Quote:
Originally Posted by vailpass
A college prank gone wrong. Tell the jury these two young people should go sit in prison for 5 years. There was 0 premeditation. The kid was unstable and killed himself, a reasonably prudent person could not have forseen that consequence.
|
Wait a minute now. We're disregarding the consequences, remember?
There was no premeditation for the death, but we're not talking about the death, just the invasion of privacy.
The invasion of privacy was absolutely, 100% premeditated and designed to humiliate. As far as the
invasion of privacy itself is concerned, there was all the intent and all the pre-meditation that there could possibly be. And it's the invasion of privacy that's being prosecuted.
If a crime which is premeditated and designed to foster just the type of reaction that the statute was enacted to avoid, yet that crime isn't punishable to the fullest extent allowed by the statute, just exactly what would be?
If you don't like the statutory scheme, contact your local congressman. But I see no way this kid can't get the maximum penalty allowed under the statute. There's just no justification for this invasion of privacy and every factor introduced is an aggravating, rather than mitigating factor. Every additional fact surrounding the invasion of privacy serves to make the invasion worse.
It's a different approach to reviewing a 'proper' sentence, but in my mind the result comes out the same.