(RO) 8 years in prison for prank call

[Darth Nader]

TYLER — A 17-year-old who phoned his rival high school on a school bus and threatened to open fire on students has been sentenced to eight years in state prison.

link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5824727.html)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

While I think the sentence is beyond excessive, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do. One should always make an effort to make a practical joke clearly distinguishable from a terroristic threat.

Still a ridiculous sentence, though. Probation would have been fine. Ruining his life over this is both pointless and heartless.

[as_u_wish]

And here I thought they'd caught the person who called in the prank call on the FLDS polygamists.

[brazil84]

On the face of things, it does seem excessive.

I'm guessing that the defendant was poor, black, had a prior record, and didn't do a very good job of expressing remorse. (Not trying to justify or defend the sentence, of course.)

[brazil84]

And here I thought they'd caught the person who called in the prank call on the FLDS polygamists.

I was thinking it was the guy who did those "strip search" phone calls to McDonalds.

[Argent Towers]

You really think he's going to be there for the whole 8 years?

[Darryl Lict]

On the face of things, it does seem excessive.

I'm guessing that the defendant was poor, black, had a prior record, and didn't do a very good job of expressing remorse. (Not trying to justify or defend the sentence, of course.)
You called it. (http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080606/NEWS08/963715831/-1/NEWS) He's a black kid with a prior record.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Asking about Prince Albert or a refrigerator = a prank call
Threatening to gun down students = a murderous threat for which a person deserves to spend many years in prison

[Little Nemo]

Thirty days might have been a little excessive but defendable. Eight years? That's crazy.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You really think he's going to be there for the whole 8 years?
What the fuck does it matter? He's going to jail for a freaking prank call.

[Jragon]

Sorry guys, as much as it pains me to do so I have to agree with 2.5 here. It was a threat, or at least SOUNDED like one. I don't know if anyone here has seen the extreme reactions of finding "bomb [school] on tuesday" on a piece of paper at a park, but that's just as extreme. I still think 8 years is a bit much, half that would still be a bit over the mark in my opinion (depending on exactly what is on his record), but he created (or had the potential to create) unnecessary panic, and I think he made an incredibly boneheaded move. I mean, unless the recipients reaction muffled the "with my new hamster cannon mwahahahahaha!!!!" part of course...

[Argent Towers]

All I'm saying is, there's no way he's going to do 8 years. I doubt he'll even do one year.

[DrDeth]

You called it. (http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080606/NEWS08/963715831/-1/NEWS) He's a black kid with a prior record.

"The defendant was sentenced to 75 days in the Smith County Jail on Dec. 11 after he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of burglary of a vehicle. "

I dunno. If it had been a prior violent crime, then I could see it. But there may be stuff we aren't seeing that the judge has- like a half-dozen arrests for violent crimes or a "sealed' juvie record.

But from what little we know, it looks excessive.

[Mosier]

Is it possible that prosecutors determined that he intended to carry out the threat?

I'm just saying we probably don't know the whole story. We don't know whether the kid intended to cause panic and fear even if he didn't actually intend to kill anyone. The people involved with the case know more than we do about it, but it does make for a great sensational topic line.

[lobotomyboy63]

"The defendant was sentenced to 75 days in the Smith County Jail on Dec. 11 after he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of burglary of a vehicle. "

I dunno. If it had been a prior violent crime, then I could see it. But there may be stuff we aren't seeing that the judge has- like a half-dozen arrests for violent crimes or a "sealed' juvie record.

But from what little we know, it looks excessive.

So the burglary sentence was handed down on Dec. 11. 75 days would go to...around the end of Feb? This says the phone call was made on Jan 30 from the school. Maybe they credited time served while awaiting trial?

In any case, he didn't get the hint. After jail for 75 days, a lot of people wouldn't so much as fart in public.

[neutron star]

After reading this, I started wondering what kind of punishment people normally get for calling in bomb threats to schools. I mean, it's a fairly common occurrence; it happened three or four times in my small middle school when I was in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.

A Google News search shows:
An 18-year-old got three years probation in MA. (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/former_agawam_high_school_stud.html)
A 16-year-old got 33 months probation in Iowa. (http://www.sentinel-standard.com/articles/2008/05/29/news/02news.txt)
Five girls from Michigan, aged 16 and 17, threatened over the Internet to kill and burn down the houses of other students. No charges were brought. They were suspended for three days. (http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/05/internet_threats_lead_to_five.html)

And now let's see what will get you locked away for eight years:

In Wisconsin (http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=43229&TM=32467.42), a prosecutor only tried to get four years for an armed bank robbery that netted over $37,000 because, up until that time, the robber was "a relatively law abiding citizen."
A 72-year-old bank robber (!) in Montana got eight years. (http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=43229&TM=32467.42)
A Bronx man (http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/NEWS01/806060448/1004) who robbed a store using a knife got eight years.
A man in Upstate NY (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/NEWS/806060387) got 8 years for "a string of felonies" including first degree burglary and beating up his girlfriend, then attacking her with a knife.
This Canadian (http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=0709f044-5a97-4753-a96a-6c9c1d5a296d) got 8 years for breaking into a woman's house and sexually assaulting her. He had 21 prior convictions, including four for previous sexual assaults!
A Tennessee man got 8 years (http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/NEWS01/80602006) for two counts of attempted second degree murder and one count of aggravated assault for firing a gun into a crowd.
A Pennsylvania woman (http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_9476623) got 4-8 years for suffocating her infant child with a blanket.
Another Pennsylvania woman (http://www.delcotimes.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily;!-1863852294?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDCT%2FNews&r21.content=%2FDCT%2FNews%2FTopStoryList_Story_2148436) got 4-8 for robbing a convenience store with a knife.
Another 4-8 year sentence in PA (http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/222611), this one a man who sexually assaulted a teenage girl over 100 times.
A New Jersey man (http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080531/NEWS01/805310327/1002) with three prior felony convictions got 8 years for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl.
A Florida man (http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2008/0515/news/007.html) got 8 years for sexual molestation.
An Indiana man (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-east-chicago-both-13-may13,0,2828602.story) got eight years for trying to run over a police officer.

I could go on and on and on and on - that's all from the first 30 of 530 results for sentenced+"eight years" on Google News. Point is, I can't find a single case of a single crime as minor as a false bomb threat that got anyone anywhere near eight years in prison. I mean, look at the crimes on that list. That's some pretty fucked up stuff! A high school student making an idle threat is hardly in the same league as suffocating your child or molesting your neighbor.

This is beyond excessive.

[Mosier]

After reading this, I started wondering what kind of punishment people normally get for calling in bomb threats to schools. I mean, it's a fairly common occurrence; it happened three or four times in my small middle school when I was in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.

A Google News search shows:
An 18-year-old got three years probation in MA. (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/former_agawam_high_school_stud.html)
A 16-year-old got 33 months probation in Iowa. (http://www.sentinel-standard.com/articles/2008/05/29/news/02news.txt)
Five girls from Michigan, aged 16 and 17, threatened over the Internet to kill and burn down the houses of other students. No charges were brought. They were suspended for three days. (http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/05/internet_threats_lead_to_five.html)

And now let's see what will get you locked away for eight years:

In Wisconsin (http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=43229&TM=32467.42), a prosecutor only tried to get four years for an armed bank robbery that netted over $37,000 because, up until that time, the robber was "a relatively law abiding citizen."
A 72-year-old bank robber (!) in Montana got eight years. (http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=43229&TM=32467.42)
A Bronx man (http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/NEWS01/806060448/1004) who robbed a store using a knife got eight years.
A man in Upstate NY (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/NEWS/806060387) got 8 years for "a string of felonies" including first degree burglary and beating up his girlfriend, then attacking her with a knife.
This Canadian (http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=0709f044-5a97-4753-a96a-6c9c1d5a296d) got 8 years for breaking into a woman's house and sexually assaulting her. He had 21 prior convictions, including four for previous sexual assaults!
A Tennessee man got 8 years (http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/NEWS01/80602006) for two counts of attempted second degree murder and one count of aggravated assault for firing a gun into a crowd.
A Pennsylvania woman (http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_9476623) got 4-8 years for suffocating her infant child with a blanket.
Another Pennsylvania woman (http://www.delcotimes.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily;!-1863852294?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDCT%2FNews&r21.content=%2FDCT%2FNews%2FTopStoryList_Story_2148436) got 4-8 for robbing a convenience store with a knife.
Another 4-8 year sentence in PA (http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/222611), this one a man who sexually assaulted a teenage girl over 100 times.
A New Jersey man (http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080531/NEWS01/805310327/1002) with three prior felony convictions got 8 years for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl.
A Florida man (http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2008/0515/news/007.html) got 8 years for sexual molestation.
An Indiana man (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-east-chicago-both-13-may13,0,2828602.story) got eight years for trying to run over a police officer.

