20 Years for a Youtube Prank? - Page 18

On February 19 2011 19:34 PanzerKing wrote:


People get community service for getting caught with a joint or shoplifting a pair of underwear from Duane Reede on their second or third offense. Twenty or more counts of what I just described doesn't strike you as more severe?

The reason this is so much more serious is that there's a victim here. The first thing I was told when I started at the DA's office was "you never make an offer (at arraignments) when there's a victim." Why is that the policy? Because we don't want them coming to us later on and saying "How could you let that guy go with a violation and community service? Do you have any idea what happened to my family? I had people laughing at me in the streets, people looking away from me at the grocery store, my mother called me on the phone and said that she heard my daughter was in a sex tape, I was walking down the street and someone yelled that my daughter was a little whore and probably liked being in that video, my daughter won't leave the house because older kids are laughing at her and calling her names at school, etc."

Basically, they don't know how seriously these families were impacted. Their office needs time to investigate and create a resolution that's agreeable for all the parties and that serves the interests of justice. So yes, charging a heavy felony at arraignments is perfectly reasonable. Maybe some of these families were seriously traumatized. Maybe they weren't really that affected and they're just mugging it up for the press. The point is that the DA's office has the flexibility to react accordingly, but you bet your ass that, at arraignments, they're going to err on the side of caution.

EDIT: Going to bed, can't continue the discussion any longer, but thanks for keeping it civil :-)

On February 19 2011 22:39 Kar98 wrote:
Gah, people stop buying into the Daily Mail hype it's a tabloid "newspaper" nothing more. For example if I litter while driving on the road the maximum penalty is something like $3,000 but because I only happened throw out a packet of chips the fine would be $80 out of the maximum $3,000 (which would be like dumping an entire trailer load of rubbish).

The maximum penalty for this guy is 20 years but he will never get it because the offence wasn't severe enough. The Daily Mail will word it to sound like it is but if you read critically all the police said is they were treating the incident seriously as oppossed to not bothering at all. Worst thing this kid will get is a fine and feel incredibly embarrassed.

So I ask again: everything you read from the Daily Mail (and Telegraph) treat like it's written by some dirt journalist (which it is )