Emerging Tech

911 hack results in SWAT team swoop on hapless couple

A teenager is facing up to 18 years in prison on charges that he hacked into California's 911 emergency response team. His actions resulted in the sheriff's department dispatching a heavily armed SWAT team into the home of an unsuspecting couple.

A teenager is facing up to 18 years in prison on charges that he hacked into California's 911 emergency response team. His actions resulted in the sheriff's department dispatching a heavily armed SWAT team into the home of an unsuspecting couple.

Randell Ellis, 19, of Mulkiteo, allegedly used his computer to call the Orange County 911 dispatch on March 29, 2007. The exact details of the case are not clear, but what he probably did was spoof his victim's house number. In the ensuing 38-minute telephone conversation, he managed to convince dispatchers that he committed a murder on the premises of his victim and was ready to do it again.

Excerpt form PC World:

Within minutes, fire, police and a helicopter team had been dispatched to the home of the Lake Forest, California couple, whom authorities declined to identify.

"They surrounded the home, inside were a husband and wife and their two toddlers," said Farrah Emami, a spokeswoman with the Orange County District Attorney's office. "The husband heard rustling outside of his home and believed it to be a prowler. He took a knife and went into the backyard. Instead of finding a prowler he found a SWAT team pointing assault rifles at him."

"It really easily could have escalated into an innocent person being killed," she added. "We're lucky that they didn't shoot him."

This incident reportedly cost the country an estimated US$18,000.

Authorities said that Ellis had made nearly 200 fake 911 calls to various dispatch systems around the county. He is set to be arrainged on Monday, in Santa Ana, California.

Do you think that an 18-year jail sentence for this crime is excessive? What if someone had been killed as a result?

About

Paul Mah is a writer and blogger who lives in Singapore, where he has worked for a number of years in various capacities within the IT industry. Paul enjoys tinkering with tech gadgets, smartphones, and networking devices.

191 comments
knobhead2
knobhead2

Hey, you guys I know you got offended, but I was just ringing your bells!! It's just that people get so up tight, happily pull each other apart verbally, criticise each others country - and then have the gall to retaliate calling each other bigots. Maybe a little less xenophobia would make the World a better place. No offense was meant but after all, this is Tech Republic not some teen chat room. As a greater man said: "You can't offend me if I won't take offense" So I'll be nice to you and I won't be able to offend you.

DanLM
DanLM

You would have seen I left that spelling error in place on purpose. To hear the hounds bay was my statement. http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=241465&messageID=2341690 You just proved my point. Keep barking at the moon, because I really don't care what you think. And if you would have followed the threads instead of JUST POSTING, you would have seen there was further discussion which in my mind straightened things out.. But you didn't. So again, why should I want the respect of someone that only reads posts so far before making statements. I hope the hell you research anything you do on the job better then you research your postings. Basically, that was an anal posting on your part. Hows your anal education going knobhead? Dan

Absolutely
Absolutely

Between his alias and his use of Jason Hiner's face as his avatar, I think it's pretty clear he's just here trolling, possibly for some personal reason having to do with JH, or possibly just because that's the first TR personnel's face he saw. Anyway, although I recognize it's your prerogative to rip her a new orifice, in light of the amount of crap already spewing, its a tad redundant.

DanLM
DanLM

Actually, I responded only because the person is from Cleveland. I tried to be careful how I worded it just because you never know who the person is. Chuckle, for me... I thought it was a pretty tame response. Dan

jhcampbe
jhcampbe

It cost the county $18k so far!

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

And please do not include any amounts personnel would have been paid anyway.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

Yes, they would have been on the payroll, but for the purpose of answering REAL emergencies, preventing REAL crimes or performing other needed and REAL services. Any and all time and resources redirected in responding to this asinine joke, SHOULD be reimbursed by the perp. How can you logically think otherwise? Why should the resources funded by my taxes be wasted by this idiot, at no cost to him? Hopefully, this will have a deterrent effect, when other teens realize that he just sacrificed much of his success in life by spending the second quarter of it in prison and starting out $18K in the hole (plus interest), without ever going to college. Why are you interested in minimizing the cost for him? Did he care about minimizing the impact of his thoughtless actions, as he made 200 bogus calls to a critical public safety line, clearly intended for emergencies only?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]The legal difference between this and any other 911 call is that the caller and the perp were the same person.[/i] A man calling 911 with his real name to his own house to a crime that didn't exist is every bit as wasteful. [i]Yes or no: the perpetrator of every crime should bear the full financial cost they incur to society, including individual victims and government?"[/i] Yes, including reimbursement for any incarceration.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Everybody who commits any crime that gets reported is [u]directly[/u] responsible for the utilisation of all resources used to prosecute that crime. [i]Most crimes are caused by underlying, usually economic, problems.[/i] They are all the result of choices to ignore others' rights. I'd like to see more action by non-profits trying to directly address those underlying problems, and less lobbying to get the government to do it. The government is no better at remedying those underlying, usually economic, problems, than it was at preventing them. [i]This was a crime for the sake of the crime itself and for the sick amusement of the punk.[/i] Agreed, completely. I just think any action that results in a SWAT team being called is so egregious that the distinction you're making pales in comparison. I hope the 200 separate counts are prosecuted for a total sentence of more than 18 measly years, but I oppose special treatment in general. It's always bad for somebody's morale, and I don't believe the "good" it does is ever equivalent.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

in theory. Your problem will be in trying to get blood from a stone. However, there is a slight difference in the circumstances. In the case of the usual crime, the police, prosecutor and prisons are serving the mission for which they were created and funded. This particular case involves direct abuse and perversion of the emergency response element of that system, contrary to its intended mission. I feel that's what makes this wasteful redirection of resources so particularly egregious on the part of the perpetrator. Most crimes are caused by underlying, usually economic, problems. This was a crime for the sake of the crime itself and for the sick amusement of the punk.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

the punk for a groundbreaking. I think you have become a little lost among your cobwebs. Like it or not, everyone who attended that groundbreaking, or worked on it, was doing it as a normal part of their job, not in response to some fabricated emergency, solely for the perverse criminal amusement of some punk, which burdened and abused the entire emergency response system, possibly delaying responses to other emergencies. This isn't even as close as comparing apples to oranges. "I've explained myself as well as I care to. You either understand or you don't." Likewise!

faradhi
faradhi

The perpetrator of every crime should bear the full financial cost they incur to society, including individual victims and government.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]Any and all time and resources redirected in responding to this asinine joke, SHOULD be reimbursed by the perp.[/i] Always, or never? The legal difference between this and any other 911 call is that the caller and the perp were the same person. Yes or no: the perpetrator of [b]every[/b] crime should bear the full financial cost they incur to society, including individual victims and government? [ edit: replaced . with ? ]

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]Why are you interested in minimizing the cost for him?[/i] but treat all things the same. Consider your average groundbreaking ceremony, for example. We had one just yesterday... Consider a few dozen average bigwigs on the public payroll, none UNDER $40.00 an hour, standing around for two hours both before and after the actual groundbreaking. Consider the fuel they used driving their publicly owned vehicles to the site. Consider the cost of preparation, materials, and tear-down work done by dozens of other public employees (pretty signs and banners to impress political and other influentials in attendance), etc. Why don't they report the "cost" in that scenario? I can almost guarantee that it was more than $18,000. And this is considered a POOR area of the country. I've explained myself as well as I care to. You either understand or you don't.

