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.
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”.
When you figure out how to make them do that, we’ll talk. Until then it’s the government’s job.
Here’s your position:
Here’s what I said:
I invite you to point out what, exactly, I distorted re your position. I’m not seeing it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Nothing- that was a nitpick; you chose to refer to Texas as a sovereign state, which is incorrect.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
