Ok... so this is the relevant law as far as I can tell [1] So, the reason why his maximum sentence is 13 years is because, the maximum sentence for a single ac

Ok... so this is the relevant law as far as I can tell [1] So, the reason why his maximum sentence is 13 years is because, the maximum sentence for a single act of vandalism of damages over $400 (see subsection b) is 1 year in a county jail. He is being charged with 13 counts of vandalism (presumably because they caught him vandalising 13 times). Now, the Bank of America is claiming that it cost them $6000 to clean up all the vandalism (which is conveniently just over 450 dollars per act). So, for all the people outraged over 13 years for chalk, keep in mind in california, vandalism charges are based on damages, not the means (which really makes sense). That it stacks up to 13 years is kinda ridiculous, but also pretty logical. It's not like its "oh, you vanadalized once and now you're going to jail for 13 years", its "you vandalized 13 times, and now a judge gets to decide how much cumulative punishment you're going to get". You can point out all sorts of unfortunate points in how the law, damages, and punishment is structured, but the whole point of the law is to leave room for human discretion. The $400 dollar barrier seems kinda low, and that's really I guess where the issue is... I guess and combined with Bank of America's damages claims. [1] http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html