Tig2
Tig2

And realistically, a few points... I was working for a hospital in So Cal when we had a gang member brought in with a gun shot wound. Go figure. How did we know that this was a gang member? Might have had something to do with his "homies" showing up and completely disrupting our ER. The kicker was when the rival gang- the guys that shot the patient- ALSO showed up. Can you ever pay me enough to go through that kind of fear again? Nope. The estimated amount does include the time for every person on the team that was deployed. Can you ever pay them enough for what they went through? Not just in responding but in the recognition that they would have shot a law abiding citizen for trying to keep his family safe. I don't know about you, I like to think that my tax dollar is spent apprehending criminals. Not people trying to safe-guard their families. The brat should be strung up. I don't care what the advertised cost is. That really is immaterial given the grievous harm the barstard did. When, if ever, are we going to hold people who commit crimes accountable? And why do we have to prove a monetary value for the crime? You can't ever pay back to that family- husband, wife and toddlers- what they have lost. And we can't blame the police for doing their job well. The person we CAN lay the blame on is the nut case that thought that this would be cool. As I said earlier in this thread- I hear disturbance around my house, I will meet it with a .357. In this scenario, I'd have been killed. And for nothing.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

it was intended to show that the press is being selective in what they report about various government actions.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]I understand it as the cost of resources allocated to a fabricated situation that could/should have been used more appropriately and productively.[/i] You could say that about any cop, anywhere. If there were no crimes (compare to a mythical intrusion-proof server, not one that just never "breaks"), cops could all be doing productive work instead of catching "bad guys". Like anti-virus, anti-spam and intrusion detection software, police work is important, but only because there are bad guys to catch. They don't [u]produce[/u] anything, as part of their job, unless you count the paperwork, but that's not what I mean by [u]productive[/u]. In terms of cost, this was the same as every call that results in a SWAT team being called.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

That's your interpretation of it. I understand it as the cost of resources allocated to a fabricated situation that could/should have been used more appropriately and productively. Refer to my critique of your weak analogy to IT staff maintaining servers, e.g. breakdown vs malicious intrusion.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

it's not that it shouldn't be paid. It's that it shouldn't be reported the way it is (as if the costs would not have been incurred if not for that specific incident). It gives the public a distorted view.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

my disgust at the dog pound story that has been in the local news for months is still going on but the woman who left her baby in a hot car to die was gone from the paper after a week :(

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

that's a valid analogy. But, if I hack your server and take you away from something else productive that your employer would rather have you doing, then I should have to pay for the unnecessarily wasted time, repairing the harm I cause for no good or legal purpose. That's what this idiot has done.

Absolutely
Absolutely

He endangered people, misused public resources, impersonated somebody else -- using public resources, etc. There are plenty of statutes available to the DA to prosecute this clown, but nature of his crime was "novel", and the knee-jerk journalists respond, emotionally, with "novel" plans for punishment, which of course they [u]feel[/u] "fit the crime" better than those punishments that the punishments allowed by law. King Solomon Syndrome

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

but to report on it like it's some "extra cost" as opposed to the thousands of times as much that they don't report on is disingenuous to say the least.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]I don't count my wages in the cost of repairing a server, for example, because I would have been paid even if the server hadn't broken down.[/i] If nobody ever breaks the laws, we don't need police at all, so there is some sense in billing this criminal for his small part in making it necessary to keep all those people employed, "whether they are active or on standby". Likewise for servers that never break, I suppose, but that's just a ridiculous thought.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

on the value of the service, I was only pointing out that these people are paid the same whether they are active or on standby, and that to include their wages in the cost of whatever they were responding to is somewhat dishonest, unless overtime or callback is involved. This is true with all forms of public employment. I don't count my wages in the cost of repairing a server, for example, because I would have been paid even if the server hadn't broken down.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

from the other 199+ bogus calls?

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

I differ on opinion, but see your point. But jails are constantly crowded, so they keep releasing dangerous people early. I could live with rules like this If someone is convicted to life imprisonment, without possibility of parole, or multiple life sentences, and there is reasonable proof (such as multiple eye witnesses, caught on camera, etc.), or said party has been in/out of Jail for similar behaviour previously then we should not flip the bill beyond execution. As for TV, movie night, and most other items I agree. As for suing the city/county/state with frivilous suits to waste taxpayer money, they should suffer consequenses as well, or be forced to file these with their own money.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Hopefully, too crazy to tell the next miscreant how to prank call 911, faking the number placing the call. I'm opposed to execution because convicts are sometimes exonerated by evidence that was unavailable at the time of their trial. I'm also opposed to televisions in prisons because the inmates are on my dime and deserve nothing more than food, shelter, and confinement.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

why should we pay for it? If he ends up with a life sentence, we should just bury him. Same goes for everyone serving a life sentence. If they dont have a possibility for parole, why should we continue to pay for it, and reduce the space in prisons? In this case though, it does not look like a life sentence, so solitary confinement would be considered cruel. By the time he got out, he would probably be crazier all together and more of a danger.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

why should we pay for it? If he ends up with a life sentence, we should just bury him. Same goes for everyone serving a life sentence. If they dont have a possibility for parole, why should we continue to pay for it, and reduce the space in prisons? In this case though, it does not look like a life sentence, so solitary confinement would be considered cruel. By the time he got out, he would probably be crazier all together and more of a danger.

Absolutely
Absolutely

But really, he should be kept in isolation forever so he can never teach anybody else his stupid pet tricks. Really. He should never be able to touch any computer again, nor discuss use of computer technology with anybody. One very expensive way to do that would be strict, thorough censorship in an otherwise-normal prison. A simpler approach would be solitary confinement. He has proven unwilling to use technology responsibly, so let him live with the same access to technology as a caveman.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

as long as it is from a terminal and it is locked down. And, he can only go to sites like Disney and kids programming sites with automated streaming video that will not stop and cannot be closed. Furthermore, the speakers will be on Full and no way to turn it down. Once he logs in it will be a mandatory 6 hours a day listening to Barney and others....LOL

Absolutely
Absolutely

Will this clown have [b]any[/b] access to computers, from prison?

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

How about 200 counts from the location initiated, then each additional state that was affected, gets their day in court as well with this loser. then he can spend 15-30 years in 1 jail, just to be moved to another upon release...

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

most criminal cases are named "The state of _____ vs. _______". Counties/cities are not mentioned.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

what about 200 counts of computer fraud from the location it was initiated? Could this not work?

seanferd
seanferd

the current jurisdiction (the county) cannot charge him with anything that did not occur in it's domain. However, if the relevant jurisdictions were so prompted, this kid could be spending the rest of his life facing trial in up to 199 different locations. Wouldn't that be a neat trick, if expensive.

