Legal details aside, my question was more about whether it's morally right to sentence someone to eighteen years for the crimes described in the article?
I think part of the reason is they wanted to send a message. Not the one you'd think: "Don't terrorize your neighbors" or "Don't threaten politicians". The message is "You'd better take the plea bargain. Or else." Prosecutors don't have time to take every case to trial, so they threaten everybody with 100 little charges that add up to 150 years in jail. Then they offer you a deal, where you plead guilt to some subset and spend enough years in jail to satisfy the government.
It's grossly unfair. Nobody knows how many innocent people are wasting away in prison because they didn't want to risk spending the rest of their lives there.
The sentence is up to the judge, within the limits set by the legislature. The prosecution can push for a plea bargain by quoting scary totals, but the judge decides whether the worst case comes about.
Of course, IANAL/TINLA etc.
Killer band and album names there.
Several families at least had their livelihoods directly undermined.
I can't speak to plea bargaining, it seems to be a largely American feature.
(IANAL, TINLA)
I'm not saying he should go free. But I am saying 18 years is incredibly harsh in light of the crime.
To me, this seems like harassment, worthy of a slap on the wrist. If he does it again, take away his computer privileges or something. But prison time? You have to be kidding me.
He was the author of an email threatening to kill the vice-president -- he is responsible for 'uttering' the words. In many jurisdictions that is the complete crime (strict liability).
Furthermore he aimed to pervert the course of justice by framing someone else.
Both these crimes are considered serious pretty much everywhere. Judges tend to look unflatteringly on perversion in particular.
(IANAL, TINLA).
> The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.” “I swear to God I’m going to kill you!,” part of the message to Biden said.
Not sure why you think he didn't threaten to kill. Seems he was found guilty.
Had his plan succeeded, the victim would be in prison for the rest of his life on the combination of kiddie porn and threatening the vice president. That's way beyond "harassment".
That's not necessarily true, or rather the legislature often sets minimum sentences. If you're brought up on enough charges you can end up in jail for life with no discretion on the part of the judge.
For example, suppose I kill somebody. What will I be charged with?
Depending on the case, I might be up for murder, manslaughter or in some places "dangerous act leading to death". Each of these crimes has a different complexion and different punishments; the effect is that if I maliciously or carelessly hurt someone I could easily be hooked on one of them. Quite often the prosecution might charge me with all of them at once, then drop charges as the case unfolds.
However, for those crimes which make it to the "finish line", judges may be in a position to consider them separately or jointly. It varies wildly depending on jurisdiction. Supposing this was a jurisdiction where crimes must be sentenced in isolation, a high total is not impossible.
My gut feeling is that the judge has selected the higher end of potential jail terms because of the pattern of malice this individual has repeatedly displayed. One function of imprisonment is to remove the ability to cause more harm to society.
(IANAL, TINLA)
Posting child porn and death threats? Yeah, that's worth 18 years.
'Posting child porn' for example turns out to be 'posting a single picture of a pubescent girl having sex with two young boys'. Note that we have not seen the picture, so the girls' age can be anywhere between 10-17 (age range according to Wikipedia article on puberty). Note also that this picture was selected for shock value, and no other child pornography was reported found on the guys' computer.
The death threat was to a prominent politician who probably gets such emails on an hourly basis by cooks from all around the country.
So basically what you're saying is that eighteen years is appropriate punishment for being a 4chan troll?
I think every owner of a stash of pornographic material is guilty then.
Irregardless of whether you agree with the above argument, completely 'revising your opinion of me' for a single argument in a single case where you are conversing via a rather incomplete/miscommunication prone medium like this, seems rather like overreacting.
When I read someone suggesting that the state has sentenced someone abusively, then later find a comment where that same person says posting actual images of child pornography isn't a big deal --- or, as I found even further downthread, that physically molesting a child is something that warrants a stern conversation rather than police intervention --- I'm inclined to believe that person has very little to say about sentencing that I am going to find reasonable.
You are free to your own opinion about this case, and about 'inoop's comments.
You think wrong. There are two crucial differences between the average porn owner and the vindictive neighbor.
The relevant laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 2252A, and others[0], repeatedly use the word "knowingly". The vindictive neighbor did in fact knowingly possess and distribute a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual activity. A person who has a large stash of porn that happens to include a pic of a 17 year old that they don't know about is legally safe.
In particular, the law allows a person in possession of fewer than 3 pieces of material to make an "affirmative defense"[1] if, upon discovering it, they either take reasonable steps to destroy the material or immediately report its existence to law enforcement. So the average owner of a stash of porn, upon discovering kiddie pics in his stash, can avoid all liability and culpability merely by destroying it or turning it over to the cops. The vindictive neighbor did neither.
I would argue both of these legal points are also moral points -- knowing you possess child pornography, and knowingly keeping it, is a whole different offense than accidentally possessing it and then destroying it or turning it over to the cops when you realize the situation.
EDIT: as to the broader point as to whether the sentence is justified, you can read the government's entire argument[2]. It describes the photo in detail on page 8; the individuals depicted are prepubescent, not "almost legal". It also describes the rest of the case; note that the sentence is not merely a child porn sentence, but includes identity theft, threats to the VP, violation of his initial release conditions, lying under oath, coaching witnesses, etc. The government explains the length of sentence starting on page 27.
[0] http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?L...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
[2] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/ardolf...
The world is shades of grey, not the black and white you're demanding.
inoop was presenting an opinion based on the information in the main article and you stomped on him and effectively claimed that everything he's ever said is now suspect.
How many times has it happened that an article has used weasel words to paint an unflattering picture of someone, only for a more balanced view to come out later? inoop is asking people to look at the information that was presented rather than fire off a buzzword knee-jerk response.
If you have more information, then present it before judging, don't judge people on their opinions that may change with your secretly held information.
Page 8 describes the photo in detail. It's not a 17 year old, "barely a minor". It's a prepubescent girl and two prepubescent boys.
Anyway, the response is the same to both of you: I do not believe that either of you pore through every link in an article, reading all the way through before commenting. Particularly with court notes. No-one does. You're making a post-hoc defense.
If not reading the court notes linked in that article before commenting is worthy of having your credibility and history derided, then my bet is that pretty much every single commenter in this whole thread is guilty of this.
Also, lothar: your reference describes the picture of being of a prepubescent girl, which is different to the wired article which references a pubescent girl. From the context of inoop's comment, he's obviously going from the linked wired article and not the sub-linked court notes.
edit: sorry, swapped the last two paragraphs, 'if not...' was not meant to follow on from 'also...'
In short, the issue brought up was that the sentence seems excessive given that "child porn" could mean a picture of 17 year olds. Having done the research, it's clear that the picture was of much younger children, and that the length of the sentence was due to several factors beyond the "child porn" issue. So the ancestor post to this raised a valid question, but was ultimately wrong on the relevant facts.