The Dumbass Years
The teen years are not exactly the era of fantastic judgment -- that hasn't changed -- but the punishment for being a prankster sure has. (Try felony charges.)
An Indiana high school senior named Tyell Morton had what he thought would be a hilarious idea, blogs Jack Huber at Discovery, and bought a blow-up doll:
He propped it up in a box inside the girls' bathroom, escaped unseen, and waited for the uproarious laughter to begin.Only it didn't.
Because he wasn't unseen. School officials watching a surveillance video viewed it like this: a hooded figure wearing latex gloves enters a women's bathroom carrying a suspicious package and leaves empty-handed. So they contacted authorities.
Tyell claims it was an innocent senior prank. School officials and the law see it differently.
In spite of the fact that everyone seems to agree on the silly but harmless circumstances, he faces felony charges relating to laws on terrorism that could amount to eight years behind bars.
Thanks to excessive legislation, we're all criminals these days. The question is just which law they use to reel us in and ruin our lives.
And sure, make the kid pay the cost involved, and give him some other punishment, but as Huber noted, he'd only get three years, maximum, if he'd come to school with a gun instead of an inflatable doll.
More on this here, from WTHR.com, Indianapolis.
As upsetting as cases like this are, there is a larger issue I find interesting: This is a local story about a local prosecutor out of control. In the normal course of events, local uproar will probably solve the problem. Yet, through the Internet, it has hit the international scene. Many local injustices like this hit the blogs and garner national and international attention.
Anyone over the age of about 40 will remember Halloween as it used to be. A few isolated, local stories hit the national news - razor blades in apples, poisoned candy, etc.. Even though these stories later turned out to be false (i.e., they never actually happened), they completely changed national behavior.
So I wonder: What effect will the flood of local stories like this one have on us in the long-term?
a_random_guy at June 19, 2011 12:51 AM
Since they keep turning out to be true?
I expect a complete dissolution of respect for the authorities
brian at June 19, 2011 4:44 AM
A police state doesn't exist because the government arrests everyone -- it exists because the government can arrest everyone.
Lisa Simeone at June 19, 2011 5:07 AM
How come I've never had a case like this when I've done jury duty so I could laugh the prosecutor out of court?
JFP at June 19, 2011 7:18 AM
because no prosecutor wouldwant someone like you on his jury
lujlp at June 19, 2011 8:00 AM
What Lisa said. I saw the same point made in a F.I.R.E. article yesterday about the new government rules that require colleges to presume that everyone accused of sexual harassment is guilty. When everyone is guilty, prosecutors have wide latitude about who to prosecute. The potential for abuse is obvious -- in fact, it's practically inevitable.
Cousin Dave at June 19, 2011 8:02 AM
@brian:
>I expect a complete dissolution of respect for the authorities
"Expect" ?
I'd say that it arrived about 5-10 years ago.
TJIC at June 19, 2011 8:10 AM
There is a dangerous trend in the world today to write laws that punish people based on other people's perceptions of their behavior rather than actual dangerous or criminal behavior.
I got into a knock down drag out with a Constitutional law professor on the issue of hate crime laws, and how they punished perceived motive rather than actual behavior.
Isn't the death penalty enough for 1st degree murder without worrying about whether it met the definition of a "hate" crime?
This was back in the 90's and it earned me a less than stellar grade in Constitutional law, because it was clear to the other students in class that I was winning the argument.
Now this poor kid is being threatened with possible felony charges because school administrators perceived his behavior as a possible terrorist threat rather than the harmless prank that it was.
What's next? Felony charges for leaving your unmarked luggage on the sidewalk in front of the airport when someone reports it as a suspicious package?
Isabel1130 at June 19, 2011 8:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/19/the_dumbass_yea.html#comment-2285200">comment from Isabel1130You're right -- that's exactly where this is headed. FIRE co-founder Harvey Silverglate has a book he just published about this: Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. I have a little blog item about it, but I'll probably post it tomorrow.
Amy Alkon at June 19, 2011 8:48 AM
Laws are supposed to protect us. Do they though? This kid's life will be ruined because of a prank all because some lawmaker wants to make a name for himself. It reminds me of the Rockefeller law and the lives ruined over drugs because apparently according to the lawmakers, drug use goes away if you just lock everyone up forever. Let the murderers and child molesters go free, but please lock up that kid who smoked pot one too many times.