LocoLobo
LocoLobo

I agree with Inkling that the punishment should fit the crime. But 200 such calls is too large a pattern to ignore. OTOH the way our system works he probably won't get 18 years. That is what he is facing. The lawyers will argue it around and he will probably get 5 years or so with (I hope) steep fines. I would be more interested in making sure that the 4 people in Texas teaching others how to do this are dealt with. Isn't there a way to improve the emergency systems so they are less spoofable?

cowen80194
cowen80194

Well every one has tosed back and forth the valuable information this kid has shown 911 responders. 200 calls... That actually should raise a flag to an I.T. department to ask the important questions and start PATCHING the system if they run one of the affected Operating Systems. Oh seems that putting him in jail and draining tax dollars that could have been used to fix the issue is easier to do for the I.T. Departments. 12 year olds learn how to hack and are dangerously proficiant at it. The East Coast will remember a total phone outage that was cause by one letter in a line of code of thousands of lines of code that took months to locate hundreds of people and the change was the single letters CASE to fix the issue. Or how bout the first HACK by colledge kids that tried to alert people of the vunerability to a Unix system and when no one would do anything they exploted it. Due to the complacancy of the I.T. departments even back then. First why should TAX paying legal people pay for his incarceration. make him do HOME time, Community service, and heavy fines monitor his computer useage for 18 years to see if he does anything more then run a cash register at McDonalds. Second they should make him show them as part of his plea how he did it so they can rewrite or patch the system so a 12yo can not do it later on. Who really cares about putting the one who got caught down if I.T. WONT FIX THE HOLE and just leave it to remain. The complacancy in a system and it's I.T. department is the biggest security risk for situations like this to even have a chance of happening in the first place. Better code and TESTS would have been more benificial. So yes we should take down HACKs but lets spread the information in public forums and learn how it was DONE (make it the past tence)and patch it so it WONT happen again by lesser HACKs. STOP THE COMPLACIANCY!!!

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

You don't understand what has happened here. He didn't hack any computers at the 911 dispatch. He spoofed his telephone number and/or address. This isn't something that surprises anyone in IT security or anyone who has a VOIP telepone line. There have been articles written about online services that allow you to spoof your telephone number and there are legal and other measures being taken to close them down already. As anyone (who has a VOIP phone service) knows, you must manually change your calling location whenever you move your VOIP device, if you want 911 to be able to locate you. Of course, this kind of spoofing of an address is easily traceable to the owner of the VOIP line. I agree with those who would have him perform community service (at least 6 months), spend a great deal of time in an actual 911 center, and reimburse the county, including triple damages.

Nodisalsi
Nodisalsi

... he committed an act of terrorism. If he did it just once, he would have deserved nothing more than a slap on his wrist and the Emergency services would have been enlightened about a possible hack on their system. But he had abused the emergency services with his cry-wolf hack 200 times! It's not a joke - this amounts to terrorism upon the emergency services and the victims they swoop upon.

Inkling
Inkling

to label everything terrorism. In this case, you would be wrong. Terrorism: 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. While I'm not in any way excusing what this moron did, it was [b]not[/b] terrorism.

Nodisalsi
Nodisalsi

There was no political cause that the media could identify in the fake caller, just plain criminal intent. I only fail to see the difference between this act and one of terrirsm because the impact upon innocent citizens is the same. Misdirected emergency services can put people in fear for their safety in their own State. It makes no difference to my judgement whether the motivation is political (which is only the emphasis in your first definition), criminal (from chaotic leisure to extortion), or even religious.

Inkling
Inkling

First of all, the article doesn't say (or I'm a dimwit and missed it) whether he is 13 or 19, big difference. Compare 18 years to what other people get for say...manslaughter, drunk driving (talk about a slap on the wrist), torturing and killing animals (Mike Vick anyone?)... Like it or not, 18 years is too harsh, when compared with other sentences, especially if he is 13 rather than 19. He should be forced to pay back any money he cost the city and for each of his crimes. I'm thinking something along the lines of: - Washing city vehicles with a toothbrush until he earns the $18,000 back. - While listening to 911 calls made by people who actually are in trouble so he learns the horror of some of the situations and realize that his "prank calls" could very well have cost any one of these people their lives by delaying help. - Whatever else the family that he called the SWAT team down on deems appropriate. EDIT: Ok, I [b]am[/b] a dimwit and missed it. I stand by what I said though.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]- Whatever else the family that he called the SWAT team down on deems appropriate.[/i] 200 counts each of, I don't know exactly but let's classify the crimes generally into the 2 categories of "identity fraud using public resources" & "reckless endangerment" for sake of discussion. The former is a crime against "society" or "the State" according to your preferences in nomenclature; the latter is against the individual victims. What would you say to letting the families decide how much of the maximum sentences of each of the 200 crimes against them to seek, and leave the DA to decide how to prosecute the crimes having to do solely with misuse of public property & services?

Inkling
Inkling

I agree wholeheartedly with what Faradhi has put forth, re: restorative justice. I think that if people saw true justice being done, they would be inclined to play along, so to speak. While I think that having standard punishments for crimes is a necessity on some level, what is wrong with using common sense? Using my stated punishments, I think that true justice can be accomplished. To answer your question directly: I don't think the family should have any say in any crime that didn't directly affect them. I think they should leave the other 199 cases of fraudulent calls out of it. I also don't think the family should play much of a part in it before the prosecution, other than to testify of course. When it comes to sentencing, let the family talk to the DA and decide how they feel the criminal can make restitution for the trauma he caused. As I said before, I think that most people would be surprisingly lenient on the criminals that caused them harm. I want to add that I don't think this should apply to violent criminals. I have similar apprehensions as whomever it was that posted about the death sentence, but there are simply some people that are beyond rehabilitation. Admitted serial killers, Charles Manson, etc. In such cases, I say kill them in the cheapest possible manner, burn the bodies and flush the ashes.

Inkling
Inkling

But I agree with you. Small government is our best (only?) hope.

Absolutely
Absolutely

"Small government" gives lawyers less power to abuse. I think that's the best we can do.

Inkling
Inkling

If we could get [b]lawyers[/b] to practice it...just imagine the possibilities!

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]While I think that having standard punishments for crimes is a necessity on some level, what is wrong with using common sense?[/i] Everybody use good, common sense for a day, then I'll reconsider.

Jaqui
Jaqui

This was a cyber crime, in that he faked his location for the 911 operators using his computer, to actually make cyber crime be seen as crime, he either gets smashed down hard or dies, anything else will not convey a message to others to stop it from even being concidered

Inkling
Inkling

But the simple fact of the matter is that punishments do [b]not[/b] work as enough of a deterrent for crime. If it did, murders would rarely occur in states with the death penalty. What's the point of a sentence? Rehabilitation and punishment. 18 years or the death penalty aren't appropriate punishment, nor will they rehabilitate.

royhayward
royhayward

you were making. "statistics about incarceration and recidivism" with "we incarcerate a lot of people, and execute a lot of people." Do you realize that we have no statistics on the recidivism of those executed!!!!

