What Is the Point of a $400,000,000 Bill?

The BBQ Pit
1

At least to saddling an individual with a court order to pay $400,000,000 in restitution?

Background: The idiot who set the two fires in and around the USS Miami last year was sentenced today. His plea deal kept the sentencing between 15 and 19 years, and he was sentenced to 17 years.

I really don’t have a problem with that. I think that arson, as a crime, is far too often devalued, and the property damage and especially risk to health and lives are hugely underestimated by most people. So, seeing someone facing major time for an arson feels right to me.

To make my opinion of Mr. Fury even lower, the bonehead didn’t simply set one fire while under the influence of his anxiety, and then renounce arson as a way to get time off. There was a second fire set, in a less combustible location, about a week or so after the first, major, fire. This is demonstrated inability to learn from experience - and strikes me as a reasonable indicator that the bozo was on the way to becoming a true fire bug. Even under the influence of mental illness, I find that second fire makes even the first less excusable.

He had had perhaps the most graphic lesson possible for how wild fires can get and still felt that setting another one made sense. (I could easily buy that this were evidence of meeting the standard of criminal insanity - being incapable of gauging right and wrong - but he rejected that defense. One might wonder if he was well-served by his defense attorney, tbh.)

To get back to where I started: 17 years is harsh for someone who set a fire that killed no one, and caused only minor injuries. In spite of that judgment, I have no problem with that sentence. When one considers the unprecedented nature of the property damage bill, such a long sentence is completely predictable.

But what in the Hell is the point of ordering him to pay $400,000,000 in restitution? Are they going to bill his next 20 incarnations? He could win a Powerball jackpot and still not pay it off. (And if they’re imposing that debt based on the chance that he might win Powerball sometime in the future, I think someone needs a lesson in statistics.) AIUI, it’s not even a debt that can be discharged by a bankruptcy - even though it seems to me that it would be the perfect example of a debt that someone cannot possibly discharge by any other means.

“The judge waived the interest and said Fury could pay in monthly installments when he gets out of prison.” What the hell sort of fantasyland does this moron judge live in that he thinks an ex-con with demonstrated mental health issues this obvious is even going to get a job when he gets out?

This just seems barking insane and I prefer for the insanity in our criminal justice system to be shown from the people before the court - not those on the bench.

2

I asked this same question a few hours ago.

3

I beg your pardon. I’ve just been stewing about this since I first saw it and didn’t think to do a proper search. Mea culpa.

4

It isn’t a fine. It is the amount of money needed to make a real loss whole again. Do you remember when you were a kid and adults told you if you broke a window while playing ball, you had to pay to fix it? It is the same thing here only it isn’t a window and it is a whole lot more expensive.

5

It seems like the statute incorporates mandatory restitution of close to the value of the damages, as opposed to it being the Court’s discretion.

Kids, if you’re going to wreck government property, keep it simple. Like, the stapler. Or the pressure washer if you’re feeling bold. Not a nuke sub.

6

Huh, this guy did more damage to the U.S. Navy than the Japanese.

7

What’s the point of a 200-year prison sentence? It’s not like the guy is gonna make parole.

8

Let’s say he gets out. If he manages to get a minimum wage job, how much does the government confiscate? Is he eligible for food stamps and/or welfare if they take too much, and what are the chances that the government will end up paying him more than he he pays them?

9

If he wins a nuclear submarine in a Publisher’s Clearinghouse sweepstakes, can he just sign that over to the Navy and call it evens?

10

Nobody ever expects him to be able to pay it entirely. It’s more symbolic than anything, but it’s important that people be held legally for the damages they cause even if realistically or practically they can never pay it off.

11

It’s not symbolic. It’s the amount provided in the statute.

12

Exactly. He broke something and now he has to pay for the damages. It is seems pretty straightforward to me. You remember that time when you were in the Ming family antique store and your mother told you not to juggle the vases because you would have to pay for them if you broke them? Same thing. People damage stuff and have to pay for it all the time. This guy just picked the worst target for vandalism imaginable.

13

But will he pay anything at all in the long run? Is he eligible for food stamps, welfare and/or any other government programs? Because that is what is going to happen if the government takes anything of substance from whatever piss-ant minimum wage janitorial position he manages to obtain. As I’ve said before, he could end up costing the government more then they take from him.

14

It would take someone earning 50k a year 20 years to make a million dollars. “He has to pay” isn’t true, in that there is no conceivable way he’ll do so. His fine is literally “a bajillion dollars!” in that it is meaningless and impossible to repay. As to why you’re making weird references to your childhood, I cant figure out.

15

In all probability, he will (though convicts generally have limited access to government benefits).

As has already been pointed out, restitution awards are not imposed based on ability to pay; they are imposed based on the amount of damage sustained by the victim.

The court knows he is judgment-proof, but it doesn’t do any harm to impose $400m in restitution (even assuming the trial court had discretion to modify the amount). He won’t be paying back $40m or even $4m either. There’s always the chance, however tiny, that he might come into some fantastic amount of money, though, and then the government would look really stupid if it said, “hey, he’s broke, fuck it.”

16

It would be even more stupid if taking it enables him to collect a greater amount from the government.

17

I’d love to see the guy inherit some money and have to pay it toward his debt. That was my (in part) sub he destroyed, and I’m not pleased.

18

When someone gets hit with an order of restitution it is structured in such a way that the person can work and earn enough to live on, even moderately comfortably. Beyond that he will be repaying the government for the damages he made. He will certainly never be rich. But he can make a living and live a full, comfortable life.

Of course he will never repay it. It doesn’t matter, he caused the damage. Earnings in excess of moderate means should and shall go to the injured party, which in this case is all United States taxpayers - the US government.

Heck, I’m amazed someone can intentionally and severely damage a nuclear submarine and still have the real possibility of seeing freedom (he’s young enough that he should get through 17 years). For that the defendant should count himself fortunate.

It’s pretty simple - I don’t get why people have a problem with it.

19

Do you have a cite for how much income a person has to make before the government will start taking for restitution and what those limitations on restitution are?

20

No I don’t and I would have to do some digging, so you got me.

I can only claim from current personal experience (child support, taxes, home short sale) that it is held to a maximum 25% of my income before taxes (which is a bigger bite after taxes.) It is calculated 25% gross but taken out at net, so it’s more like a 40% + bite. Eventually when one debt gets paid off, then others will rise in the stack to get paid off faster. For me it’s child support on top, then taxes, then the short sale.

Since I’m not in a position to research it out I will concede the point as not proven in the defendant’s case.