I could go on and on and on and on - that's all from the first 30 of 530 results for sentenced+"eight years" on Google News. Point is, I can't find a single case of a single crime as minor as a false bomb threat that got anyone anywhere near eight years in prison. I mean, look at the crimes on that list. That's some pretty fucked up stuff! A high school student making an idle threat is hardly in the same league as suffocating your child or molesting your neighbor.

This is beyond excessive.

You don't know that the threat was idle. You don't know anything about the case except what fits into 2 short paragraphs on a blogger's page. You have no idea whether this sentence was excessive or not.

[mks57]

Many people have served lighter sentences for murder.

[Mosier]

Many people have served lighter sentences for murder.

Have served, maybe. Not many have actually been handed lighter sentences, though. Even that doesn't necessarily prove that the kid got a harsh sentence, just that the murderers probably got ones that were too light.

[neutron star]

You don't know that the threat was idle. You don't know anything about the case except what fits into 2 short paragraphs on a blogger's page. You have no idea whether this sentence was excessive or not.No weapons were found by police (http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080607/NEWS08/806070315). (Source: Tyler Morning Telegraph)

ETA: and the link in the OP is from another newspaper, not a blog.

[neutron star]

Actually, there isn't a single link to a blog anywhere in this thread, and none of the articles are only two paragraphs. Made up bullshit does make your argument seem stronger, though, doesn't it?

[LouisB]

Tyler is in Texas. Texas tends to impose severe penalties for breaking the law. Also, while this offense might seem overly severe, there is every chance that local law enforcement was simply fed up with the individual's never ending streak of petty crimes that we don't know about and saw this as an opportunity to simply get him out of their hair. That sort of thing does happen and not just in Texas.

[neutron star]

The articles mentioned he'd been convicted of one other crime. But I guess there's every chance that he was convicted of dozens of others that we just don't know about and they simply forgot to mention them. Also, kudos on the Those Wacky Texans justification.

[Drain Bead]

I think one thing that very few people are focusing on here is that this kid is 17 years old! All this talk of "sealed juvie records" is ridiculous...this should still BE a part of his juvie record. In my jurisdiction, it would be very rare that this kid would even be tried as an adult.

The sad thing is that this kid's life is going to be completely ruined by this. For a crime that didn't actually hurt anyone, this is a more than excessive sentence.

[PunditLisa]

If he serves time in an adult jail, chances are he'll come out far more dangerous than when he went in. That doesn't serve him, or society, well.

I hope someone comes to their senses and reduces or commutes the sentence. I'm a law and order woman, but on the face of it, it seems like overkill to the nth degree.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Unless one has seen his sheet, heard what the trier of fact heard, and viewed that evidence in the context of the elements of the crime, there really is no way to determine whether the charges and sentence were appropriate, except based one one's own sense of what ought to be.

And that sense tends to be inversely proportional to one's actual involvement in the case.


Now, I'm all for oversight of the judicial system, but that oversight has to be informed. And there's not a whole lot of "informed" oversight going on here.



"But Scrappy, can't you see that this sentence is clearly WRONG?!?!!?"


Nope, and neither can you from the information you've got.

[pbbth]

I hate to agree with 2.5, but this is much more than a prank call. After Columbine, Virginia Tech, and all the other school shootings that have been in the news over the years I can't imagine how this guy could have thought this was just a prank. 8 years is a bit much, but if he JUST got out of jail not a month before for an unrelated crime he is obviously not learning much of a lesson from the short sentences. This was considered a terrorist action and he is lucky he wasn't given the full 10 years and made to be an example for other people who might follow suit. Hopefully the sentence will be reduced and he can see a therapist and maybe work out a way to get mentally stable but I would hate for them to have given him another 70 day sentence of which he served 30 days and then he got out and actually killed someone instead of just making idle threats.

Originally Posted in News Article

Terrance L. Taylor pleaded guilty Thursday to a terroristic threat and was sentenced by 241st District Judge Jack Skeen Jr. He faced two to 10 years in prison for the third-degree felony.

[Justin_Bailey]

I think one thing that very few people are focusing on here is that this kid is 17 years old! All this talk of "sealed juvie records" is ridiculous...this should still BE a part of his juvie record. In my jurisdiction, it would be very rare that this kid would even be tried as an adult.

The sad thing is that this kid's life is going to be completely ruined by this. For a crime that didn't actually hurt anyone, this is a more than excessive sentence.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. He threatened to gun down a group of kids. That's preetty serious shit even if "nobody got hurt."

And why shouldn't he be tried as an adult? He's 17 years old. If he doesn't already know this kind of crap does not fly in the adult world then his life is already ruined.

[Lust4Life]

I dont care if he's white,black,poor or wealthy,he made a threat that he got caught for before he could carry it out.

Already at his age he's got a criminal record though not one for violent crime.
It could well be that hes never used violence to achieve his ends in his life,or it could well be that he has but up until now hasn't been caught.

Save your sympathy for the victims of people like him.

You yourself or someone that you love could one day be a victim of someone like him,think about it.

[Little Nemo]

Save your sympathy for the victims of people like him.

You yourself or someone that you love could one day be a victim of someone like him,think about it.I can sympathize with the victims. I don't often mention this because I don't want to look like I'm playing for sympathy but I too have received a prank phone call. With time and support, my life has gone on.

Keep in mind that threatening to go on a shooting spree is not equivalent to going on a shooting spree. I'm not saying that threats should be ignored until somebody starts killing people. But don't go to the opposite extreme of treating a threat as if the crime actually occurred.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Keep in mind that threatening to go on a shooting spree is not equivalent to going on a shooting spree. I'm not saying that threats should be ignored until somebody starts killing people. But don't go to the opposite extreme of treating a threat as if the crime actually occurred.

I don't see anybody saying that it is the same thing.

Threatening to murder a bunch of people = 8 years in prison
Murdering a bunch of people = lethal injection (or life in prison if you want to be a pussy)

[neutron star]

I dont care if he's white,black,poor or wealthy,he made a threat that he got caught for before he could carry it out.And he totally meant to carry it out, which was why he didn't even own a gun and made the call from a traceable cell phone instead of a pay phone.

[AngelicGemma]

Why not just throw him in jail for a few weeks to teach him not to be a moron? No need to ruin the kids life.

[ArizonaTeach]

The sad thing is that this kid's life is going to be completely ruined by this. For a crime that didn't actually hurt anyone, this is a more than excessive sentence.I can't defend the length of the sentence. I don't know all the facts, obviously, but on the surface it seems excessive. No, but what I can state is that I don't believe you're right when you say that it "didn't actually hurt anyone." Having been involved in school lockdowns before, let me tell you, while maybe nobody got physically injured, people were affected by this. Ignoring the cost to the community (police, fire, etc.) and school involved, there's a bit of emotional baggage there, too. Teachers and students don't laugh it off after they find out it's a prank - it's scary, especially if you have to lock your classrooms and hunker down for an hour or two.

Now, think about this, one school launches a prank at another school. Do the kids at the second school chuckle good-naturedly and say, "You got us!" No, there's retaliation...and we're not talking about painting football fields or kidnapping mascots here. If you're operating at a level where people reasonably think gunfire and bombs are part of the equation, you've gone beyond pulling the fire alarm.

