Teen burns down school; forced to pay full cost of repair

[jonnythan]

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=27302

So this 18 year old kid set fire to the high school gym while drunk on New Year's Eve. Convicted of burglary and arson, sent to 4 to 12 years in jail.

Pretty standard, right? What's not standard is that the judge ordered this kid to pay the city of Cohoes the entirety of the $1.3 million in damages to the school.

Imagine being this kid. You go to jail straight out of high school. You're there til you're 28, and you're released. You now have to find a job as an ex-con, probably making close to minimum wage, manage to pay rent, gas, transportation, food, beer, and, oh yeah, almost a million and a half dollars.

This kid messed up and is going to jail. I don't dispute that. What I dispute is a *criminal judge* ordering a teenage felon to pay over a million dollars IN ADDITION TO a prison term that fits the crime. This guy probably had an argument with his wife or something, and now he's basically condemning this kid to a life of petty crime just to have enough post-garnishment wages to eat and see a movie once in a while.

 

[LUBOLD8431]

I have no pity for someon who was convicted of burglary and arson...

At least he didnt have his hands chopped off, or his back branded, or whipped with a cane. I think in our country, the punishments are not severe enough for convicted criminals. But, thats another thread that would probably be locked five minutes into it...

 

[jonnythan]

This kid is 18. He got drunk and did something stupid, now he'll be in prison til he's 30. Do you think it's constructive for society or fair to the kid to absolutely ruin this guy's post-prison life? He'll never have a chance, ever. Why not just keep him in prison?

 

[LUBOLD8431]

Why not just execute him and save the taxpayers some money???

He should have thought about his actions BEFORE he got drunk and burned the school down...

 

[jonnythan]

As an aside, executions cost the state quite a bit more money than life imprisonment, interestingly.

What do you think would be an appropriate sentence for the crime? No one was hurt, and no one could have been hurt, BTW.

 

[LUBOLD8431]

In college, I took a class on Crimes and Punishment (Criminal Justice major), and we had a healthy discussion of minimum sentencing guidelines. I actually dont agree with strict sentencing guidelines. I believe it should be left up to the individual judge in the case to determine punishment. In this case, the judge ordered what he thought was appropriate. It doesnt matter what I think is appropriate, I wasnt the judge in this case.

 

[jonnythan]

Leaving it up to the judge allows things like this: one kid did something almost identical and is currently serving 3.5 - 9 years. The problems with that is that leaving it up to the judge makes sentencing wildly inaccurate and unfair. I don't think people's lives should hang solely in the balance of whether a judge is having a good day or not.

In any case, I think what the judge did is obscene and a gross violation of his position.

 

[glbirch]

As an aside, executions cost the state quite a bit more money than life imprisonment, interestingly.

Uh, how you figure? Life costs the taxpayers many thousand dollars per criminal. A bullet costs $1.50 or so.

What do you think would be an appropriate sentence for the crime? No one was hurt, and no one could have been hurt, BTW.

No one could have been hurt? No chance the janitor was sleeping one off on New Years? No possibility that any fireman could have been injured in the line of duty?

 

[LUBOLD8431]

Hmmm, in reading the article, it seems that there were 3 individuals involved in the burglary and arson. If I were the judge, I would hold all three equally responsible for the damages (1.3 million divided by the three of them).

 

[LUBOLD8431]

Leaving it up to the judge allows things like this: one kid did something almost identical and is currently serving 3.5 - 9 years. The problems with that is that leaving it up to the judge makes sentencing wildly inaccurate and unfair. I don't think people's lives should hang solely in the balance of whether a judge is having a good day or not.

In any case, I think what the judge did is obscene and a gross violation of his position.

I dont think there is anything unfair about a judge who can consider extenuating circumstances when issuing punishment (thereby adjusting the level of such punishment). I do believe that required minimum sentencing is unfair and inaccurate...

For instance, a senior at a local high school where I am from sold ONE joint to a student. He was convicted, and sentenced to 2 and 1/2 years in prison. Minimum sentencing guidelines. Judge had no say in the outcome. That was unfair. This kid sold one joint in a school zone, and now he lost two and a half years of his life. A conviction is bad enough, jail time is just salt in the wounds. Locking people up for a certain amount of time does nothing for recidivism. If they want to reoffend, they will as soon as they get out.