Absolutely
Absolutely

I'd fence them all into a subsistence farming community on the type of land offered to "Indians" during the 19th Century, but you & Lackey have the right idea. Personally, I don't think criminals should be paid anything at all, but minimum wage is pretty d*** close to the same thing. Oh, and when I say fence, I'm talking about Megawatts running through razor wire. NO ESCAPE.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I'd fence them all into a subsistence farming community on the type of land offered to "Indians" during the 19th Century, but you & Lackey have the right idea. Personally, I don't think criminals should be paid anything at all, but minimum wage is pretty d*** close to the same thing. Oh, and when I say fence, I'm talking about Megawatts running through razor wire. NO ESCAPE.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

"I used domestic rape(I used marriage rape)" Aah! So that's what you meant when you typed "martial rape". In this case, spelling completely changed your meaning. I thought you were using martial, as in martial arts or martial law, to mean forceful, as opposed to statutory, although martial actually means "Of, relating to, or suggestive of war", which would include "rape and plunder". Now I see that it wasn't a word misused, it was a word misspelled. Apparently, you intended to type marital (Of or relating to marriage)!

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

you may not have a choice... the powers that (want to) be have decided that they know what's best better than you do ... :( ... but that's yet another topic.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I'd rather take my inches back than run out of them.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

at a mile per theft, you'll soon run out of inches, and the theft (from you at least) will stop, because, as has been said before, one cannot obtain hemoglobin from a Brassica rapa L.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]I agree Abs, but as we both know life isn't always fair, and waiting miserably for it to become fair is probably not the most productive way for a victim to spend the rest of their life.[/i] So, knowing that charity with respect to inches correlates to theft of miles, logically implies what?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

but as we both know life isn't always fair, and waiting miserably for it to become fair is probably not the most productive way for a victim to spend the rest of their life.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]Failing to forgive (meaning carrying around resentment) tends to harm you more than it does the person you are withholding forgiveness from.[/i] "Failing to forgive" may be more harmful to the victim than to the criminal, but if so justice is not being done. Until restitution is made, the criminals' debts to society are not paid.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Even if charges are sometimes dropped when they should not, nobody other than the victim should have the option to [u]drop[/u] charges or [u]forgive[/u] crimes, even if the DA has the option to [u]prosecute[/u] crimes when the victim is unable, due to coercion, threats or ... a metaphor comes to mind. In the case of murders, society prosecutes on behalf of the deceased, who was taken from us. I think it is presumptuous for prosecutors to "forgive" on the behalf of the deceased. Every convicted murderer should get life, in solitary confinement, without possibility of parole, and access to no information other than the evidence used to convict him/her. If there was an error or missing evidence, find it. Otherwise, [u]no[/u] sympathy, [u]no[/u] happiness nor pursuit of [u]any[/u] form of happiness.

DanLM
DanLM

it's a very valid point you raise.... I used domestic rape(I used marriage rape) as one of my examples where I felt the laws were too easy. With the argument I raised that the victim should have the final say on forgiveness.... It is quite true in domestic situations, the abused is afraid and drops charges all the time.... In other words, not forgiving. But letting it go in the hope that they will be treated better. ;o( Very valid point, again... Thank you. Dan

Absolutely
Absolutely

...but that taking your posts in this thread altogether, you are pursuing a specific agenda, called "restorative justice", which is conceptually and theoretically in direct opposition to the [i]status quo[/i], in the United States. [i]I am not trying to prove anything about the general case. I am trying to show a lack of evidence.[/i] You can say you are not trying to prove anything but a lack of evidence, and for any particular sentence or paragraph or post that may be true. You can completely refute others' positions and claims, totally undercut their assertions, establish that they are not only unproven but wholly without factual, logical basis. It won't do you any good, however, if what you say later on in the same post is correct, that others are not eager to question their own assumptions. In the context of this entire thread, you're apparently advocating a different approach to "justice" as a principle from the prison system's approach. Your approach is also different from that of most other members, or at least of the other US members who have posted so far. What's more, they have the inertia of the [i]status quo[/i] on their side. That doesn't make them correct, but it does make them more difficult to persuade, because you must first [u]dis[/u]suade them from their current assumptions. [i]My point is that there are assumptions that "tougher" laws reduce crime. No one seems to be asking for proof or challenging that assumption in any way.[/i] :( I have. Logically, you just called me "no one". :_| Luckily in this case, and less luckily in some other cases, few if any people are always completely logical. [edit: multiple, substantive changes in content, at 5:25pm. Nobody is replying at this hour anyway.]

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

Failing to forgive (meaning carrying around resentment) tends to harm you more than it does the person you are withholding forgiveness from. And, Is someone who has to be forced to "make amends" any more forgivable than one who simply doesn't?

faradhi
faradhi

[i]On the other hand, most crimes are perpetrated by people who have committed crimes before, so isn't it logical to assume that the death sentence would indeed reduce crime?[/i] Only if you assume or can prove that most murders were committed by someone who has murdered before. OR You apply the death penalty to lessor crimes assuming that they will eventually escalate to murder. I would agree that there is a direct correlation between the number of idiots per capita and the number of murders. That would explain why Memphis is number one in violent crimes. [edited the day after] The sentences were in the wrong order, which does not surprise me after the day I had yesterday. I did not change a word of the post, I just rearranged the sentences to make more sense than my inane babble usually make.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

includes "not doing something" (again) to someone else. That may not be the best thing from your perspective, but it's not a bad thing from the "would have been future victim's" perspective. In the case of stolen or damaged property, for example, would you want him to repay you if you knew he may be stealing from your neighbors to do it?

faradhi
faradhi

[i]Therefore, what?[/i] Laws and penalties do not act as a deterrent. [i]Good researchers in the physical and social sciences know that correlation does not equal causation.[/i] I know that and have stated such in other discussions. Further, my statements about the death penalty were to dispute that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. The same applies to laws against other crimes. If laws did act as a deterrent then we should see some reduction of the particular crime after the law was passed. [i]Case studies and other anecdotes do not qualify as evidence of trends or basis for supporting any general conclusions. I'm not surprised by this one and you may even be onto something, but isolated cases prove nothing about the general case.[/i] I am not trying to prove anything about the general case. I am trying to show a lack of evidence. This same argument could be made if the reverse was true. I understand statistics better than most, I know this proves nothing except maybe the Tennessee truancy laws are either ineffective or not enforced. I give equal credence to both possibilities. Ether way the law is ineffective. I wish I could find the article again, It had statewide truancy rates and I honestly do not remember if the law was just as ineffective statewide. As for the reports on world crime. I understand there are many many issues with reporting crimes across the global. Some you discussed. Many more were discussed in the reports themselves. Again it was an attempt to disprove a relationship between tougher laws and a reduction in crime. I was trying to prove the lack of evidence. [i]"After all, we all have an opinion about these topics already, and most likely those opinions are based on personal experience and convenient assumptions in many cases."[/i] My point is that there are [b]assumptions[/b] that "tougher" laws reduce crime. No one seems to be asking for proof or challenging that assumption in any way. I cannot prove the lack of evidence. Further, the goal we are discussing is a reduction in crime. Given the lack of evidence that the current methods are effective in meeting the stated goal, I can only conclude that something [b]else[/b] must be done. IMHO, and opinion is all it is, then Restorative Justice would be the best "something else" I have read about. Now if someone has something better I am open to the ideas. I am even open to the "lets make tougher laws" approach if someone can show me that that has worked previously. If you are interested in Restorative Justice I suggest this site, http://www.restorativejustice.org/.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