My gut feeling is this is a "Don't Fuck Around" sentencing - send a message.

I'm not defending an 8 year sentence...but I'm not going to say this kid's "prank" didn't hurt anyone.

[LouisB]

The articles mentioned he'd been convicted of one other crime. But I guess there's every chance that he was convicted of dozens of others that we just don't know about and they simply forgot to mention them. Also, kudos on the Those Wacky Texans justification. If you think I was trying to justify the sentence because it was handed down in Texas, you are quite mistaken.

[lobotomyboy63]

And he totally meant to carry it out, which was why he didn't even own a gun and made the call from a traceable cell phone instead of a pay phone.

Remember Lionel Tate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Tate

Lionel Alexander Tate (born January 30, 1987)[1] is the youngest American citizen ever sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. In 2001, when Tate was 14, he was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1998 battering death of 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick in Broward County, Florida.

Tate was left alone with Eunick, who was being babysat by Tate's mother, Kathleen Grossett-Tate, while she took a nap upstairs. Tate's defense argued that the then-12-year-old, 166-pound boy was playing with the 6-year-old, 46-pound girl, and had accidentally killed her while showing her professional wrestling moves he said he had seen on television.

Tate was convicted of killing Eunick by stomping on her so forcefully that her liver lacerated.[2] Her other injuries included a fractured skull, fractured rib and swollen brain. These injuries were characterized by the prosecution as "similar to those she would have sustained by falling from a three-story building."[3] In sentencing Tate to life imprisonment, Judge Joel T. Lazarus of Broward County Circuit Court said that "The acts of Lionel Tate were not the playful acts of a child [...] The acts of Lionel Tate were cold, callous and indescribably cruel."[4]

It was later overturned and he was set free. Dayum, bet he learned from that!

Uh, no:

On September 3, 2004, Tate was detained and held in prison for violating the terms of his house arrest when he was found out of his house and carrying a four-inch knife. On October 29, the Associated Press reported that Tate was placed on zero tolerance probation, for an additional five years.

OK, THAT must have taught him his lesson, right? Nope...

On May 23, 2005, Tate was charged with armed burglary with battery, armed robbery and violation of probation, the Broward County, Florida, Sheriff's Office said.

Tate greeted Domino's Pizza deliveryman Walter Ernest Gallardo with a handgun outside a friend's apartment after phoning in an order. Gallardo dropped the four pizzas and fled the scene. Tate then re-entered the apartment, assaulting the occupant who did not want Tate inside.

I.e. it's possible that in the case stated by the OP, the youth was serious (but stupid). I don't think we know enough from what's been presented in this discussion about the circumstances to assume he wasn't serious.

[pbbth]

Originally Posted by AngelicGemma

Why not just throw him in jail for a few weeks to teach him not to be a moron? No need to ruin the kids life.

They already did that. He had gotten out of jail about a month before this where he had been sentenced to 75 days for auto theft (or attempted auto theft, I'm not sure exactly.) He didn't learn too well from the short stint in the slammer apparently.

[Little Nemo]

Threatening to murder a bunch of people = 8 years in prison
Murdering a bunch of people = lethal injection (or life in prison if you want to be a pussy)Two, before you advocate the idea of sending people to prison for saying something stupid, you might want to consider the effect it would have for you personally.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Why not just throw him in jail for a few weeks to teach him not to be a moron? No need to ruin the kids life.

He already was in jail for a few weeks. Almost as soon as he got out, he threatened to murder a bunch of children.

[Thudlow Boink]

I can't defend the length of the sentence. I don't know all the facts, obviously, but on the surface it seems excessive. No, but what I can state is that I don't believe you're right when you say that it "didn't actually hurt anyone." Having been involved in school lockdowns before, let me tell you, while maybe nobody got physically injured, people were affected by this. Ignoring the cost to the community (police, fire, etc.) and school involved, there's a bit of emotional baggage there, too. Teachers and students don't laugh it off after they find out it's a prank - it's scary, especially if you have to lock your classrooms and hunker down for an hour or two.Agreed. Threatening to kill people is not a prank. A prank call is asking someone if their refrigerator's running, or asking for Mike Rotch. Threatening violence, in a country that's been through Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. is a serious offence.

[Frank]

And why shouldn't he be tried as an adult? He's 17 years old. If he doesn't already know this kind of crap does not fly in the adult world then his life is already ruined.
I always find it interesting how the under-eighteen set is considered too young to make mature decisions on such things as having sex, drinking, signing contracts, and so on, but when it comes to throwing them in prison...

[The Tao's Revenge]

This reminds me of that British girl who was arrested because she joked about having a bomb.

As much as I hate to say it the world is serious place and you gotta be careful because not everyone knows when you're joking, or even shares your taste in humor.

Now is an 8 year sentence excessive? Hell yes.

rapists and murders can get less.

Not only is punishment cruel and by precedence unusual to the youth. It's also fucked up for victims of rape, and the survivors of murder victims.


How would you feel if the person that violated you in a most personal way got half the sentence of some kid making a prank call?

The implication would be the severe trauma you went through wasn't as important as some one else's prank call.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Now is an 8 year sentence excessive? Hell yes.

rapists and murders can get less.

This sentence is not excessive. The punishments that murderers and rapist get are to light. They should be executed.

How would you feel if the person that violated you in a most personal way got half the sentence of some kid making a prank call?

The implication would be the severe trauma you went through wasn't as important as some one else's prank call.

Light sentences are fucked up. At least this one was pretty good. We should not give this criminal a lighter sentence to match it to sentences that are too light.

[Cisco]

The most important fact that we know is that the kid didn't have a gun.

Add to that, he made the call on the bus in front of a bunch of other kids. Typical occurence at the middle and high schools I went to. "Bad" kid gets talked into doing something "bad" by the "good" kids for their amusement. We got bomb and shooting threats on a monthly basis and when they occasionally caught the kid who did it he would get a few days out of school suspension and a stern talking-to from the police. Maybe that wasn't quite stern enough (debatable), but 8 years is way, way, WAY over the line. I agree with Drain Bead that they're ruining this kid's life for nothing. When he gets out he is not going to want to be a positive, contributing member of a society that has failed him. This sentence is bad for him and bad for his community in the long run.

[Lust4Life]

And he totally meant to carry it out, which was why he didn't even own a gun and made the call from a traceable cell phone instead of a pay phone.


As to making the call from a traceable phone?
That just means that he's not too bright.


He didn't own a gun that we know of you mean.

[Otto]

Keep in mind that threatening to go on a shooting spree is not equivalent to going on a shooting spree. I'm not saying that threats should be ignored until somebody starts killing people. But don't go to the opposite extreme of treating a threat as if the crime actually occurred.
The crime actually did occur, the crime of making a terroristic threat.

[mswas]

When I was in sixth grade we had nearly a dozen bomb threats. Kids did it to get out of class, because we'd move out to the far end of the playground and have a recess atmosphere. They'd often send us home early. Yes, it's a big deal for the school without a doubt, and when I was in 5th grade it was still the 80s, but I think this is excessive. Poor dumb kid.

[neutron star]

As to making the call from a traceable phone?
That just means that he's not too bright.


He didn't own a gun that we know of you mean.You can't have it both ways. He was so stupid that he made the call from a cell that could be traced in front of a whole bunch of witnesses, but he was enough of a criminal mastermind that no cop could ever find his gun!

Also, regarding the warning: can you find one single instance, any time, in any place, of a school shooter or a school bomber who actually called and warned the school before he carried out his deed? I sure can't. That might not prove he wasn't serious, but it sure says something for his actual motivation, or lack thereof.

This sentence is not excessive.So you keep saying. We already have not only a higher percentage of our population incarcerated than any country in the world, but also the highest raw number of people in prison - higher than a communist country that despises human rights and has quadruple our population. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it? What? It doesn't? And we should have more people in jail? And we should lock them up even longer? Quite the humanitarian you are - that's all I can say.

