3 ms·
> Although we will never know for sure, I don't think he was necessarily punished extra-harshly in the second part. He doesn't come out and say it, probably to
by msbarnett 13y ago
> Although we will never know for sure, I don't think he was necessarily punished extra-harshly in the second part.
He doesn't come out and say it, probably to avoid the perception that he's complaining about something he did voluntarily, but reading between the lines that's exactly what's going on.
He points out that standard practice for a simple non-violent misdemeanour would have been dismissal with a slap on the wrist and a tiny bit of public service. The justice system couldn't handle the volume of cases it does if every misdemeanour graffiti case got probation.
Having his file flagged 'do not dismiss' by higher ups at the DA's office and the judge come down abnormally hard on him (more than what the DA was asking for) is almost certainly retaliation for them being aware he was doing it for a story.
- VladRussian2 13y agothe selective enforcement of laws and punishment is a well known form of tyranny hiding under pretense of "law and order". The wide discretion given to police, DAs and courts combined with extremely tough laws - carrying a spray can is a misdemeanor (obviously in the real life it is a misdemeanor only when you're black or have saggy pants) - is the foundation of that regime and is clearly depicted in the article.
- erikpukinskis 13y agoI don't disagree with you in any way, but I wonder if there's any other real option. I often see cases where mandatory sentencing causes miscarriages of justice too. I guess the solution is more mandatory sentencing, but make the mandates better?
- whiddershins 13y agoThe first big step is to reduce the number of laws, and things that are considered criminal. When we stop legislating morality and inconvenience much of this discretionary enforcement goes away.