general practice that people can be compelled to testify about crimes. As a general rule, our society does not consider it acceptable to "opt out" of participating in a criminal investigation, especially in a case like this one where the person being asked to help is a suspect by virtue of the circumstances.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        lawnchair_larry 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mmagin 13y ago
Sadly, the real lesson here is that he should have just forgotten about it, disposed of the remaining counterfeit money, and hoped nothing ever came of the matter. Doing the "right thing" in these situations just opens the door to someone with more power or authority misinterpreting the situation or acting maliciously. I learned this during my first week of high school, fortunately in a manner not involving law enforcement or anything more severe than school rules involving attendance. :)
liquidcool 13y ago
Story I heard from a social worker. Guy's mom calls him up and asks for her prescription medication. Takes a few in a ziploc, drives it over and is stopped by a cop on the way. Gets out his registration, cop sees the baggie and arrests him. Crime #1 was having prescription meds not prescribed to him, but simply by putting it in a ziploc it's automatically raised to intent to sell/distribute. Seems like something a lot of people would have done innocuously.

quackerhacker 13y ago

>prison for non-violent offenses I agree with you to an extent. Justice still needs to happen at some level, whether it's restitution, home confinement (which most hackers, like me hope for), halfway house, or prison. What I agree with is that some white collar crimes, shouldn't see the inside. But to be so black and white...what if you invested in Bernie Madoff, would you still think the same? I would've gotten a reduction in my points for sentencing if I could've helped out Google (not the others, only Google).....I would have volunteered and worked for them my entire sentence (15mnths) if I could've. In the words of the judge that sentenced me "I am sentencing you in an effort to deter others...," so in the PR sense, my lawyer was right to tell me NOT to do what weev did, and talk to Wired and the media.