[mswas]

So you keep saying. We already have not only a higher percentage of our population incarcerated than any country in the world, but also the highest raw number of people in prison - higher than a communist country that despises human rights and has quadruple our population. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it? What? It doesn't? And we should have more people in jail? And we should lock them up even longer? Quite the humanitarian you are - that's all I can say.

Yea, it means we've executed fewer people than Stalin or Mao.

[neutron star]

Last time I checked, those guys were dead.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

We already have not only a higher percentage of our population incarcerated than any country in the world

Bullshit. North Korea has us beat.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it? What? It doesn't? And we should have more people in jail? And we should lock them up even longer? Quite the humanitarian you are - that's all I can say.

If people would stop committing crimes, they would not have to go to prison.

Incarceration prevents crime. Do you want more crime?

[neutron star]

Bullshit. North Korea has us beat.Cite?If people would stop committing crimes, they would not have to go to prison.

Incarceration prevents crime. Do you want more crime?Cite? I mean, other than the fact that if they're locked away, they physically can't commit crimes.

There are over two hundred countries in the world. There might possibly be one that locks up more of its citizens than us, but that can't be proven. Officially, we're still number one. And the lesson you take away from that is that we're just not tough enough on criminals?! What the fuck, man? What the fuck...?

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040206.html

[neutron star]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040206.htmlAccording to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College London, the U.S. currently has the largest documented prison population in the world, both in absolute and proportional terms.

So... pretty much exactly what I said, along with the fact that NK might have more prisoners, but it can't be proven, and that, whatever the case, our numbers are disturbingly high. I'm not sure what else you expected me to take away from that article.

[Justin_Bailey]

I always find it interesting how the under-eighteen set is considered too young to make mature decisions on such things as having sex, drinking, signing contracts, and so on, but when it comes to throwing them in prison...

Many states "allow" or at least don't have a statute on sex between consenting underage kids.

As for contracts, underage people can't sign a legally binding contract because it's likely that the information they're signing could be made confusing by the contractor. There is nothing confusing about "You do not call up someone else and threaten to murder them." That is not a prank and no legal age mumbojumbo can change the fact that something like that is common knowledge.

[samclem]

Many states "allow" or at least don't have a statute on sex between consenting underage kids. Can you provide us with information about your assertion? I"m not convinced you're correct, here.

[Justin_Bailey]

Can you provide us with information about your assertion? I"m not convinced you're correct, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States

I didn't go down the whole list, but Alaska and Arkansas both seem to have such statutes. I'm sure many other states do as well.

[Cisco]

Can you provide us with information about your assertion? I"m not convinced you're correct, here.
It's a strawman anyway. If under-eighteens were adults they'd be allowed to have sex with adults. I don't think sex with other kids was Frank's premise.

[Justin_Bailey]

It's a strawman anyway. If under-eighteens were adults they'd be allowed to have sex with adults. I don't think sex with other kids was Frank's premise.

Why not? His premise that this is somehow not a serious crime is that Tyler was "only 17 and not an adult."

And it's the rare state that seems to not allow sex between 17 year olds and "adults."

[Cisco]

Why not? His premise that this is somehow not a serious crime is that Tyler was "only 17 and not an adult."

And it's the rare state that seems to not allow sex between 17 year olds and "adults."
Most of those states with "age of consent" under 18 are only if the other person is not more than 3 or 4 years older. They're designed to protect against the 'boyfriend turns 18 two weeks before the girlfriend'-type scenarios. Comparitively few states allow a 16 or 17 year old to bang, say, a 35 year old.

[Frank]

His premise that this is somehow not a serious crime is that Tyler was "only 17 and not an adult."
It's not all that much of a serious crime, true. Eight years would be a bit much even for an adult for a crime that consists of nothing but speaking.

That aside, even if I accept that it is a serious crime, why should I accept that a legal child should be punished in the same manner as an adult?

[Really Not All That Bright]

The crime actually did occur, the crime of making a terroristic threat.
Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place; or
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service.
(b) An offense under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (3) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (4) of Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree.
Here's the relevant statute, in case anyone was wondering. I don't see what the point of (2) is - seems like that would be covered by simple assault.

[The Tao's Revenge]

This sentence is not excessive. The punishments that murderers and rapist get are to light. They should be executed.



Light sentences are fucked up. At least this one was pretty good. We should not give this criminal a lighter sentence to match it to sentences that are too light.


criminal? he made a prank call.

By that logic anyone with a speeding ticket is a criminal. He was just some dumb kid who did something stupid.

Does every stupid thing kids do deserve a life destroying jail sentence?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Bullshit. North Korea has us beat.

Doing better then North Korea is something to brag about?

Let me get this straight. You're claiming doing better then North Korea means we're doing okay for running a society? :dubious:

Let's be honest. You must be trolling.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Doing better then North Korea is something to brag about?

Let me get this straight. You're claiming doing better then North Korea means we're doing okay for running a society? :dubious:

Let's be honest. You must be trolling.

It does not have anything to do with be better than North Korea. Just that North Korea in all likelihood has more prisoners. They probably beat us with just their political prisoners.

But all of that is irrelevant to which is a better society. From my perspective (and there is no objective standard on this point), a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

criminal? he made a prank call.

By that logic anyone with a speeding ticket is a criminal. He was just some dumb kid who did something stupid.

Does every stupid thing kids do deserve a life destroying jail sentence?

Making a terrorist threat = a felony
Speeding = an infraction (usually, depending on the jurisdiction, speed)

[Really Not All That Bright]

But all of that is irrelevant to which is a better society. From my perspective (and there is no objective standard on this point), a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society.
I get it now... you're not a troll. You're just completely fucking nuts.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

I get it now... you're not a troll. You're just completely fucking nuts.

Do you believe that people that commit serious crimes (like terrorism) should not be put in prison?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Making a terrorist threat = a felony
Speeding = an infraction (usually, depending on the jurisdiction, speed)

Both could result in loss of life.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Do you believe that people that commit serious crimes (like terrorism) should not be put in prison?

hahaha you're performance art.


A prank call is not terrorism. Atleast it isn't if you want the word to have any meaning.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Do you believe that people that commit serious crimes (like terrorism) should not be put in prison?
Well, this kid didn't commit terrorism - even if he intended to carry out the threat, there's no evidence suggesting that he had some sort of political goal.

In any case, of course I believe people who commit crimes ought to go to prison. Any sensible society, however, aims to prevent crimes, in addition to simply reacting to them. The fact we have more prisoners per capita than any other nation (except, perhaps, one) suggests that we aren't doing a very good job. By your logic we'd be doing just fine if everyone was locked up (except, presumably, you).

If you take into account the fact that our standard of living is higher than that of almost any other state, it looks like we're doing even worse.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Well, this kid didn't commit terrorism - even if he intended to carry out the threat, there's no evidence suggesting that he had some sort of political goal.

There is no universal legal definition of terrorism. The people of the sovereign state of Texas have decided that this type of threat is a terroristic threat.

In any case, of course I believe people who commit crimes ought to go to prison. Any sensible society, however, aims to prevent crimes, in addition to simply reacting to them. The fact we have more prisoners per capita than any other nation (except, perhaps, one) suggests that we aren't doing a very good job.

Locking people up has been shown to prevent crime. Perhaps we could do more to prevent crime, but the scum that commit horrible crimes need to be locked up or executed. We do have a cultural problem in this country with crime and violence, but it is not a problem that will be solved by the government. A big set in the right direction would be if all worthless pieces of shit men who do not take an active role in their children's lives would start acting like men instead of worthless pieces of shit.

By your logic we'd be doing just fine if everyone was locked up (except, presumably, you).

That is a complete distortion of my position. Most people has not been convicted of crime. I do not believe we would be doing fine if we locked up people who have not been convicted on a crime.

If you take into account the fact that our standard of living is higher than that of almost any other state, it looks like we're doing even worse.

The problem is not the criminal justice system; it is a cultural problem.

[The Tao's Revenge]

There is no universal legal definition of terrorism. The people of the sovereign state of Texas have decided that this type of threat is a terroristic threat.


