RE: Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.
October 9, 2014 at 7:23 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm by HopOnPop.)
Hi Ben,
A simple admission by the kid is all it would have taken to establish intent in most cases. As it was, he was charged on desecration. Others have mentioned perhaps he could have been charged for tresspassing as well. I am not asserting that this kid could be charged with any of these in court (and my additions to the list of potential charges was merely meant as other examples of potential avenues that might exist), I am merely trying to demonstrate that there are real potential charges here for which the kid may be guilty of -- for which we have no way of knowing about -- that justifies his sentence.
I agree that this the majority opinion here, but mere opinion does not demonstrate a "miscarriage of justice." If we are entertaining mere opinion, I would assert that this kid's parents likely played a major role, if not the dominant one, in this sentencing.
If all of the assumptions people are making are true about the kid's true intentions (i.e. this kid had no intent other than making a silly photo for his wall) AND this kid's parents were entirely on his side, I have very little doubt the case would have been lost by the city at some point (either initially or in appeal). The actual charge of "desecration of a venerated object" is one of those silly small-town statutes that is ripe for challenge, and if the parents agreed that this was a miscarriage of justice, I would think this case would have attracted additional support from the FFRF or ACLU. But, since this is not what happened, in my opinion I think its reasonable to assume that either:
(1) the kid's parents were likely over-zealous christians, just like the DA, and at the very least, together, they agreed on this sentence to "teach the kid a lesson" or
(2) the DA did actually have some sort of evidence, other than the photo, that demonstrated some other more serious intent that would actually stand up if it went to trial.
Does that clarify my Devils advocate position a bit for you?
I think I am the only massochist here so I'll give you my two cents. I don't think the kid would deserve any punishment for a photoshop mock up. I am fairly sure that the mere appearance of this picture on facebook itself is not a violation of the law in anyway. The photo merely became the document for which the prosecutor can use to prove the 'desecration" actually took place. As a photoshopped image, it would merely be freedom of expression, a piece of artwork.
A simple admission by the kid is all it would have taken to establish intent in most cases. As it was, he was charged on desecration. Others have mentioned perhaps he could have been charged for tresspassing as well. I am not asserting that this kid could be charged with any of these in court (and my additions to the list of potential charges was merely meant as other examples of potential avenues that might exist), I am merely trying to demonstrate that there are real potential charges here for which the kid may be guilty of -- for which we have no way of knowing about -- that justifies his sentence.
Quote: The decision to commit him to community service is a miscarriage of justice, plain & simple. Christian mob-law has won out on this day and the US justice system is all the poorer for it.
I agree that this the majority opinion here, but mere opinion does not demonstrate a "miscarriage of justice." If we are entertaining mere opinion, I would assert that this kid's parents likely played a major role, if not the dominant one, in this sentencing.
If all of the assumptions people are making are true about the kid's true intentions (i.e. this kid had no intent other than making a silly photo for his wall) AND this kid's parents were entirely on his side, I have very little doubt the case would have been lost by the city at some point (either initially or in appeal). The actual charge of "desecration of a venerated object" is one of those silly small-town statutes that is ripe for challenge, and if the parents agreed that this was a miscarriage of justice, I would think this case would have attracted additional support from the FFRF or ACLU. But, since this is not what happened, in my opinion I think its reasonable to assume that either:
(1) the kid's parents were likely over-zealous christians, just like the DA, and at the very least, together, they agreed on this sentence to "teach the kid a lesson" or
(2) the DA did actually have some sort of evidence, other than the photo, that demonstrated some other more serious intent that would actually stand up if it went to trial.
Does that clarify my Devils advocate position a bit for you?
(October 9, 2014 at 11:01 am)Jenny A Wrote: A little thought experiment for those who would like to hang the boy high. Would he deserve more or less punishment if in instead of taking a selfie on the actual statue, he Photoshopped himself in?
I think I am the only massochist here so I'll give you my two cents. I don't think the kid would deserve any punishment for a photoshop mock up. I am fairly sure that the mere appearance of this picture on facebook itself is not a violation of the law in anyway. The photo merely became the document for which the prosecutor can use to prove the 'desecration" actually took place. As a photoshopped image, it would merely be freedom of expression, a piece of artwork.