That's why the smiley was there. On the other hand, most crimes are perpetrated by people who have committed crimes before, so isn't it logical to assume that the death sentence would indeed reduce crime? You don't know whether "The death penalty has not reduced murders", or "without the death penalty, there would be a lot more murders". Personally I think proximity to idiots is the leading cause of murders, which explains the higher murder rates in large cities... the idiots are more highly concentrated.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]I'm sorry, the victim has every right to expect full punishment and to hell with the rehab. If the victim is willing to say yes to rehab for the criminal, then so be it. It is theirs to forgive, not yours to forgive.[/i] Domestic violence is a perfect example of where this fails. Should a person (usually a woman) who has been beaten to within an inch of her life be allowed to forgive (drop the charges or not press them against) the perpetrator (when everyone knows that the reason for such dropping is the fear of retaliation)?

faradhi
faradhi

That was not at all what I was arguing.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

if we scrap ALL laws, the crime rate would drop to zero :)

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]You will have a hard time finding a reduction of a particular crime that correlates with a law being passed. The exception might be white collar crimes where new reporting regulations may prevent a very specific type of crime. However, those crimes are often just shifted to another scam.[/i] Therefore, what? [i]I cannot speak to every crime. However, there are two about which I can speak. First is Murder. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without.[/i] Is that intended to suggest something about which is cause and effect? Good researchers in the physical and social sciences know that correlation does not equal causation. Using only statistical inference, the hypothesis that utilization of the death penalty is a response to higher incidences of murder is just as valid as the hypothesis that higher incidences of murder are responses, via some unspecified mechanism, to the local practice of execution for that crime. When we consider that the latter interpretation of the facts requires us to believe that people are motivated to commit murder by the likelihood of their own execution, and that such behavior implies a tendency toward self-sacrifice over pursuit of personal advantage (not behavior or motivation commonly attributed to murderers!), the much more sensible interpretation of the statistics is that death penalties are primarily a response to, not a cause of, higher local murder rates. [i]The second is the truancy in Shelby County Tennessee. A law was passed that allowed Jail time for parents of truant youths. Yet truancy was not reduced in Shelby County.[/i] Case studies and other anecdotes do not qualify as evidence of trends or basis for supporting any general conclusions. I'm not surprised by this one and you may even be onto something, but isolated cases prove nothing about the general case. There are well-established rules about the size of a population, and the minimum required subset of same for measurements to be considered statistically relevant. You offered an interesting assertion of a specific approach to crime and punishment, and I'm interested to see how well you can support it. I hope you don't take this as opposition. I think you need to defend your position like a doctoral thesis in order to convince anybody. After all, we all have an opinion about these topics already, and most likely those opinions are based on personal experience and convenient assumptions in many cases. You won't change such minds merely by stating your own personal assumptions. You have to prove all your premises, from first to last. Enjoy! [i]As someone has already stated (I believe it was Abs), the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.[/i] Correct. [i]So do we have the lowest crime rates? According to this report, http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World, and a UN report, www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/forum/forum3_Art2.pdf, that is not the case.[/i] Do we have lower rates of unpunished crimes? We, along with western Europe, also define as criminal some practices which are standard operating procedure in much of the rest of the world, such as personal payments to government bureaucrats for the [b]privilege[/b] of doing business as an entrepreneur. In many countries, only laborers, employed [b]by somebody else[/b] (who must pay bribes), for a wage or a salary, may do business without paying unpublished taxes in the form of what we would call "bribes". [i]That all said, crime tends to ebb and flow. However, there is a tighter correlation to overall economic health of an area rather than any law.[/i] That calls for a rigorous definition of what you mean by "overall economic health".

faradhi
faradhi

So to correct the inconsistencies, Prison does not reduce crime. Those who commit crimes are going to do so whether or not there is a possible prison is a sentence. To say prison sentences reduce crimes assume that the people who commit crimes believe they will be caught or consider the consequences at all. This just is not the case. You will have a hard time finding a reduction of a particular crime that correlates with a law being passed. The exception might be white collar crimes where new reporting regulations may prevent a very specific type of crime. However, those crimes are often just shifted to another scam. I cannot speak to every crime. However, there are two about which I can speak. First is Murder. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without. The second is the truancy in Shelby County Tennessee. A law was passed that allowed Jail time for parents of truant youths. Yet truancy was not reduced in Shelby County. As someone has already stated (I believe it was Abs), the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. So do we have the lowest crime rates? According to this report, http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World, and a UN report, www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/forum/forum3_Art2.pdf, that is not the case. That all said, crime tends to ebb and flow. However, there is a tighter correlation to overall economic health of an area rather than any law.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

When arguing that prison is not a deterrent, you started out by claiming that it does not REDUCE crime. I disagree. I believe there would be much more crime without prison. Now, I notice that you subtly shift your argument to "prison does not eliminate crime", when you ask "Have DUI's stopped?" and point out that "Truancy has not been eliminated". I never claimed elimination, just partial prevention, as a deterrent. As for sexual crimes against children, I believe you are confusing higher rates of reporting by the victims and wider, more sensational reporting by the press with greater incidence. The Dateline shows are anecdotal. If anything, they prove my point about increased awareness and sensationalism, making the crime seem more prevalent, even if it's not.

Inkling
Inkling

But then I remember I have to live within those restrictions like the rest of the idiots I share this earth with...and I'm often too damn lazy to stick to [b]every[/b] rule...

faradhi
faradhi

I would agree to a point. In the cases where restitution is not possible for whatever the reason, the crime is heinous, current treatments cannot provide viable correction or the criminal will continue to pose a threat to the victim or society as a whole, incarceration is the only viable solution. You have stated many of the problems with Restorative Justice. I do not believe it to be a panacea. I wish I had answers. If I did I would not be a Net Admin. As Abs stated, Restorative Justice is a topic that should be discussed in another thread. However, in the case at hand, I do not think justice would be served with incarceration. It would be better spent with this guy contributing to victims and society as a whole rather than rotting in jail, which will be taking more from society as whole, and learning how to be a better criminal.