Weren't you the guy who wanted to take an electronics project on a plane?

That'd sure freak a heck of alot of people out. It could be a bomb! They'd be terrified, you'd terrorize them. Making you a terrorist.

You'll be turning yourself in for 8 years of jail won't you?

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Weren't you the guy who wanted to take an electronics project on a plane?

That'd sure freak a heck of alot of people out. It could be a bomb! They'd be terrified, you'd terrorize them. Making you a terrorist.

You'll be turning yourself in for 8 years of jail won't you?

When was this? I do not remember wanting to do anything like, but maybe I just cannot remember.

Can you please cite the relevant statute that would make taking an "electronics project" on plane an act of terrorism? What level of intent does it require?

[neutron star]

Weren't you the guy who wanted to take an electronics project on a plane?That was VCO3/TLDR. He got banned a couple months ago. I can see how you would confuse the two, though.

[The Tao's Revenge]

I can't search. It was last year I think when I started lurking.

Some key words that might find it if someone wants to do a search:

electronics project lady knitting

[The Tao's Revenge]

That was VCO3/TLDR. He got banned a couple months ago. I can see how you would confuse the two, though.

oh! :smack:

Apologies Two and a Half Inches of Fun

[Otto]

Cite?Cite? I mean, other than the fact that if they're locked away, they physically can't commit crimes.
Are you joking? Of course people in prison can commit crimes. The people against whom their crimes are committed tend to be fellow prisoners, but they are crimes nonetheless.

[neutron star]

I was thinking more along the lines of crimes that are counted in crime statistics. Are prison crimes counted in those? I honestly don't know.

[Really Not All That Bright]

There is no universal legal definition of terrorism. The people of the sovereign state of Texas have decided that this type of threat is a terroristic threat.
1) Texas isn't a sovereign state. It's a state. Nation-states possess sovereignty. Federal states possess clipped sovereignty; they have no standing in international law.
2) The people of the State of Texas are stupid. This isn't a terrorist act under any working definition of terrorism. In any case, the Texas Penal Code does not recognise any crime as "terrorism".
There is no crime of terrorism, as such, in the Texas Penal Code.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/wrp/em13.html
Locking people up has been shown to prevent crime. Perhaps we could do more to prevent crime, but the scum that commit horrible crimes need to be locked up or executed. We do have a cultural problem in this country with crime and violence, but it is not a problem that will be solved by the government. A big set in the right direction would be if all worthless pieces of shit men who do not take an active role in their children's lives would start acting like men instead of worthless pieces of shit.
When you figure out how to make them do that, we'll talk. Until then it's the government's job.
That is a complete distortion of my position. Most people has not been convicted of crime. I do not believe we would be doing fine if we locked up people who have not been convicted on a crime.
Here's your position:
From my perspective (and there is no objective standard on this point), a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society.
Here's what I said:
By your logic we'd be doing just fine if everyone was locked up (except, presumably, you).
I invite you to point out what, exactly, I distorted re your position. I'm not seeing it.
The problem is not the criminal justice system; it is a cultural problem.
The criminal justice system is as much a part of our culture as baseball and hot dogs and speculation over which celebrities are in rehab. Could you have an honest discussion of the merits of the Soviet Union without talking about the Gulag?

[Antinor01]

8 years may or may not be an excessive sentence, but he certainly deserved some level of prison time. I can't imagine thinking that it would be funny to call and threaten to murder a bunch of children.

[Really Not All That Bright]

8 years may or may not be an excessive sentence, but he certainly deserved some level of prison time. I can't imagine thinking that it would be funny to call and threaten to murder a bunch of children.
If it was a joke, then you're saying he should be in jail for making a joke in poor taste. Does that seem fair?

[Antinor01]

If it was a joke, then you're saying he should be in jail for making a joke in poor taste. Does that seem fair?

I don't care if it was a joke. It doesn't matter if it was a joke. He made a phone call and threatened murder. Full stop. Some things are simply not funny.

[neutron star]

Might as well lock up half of this message board. :D

Especially me.

[neutron star]

8 years may or may not be an excessive sentence, but he certainly deserved some level of prison time.I'm glad that most judges don't agree with you. Every student bomb threat I've been able to dig up in the news was punished by probation. Some people seem to think that just because they aren't in jail that they aren't being punished, but things like probation and community service are rather shitty. And they're shitty in a way that keeps you (for the most part) from ruining your life. Because that's what jail time constitutes, you know? A few years behind bars means a whole host of opportunities will never be available to you, and it will affect you until the day you die.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I don't care if it was a joke. It doesn't matter if it was a joke. He made a phone call and threatened murder. Full stop. Some things are simply not funny.
Lots of things aren't funny. That doesn't make them criminal. Would you support a jail sentence handed down to an actor who threatened another actor on stage, as required by a dramatic part?

Under this law, Orson Welles might very easily have been sent to prison for the War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

[Antinor01]

Lots of things aren't funny. That doesn't make them criminal. Would you support a jail sentence handed down to an actor who threatened another actor on stage, as required by a dramatic part?

Under this law, Orson Welles might very easily have been sent to prison for the War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

Sorry, I'm not fully awake yet (no coffee) so I neglected to say that actors performing parts in a play would be exempt from prosecution for reading the script. My apologies.

Attempting to compare this the situation at hand are ridiculous.

[Antinor01]

I'm glad that most judges don't agree with you. Every student bomb threat I've been able to dig up in the news was punished by probation. Some people seem to think that just because they aren't in jail that they aren't being punished, but things like probation and community service are rather shitty. And they're shitty in a way that keeps you (for the most part) from ruining your life. Because that's what jail time constitutes, you know? A few years behind bars means a whole host of opportunities will never be available to you, and it will affect you until the day you die.

I'm not a judge and have not been seated on a jury where I've heard a case like this and received instructions as to what the law is. My gut tells me that someone that does this should be in jail. If that is not the law then I would go with whatever it said.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Attempting to compare this the situation at hand are ridiculous.
If no demonstrable intent to carry out the crime in question exists, then the comparison isn't ridiculous. The only difference would then be that the kid created a public nuisance - which should be punishable by a fine or probation, at most.

Since the kid doesn't appear to possess any firearms and doesn't have a (reported) history of violent crime, I presume he meant the whole thing as a joke. If there's evidence that he intended to carry out the threat (confiding in a friend, stockpiling guns, making Columbine-kid videos, etc.) then obviously he should be in jail. Based on the (admittedly incomplete) facts at hand, though, I don't believe that's the case.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Lots of things aren't funny. That doesn't make them criminal. Would you support a jail sentence handed down to an actor who threatened another actor on stage, as required by a dramatic part?

Under this law, Orson Welles might very easily have been sent to prison for the War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

Did the criminal in this case have opening credits on his murderous, terroristic threat, and repeated notices that his murderous, terroristic threat was not real like the Mercury Threatre?

http://sounds.mercurytheatre.info/mercury/381030.mp3

[Antinor01]

I see we aren't going to agree on this topic. Without further information about what happened, what evidence there is, etc this is going to be pointless for us to go back and forth any more.

[neutron star]

I'm not a judge and have not been seated on a jury where I've heard a case like this and received instructions as to what the law is. My gut tells me that someone that does this should be in jail. If that is not the law then I would go with whatever it said.Good thing your gut isn't a judge, I guess.

In searching for news stories, I came across a quote from a prosecutor. Paraphrased, he said, "At no time in recorded history has a school bomb threat ever been credible."

The people who truly intend to do crazy shit like that aren't going to warn you first.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

If no demonstrable intent to carry out the crime in question exists, then the comparison isn't ridiculous. The only difference would then be that the kid created a public nuisance - which should be punishable by a fine or probation, at most.

Intent to carry out an actual shooting is irrelevant to the whether he committed the crime of creating a terroristic threat. Did you read the statute?

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000022.00.htm#22.07.00

Which element of the crime do you think is not satisfied by what we know about the case?

[Antinor01]

Good thing your gut isn't a judge, I guess.

As I indicated, I'd have no problem changing my position on it if my instincts were not in line with the law.

