The intermittent musings of a pedantic public defender...
You seem to be saying that a 13 year sentence for destroying property is an overreaction. Give me a break! Destroying property worth thousands of dollars just because you don't approve of the owner's choosing a large SUV -- that's the overreaction.This crime fits the classic definition of terrorism: it is clearly intended to scare both the direct victim and third parties into not buying SUVs just because the criminal disapproves of them.Hate crime laws exist to punish terrorists such as the Ku Klux Klan who are trying to force people they don't like to move away. But unfortunately we don't have "hate crime" laws aimed at eco-terrorists yet, so sentences such as this one will have to stand in their place.I say, "attaboy" to the judge, and I wish we had some like him where I live!
er. the klan, if my recollection serves correct, killed dozens if not hundreds of people. they certainly weren't infamous for lynching black families' cars. what i hear you saying is that a crime that causes solely economic damage that is aimed at forwarding a political agenda should be construed as terrorism. by this thinking acts of civil disobedience, such as blockading a logging road, would also be classified as acts of terror.sounds like judge aiken is taking us down that slippery slope.
Post a Comment