The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2980 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | LadyKate [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=6204 Full article here: Spoiler: Basically some high school seniors broke into the local school and spread vegetable oil in the hallways and put zip ties on the lockers and now they are all being charged with felony burglary and the whole community is in an uproar that these "kids" are being charged with felonies instead of just community service or something. |
Author: | Müs [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:50 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Throw the book @ them. Cretins. |
Author: | Lenas [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:54 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. |
Author: | Müs [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Lenas wrote: I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. Why would you assume that? They committed the crime, why should they get lesser punishment? And yes, vandals are cretins. |
Author: | RangerDave [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:59 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Sounds like the local authorities are a bunch of ***holes. People really need to get over their love of authority and "order". That said, I don't see how this qualifies as burglary. Burglary requires intent to commit a felony once inside the building. Spreading vegetable oil and twist-tieing lockers doesn't qualify. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
Spreading vegtable oil would qualify as Vandalism in Ohio because it was done to a school, which is a place of work and livelyhood, as well as government property. Damaging something like, someone's front gate is criminal damaging which is a misdemeanor. Because of that, entry into the building would technically qualify as burglary here. That said, burglary does not necessarily require intent to commit a felony in every state. |
Author: | DFK! [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: Sounds like the local authorities are a bunch of ***holes. People really need to get over their love of authority and "order". Without advocating a stance for or against punishing them, I have to ask: why? We live in a society allegedly based upon law. These people have violated that law. For what reason should they be excepted? |
Author: | LadyKate [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
DFK! wrote: RangerDave wrote: Sounds like the local authorities are a bunch of ***holes. People really need to get over their love of authority and "order". Without advocating a stance for or against punishing them, I have to ask: why? We live in a society allegedly based upon law. These people have violated that law. For what reason should they be excepted? See, that's the local debate...some think the kids should not be exempt from the law and they should face the same consequences as anyone else and not be treated special just because it was a "harmless prank." Others are saying that they are just kids playing a senior joke like generations before them who have broken into schools and stolen mascots and things like that and that a felony charge is completely unwarranted. |
Author: | shuyung [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:32 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
DFK! wrote: Without advocating a stance for or against punishing them, I have to ask: why? We live in a society allegedly based upon law. These people have violated that law. For what reason should they be excepted? The Merchant of Venice Act IV Scene I wrote: The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown. His scepter shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings. But mercy is above this sceptered sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings; It is an attribute of God himself; And earthly power doth then show like God's When mercy seasons justice. |
Author: | RangerDave [ Wed May 19, 2010 12:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
Diamondeye wrote: That said, burglary does not necessarily require intent to commit a felony in every state. True; I should have said "typically requires" or "traditionally requires". I'm not familiar with Ohio's particular statutes. DFK! wrote: We live in a society allegedly based upon law. These people have violated that law. For what reason should they be excepted? I'm a firm believer in having some degree of flexibility and discretion built into the law. It's impossible for legislators to perfectly anticipate every scenario, so statutes have to be written with some degree of generality. Unfortunately, that generality can lead to situations where the law technically applies but isn't really the kind of situation it was intended to capture or would otherwise be contrary to the general sense of what's just. So we give cops, prosecutors, judges, and juries discretion to forgo arrest/prosecution/punishment if they think doing so would be more in accordance with the intent of the specific law and the community's standard of "justice" and "fairness" in general. I think this is one of those situations where such discretion should have been exercised because the severity of the consequences is disproportionate to the actions of the perpetrators. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed May 19, 2010 1:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Isn't that why we have trials by jury, so they can look at the situation and determine how or if the law applies? If I were a DA I'd go with a lesser charge that has a better chance if actually sticking and if I were there attorney Id argue felony burgluary didn't apply on the grounds you just stated. See? Lawfull yet flexible. |
Author: | Lenas [ Wed May 19, 2010 1:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
LadyKate wrote: ... they are just kids playing a senior joke like generations before them who have broken into schools and stolen mascots and things like that and that a felony charge is completely unwarranted. This. If they hadn't already paid to repair what they did, my stance might be different. That's the entire point of jail in our justice system, paying society for what you've done and making amends. |
Author: | Ladas [ Wed May 19, 2010 1:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Article wrote: Kelsey Jones says the group never would have pulled the prank if they knew the potential consequences.