[St. Urho]

And here I thought they'd caught the person who called in the prank call on the FLDS polygamists.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9501158

They figured out who it was almost right away.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

1) Texas isn't a sovereign state. It's a state. Nation-states possess sovereignty. Federal states possess clipped sovereignty; they have no standing in international law.
2) The people of the State of Texas are stupid. This isn't a terrorist act under any working definition of terrorism. In any case, the Texas Penal Code does not recognise any crime as "terrorism".

"Clipped" sovereignty is still sovereignty. What does international law have to do with this? This is a matter of criminal law. In Texas, what is criminal did is a terroristic threat.



When you figure out how to make them do that, we'll talk. Until then it's the government's job.
Quote:
That is a complete distortion of my position. Most people has not been convicted of crime. I do not believe we would be doing fine if we locked up people who have not been convicted on a crime.

Here's your position:
Quote:
From my perspective (and there is no objective standard on this point), a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society.

Here's what I said:
Quote:
By your logic we'd be doing just fine if everyone was locked up (except, presumably, you).

I invite you to point out what, exactly, I distorted re your position. I'm not seeing it.


I invite you to point out what, exactly, I distorted re your position. I'm not seeing it.

The problem with locking up everyone would be that they have not been convicted of crimes. Please point out where I suggested that it would be OK to lock up people that have not been properly convicted of a crime (which have to been to lock everyone up) or admit you have distorted my position.

[Really Not All That Bright]

"Clipped" sovereignty is still sovereignty. What does international law have to do with this? This is a matter of criminal law. In Texas, what is criminal did is a terroristic threat.
Nothing- that was a nitpick; you chose to refer to Texas as a sovereign state, which is incorrect.
The problem with locking up everyone would be that they have not been convicted of crimes. Please point out where I suggested that it would be OK to lock up people that have not been properly convicted of a crime (which have to been to lock everyone up) or admit you have distorted my position.
You didn't say "people that have not been properly convicted". You said the proportion of people who are in jail is immaterial - and no more. I didn't distort your position; you're distorting it yourself.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

You didn't say "people that have not been properly convicted". You said the proportion of people who are in jail is immaterial - and no more. I didn't distort your position; you're distorting it yourself.

I never said locking up people who are innocent is OK. You just assumed I did so you could distort my position into something terrible. You are a dishonest person.

[lobotomyboy63]

If I were at the PD and had to form an opinion about the call, my first thought would be Columbine, not WTC. Columbine was plenty serious but it wouldn't qualify as terrorism of the sort that 9/11 conjures. As such, I would want to make sure the appropriate guidelines were applied.

That said, would 8 years have been appropriate for those responsible at Columbine (had they been caught before they could go through with it)? Maybe...they posed a definite threat, as history bears out. As far as thinking they'd be rehabilitated during their prison experience, I doubt it.

A psych prof of mine said he'd read a lot of the lit on prison populations. His conclusion: if you're not really a criminal (in your psychological makeup) when you go in, you'll be one when you come out. You can't hang around with murderers, thieves, and rapists without being hugely influenced. Exceptions like Tim Allen exist of course, but I have to place my bets on the most likely outcome.

In fact, a guy who worked in a jail told me that at least some of the recidivism is on purpose. That is, some criminals make *sure* they get caught so they can get thrown in again. After all, they can get meals free, a warm bed, and they can catch up with their "colleagues." For some, it's the only thing they have resembling a home life.

So jails and prisons can have the opposite effect of what we want, actually encouraging bad behavior rather than discouraging it. Despite this shooting ourselves in the foot, we can't seem to build enough prisons. Overcrowding causes the system to discharge criminals, either paroling them or putting them on probation, after a fraction of the sentence has been served.

Of course it's the taxpayers who pay for the prisons to be built and staffed, with the ongoing cost of feeding and clothing prisoners etc. If they came out rehabilitated, the money spent would be worthwhile, but...(see paragraphs 1 and 2 above).

Thinking about countries that seem to have a reputation for low crime rates, Singapore leaps to mind. Remember Michael Fay, the American kid who went crazy with the paint remover on cars and ended up getting caned?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

Reading that article, it sounds like Singapore had many more of these incidents than their image might indicate (one resident had to have his car refinished six times in six months). Anyway, harsh as it might seem (?), would a caning or other physical punishment be preferable to sitting in jail for say, 8 years?

The Wikipedia article cites PTSD as a possible result of caning. Following up on Fay, post-caning, it says:

In 1994, Fay suffered burns to his hands and face after a butane incident.[5][6][7] He was subsequently admitted to the Hazelden rehabilitation program for butane abuse.[5] He claimed that sniffing butane "made him forget what happened in Singapore."[8] In 1996, he was cited in Florida for a number of violations, including careless driving, reckless driving, not reporting a crash and having an open bottle of alcohol in a car.[9] Later, in 1998, still in Florida, Fay was arrested for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, charges to which he confessed but was not found guilty[10] because of technical errors in his arrest.[11]

Of course, it's possible that Fay, who had already proved himself to be an entitled jerk, would have done these things whether he'd been caned or not.

Jail is too much about punishment and not enough about rehabilitation. Our tendency has been to stamp "Evil" on the criminal's forehead and throw them in the hole until they've served their time, or as much as we can force them to serve given the space available. We've got to do better.

If I were the judge, maybe I'd say, "You can do 8 years in jail...or I can give a sentence of X hours of community service. You don't choose what those hours will be; I will prescribe them."

1) He must address an assembly of the school he threatened, apologizing for his act. As a symbolic act of "making it up to them," he must also pick up trash on their campus, help janitors clean their bathrooms and remove graffiti. It's a lot easier to do nasty things to nameless, faceless people and the hardest thing is probably to face them and take responsibility.

2) I'd also have him sit in on their student council meetings or other things where he sees them trying to do positive things for their school. If he were good at a subject (say, math), I'd have him tutoring their students. My point here is that I'd like him to see that he can get "good attention" instead of bad, offer him an idea of how to redirect his energy toward something positive.

3) He must interview the principal of the school he threatened. He must prepare a report of the fallout from what he did, in terms of monetary and other costs to that school.

4) He must ride with police as an observer when they enter dangerous parts of town, not knowing who might pull a gun. The police probably have video just like we see on TV these days...routine traffic stop and the perp opens fire with an Uzi. The kid must also attend funerals of any officers killed in action.

5) He must volunteer at a hospital and see what gunshot victims suffer, help dress the wounds, talk to the families. He must also visit the morgue and face what happens when doctors can't save the victim.

IANAL (how clear does my post make THAT?). And faced with thousands of criminals, could we really design a custom rehabilitation program for each? I dunno. But we have to do something better.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

If I were the judge, maybe I'd say, "You can do 8 years in jail...or I can give a sentence of X hours of community service. You don't choose what those hours will be; I will prescribe them."

1) He must address an assembly of the school he threatened, apologizing for his act. As a symbolic act of "making it up to them," he must also pick up trash on their campus, help janitors clean their bathrooms and remove graffiti. It's a lot easier to do nasty things to nameless, faceless people and the hardest thing is probably to face them and take responsibility.

2) I'd also have him sit in on their student council meetings or other things where he sees them trying to do positive things for their school. If he were good at a subject (say, math), I'd have him tutoring their students. My point here is that I'd like him to see that he can get "good attention" instead of bad, offer him an idea of how to redirect his energy toward something positive.

3) He must interview the principal of the school he threatened. He must prepare a report of the fallout from what he did, in terms of monetary and other costs to that school.

4) He must ride with police as an observer when they enter dangerous parts of town, not knowing who might pull a gun. The police probably have video just like we see on TV these days...routine traffic stop and the perp opens fire with an Uzi. The kid must also attend funerals of any officers killed in action.

5) He must volunteer at a hospital and see what gunshot victims suffer, help dress the wounds, talk to the families. He must also visit the morgue and face what happens when doctors can't save the victim.


What law gives the judge the authority to create this type of sentence?

