It was the callousness that decided that punishment. Other cuts down trees for firewood, or because they thought it was okay. They likely got fine. But these asshats glorified in it. They deserved every year.
However, per wiki, they arent serving out the whole four years-
They were told that they would be released no later than 40% of the way through their sentence and that the time they had already served on remand would also be deducted
So, more like a year and a half.
I’d like to see a law enacted that required anyone who commits a crime like this - knowingly vandalizing or destroying a national treasure - should have to go on a permanent registry like a sex criminal. For the rest of their life, they should be required to have to go door to door in their town and tell everyone that they’re the person who destroyed a piece of history.
“Father, I cannot tell a lie…”
See post 3.
There is an exemplary element to this as well.
“Let him be punished, sovereign, lest sufferance breed example of his like.”
I agree.
It was outrageous that they cut down this tree and it made me sad that they did it. I wanted them to be severely punished, because I felt very angry about the thing they did.
But the outrage, anger and sadness of the general public really aren’t supposed to be factors in the appropriate and fair meting out of justice. We should be better than that.
I disagree
.“Meting out justice” includes many factors. And one of those factors is upholding certain moral and social values : respect for the law, and respect for your fellow citizens. If millions of citizens all suffer outrage, anger and sadness due to your actions, then that must be taken into consideration when punishing you.
I agree with this - it’s why we hold this tree to be something different than others. It’s part of our national heritage, which means it’s meaningful to people beyond being a tree, and when it’s gone, it affects people. That has to be taken into account beyond chopping wood.
OK I guess, but I think if we were to posit a continuum between ‘angry mob’ and ‘dispassionate justice machine’, I think I want to be on the other side of middle from ‘angry mob’.
I suppose completely dispassionate justice also wouldn’t be able to be merciful when that is appropriate, so yeah, I take your point.
Would you be OK with the court responding to an “outraged public” rather than an “angry mob?” Or are you saying that people can’t be properly upset about a cherished thing? I don’t feel that it’s appropriate that someone gets the same penalty for illegally cutting down a random tree in the forest versus this case.
I don’t know - people get outraged about things they should not (immigrants and LGBT people for example). I completely get that people feel it was a cherished thing - as I mentioned above, I felt that way myself. I don’t think I have an answer for you other than people getting upset about the way they feel about a thing is not necessarily the same as people suffering actual harm.
Things generally don’t go well for tree-killing sleazeballs.
In addition to the poisoner of the revered Auburn live oaks (who reportedly lived to regret his notoriety), there’s a current legal case involving a dipshit who cut down his neighbor’s trees to improve his ocean view and make extra $$ on a home sale.
You beat me to it. Those are the two cases I was going to mention.
There was a huge, legendary tree that grew in Texas’ Big Thicket region.
According to a story in Berton Roueche’s book on conservation, “What’s Left”, the tree was cut down, supposedly by someone making a “statement” in opposition to efforts to designate a portion of the Big Thicket as a protected reserve.
Fortunately, a Big Thicket National Preserve was eventually created.
I think vandalizing a landmark should absolutely carry tougher penalties. It’s not just a tree or a rock—these places mean something to people. They’re part of our shared history and identity.
If someone targets a well-known landmark, it’s not random. They’re making a statement or just getting a kick out of ruining something for everyone else. That deserves more than a slap on the wrist.
And, if the vandal’s a minor, I think the parents should be on the hook financially. A hefty fine might actually make some folks pay closer attention to what their kid’s up to—especially if chainsaws are involved.
Most of this kind of destruction is avoidable. Accountability starts at home.
There’s a whole subreddit about “tree law.”
Here’s another famous one:
Just chiming in to say I agree. There’s a reason why we have laws and punishments already in place rather than deciding it based on how angry I am at the time. Otherwise we’d still be chopping peoples heads off.
I am glad that, in this case, they were given a harsh punishment because fuck them.
As mentioned earlier, there is a real financial cost as well. The local businesses made a lot of revenue from tourists who went there to visit the tree. That’s gone now.
The dipshit neighbor is now facing criminal charges:
The Boston Globe article is paywalled, but here’s the skinny on the criminal aspect:
Jacoby is charged with vandalizing property, a felony that carries a sentence of up to three years in state prison, along with lesser charges of trespassing and destroying trees on another person’s land, according to court records.
There was this guy who sneaked onto his neighbor’s property while the neighbor was having a big party, and destroyed two really nice trees. He didn’t even have a reason; it was pure malice because he had a grudge against the tree’s owners. The incident started a huge feud that eventually involved hundreds of other people.
I think his name was Morgoth or something like that.