|
Author: | DFK! [ Wed May 19, 2010 1:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
RangerDave wrote: DFK! wrote: We live in a society allegedly based upon law. These people have violated that law. For what reason should they be excepted? I'm a firm believer in having some degree of flexibility and discretion built into the law. It's impossible for legislators to perfectly anticipate every scenario, so statutes have to be written with some degree of generality. Unfortunately, that generality can lead to situations where the law technically applies but isn't really the kind of situation it was intended to capture or would otherwise be contrary to the general sense of what's just. So we give cops, prosecutors, judges, and juries discretion to forgo arrest/prosecution/punishment if they think doing so would be more in accordance with the intent of the specific law and the community's standard of "justice" and "fairness" in general. I think this is one of those situations where such discretion should have been exercised because the severity of the consequences is disproportionate to the actions of the perpetrators. Flexibility of law tramples rights, because those "subjective" decision-making authorities are prone to bias and corruption. This is related to the thread talking about jury nullification, because that is the only place where true subjectivity should be introduced to the system. Shuyung, as to your point: the concept of mercy cannot be built into the rule of law except in the form of executive pardon. In this particular case, perhaps that is what needs to happen, assuming one agrees that it was a "harmless prank" along with other members of that faction. "Harmless prank," however, is entirely subjective. The law about burglary and vandalism is not. |
Author: | RangerDave [ Wed May 19, 2010 1:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
You and I have different philosophies of law, DFK. You obviously favor clarity and consistency of application to guard against disparate treatment. That's an important benefit of your approach, but it comes with certain downsides as well - namely excessive generality that fails to account for varying circumstances and therefore results in lesser harms being punished more severely than warranted. My approach favors some flexibility, the pros and cons of which are the mirror image of those in your preferred system. In my opinion, a balance is required. |
Author: | DFK! [ Wed May 19, 2010 1:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: You and I have different philosophies of law, DFK. You obviously favor clarity and consistency of application to guard against disparate treatment. That's an important benefit of your approach, but it comes with certain downsides as well - namely excessive generality that fails to account for varying circumstances and therefore results in lesser harms being punished more severely than warranted. My approach favors some flexibility, the pros and cons of which are the mirror image of those in your preferred system. In my opinion, a balance is required. Why does my philosophy necessitate severe punishment? The law can and should reflect the needs of the people. You can make it as specific or as broad as you want, with specifics being necessary to protect liberty. No "varying circumstance" that I can think of could fail to be accounted for under a proper system of law, containing appropriate checks on power and avenues for justice. These include jury nullification and the executive pardon. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed May 19, 2010 2:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
RangerDave wrote: Diamondeye wrote: That said, burglary does not necessarily require intent to commit a felony in every state. True; I should have said "typically requires" or "traditionally requires". I'm not familiar with Ohio's particular statutes. In this case I think the pertinent state is Mississippi. I cited Ohio because it's burglary law does as you say require intent to commit a felony (or a theft offence), but it's vandalism law might allow the spreading of vegtable oil to be a felony depending on whether it caused actual damage. |
Author: | Talya [ Wed May 19, 2010 4:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I have to chime in here, despite my intention not to post in any of these threads anymore. I'm going to take a contrary opinion to both sides: Yes, throw the book at these kids. Just not the lawbook. Instead use a big heavy hardbound textbook, and aim it well. Pranks like at that high school used to be something you got detention for, possibly suspension. And go back a few more years, a leather strap across your ***. Society is getting too hung up on legalities. Kids will be kids, and pranks like that are damned funny...to kids. The criminal charges are a side effect of politically correct garbage, right up there with "zero tolerance" rules (we didn't used to charge children with assault for playground fights, either.) The proper way to deal with kids is to treat them like kids. But we're afraid to