[Little Nemo]

I don't care if it was a joke. It doesn't matter if it was a joke. He made a phone call and threatened murder. Full stop. Some things are simply not funny.So if two store clerks are hanging out in the break room and one says "If the boss makes us work overtime again this weekend, I'm going to kill him." how many years of imprisonment would you consider appropriate for this clear threat of premeditated murder?

[lobotomyboy63]

What law gives the judge the authority to create this type of sentence?

Beats me. Already posted IANAL.

[Antinor01]

So if two store clerks are hanging out in the break room and one says "If the boss makes us work overtime again this weekend, I'm going to kill him." how many years of imprisonment would you consider appropriate for this clear threat of premeditated murder?

That obviously calls for capital punishment, but if he didn't really mean it perhaps just life without possibility of parole.

If I were the other clerk, I would weigh if I thought it was something to report or not. I've probably worked with them a while and would have an idea on if he was just fooling around or if I thought it were serious. Of course, this sort of process is impossible if you receive a phone call from a stranger that makes the same sort of threat.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I never said locking up people who are innocent is OK. You just assumed I did so you could distort my position into something terrible. You are a dishonest person.
I didn't assume anything. I would have been distorting your position if I'd said something like, "you think locking up everyone who hasn't committed a crime is okay," which I obviously didn't. You didn't specify who ought to be locked up, and neither did I.

I simply pointed out that by your own words you'd be alright with it if everyone was locked up - which you would.

Virtually everyone has committed a crime at some point, especially if you include such things as traffic infractions. You made no representations regarding how serious a crime should be to result in a prison term.

I may indeed be a dishonest person, but I have been nothing but honest in this thread.

[Lute Skywatcher]

You can't have it both ways. He was so stupid that he made the call from a cell that could be traced in front of a whole bunch of witnesses, but he was enough of a criminal mastermind that no cop could ever find his gun!It's Texas, surely he could find someone to lend him one.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

I didn't assume anything. I would have been distorting your position if I'd said something like, "you think locking up everyone who hasn't committed a crime is okay," which I obviously didn't. You didn't specify who ought to be locked up, and neither did I.

I simply pointed out that by your own words you'd be alright with it if everyone was locked up - which you would.

No, by my words you cannot judge (with some exceptions) a society on the percentage of people in prison. I never said I would be OK with everyone locked up. Do you see the difference between:

a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society.

and

[a society would] be doing just fine if everyone was locked up

[Really Not All That Bright]

Do you see the difference between:

a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society.

and

[a society would] be doing just fine if everyone was locked up
Obviously they're not the same sentence. Equally obviously, if we assume that the first is true, then the second must be also.

G'head, ask anyone. I'll wait.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Obviously they're not the same sentence. Equally obviously, if we assume that the first is true, then the second must be also.

G'head, ask anyone. I'll wait.

No, because we know that everyone has not been convicted of a crime.

[lobotomyboy63]

Obviously they're not the same sentence. Equally obviously, if we assume that the first is true, then the second must be also.

G'head, ask anyone. I'll wait.

Accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, raising the incarceration rate must raise the quality level of any country? I don't follow your logic. :confused:

[Really Not All That Bright]

Accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, raising the incarceration rate must raise the quality level of any country? I don't follow your logic. :confused:
No - accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, if everyone is incarcerated, quality is unaffected. I mean "doing fine" in the sense of "not doing worse". I don't know that you could correctly take it to mean "doing better".
No, because we know that everyone has not been convicted of a crime.
How do we know that? You were speaking in general terms when you said "a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society", not specifically about the USA.

Anyway, you're missing the point. What if everyone has been convicted of a crime?

[Evil Captor]

Two, before you advocate the idea of sending people to prison for saying something stupid, you might want to consider the effect it would have for you personally.

There are a lot of people in this thread who REALLY need to think about this point.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

No - accepting that incarceration and quality are unrelated, if everyone is incarcerated, quality is unaffected. I mean "doing fine" in the sense of "not doing worse". I don't know that you could correctly take it to mean "doing better".

How do we know that? You were speaking in general terms when you said "a society having a high number of prisoners is almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a good society", not specifically about the USA.

Here is what you wrote:

By your logic we'd be doing just fine if everyone was locked up

Who is we?

Anyway, you're missing the point. What if everyone has been convicted of a crime?

What if God was real and said it was a moral requirement of existence that all people should shave their body hair?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Who is we?

What if God was real and said it was a moral requirement of existence that all people should shave their body hair?
"We" is the citizens of a good society - in my case, the USA.

As far as your second question goes - I reiterate that you're completely fucking insane.

If you're an adult and you don't yet understand that preventing crimes is better for society than merely punishing offenders, I doubt anything will ever convince you. In any case, I've had no chance to even attempt to do so since you refocused the thread into a discussion of semantics and whether I'm a "dishonest person". :dubious:

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

"We" is the citizens of a good society - in my case, the USA.

I am a citizen of the US, too. Now, have all of the people in the US been convicted of a crime?

As far as your second question goes - I reiterate that you're completely fucking insane.

I think you meant "iterate." This is only the second time you called me insane.

The point is impossible hypotheticals are stupid.

If you're an adult and you don't yet understand that preventing crimes is better for society than merely punishing offenders, I doubt anything will ever convince you. In any case, I've had no chance to even attempt to do so since you refocused the thread into a discussion of semantics and whether I'm a "dishonest person". :dubious:

When did I say that preventing crime was not better? But in this case, it is too late to prevent the crime; it already occurred.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am a citizen of the US, too. Now, have all of the people in the US been convicted of a crime?
Obviously not. That doesn't address the point, which is what if they were?
I think you meant "iterate." This is only the second time you called me insane.
...in this thread. In any case, iterate and reiterate are synonyms (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reiterate).
The point is impossible hypotheticals are stupid.

When did I say that preventing crime was not better? But in this case, it is too late to prevent the crime; it already occurred.
If you have a lot of people locked up, you're clearly not preventing much crime. You said that doesn't affect how you view the society, which clearly suggests to me that you're not interested in crime prevention.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Obviously not. That doesn't address the point, which is what if they were?

I am not interested in impossible hypothetical.

...in this thread. In any case, iterate and reiterate are synonyms (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reiterate).

They are used as synonyms by people who are not careful enough with distinctions of usage.

If you have a lot of people locked up, you're clearly not preventing much crime. You said that doesn't affect how you view the society, which clearly suggests to me that you're not interested in crime prevention.

You are assuming too much.

[x-ray vision]

Most of those states with "age of consent" under 18 are only if the other person is not more than 3 or 4 years older. They're designed to protect against the 'boyfriend turns 18 two weeks before the girlfriend'-type scenarios. Comparitively few states allow a 16 or 17 year old to bang, say, a 35 year old.
I don't think that's correct. According to the chart here (http://www.ageofconsent.us/), only nine states have 18 as an age of consent. That means in all the other states a 16 or 17 year old can bang a 35 year old. Those ages are not designed to protect a boyfriend or girlfriend who is younger. What you're thinking of is the age gap provision. For instance, the age of consent in Alabama is 16, but the age gap provision allows a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. A 35 year old could not have sex with a 15 year old, but could have sex with a 16 year old.

[Lust4Life]

You can't have it both ways. He was so stupid that he made the call from a cell that could be traced in front of a whole bunch of witnesses, but he was enough of a criminal mastermind that no cop could ever find his gun!

.

Strawman,keeping a gun round a friends house,or having the option to borrow a gun does not make you even reasonably bright let alone a criminal mastermind.
I have no sympathy at all for this loathsome piece of vermin.

I would not be stunned with amazement if jail or no jail this individual goes on to commit more extreme crimes later on in life.

As to all the people who DO seem to feel sympathy for this person would you still feel it was just a prank if he had rung up say a close member of your family and told them that he was going to kill them,let alone commit mass random murder?

If your feelings remain the same then you must truly be a forgiving person at least on the level of a saint.

