Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

The gaps in Kristof's narrative really highlight how he's trying to spin a story out of this:

1) Why didn't he dispose of the shotgun shells? Surely someone told him that as a convicted felon he wasn't supposed to possess firearms or ammunition?

2) What led him to be suspected of the burglary?

3) He notes: "Then Young became a suspect in burglaries at storage facilities and vehicles in the area, and the police searched his home and found the forgotten shotgun shells as well as some stolen goods." He keeps mentioning the shotgun shells, but never returns to the issue of the stolen goods found in Young's house.

I agree with the sentiment of the article. Minimum sentence laws are wrong. Felon in possession laws are wrong. The disabilities applied to convicted felons after they've served their time are wrong. The U.S. imprisons too many people, especially in states like California where there is an toxic amalgam of scared suburbanites, police and prison workers unions, and for-profit prison companies that have created an unsupportable situation.

BUT: the fact that the author has to resort to presenting a story that's as much of a mixed bag as Daniel Young's should give you some pause. It should give you some perspective of the scale of the problem.

Kristof's exaggeration is unnecessary ("totally innocent people sent to jail just for helping their neighbor!"). I once had to watch a sentencing hearing for a class. The guy was a scumbag. Drug dealer (not the harmless neighbor kid who deals pot mind you), had two kids with two different women but didn't support either of them. One of the moms came to testify that he was trying to be more of a father to her kid recently and that imprisoning him would destroy that. The judge handed down I think a 15-20 year sentence based on the raft of prior enhancements (I think he had assaulted his other baby momma, did some burglaries, etc). He was not an innocent guy. At the same time, it was unnecessary to sentence him to 15-20 years. Our sentences are just too damn long, even if they are mostly applied to scumbags.

>1) Why didn't he dispose of the shotgun shells? Surely someone told him that as a convicted felon he wasn't supposed to possess firearms or ammunition?

I'm not sure that a "why not?" like that is a gap. I'm also not convinced that anyone would have told him that. You're generally just supposed to know the law. Nobody necessarily tells it to you.

"You're generally just supposed to know the law. Nobody necessarily tells it to you."

If no one tells you, then how are you meant to know?

How?

That's been the practice since Roman times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

That was a reasonable principle up to about a century ago, when statutory law started growing out of control and drowning out other more stable and sensible sources of law.

When legislatures churn out volumes and volumes of bills every single year, "ignorantia juris non excusat" non excusat.

On top of that, what ever happened to mens rea being a necessary element of culpability? Why are all of these malum prohibitum laws strict liability offences?

Kafka wrote something about that ;)

An excellent question. Basically, the law is absurd and horrible in almost every conceivable way, and designing a system of law that is otherwise is nontrivial.

Go read it in a book, or consult a lawyer and pose questions to him/her. Most cities and countries operate free law libraries where you can peruse these topics in as much detail as you care to. Like most things these days, it's incredibly easy to look it up online if you don't feel like going to a library.

If you're exiting prison, someone does generally tell you of the terms of your release. I'd also imagine that sort of knowledge becomes common among prisoners and ex-convicts.

there is always something more to the story. however, the author does note that the burglary charges against Young are dropped. it is implied by the article that the only crime he is convicted of is of possessing the shells.

if that's false, then Kristof is just lying. if it's true, then I don't think that you have much room here to ask things like 'oh surely he knew what he was doing was wrong'.

Well, he's convicted of possession because he already had 12 felony convictions under his belt when he was caught with the ammo. As Rayiner says, the appropriate thing to do would have been to get rid of it in some fashion.

Young was indeed back to committing burglaries[0] and even had his son tag along to help load the loot into his vehicle. So, Kristof lies. It's obvious the state charges against Young were dropped only because his federal conviction and sentence makes the state case a waste of time.

From the Chattanoogan[1], October 06, 2011:

    YOUNG, EDWARD LAMAR 4920 BRANDINGTON AVE
    HIXSON, 37343 41 Chattanooga BURGLARY 
    THEFT OVER $500 
    VANDALISM/MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 
    CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR 
    THEFT UNDER $500 
    BURGLARY OF AN AUTO 
    BURGLARY OF STORAGE BUILDING 
    THEFT OVER $1000

The law ought to be changed to allow the judge more discretion in sentencing, however.

[0]http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/21/a-few-shotgun...

[1]http://www.chattanoogan.com/2011/10/6/210681/Latest-Jail-Boo...

it sounds like the type of piece one might hire a reputation management firm to write.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com