DanLM
DanLM

2 of them are an addiction. Either physically or mentally. Drugs and alcohol. That is no excuse though... I had both problems. I went for help. I no longer do both. I am no stronger then the next person, and in a lot of ways. I think I am much weaker then most to be truthful. So, that one doesn't fly in my eyes. They should be in jail. At least they are being forced into some type of treatment, for they quite obviously won't do it on their own. The other... Even if sex crimes can be attributed to having a form of mental disorder, it still deserves to have a person locked up. That is a physical assault that cause's in some case's incurable harm to the victim. I believe the current punishments are to lax. And I include martial rape in this. It's an assault. Its a destruction of someones moral and physical being. It is done to demoralize someone. I'm sorry, but this type of person should be incarcerated for a very long time for the damage they have done to someone. A very long time. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

Your right, I either did not read your post correctly or I totally misunderstood me. I can see that you feel that punishment should include consideration to the victim. So, I was totally off base with my statement that you seem to be trivializing the harm done to the victim. But, let me ask you this. Your response about the criminal being responsible for totally reimbursing the victims for either their medical fee's for the SWAT intrusion or the legal(can't think of the right word here) fee's for correcting ones credit history and straightening it out. Three possibilities here: 1). The criminal reimburses all fee's. And things are corrected. My pessimistic outlook on my fellow human beings that perform criminal acts makes me think this will be few and far between. 2). The criminal will never be able to fully reimburse the victims. The cost is too great, the cost is manageable but the criminal does not have the skill set to make enough money. What then? What of the victim now? What of the punishment now? You should be able to figure this one out right at the hearing.... What do you do? 3). The criminal is a total scum bag that will milk the judgment for everything they can. They will send 20 dollars a week, work under the table, and not do a flameing thing? Again, what of the victim? And what should be done? Again, I am being extremely pessimistic here. I have no faith... If the criminal is a first time offender, I would seriously doubt it would be the third situation... I am more inclined to think they will try like hell.... But, you still have someone that has had their lives ruined because of no action of their own. And they are not receiving the justice they deserve. And victims do deserve justice. Society has not been assaulted, it was a human being that was. And, as the bible says.. Again faradhi, I apologize for not seeing/understanding/comprehending your original post. Dan

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

Houston Tx, where the oil company boards are, and many power compnies boards as well.

faradhi
faradhi

Grammar was never my strong point. I am not an English major and will not argue about grammar. Therefore, I concede that your first statement was grammatically correct. Further, I bow to your grammar expertise. I understand that you believe, and I agree, the criminal cannot be trusted to understand and comply to the terms set in his sentence. However, I am not talking about just letting the person go without follow up on his own recognizance. Part of the rehabilitation should be to ensure they understand and comply. As for laws and jail time being a deterrent. Let me provide another example, How about sex crimes against children. In recent years there has been an increase in the number and penalties in sex crimes against children. There have been a marked increase in the number of laws and penalties. Yet, as dateline has shown, the number participating in such crimes are not dropping. Another example, DUI. The laws have increased penalties for DUI. Have DUI's stopped? Can you say for certain that any reductions are the result of the laws or increase awareness by MADD and other organizations. How about Truancy? Recent laws here have not only increased penalties for the child but are now including the parents. Truancy has not been eliminated and judging by the number of kids roaming the streets during school hours, I doubt it has been reduced. Laws and increasing penalties are not a deterrent.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

"but the punk who perpetrated this has done anything BUT demonstrate that he's a model citizen, who can be trusted to understand and comply with such justice" Let me explain it so even you will understand that your correction was wrong, creating a double negative. I didn't say that he HAS demonstrated that he is "a model citizen, who can be trusted to understand and comply with such justice." I said that he has done anything BUT demonstrate that. In other words, he has done anything BUT demonstrate that he "can be trusted to understand and comply with such justice." As for the rest of your wishful thinking, dream on! Escalating drug crimes have too many other contributing factors (especially economic, e.g. supply & demand) to draw a direct correlation concerning a deterrent effect. In fact, the opposite point is more likely. The tighter the enforcement and the higher the risk of serving an even longer sentence, the greater the markup the product can command. That higher profit is all the incentive necessary to recruit more dealers and mules. If you read my other post here on that topic, you know that I think interdiction will never win the fight against drug addiction. This crime was not about smuggling and did not reward the perp financially, so there is no such inverse relationship between enforcement and increased profit, as with drugs smuggling. There is no market demand for what he was delivering.

faradhi
faradhi

I am not talking about forgiving anything. I have never stated that the criminal should not pay for what they did. I just do not think jail is the best payment that can be made. You are correct, nothing at all is easier said than done. Nor is anything worth doing easy. Jail is easy for them and easy for us. There is another saying, you can have it cheap quick or easy pick any two. Well jail is certainly quick and easy.

faradhi
faradhi

pay me for the expenses incurred for treatment of my family and the damages to my property than have him sit in jail doing nothing. Your right, the whole restorative justice ideal is better discussed in a discussion on its own.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I'm not trying to chase you out of this one, but I don't think this particular case is going to inspire much sympathy for your point. Some statistics about incarceration and recidivism in different states, counties and countries, correlated to what you think are the important measures. I can tell you from personal memory that compared to other countries with comparable median income, we incarcerate a lot of people, and execute a lot of people. Do we have more or fewer crimes overall? How do you support your position, when you know that by definition you cannot reliably measure [b]unreported[/b] crimes? Finally, I note that I haven't seen you claiming anywhere that in the victims' situation, you would be so forgiving, and I don't wonder why. With the exception of being silent, I know of nothing that is easier said than done.

Jaqui
Jaqui

nuke yes, at every national capitol on the planet, then at redmond washington. then at wherevr some "major" pro game is being played. when I run out of nukes then thart with using all the conventional bombs up.

faradhi
faradhi

[i]And who is going to pay for the infrastructure to monitor and enforce the restitution [/i] I guess the same people who would pay for the criminals housing, food, clothing and medical for the duration of the sentence now. Only this time we provide a method to recoup some or all the costs. After the criminal completes the victim restitution they would then be required to complete a societal restitution. [i]and chase after all of the fugitives who decide to simply start over somewhere else?[/i] They do have ankle bracelets that they can use to keep track of those people as well. [i]but the punk who perpetrated this has done anything but demonstrate that he's a model citizen, who can [not] be trusted to understand and comply with such justice.[/i] That is why this would have to include a rehabilitation component. [i]I have no problem with reasonable incarceration and I do believe it's a deterrent for many crimes. [/i] Then why has the ever increasing penalties for drug possession not decreased drug crimes? The fact is laws do not deter they are reactive in nature not proactive. Restorative Justice is both reactive and proactive. It reacts to the crime and provides rehabilitation to hopeful prevent the usual escalation in seriousness you see in criminals.