[neutron star]

Strawman,keeping a gun round a friends house,or having the option to borrow a gun does not make you even reasonably bright let alone a criminal mastermind.
I have no sympathy at all for this loathsome piece of vermin.So you honestly believe that:

A. He was planning this and had a gun hidden at someone else's house in anticipation?

B. The fact that he was egged on by a bunch of other students to make the call is just an incredible coincidence?

C. If he hadn't been caught, he would have been the first person EVER to warn a school before he shot it up?

I find it amazing that you are so accurately able to judge someone's personality and predisposition towards future criminal behavior by a few ill-thought-out spoken words (not even actions) spoken by a teenage mouth. Saying stupid shit that hasn't been throught through is pretty much a teenager's job.

I know for a fact that he did less damage than I did smashing up mailboxes as a teenager and I'm hardly still a criminal. How severely would you have punished me?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I know for a fact that he did less damage than I did smashing up mailboxes as a teenager and I'm hardly still a criminal. How severely would you have punished me?
Retroactive death penalty for you!

Who wants to press the button?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Retroactive death penalty for you!

Who wants to press the button?

That's too good. We gotta make an example of him for that.

Drawn an quartered, or locked in a room with the barny song playing for 40 years?

[Antinor01]

I know for a fact that he did less damage than I did smashing up mailboxes as a teenager and I'm hardly still a criminal. How severely would you have punished me?

What is the typical sentence for willful destruction of property? I honestly don't know.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Why does it matter if he was really planning on shooting up the school? That is not an element of the crime of making a terroristic threat. He committed a crime (right after getting out of detention for another crime), and he was sentenced within the proper guidelines.

[Little Nemo]

Apparently the short length of fun's over and we're stuck with the Two and a Half Miles of Dumb that follows.Why does it matter if he was really planning on shooting up the school? That is not an element of the crime of making a terroristic threat.Because if you take away the possibility of an actual shooting then you have a teenager who got sentenced to eight years in prison for making a phone call. Many people would consider that wrong: reasonable people, sane people, smart people, people that roll their eyes whenever you speak.He committed a crime (right after getting out of detention for another crime), and he was sentenced within the proper guidelines.Of course he was, you halfwit. A judge can't sentence anyone beyond the guidelines. We're discussing whether eight years is an appropriate sentence not whether it's a legal one.

[pravnik]

Terroristic threat is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and eight years on a third degree is pretty high for a 17 year old first-time felony offender. Maybe the kid had a shockingly bad juvenile record, maybe the judge just wanted to make an example of him, impossible to say without knowing more than what we've been told. Just to put it in perspective, though, eight years in this case doesn't actually mean eight calander years. It's not an assaultive (or "3g") offense, so by Texas parole guidelines he'll likely be paroled after he's served around eleven months, back time included.

[MeanJoe]

I'm glad that most judges don't agree with you. Every student bomb threat I've been able to dig up in the news was punished by probation. Some people seem to think that just because they aren't in jail that they aren't being punished, but things like probation and community service are rather shitty. And they're shitty in a way that keeps you (for the most part) from ruining your life. Because that's what jail time constitutes, you know? A few years behind bars means a whole host of opportunities will never be available to you, and it will affect you until the day you die.

Were the threats you were able to dig up from events before or after Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.?

I'm not arguing one way or another but I can see how post-Virginia Tech, etc., that judges may take a harder stance on these types of things.

MeanJoe

[neutron star]

All of them were after Columbine, but a few of them were before VA Tech. They were Google News searches from 2006-2008.

[MeanJoe]

All of them were after Columbine, but a few of them were before VA Tech. They were Google News searches from 2006-2008.

Thanks for clarifying and providing the link

MeanJo

[ThePrankBuster]

You don't know what you're talking about ! You need to be on the receiving end of these so call Prank calls. I hunt Prank Callers. To date I've had 4 arrested. One was 15 year old who not only threatened to kill people but also ordered thousands of dollars of different kinds of products under Trial Programs and had them shipped to unsuspecting people. These punks are causing the expenditure of untold thousands of dollars but are also causing people to experience physical damage. The Emotional and Psychological Stress of a repeated imminent death threat or exstencive property damage has caused many victims to experience physical and some... life threatening physical problems.
A male victim, 68 years old suffered a minor stroke because of a year of daily Prank calls. A male of 73 years old in the midwest has been prank called for 3years straight everyday. The males involved in the prank calls record peoples voices without their consent, which is a violation of U.S. Title 18: TeleCommunications and Wiretap Act as well as most State's Laws on the same topic as the Federal Law and post them to YouTube and other Social forums. That alone..if nothing else makes them criminals. These males and, 99.9% of them are males...are really Emotional and Psychological Terrorists. I know of a businessman who...so called Prank Callers, cost his business at least $30,000 last year alone and I don't have the current costs associated with his businesses loses this year but when I spoke to him 2 months ago he said he was barely hanging on and because of these punks have harrassed him for 2 straight years everyday, at 53 his business was on the verge of going out of business several times but was still just barely hang on from going out of business but only because he was now working 16-20 hour days 7 days a week to keep his business going. The ambulance has taken him out of his shop twice because of the stress levels associated with what these punks have caused in his life. Now let's take you for instance. Let us hypothesize and say that you had a home phone number that you could not change, because hypothetically if you did change it you could not receive any more deliveries to your house.
How would you like that phone getting 50 to 100 phone calls a day with angry male voices threating to come over an kill you or blow your house up in the middle of the night or rape your mother or steal you auto. Do you think that would make you very angry and even afraid because you don't know who these males are because they are anonymous? If you say it wouldn't then you're in denial or dillusional....or both !


While I think the sentence is beyond excessive, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do. One should always make an effort to make a practical joke clearly distinguishable from a terroristic threat.

Still a ridiculous sentence, though. Probation would have been fine. Ruining his life over this is both pointless and heartless.

[ThePrankBuster]

All these posts are from young dumb immature males or ....just dumb immature males

So you honestly believe that:

A. He was planning this and had a gun hidden at someone else's house in anticipation?

B. The fact that he was egged on by a bunch of other students to make the call is just an incredible coincidence?

C. If he hadn't been caught, he would have been the first person EVER to warn a school before he shot it up?

I find it amazing that you are so accurately able to judge someone's personality and predisposition towards future criminal behavior by a few ill-thought-out spoken words (not even actions) spoken by a teenage mouth. Saying stupid shit that hasn't been throught through is pretty much a teenager's job.

I know for a fact that he did less damage than I did smashing up mailboxes as a teenager and I'm hardly still a criminal. How severely would you have punished me?

[Idle Thoughts]

ThePrankBuster, you realize you're replying to posts made about two years ago? Some of the members you're talking to may not be here anymore.
Also, someone with your name talking about hunting pranksters? Heh, hopefully you'll have more things and posts to make other then ones about pranks. :p
Welcome to the SDMB.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Reported.

[Paul in Qatar]

American terrorist? Does that mean the government can kill him with a Predator drone without a trial?

[kaylasdad99]

Reported.

For top-posting, right? :D

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, aside from PrankBuster being a Real American Hero, I was kinda hoping the bump was for an update, i.e. the convicted kid released after serving two years.

[Fear Itself]

nm

[dumbroad]

I think one thing that very few people are focusing on here is that this kid is 17 years old! All this talk of "sealed juvie records" is ridiculous...this should still BE a part of his juvie record. In my jurisdiction, it would be very rare that this kid would even be tried as an adult.

The sad thing is that this kid's life is going to be completely ruined by this. For a crime that didn't actually hurt anyone, this is a more than excessive sentence.

If this "kid" is 17 and already committing crimes like this, he should definitely be punished. I'm sure he won't even serve the full sentence. The courts probably wanted to set an example. Plus, if he's already been convicted of these two things, just imagine what else he's done that isn't known about. Just refer to CCR for how they handle things in Texas:

"If you're ever in Houston, well you better do the right. You better not gamble, you better not fight. Or the sheriff will grab ya, and the boys will bring you down. The next thing you know boy, oh you're prison bound!"

[Lynn Bodoni]

I'm gonna put this thread back to bed. If anyone has anything new to add about this case, then start a new thread and link to this one.

Lynn
For the Straight Dope