Kristen at June 19, 2011 9:45 AM
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Not Sure at June 19, 2011 10:11 AM
I have the book. I bought "Three Felonies a Day" for a good friend for Christmas. This friend, unfortunately, treats most gifts as loans and returned it after reading it. (This is why I usually bake him cookies rather than giving him books. He can just throw the bag away and I am safe from having to find more shelf space)
I wish I had it on Kindle rather than hard bound because most of my reading is done on the Kindle these days.
Isabel1130 at June 19, 2011 10:31 AM
"I got into a knock down drag out with a Constitutional law professor on the issue of hate crime laws, and how they punished perceived motive rather than actual behavior."
This! Or how they legislate thought crimes!
I think I'm in love with Isabel.
Snakeman99 at June 19, 2011 11:32 AM
Eight years behind bars? Oh, please! Detention is all this merits, if that. No one was harmed by the appearance of Miss Polly Urethane in the girl's bathroom.
Patrick at June 19, 2011 12:50 PM
Isabel, EVERY crime punishes motive, if it's known. In fact, the charge of murder, for instance, DEPENDS on motive. And what do you mean by "perceived motive"? Isn't motive usually "perceived" in other types of crimes? Unless someone gets on the witness stand, spills his guts, "Yeah, I did it, and this is why."
Patrick at June 19, 2011 12:55 PM
"Terrorism?"
I hope, at some point, someone with some intellectual seriousness gets involved and puts this farce to an end.
Spartee at June 19, 2011 2:07 PM
"EVERY crime punishes motive, if it's known. In fact, the charge of murder, for instance, DEPENDS on motive."
"If it is known" There is one of your problems right there.
And, No it doesn't. You are confusing motive with premeditation. Also in criminal law, your lack of premeditation is a mitigating factor (a reason not to charge you or convict you 1st degree murder)
The mitigating circumstances, (the reason the jury might believe you or the prosecutor not prosecute) is totally different from a hate crime statute which essentially makes a crime out of your thoughts (motive) alone, and enhances the criminal penalties rather than mitigating them.
This is particularly important when any pre planning of a criminal act does not rise to the level of a conspiracy which requires certain elements and certain "acts" in order to meet the legal test of a chargeable crime.
What I mean by "perceived motive" is that there is a great deal of subjectivity in ascertaining someone's reasons for doing anything. Even psychiatrists often get it wrong.
It is hard enough to establish a criminal act within the rules of a court of law without getting into the "why" of what the perpetrator was thinking when he committed a crime, and then differentiating a political acceptable motive such as "I hate him because he is an asshole", to be acceptable but "I hate him because he is a Jewish/Muslim or Christian asshole" is not.
In any case, when you punish or charge based on motive rather than the criminal act you end up with the situation where the justice system itself will violate the equal protection clause, and the perceived race, class or protected status of the victim presupposes a hate crime unless the defendant both admits that he committed the crime AND admits that he did it for unacceptable reasons. Talk about your rock and a hard place.
Isabel1130 at June 19, 2011 5:33 PM
Isabel: And, No it doesn't. You are confusing motive with premeditation.
Congratulations on the most asinine statement that has ever appeared on this blog. Take a bow.
Patrick at June 20, 2011 8:51 AM
This post and Amy's newer one on the similar subject made me think of Atlas Shrugged and the premise that government turn citizens into lawbreakers in order to control them. Not Sure posted this passage from the book - good stuff. Rand may generate strong opinions pro/con, but you gotta admit that's some spooky prophecy from over 50 years ago.
Just a Guy at June 20, 2011 10:12 AM
Strict liability crimes do not punish motive.
Michelle at June 20, 2011 4:51 PM
Michelle is correct. Violating a strict liability law is an automatic crime regardless of your intent or lack thereof. The simple act satisfies the element for the crime. Strict Liability laws include seatbelt violations, driving without a licenses/suspended license, statutory rape, sex offender registry violations, etc. Strict liability crimes differ from common law crimes which require an act plus the intent to carry out the act.
Personally, I find it very troubling when the intent and/or motives of the citizenry is irrebutably presumed by statute or subjectively inferred from indirect and circumstantial events meanwhile the intents or motives of the agents of the government - police - are reviewable (if at all) under an objective reasoning test.
People need to wake up and realize that they are being screwed right under their noses. Each year the list of laws grows, the fines and penalties increase, and their power is dispersed amongst administrative agencies without much protest.
I can't wait to read that book.
KMH at June 21, 2011 6:49 PM
Leave a comment