Girls arrested for perjury

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-23 07:41am

I agree. Locking them up doesn't solve anything. First they need to see that what they did was wrong; they need to learn to take responsibility for their own fuckups, and they need to learn to look for the consequences of their actions. Then they need to learn why punishment is necessary.

Community service, like working for 8 months with elderly or disabled people will be a better punishment than locking them up together with drug dealers and thugs. Plus, they will be supervised, and their progress will be checked. They can show that they learned something - if they don't you can stil lock them up. They shouldn't have their lives ruined for a (admittedly rather huge) mistake they commited at age 12.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-23 10:01am

Trytostaydead wrote: I do not argue the depravity and depth of contempt with which they evidently held for the nameless homeless men. Nor does it make it any peachier that it was done to get out of a tardy. In all of those regards I think they should be punished, and punished severely.

But will slapping them in jail for a few years make them miraculous productive members of society? Doubt it, especially at their age. The age of 12 is approximately when their endocrine and neuroendocrine system is going through drastic changes. Just from a physiological/neurological point of view I would not want them to go to jail if it could be prevented.. you'd be assuring that they'd be fucked up in the head. They'll be out again at the most by what, 18? And what will they have learned and what will we have gained?

Will locking a murderer up for twenty years make them into a productive member of society? Doubtful.

Whether you like it or not, the American justice system is designed around using punitive sentancing to discourage the rest of the public from trying the same thing due to severe consequences. You may not like this system, but I see nothing remarkable about these girls that would make me wish to change the system. These girls broke the law and because of them an innocent man went to prison. They deserve to be punished severely.

I agree, there is a line that they crossed when it comes from just the irresponsibility, lack of judgement, forethought and rational thinking that these girls crossed, despite their young age at 11. However, they do not represent a threat to society. At least I've not heard yet how they will.

Any white coller criminal isn't a "threat" to society either, does that mean we should let them go free?

But am I espousing that they get away scott-free? Absolutely not! I think severe punishment should be metered out. But in a way that they could learn from it and give back to society. Should there be heavy fines? Hell yes, and most of it should go to the poor man. Community service? A DAMN lot. In fact, they should have just about zero free time for the next like five years of their lives. They should be cleaning the parks, streets, working hard in soup kitchens. While all their friends go to movies and dates, they help the community.

Realistically, no judge will dish out community service that cannot be fulfilled within a few months to a year at most. Besides, these girls made a man suffer in jail, and they deserve to know what that feels like. Perfect solution no?

But is jail the answer? No, it's just putting away a problem and ensuring that it gets worst. Because what happens, in a few years they're released and while they might not be psychopaths, but I don't think any wrong will be righte, and these girls will have at least another 60-70 years to live where all they'll have learned and given back is not to put a homeless in jail again.

You could make this argument for any criminal. Try again.

Because yes, when you're growing you change dramatically. Let's not fuck up our chances to produce proper members of society by locking them up and ensuring a fucked up state of mind afterwards.

This is some lovely idealism, but I prefer to think about the real world and in the real world, people have to pay for their crimes. At the very least, these girls should rot in jail for precicely as long as the man they implicated did.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-23 12:35pm

Hey, whoa whoa whoa. Getting out when they're 18? I'm talking about the 8 months they put him in jail for. They'd be 13 at most. What's the minimum sentence for perjury? Stravo or any other lawyers out there?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-23 12:45pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Hey, whoa whoa whoa. Getting out when they're 18? I'm talking about the 8 months they put him in jail for. They'd be 13 at most. What's the minimum sentence for perjury? Stravo or any other lawyers out there?

If they are tried as adults, the California penal code would give them a sentance of:

California Penal Code: Section 118 wrote:...imprisonment in the county jail
for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three
years. This section shall not apply to the contents of any statement
which the peace officer attributes in the report to any other
person.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-23 01:16pm

hrm. isn't perjury a felony? if so then there could be a sentence of up to 15 years, or more depending upon the state and the judge's leniency.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-23 01:25pm

Darth_Zod wrote:hrm. isn't perjury a felony? if so then there could be a sentence of up to 15 years, or more depending upon the state and the judge's leniency.

They're minors, though. They were 11 years old when the crime in question was committed. Isn't the cutoff age for trial as an adult 12 at the time of the criminal act? Jail, certainly, but 15 years?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-23 01:27pm

Darth_Zod wrote:hrm. isn't perjury a felony? if so then there could be a sentence of up to 15 years, or more depending upon the state and the judge's leniency.