beat them, so we charge them, and send them to juvi. Ask yourself two questions: Which is more likely to fix their behavior, and what costs the taxpayer less money? They're **** kids. Kids are not responsible. That is one of the defining characteristics of immaturity: irresponsibility. That's why we don't give them the same rights and priviledges as adults. We also shouldn't hold them to the same standards of responsibility as adults. We EXPECT kids to do stupid illegal ****. And they should be punished for it: appropriately to their age. That doesn't involve going to court in most cases. (Although I wouldn't mind corporal punishment for adults in some cases, too. Misdemeanors and minor felonies...a good caning would be cheaper than jail and probably more effective a deterrent.) But kids don't deserve the hassle of court or a criminal record for minor **** like this. They also don't deserve the benefits of court. They need no such rights. No lawyers. No technicalities. No juries to convince. You give them a month's detention, an assbeating, and a second assbeating if they mention "appeals." |
Author: | Lydiaa [ Wed May 19, 2010 7:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
1) I'm so glad it hasn't gone crazy pc over here yet 2) if it did, and at the time I was at school, I'd have at least 3 records on my sheet >.< |
Author: | Jocificus [ Thu May 20, 2010 1:05 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
This is way overblown, they aren't deserving of a felony charge. I really think that at this point the justice system in the us has lost sight of what it's supposed to be: a way to redress wrongs. If the person in this instance (the school) believes those wrongs have already been taken care of, it's something that they justice system doesn't need to deal with. Far too often now adays we charge people with ridiculous crimes for things that no one would have thought as crimes when I was in school. Senior pranks, that girl writing on her desk a few months back, and the multitude of other examples show that for some reason we've forgotten that these are kids, and they do dumb things. The way for them to learn their lesson isn't to punish them through the judicial system. Now don't get me wrong, there are teenagers that commit real crimes and deserve to by tried and punished by the justice system. But these things are not crimes, they're just stupidity. How so many have forgotten how things were when they were kids, I'll never know, but I know I and my friends did lots of dumb things. |
Author: | Jasmy [ Thu May 20, 2010 1:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
Okay I need to know....did none of you all do senior pranks while in high school?? For Pete's sake! these kids did an innocuous prank that they have already paid to clean up! They didn't do damage to the school in the form of actual vandalism...ie: breaking something or spray painting or lighting fires...they spilled vegetable oil and twist tied lockers!!! They have followed tradition in doing a senior prank...if it is no longer acceptable the school needs to make that clear at the beginning of the year!! These kids don't deserve a felony record for what they did...community service maybe, but not a felony record! Hell! When I was in high school senior pranks consisted of putting sharks or cement benches in the swimming pool! No one got a felony record for those! They cleaned up the mess or paid the damages! Just like these kids did! Sorry, but I'm on the kids side of this matter! |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu May 20, 2010 6:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
Like I said, pouring vegetable oil could cause actual damage depending on exactly what they poured it on. That said, I'm in favor of Taly's ass-whipping position. Most teenagers need a good spanking just so they remember they aren't adults yet. In this case, there's plenty of other reason as well. And no, I never pulled a senior prank and I actually can't think of any pulled by anyone in my class, at least not at the school. I'm sure someone toilet papered a house or something. |
Author: | Khross [ Thu May 20, 2010 7:57 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Local Debate over Kids' Felony Charges |
We painted our school green for St. Patrick's Day ... |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu May 20, 2010 8:04 am ] |
Post subject: | |
The problem comes in however with getting the parents in n it. Parents used to say "don't worry mister principle well handle this." and we could trust they would. However that's not the case. Thus we go to our other recourse: the legal system. And no I never found it entertaining to disrespect the property rights of others (yes the government counts). Of course that could be because I knew my Dad and his belt were waiting for me when (not if) he found out. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu May 20, 2010 8:38 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Obviously they shouldn't have felony charges. |
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |