|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Oct 30, 2011 15:14:17 GMT -5
I wouldn't favor outright acquittal for the two burglars, but their actions should serve as a strong mitigating factor in what is already, as you said, probably already a misdemeanor case.
They'll probably get the proverbial slap on the wrist that they deserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Oct 30, 2011 15:28:53 GMT -5
I think it should probably be taken into account whether or not the thieves make a habit of this--and how much and to what extent they're involved in robbery. Was this their first offense? Was this the first the police are AWARE of but something they've done many times before? They're both young--one nineteen, the other still underage--so it's possible they're just a couple of stupid, reckless, bored kids looking for a thrill. That all they took was CDs and DVDs suggests they're probably NOT hardened criminals or a part of a larger organized operation. Still, I don't know. A lot should be taken into consideration, though.
From the looks of it no one is going to charge either of them with anything, considering they committed such a relatively minor crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 30, 2011 16:00:37 GMT -5
I think they should be still charged with something, they did commit a crime after all. But as far as punishment goes, I'd say that in the eyes of karma they're balanced with maybe a bit on the good side.
Ironbite-still doesn't excuse them but does forgive them, at least a little bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on Oct 30, 2011 17:00:57 GMT -5
Honestly, if it's a first offense I'd say let them go. They did do the right thing after making a bad decision, and a criminal record would haunt them for the rest of their lives, even if it is a misdemeanor (especially if they aren't white). They didn't give an anonymous tip, they admitted to what they did to the police, which probably means they're also going to testify in court.
What they did in breaking in was stupid, yes, but they made the right choice in going to the police with this. My gut says let them go with a warning to keep their noses clean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 30, 2011 17:46:05 GMT -5
The article itself contains an extremely interesting little nugget.
So there was a third "family member" in on this eh? It's highly likely that the reason they went to the police was simply because someone else knew what they did rather than out of their own desire to do what's right. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, just that it might be wise to avoid calling them "good Samaritans" until we know what role this other family member played in all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Oct 30, 2011 18:56:43 GMT -5
Chaotic Good. I like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 30, 2011 18:58:36 GMT -5
Huh. I really didn't think of it that way. I still don't. Had this 'family member' not seen the content of the CDs do you not think the guys would have gone to the police? Or are you implying that they only went to the cops because this family member figured out they'd stolen the CDs and DVDs? You don't even know that this person knew the discs were stolen. That's pretty much exactly what I'm implying (although it wouldn't be so much to do with stealing CDs as withholding child porn from the authorities). I'd say it's safe to assume the family member knew they were stolen because one (s)he saw that they contained child porn, the kids could either confess or let him/her believe those disks full of kiddy porn are theirs. As for "honour amongst thieves", well we're talking about a couple of idiot teens here, not something a Hollywood writer shat out. I really don't see them turning stuff they stole over to the police and in the process confessing to robbery unless the option to just destroy the evidence and pretend it never happened is not available. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 30, 2011 18:59:12 GMT -5
My thinking is that you don't want to give them incentive to not report the more serious crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 31, 2011 1:06:19 GMT -5
I'd say two weeks' house arrest would be just fine, and then let them be on their way... way to go for having a sense of decency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Oct 31, 2011 11:12:03 GMT -5
My thinking is that you don't want to give them incentive to not report the more serious crime. I agree with this. As much as what they did was still a crime, if the lesser crime is punished then it will only hurt them to report the more serious crime. A similar example, with a more identifiable moral aspect, would be do you charge a person for prostitution when they report that their customer severely injured them? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 31, 2011 11:24:49 GMT -5
I think this is the case where a punishment is necessary, but a slap on the wrist would be acceptable for once, on the basis of "Good Samaritan". After all, in order to report someone else, they did have turn themselves in, knowing that there would likely be consequences to face. (The fact that there weren't is, in this case, incidental, not expected)
I like the idea of two weeks' house arrest.
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 1, 2011 1:36:10 GMT -5
Correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldn't they only be in trouble if the original person whose house they broke into, opened a case against them? I assume that person noticed what had been stolen and decided that it would be 'better' to not report the crime. After all, who would go to the police and say that someone broke in and stole your kiddy porn?
|
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Nov 3, 2011 7:03:12 GMT -5
I agree with everybody else, that they did commit a crime, and should be given some kind of minor sentence, a crime is a crime. But it should definitely be minor. I don't know what the minimum sentence for BE is, but that's what they should get.
|
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Nov 4, 2011 20:10:16 GMT -5
Wouldn't the fact that the seizure upon his items were based on a illegal entry into his house void the evidence? If the police broke into this guy's house the evidence would be void without a proper search warrant, why does it count if criminals do it?
This makes it sound like a crooked cop could pay a guy to brake into someone's house who the cop believes might have "illegal material" to have a case against them if they can't get a proper warrant in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on Nov 4, 2011 20:52:49 GMT -5
Wouldn't the fact that the seizure upon his items were based on a illegal entry into his house void the evidence? If the police broke into this guy's house the evidence would be void without a proper search warrant, why does it count if criminals do it? This makes it sound like a crooked cop could pay a guy to brake into someone's house who the cop believes might have "illegal material" to have a case against them if they can't get a proper warrant in the first place. Getting criminals to turn on each other is a time honoured legal tradition, but in a case where a cop hires someone to do the B&E they would have a tough time when it came to the cross examination in the trial. Although to be honest I don't doubt that it does happen all too often. As much as I hate to do a lesser of evils argument, in this case because there is no evidence that the police did engage in entrapment with that method I do think a suspended sentence for the teens would be the most they should get. |
|