No, from what I understand, each infraction has its own penalties and the judge can choose between them. Besides, from what I can tell from reading the penal code, perjury is actually a Misdemenor in California.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-23 01:28pm

i think it depends on the scale of the crime. i seem to recall very young kids trialed for murder who showed no remorse whatsoever (12-14 range), and they were given around ten years in juvie for it. admittedly it's a different crime, but it's the general idea.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-23 02:10pm

The Kernel wrote:Will locking a murderer up for twenty years make them into a productive member of society? Doubtful.

That depends on the efforts put ihto making him one. Society needs to be protected from murderers, and murderers need to be punished.

Whether you like it or not, the American justice system is designed around using punitive sentancing to discourage the rest of the public from trying the same thing due to severe consequences.

No modern judicial system is designed around deterrence, sinply because it does not work.

[...] Besides, these girls made a man suffer in jail, and they deserve to know what that feels like. Perfect solution no?

So if I cut off a man's hand, the judge should have my hand cut off? You seem to be a fan of medieval law.

But is jail the answer? No, it's just putting away a problem and ensuring that it gets worst. Because what happens, in a few years they're released and while they might not be psychopaths, but I don't think any wrong will be righte, and these girls will have at least another 60-70 years to live where all they'll have learned and given back is not to put a homeless in jail again.
You could make this argument for any criminal. Try again.

These are kids. There is a reason why the law differentiates between adults and children.

This is some lovely idealism, but I prefer to think about the real world and in the real world, people have to pay for their crimes. At the very least, these girls should rot in jail for precicely as long as the man they implicated did.

So community service is not a form of punishment? Nobody argues against the girls being punished, but an effort to teach them something has to be made.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-23 02:17pm

So, making them go take care of Granny or pick up some trash is a more effective punishment than making them spend some time in boot camp or juvie hall.

Riiiiiiight...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-23 02:42pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote: That depends on the efforts put ihto making him one. Society needs to be protected from murderers, and murderers need to be punished.

So you are okay with punishing murderers but not people who wilfully lie while knowing that it will lead to destroying the life of another?

No modern judicial system is designed around deterrence, sinply because it does not work.

Deterrance doesn't work? Really, then why do you suppose a thief doesn't simply break into my house and steal my stuff after slitting my throat? Are you saying the fact that he will be put in jail for the rest of his life for doing so has no bearing on this decision? Please...

So if I cut off a man's hand, the judge should have my hand cut off? You seem to be a fan of medieval law.

Fortunately for my argument, the penalty for purgury fits nicely with the amount of time the homeless man spent in prison and the judge has a great deal of wiggle room on sentancing in these cases.

These are kids. There is a reason why the law differentiates between adults and children.

Are you aware that children as young as ten have been tried as adults recently for certain crimes? Why should these girls be treated any different? They knew the consequences of their actions perfectly, and they knew that their accusation led to the incarceration of an innocent man. That is all that is required for someone to be tried as an adult.

So community service is not a form of punishment? Nobody argues against the girls being punished, but an effort to teach them something has to be made.

I'm sure that a year in a juvinelle detention facility will teach them something far better then a few months of community service.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-23 02:51pm

The Kernel wrote:
Deterrance doesn't work? Really, then why do you suppose a thief doesn't simply break into my house and steal my stuff after slitting my throat? Are you saying the fact that he will be put in jail for the rest of his life for doing so has no bearing on this decision? Please...

actually, deterrence isn't necessarily that effective. in some states where the death penalty is enforced as a deterrent, for example, the murder rate is much higher than in states where it isn't allowed.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-23 02:57pm

Darth_Zod wrote: actually, deterrence isn't necessarily that effective. in some states where the death penalty is enforced as a deterrent, for example, the murder rate is much higher than in states where it isn't allowed.

And that has what to do with deterrence as a generalized concept in the justice system? I'm not arguing that the death penalty is a more effective detterant than life imprisonment; that is an extremely narrow situation and does not represent general crime (especially non-violent crime). You can't tell me with a straight face that crimes like shoplifting and drunk driving wouldn't increase if the laws against them disappeared tomorrow.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-23 03:05pm

the point was that just because laws exist to stop certain crimes, and the penalty might be harsh, doesn't mean people still won't do it if they're determined, regardless of the punishment.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-23 03:11pm

Darth_Zod wrote:the point was that just because laws exist to stop certain crimes, and the penalty might be harsh, doesn't mean people still won't do it if they're determined, regardless of the punishment.