faradhi
faradhi

I am not talking about letting the criminal go Scott free. I am talking about restorative justice. Restorative Justice is a process where the criminal does everything they can to restore the victim to a state prior the the criminal act. Now granted there are instances where full restoration is not possible. In those cases the restoration should be as complete as possible. If the criminal poses a continued threat to society then Jail should be imposed. To address some of your points. [i]About what justice is handed out for the crime that has occurred against them.[/i] To quote my last post: "It seems to me that the victim would be better off by having the perpetrator pay for the medications, the repairs on the house, the psychological treatment for you and your children. How about paying the victim of identity theft all the money it cost to get the credit record straight. Also, paying the other victims, the businesses, who now have to eat all the bogus debt. How about writing all the bogus creditors and assuming the outstanding debt and paying it off." [i]The criminal is given more consideration then the victim. [/i] If the criminal is required to provide restitution wherever possible, how is that giving more consideration to the criminal? [i]You think it?s wrong that these people should not have a say in what punishment is handed to this criminal?[/i] Again quoting my previous post: "Of course, this would not be truly restorative if the victims were not included in the process of deciding just was would be proper restitution." [i]Let?s look at the issue of the SWAT team raiding a house full of innocent people. They could have been doing anything innocent. They had guns pointed at them. They were rousted from what ever peaceful activity they were doing. If there are children, this could affect them the rest of their lives. They may never trust a police officer ever again. This can cause long term emotional issues to every single person that lived there.[/i] Again, I want the criminal to provide restitution in every way they can. As I have stated in my previous posts, this would include reimbursement to the family for costs of treatment, medications, repairs on the house. If that is for the rest of the child life so be it. I am not talking about letting anyone off. I am not trivializing anything. I am simply stating that I would rather see restitution to the victims by the criminal. edited to correct your to you're and other minor changes that do not affect the meaning of the original post.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

And who is going to pay for the infrastructure to monitor and enforce the restitution and chase after all of the fugitives who decide to simply start over somewhere else? Sounds nice in theory, but the punk who perpetrated this has done anything but demonstrate that he's a model citizen, who can be trusted to understand and comply with such justice. I have no problem with reasonable incarceration and I do believe it's a deterrent for many crimes. I also believe in progressive 3-strike laws. One stint in prison is enough to convince most people to toe the line. Some need more convincing. If two short stints didn't get the message across, the third should be triple the total of the first two, the fourth - double the third and continue to double each time thereafter. I don't believe the Death Penalty is a deterrent to anyone but the executed. Most killings are committed in the heat of passion, when all reason is out the window, or by depraved criminals with no fear of being caught or executed. The risk of executing an innocent person is why that decision should be left to the only One who is omniscient, God. Until and unless our knowledge is as perfect as His, we have no right to take a life. A jury of 100 could get it wrong. Even if it happened only once, that's one life too many for us to take in error. Where is the justice in that?

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

now you have crossed the line in the first paragraph. I am a perfect example of successful treatment for alcoholism and addiction. It's a disease and mine has been completely in remission since November 20, 1990. This is true for millions of others as well. We need to spend more money on education and treatment and less on interdiction (which fails miserably), prosecution and incarceration. There is even research indicating that the predisposition can be identified genetically. This may lead to medical treatments for the disease in the not so distant future. We're starting to get it right by taxing the hell out of cigarettes. We learned that you cannot enforce abstinence from alcohol in the 1920's. We will be far better off when we accept the same truth about other drugs. The same paradox that must be learned and accepted by every alcoholic and addict, applies to our public policy on intoxication. We learned to win through surrender. We surrendered our will to the idea that we will never be able to control our drinking or usage after the first taste. In other words one is too many and a thousand is never enough! As soon as we learn that an active addict will never accept society's will either, we can redirect billions in resources toward preventive drug education and treatment for those who didn't get the message soon enough. Every potential addict who never takes that first drug is far more likely to succeed in life. Failure and drug use are synergistically intertwined in a downward spiral. If drugs were legal, but with no advertising, it would take away the lure of the forbidden fruit (and the profit margin for the pushers) and they could be taxed to pay for more and better counter-measures, just as we are learning to do with cigarettes. We can also regulate when and where they may be used, as with smokes. Buyers with jobs that might endanger others, such as professional drivers, pilots etc. could be required to consent to random screening when reporting to work to help ensure that they do not work while intoxicated. As it is now, we usually need probable cause to require such screening, and since the purchases are made secretively, we often never know about it. Of course this is all a pipe dream. The politicians, Coast Guard, Customs and Law Enforcement lobbies have us all convinced that we need them to protect us and our children from the Columbian and Mexican cartels, as well as the dealers on our streets and in our night clubs and offices. They would never let us achieve the winning through surrender that has worked for so many addicts and alcoholics. That would make them less necessary, if not obsolete.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

then we'll be the only murderers and we should all kill ourselves.

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

and I thought Jesus lived the only human life free of all sin! When did you arrive? Are you nominating yourself to cast the first stone? ;-)

DanLM
DanLM

About what justice is handed out for the crime that has occurred against them. I am not saying they should request and get more then the law allows for. But they should have the right to request, and receive the fullest punishment if they have been assaulted. And that is exactly what has happened with both my examples. The victims have been assaulted in a manner, which either has caused long-term trauma or can cause long-term trauma. Let?s see, it takes 7 years for something to roll off a credit report. And then there are still peaces of it still physically around. And you think a 10-year sentence for the person that did this is too harsh? The victim is still working to correct what you did to that person, but you should still be out of jail. That?s wrong in every way you look at it. Completely wrong. The criminal is given more consideration then the victim. Let?s look at the issue of the SWAT team raiding a house full of innocent people. They could have been doing anything innocent. They had guns pointed at them. They were rousted from what ever peaceful activity they were doing. If there are children, this could affect them the rest of their lives. They may never trust a police officer ever again. This can cause long term emotional issues to every single person that lived there. And you think we are being harsh for wanting full justice? You think it?s wrong that these people should not have a say in what punishment is handed to this criminal? You call that revenge. I call it justice. You care for the criminal, I care for the victim. The criminal be damned, let him rot. Your posts make it appear that you feel more compassion should be given to the criminal. You are trivializing what has occurred to the victim. You do not even mention the punishment that has occurred to them. Dan

ITSecurityGuy
ITSecurityGuy

I cannot respond to Absolutely's reply. I'm getting a message that "You have reached your maximum message level." Perhaps the 200 prior offenses were not prosecuted because he had been making the calls to 911 centers scattered across the country and none of the calls prior to this one had seemed to be much more than a nuisance. I'm not excusing the calls, but the resources it might have taken to trace a spoofed call to the actual originating number might be more than deemed worthwhile. The number of calls would only have come to light after they had subpoenaed his records from his telecom provider. It's easy to say now, that this might have been prevented, but hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps no one imagined anything as depraved as this might happen. The blame for this call lies entirely on the perpetrator, not on previously victimized 911 centers and their decisions whether to pursue what might have seemed a very time-consuming investigation with no likelihood of success.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

convicted people were put to work, paid minimum wages and their wages were garinsheed to pay damages, after the cost of the food, clothing and guards wages were deducted. the work, building roads, digging ditches, disaster cleanup, forest firefghting.. basically, anything and everything outside of law enforcement or military service. rape victims were granted legal staus of divorced spouse, paid alimony, child support if needed. childs education paid for by the convicts wages, dowry for female child, cost of equipment for male childs term in the military. Yes, this is a good way to do it. Kepp people from being freeloaders and just doing crime to keep from actually working...

