You have the wisdom of Solomon.
John, I agree with your analysis, but am not sure what you’re saying. Do you think it’s appropriate to charge a bad comedian under a law intended to deter bluffing terrorists?
Sure, so long as the penalties under the law extend down far enough that she can get the fine and no jail time that she deserves. The alternative would be to have, as I said, an additional law strictly limited to making it a crime to joke about having a bomb, as opposed to stating one has a bomb. And I think that’s pretty ludicrous when a court can make a simple decision as to whether it was a joke or not.
What I’m really saying is that the “15 years in jail max penalty” is not some arbitrary, huge penalty set up because we have become humorless fascists since 9/11; it’s because it’s easier to prosecute this nitwit under an existing law than to create a new one.
You know, I just feel like hijacking this thread to hell and back, because of all of the people wanting to let this woman go basically scot free. So we’ll play a little game right now. The overriding sentiment here is that this is not worth considerable jail time. Right?
OK, well then answer me this: why should this guy get around 6 years in prison? It’s not like he poked the 13-year-old girl, is it? He just wanted to, saying she was “so mature for her age”, who unsurprisingly turned out to be an FBI agent. :rolleyes:
So, do we enforce sentences on stupid people who willfully break the law even though there was no harm done, or do we just let them go with a slap on the wrist? Between the bomb woman and this pedophile story I linked to, I’m rather confused. Why should we let one total moron get away with disrupting an airport security checkpoint, affecting hundreds of people, when we put away another total moron who intended to commit a crime but never really did?
Rationalize your way through this one, guys. :rolleyes:
Needless to say, I think this woman should be penalized pretty substantially. I think someone this abysmally stupid should be reminded that there are other people than her that are affected by her little joke.
How exactly could this example from your post, and the incident that this thread is centred around be directly comparable? For this to be the case she would have actually had to have a bomb and then be claiming she wasn’t going to use it. Surely?
There is no difference. In an airport, a joke is a threat is a bomb until verified otherwise. It says so in 72-point print on countless signs all throughout the airport.
It’s two separate examples of stupid people, both committed crimes, neither physically harmed anyone else, and one is going to jail for a long time while people are advocating that the other one (the woman) be let go with a slap on the wrist.
I agree with you up to this point. However, as I see it the major difference is that in the case you describe the intent was there to “physically harm someone else”, but in the case of the bomb-joke there was never any such intent (she didn’t really have any explosives) and it was just a moment of stupidity.
Not that I believe she should get off ‘scot-free’. A reasonable fine and maybe a 12-month visa rescinding would be IMO a just punishment.
Before I answer your question, USAF, let me share a formative riddle from my youth:
Q. How many legs does a sheep have, if you count the tail as a leg?
A. Four. Just calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it one.
Similarly, a joke isn’t a threat isn’t a bomb until verified otherwise: it’s either a bomb or it’s not a bomb. In this case, it wasn’t a bomb. It was a bad joke.
Now I’ll answer your question. If I understand your question, you’re asking the difference between:
- A girl who, in an attempt to make a lame joke, actually runs afoul of a very serious law, but has no malicious intent and does no actual harm; and
- A guy who, in an attempt to commit a horrific crime, actually runs afoul of a very serious law, has malicious intent, but does no actual harm.
The difference is that in case one, there was no malicious intent. Follow the thread: that’s a major, major difference under the law.
Stupidity gets punished much more lightly than malice.
That said, I’m astonished and rather disgusted that you see moral equivalence between someone making an ill-advised joke and someone trying to rape a thirteen-year-old girl. Am I massively misreading you, or do you completely lack any sense of perspective?
Daniel
Incidentally, I’m kind of a compulsive sign-reader: I’m the kind of dumbass who hangs around the water-fountain at the gym so I can read the posted note about how much water dieticians recommend drinking, because if I don’t read the whole note it’ll bother me. But I don’t ever recall seeing signs against joking in airports. I know it’s a rule, and I bite my tongue because common sense tells me it’s a rule, but I’ve not seen these signs.
Granted, I’ve only flown once since 9/11 – a honeymoon trip this last June to Denmark and Norway. But I flew through three different US airports on the way. Are these really in all the airports now?
Maybe when I’m in airports I’m too stressed to be the compulsive sign-reader I normally am.
Daniel