Yes, thank you, I got your point, but unfortuately aside from the death penalty vs. life imprisonment, you have yet to provide much evidence of this.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-23 03:51pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Deterrance doesn't work? Really, then why do you suppose a thief doesn't simply break into my house and steal my stuff after slitting my throat? Are you saying the fact that he will be put in jail for the rest of his life for doing so has no bearing on this decision? Please...
actually, deterrence isn't necessarily that effective. in some states where the death penalty is enforced as a deterrent, for example, the murder rate is much higher than in states where it isn't allowed.

Uh, wouldn't that mean that criminals increase the amount of people they kill in order to keep the statistics up?

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-02-23 04:00pm

neoolong wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Deterrance doesn't work? Really, then why do you suppose a thief doesn't simply break into my house and steal my stuff after slitting my throat? Are you saying the fact that he will be put in jail for the rest of his life for doing so has no bearing on this decision? Please...
actually, deterrence isn't necessarily that effective. in some states where the death penalty is enforced as a deterrent, for example, the murder rate is much higher than in states where it isn't allowed.
Uh, wouldn't that mean that criminals increase the amount of people they kill in order to keep the statistics up?

I would think that there are different variables at work. Could it be that states without a death penalty just have a less violent 'culture' (for lack of a better word) so that there is neither support for a dealth penalty nor anything in the air that convinces people that killing others is OK? If people are in an environment where "he needed killing" is a good excuse to go pump lead into someone, do you think the people would have something against the government doing it? People from an area who try to send other's sorry asses to jail instead of shooting them themselves would probably have neither a death penalty nor an extremely high murder rate (though many may wish it on the lawyers).

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-23 04:10pm

That's my point. Simply saying that there is a difference there and assuming its causative doesn't say anything. If you take that to be true, then criminals go around causing more murders because their fellow criminals are on death row.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-02-23 06:13pm

While costing an innocent man 8 months, I wonder just how much money their little stunt cost the taxpayers? I'd say house arrest with them only allowed out to work at a shitty minimum wage job till all the bills are paid (including compensation to the homeless guy).

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-23 06:15pm

Korvan wrote:While costing an innocent man 8 months, I wonder just how much money their little stunt cost the taxpayers? I'd say house arrest with them only allowed out to work at a shitty minimum wage job till all the bills are paid (including compensation to the homeless guy).

They're 12. What sort of shitty minimum wage job is it legal for them to work, pray tell?

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-02-23 06:51pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Korvan wrote:While costing an innocent man 8 months, I wonder just how much money their little stunt cost the taxpayers? I'd say house arrest with them only allowed out to work at a shitty minimum wage job till all the bills are paid (including compensation to the homeless guy).
They're 12. What sort of shitty minimum wage job is it legal for them to work, pray tell?

Babysitting. One whole fuck load of babysitting.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2004-02-23 06:57pm

Korvan wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Korvan wrote:While costing an innocent man 8 months, I wonder just how much money their little stunt cost the taxpayers? I'd say house arrest with them only allowed out to work at a shitty minimum wage job till all the bills are paid (including compensation to the homeless guy).
They're 12. What sort of shitty minimum wage job is it legal for them to work, pray tell?
Babysitting. One whole fuck load of babysitting.

2 year olds, that have been spoiled rotten beyond human comprehension.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-23 08:18pm

Korvan wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:They're 12. What sort of shitty minimum wage job is it legal for them to work, pray tell?
Babysitting. One whole fuck load of babysitting.

Oh right, as if you'd want those callous, lying, self-absorbed, ethically barren little shits taking care of your child.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-23 08:21pm

Actually, at 12 I don't think you're allowed to babysit yet. Of course, I sure wouldn't want to leave my kids with them.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-02-23 09:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Korvan wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:They're 12. What sort of shitty minimum wage job is it legal for them to work, pray tell?
Babysitting. One whole fuck load of babysitting.
Oh right, as if you'd want those callous, lying, self-absorbed, ethically barren little shits taking care of your child.

Of course not. If child labour laws don't cover community service, then have them do that. My original point is that I think they should be on the hook for the entire cost of the mess they made. Which could run at least a million once police and court costs are considered.