faradhi
faradhi

I stated that punishment for the sake of punishment is useless and solves nothing it is just revenge. You hurt me so I hurt you. 10 years in jail for identity theft. How does that solve the problem with your credit? How about the time and money spent getting the bogus credit removed from your record? Putting the idiot in question in jail for crank calling 911. How does that resolve your emotional issues? How does that pay for the medication your on? How does that ease your shaking every time you think about the gun pointed at you? How does it put food on your table? How does that ease your child's crying? It seems to me that the victim would be better off by having the perpetrator pay for the medications, the repairs on the house, the psychological treatment for you and your children. How about paying the victim of identity theft all the money it cost to get the credit record straight. Also, paying the other victims, the businesses, who now have to eat all the bogus debt. How about writing all the bogus creditors and assuming the outstanding debt and paying it off. All stuff he cannot do in jail. I am not talking about forgiving anyone. I am talking about requiring the perpetrator to do whatever on can to correct the wrong. Part of that may include some sort of rehabilitation it may not. Of course, this would not be truly restorative if the victims were not included in the process of deciding just was would be proper restitution. This to me seems like true Justice not just revenge. There is a time and place for jail. However, I would rather see the guy provide some restitution to the victims. This is something very hard to do from jail especially if there is some monetary restitution involved. Jail should be reserved for those who pose a danger to society. All others should be required to work on some form of restitution. It may involve incarceration when not working on restitution. However, all incarceration should include some sort of restitution.

Jaqui
Jaqui

I would even include public drunkeness as a summary conviction carrying a mandatory death penalty. I think it wouldn't take long before people starting thinking about what the consequences would be for any action after this was done ]:) orelse adopt the model defined by Merecedes Lackey in her Valdemaar books, the last few when she detailed the Empire of the East's legal system convicted people were put to work, paid minimum wages and their wages were garinsheed to pay damages, after the cost of the food, clothing and guards wages were deducted. the work, building roads, digging ditches, disaster cleanup, forest firefghting.. basically, anything and everything outside of law enforcement or military service. rape victims were granted legal staus of divorced spouse, paid alimony, child support if needed. childs education paid for by the convicts wages, dowry for female child, cost of equipment for male childs term in the military.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

I think so. Harsh crimes, yes, kill them all. Let the bugs eat their flesh away. this would not include things like speeding or jaywalking though... Murder, Assault, muggings, stuff like that, yeah, go ahead and let Mae use the shovel of doom.

Jaqui
Jaqui

I say kill em all, the gods will know their own. kill em for jaywalking, littering, drunk driving.. everything gets a death penalty, including a speeding ticket. let the gods punish and rehabilitate them.

Absolutely
Absolutely

In cases where only "society" is harmed -- defacement of public property is the only crime that comes to mind -- let "society" decide how merciful to be, ie to punish across the boards to less than the fullest extent of the law. Where there are specific victims -- meaning all crimes against private property or persons -- the choice ought to be theirs alone whether or not to forgive. I'm curious now, how it was determined after this one incident in Orange County that the same criminal has 200 prior offenses, and why those were not prosecuted [b]before[/b] this extremely dramatic & traumatic event. 200 pranks seem to have been ignored, or "written off" as inconsequential, or as too much trouble to prosecute successfully, or ... ?

DanLM
DanLM

And if part of that justice is to see the criminal punished as harshly as the victim was assaulted(in what ever manner). I believe that is totally correct. Example: You have stolen my identity, it has cost me thousands to straighten things out. My credit will be ruined for years anyway. Punishment? 10 years in jail for the labor and heart ake you have cause both myself and my family. This incident with fake phone calls to 911 I had armed police barge there way into my home and harries my family based on information that was falsely provided, through no fault of theirs. My children are still in tears. I am on medication so that I can function normally. I still shake every time I think about all those loaded guns pointed at me. I have no insurance, so all of this is coming out of money that is normally reserved for finer things in life. Food being one of them. You say it was a joke, well you and bubba should share a joke together for the number of years you took off my life. And multiply that by 200, because you are such a jokester. I'm sorry, the victim has every right to expect full punishment and to hell with the rehab. If the victim is willing to say yes to rehab for the criminal, then so be it. It is theirs to forgive, not yours to forgive. If I wish to be forgiving, it is my right. Not yours. You weren?t assaulted, I was. If I wish for the full extent of punishment, it is my right. Who are you to deny me that right? Dan

Inkling
Inkling

other than: Just how much does it cost per year to keep someone incarcerated? And how long would it take, at that rate, before we were wishing we had cut our losses at $18,000? Also, in my defense, I [b]did[/b] add that I thought the family should have some input as to his punishment.

faradhi
faradhi

Rehabilitation does not exclude the possibility of restitution. In cases where restitution cannot be given directly then an alternate restitution should be chosen. However, punishment for the sake of punishment solves nothing. Laws and punishments do not act as a deterrent. I know people like to think so. It gives them a sense of control. However, it just does not work. Proof, look at the ever increasing punishments for drug dealing. Has there been a decrease? I think not. So be mad (or made) at the system if you want. But so called light weight sentences are not the problem. It is the lack of restorative justice that is the problem.

royhayward
royhayward

community service and talking to a counselor? Even listening to 911 calls are lame and don't say a lot to the people who's lives he has impacted. "Well sir, we understand that your wife is still having nightmares and that your kids are now in counseling. We sure hope they get this worked out. But the criminal is having seriously intensive counseling sessions." What a bunch of milk toast! These type of light weight sentences like cleaning up road sides just make me mad at the system. (darn typo)

faradhi
faradhi

[i]punishments do not work as enough of a deterrent for crime.[/i] The idea that laws prevent crimes is a farce that politicians live off of. Restitution and Rehabilitation is the best way to recover what the city has lost. Further the Parents should be charged for the Psychological assessment and treatment, if necessary for this child. 18 years in prison will only make one pissed off person who is now trained to be a better criminal. Who has no skills and no prospects.

clark1
clark1

Community service at the going rate until the cost of the call has been repaid. Secondly, he should be required to spend 1 shift in the 911 communications center to see what they deal with day in and day out, and experience the stress of a REAL call with a life in the balance. I work for a local sheriffs office and spend alot of time up in communications and have witnessed several calls. The worst one was a truck driver that was having a major stroke, unfamiliar with the area so landmarks would not work, etc... It took us almost 2 hours to track him down as he was still driving. We got ahold of his carrier and was able to get GPS data but it was not recent (over 30 mins old). Eventually we were able to see which way he was headed and found him in a truck stop and was able to get medics to him and save his life. Something like this is what this kid should experience.

royhayward
royhayward

get the kid in a truck and make him have a stroke? Oh. You mean just listen to the call..... Well maybe, but I would rather see how to get him in the truck and cause a stroke. :)

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

I mean give him some blood thickeners and throw him in a semi... Then stress him out and give another dose of blood thickeners. He would likely have a stroke...

brian.mills
brian.mills

No computer access as well. He could do ride-alongs with the police. Go on the wrong call and he may get scared straight and never break the law again. I like the idea of doing grunt-work for the city to pay back the money he wasted with the prank calls. Maybe some janitorial work between washing the vehicles. I really think jail time would cost more money than it would rehabilitate. Unless he met a new friend named Bubba while he's in the joint.

Editor's Picks