3 ms·

> who then hurt themselves rushing to get out of the area > at least some wrist slapping The potential sentence is 6 years. Nobody was actually hurt.

dspillett 13y ago
> Nobody was actually hurt Physically, no. It probably put the willies up some people though! And some could easily have been physically injured. Have you ever seen a crowd of concerned people trying to leave somewhere? It isn't always a pretty, calm, and organised situation. If you only punish people when damage is actually done then you do not discourage silly-but-potentially-damaging actions: you simply make it an extra gamble which for some increases the buzz the prankster gets out of the game. To compare the situation to a more common situation where people are punished for damage the potentially could have done (but in the instance in question, didn't): If I were to drive at 100mph through a 20mph zone around a school while a little over the legal alcohol limit I would not be let off the punishments for speeding and drink driving if I didn't actually hurt anyone or damage any property. A great many people speed daily and a fair few drink+drive on a regular basis: many are surprised how few actual problems (deaths, injuries, damage to property) are caused as a result hence the oft heard refrain "I've always driven this way and never had a problem yet". "yet" is the operative word there. The first time there is a problem it could be a very serious one and the punishments for these actions take this into account and are intended to discourage the actions generally to reduce the many thousands of instances so that the "1-in-lots" chance is less of a concern. Also even without injuries there is a issue of wasted time and resource both from the passengers point of view and the airport and authorities. On that point I like the suggestion someone else made above that pranksters are fined to cover any disturbance and clean-up costs, though I imagine that could be expensive to enforce (who decides what a legitimate amount is? who does it get handed out to? how arduous would the appeals processes be for the prankster and the relevant agencies if they think they are not getting enough?). > The potential sentence is 6 years But that isn't the actual sentence yet is it? Lets see what sort of slap is eventually handed out before we pass judgement on it.

dspillett 13y ago

> Nobody was actually hurt Physically, no. It probably put the willies up some people though! And some could easily have been physically injured. Have you ever seen a crowd of concerned people trying to leave somewhere? It isn't always a pretty, calm, and organised situation. If you only punish people when damage is actually done then you do not discourage silly-but-potentially-damaging actions: you simply make it an extra gamble which for some increases the buzz the prankster gets out of the game. To compare the situation to a more common situation where people are punished for damage the potentially could have done (but in the instance in question, didn't): If I were to drive at 100mph through a 20mph zone around a school while a little over the legal alcohol limit I would not be let off the punishments for speeding and drink driving if I didn't actually hurt anyone or damage any property. A great many people speed daily and a fair few drink+drive on a regular basis: many are surprised how few actual problems (deaths, injuries, damage to property) are caused as a result hence the oft heard refrain "I've always driven this way and never had a problem yet". "yet" is the operative word there. The first time there is a problem it could be a very serious one and the punishments for these actions take this into account and are intended to discourage the actions generally to reduce the many thousands of instances so that the "1-in-lots" chance is less of a concern. Also even without injuries there is a issue of wasted time and resource both from the passengers point of view and the airport and authorities. On that point I like the suggestion someone else made above that pranksters are fined to cover any disturbance and clean-up costs, though I imagine that could be expensive to enforce (who decides what a legitimate amount is? who does it get handed out to? how arduous would the appeals processes be for the prankster and the relevant agencies if they think they are not getting enough?). > The potential sentence is 6 years But that isn't the actual sentence yet is it? Lets see what sort of slap is eventually handed out before we pass judgement on it.