<p>“the law” recognized this is North Jersey, the Catholic college and it’s very nice student body is the anchor of a wonderful town, and needed to stay the course, every politician jumped aboard, it sold newspapers like mad, people were angry and worked up over something the prosecutors could “fix” as opposed to the usual property tax, school budget, crime stuff.
Anything that generates “award winning series” and Pulitzer prize winning photos is Big News and there better eventually be a Big Arrest and conviction.
prosecutors trying to pay mobsters
<a href=“http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/setonhallfire/0708_shuf_mobrole.html[/url]”>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/setonhallfire/0708_shuf_mobrole.html</a>
the pressure to indict
<a href=“http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/setonhallfire/0613_shuf_pressure.html[/url]”>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/setonhallfire/0613_shuf_pressure.html</a>
the entire series of articles
<a href=“http://www.nj.com/news/setonhallfire/[/url]”>http://www.nj.com/news/setonhallfire/</a>
also – survivors. very moving. photos are tough.
<a href=“http://www.nj.com/news/setonhallfire/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/setonhallfire/afterthefire.html[/url]”>http://www.nj.com/news/setonhallfire/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/setonhallfire/afterthefire.html</a></p>
<p>
I’m with you, faraway. I would just add that the fire was lit in a DORM in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT when inhabitants, presumably, would likely be ASLEEP! Not a prank, in my eyes.</p>
<p>Deliberately smoking a cigarette under a smoke alarm is a prank. This was not a prank. I, likewise, could not believe the audacity of that boy to say “I hope you can get over it”.</p>
<p>Anyone knw how much time the average murderer spends in jail these days? I believe it is around 7 years. If I recall correctly the German cannibal who advertised on the net for a victim only got 5 years. I’m not saying it is right but I am not sure this sentence is far out of line for a first time conviction and probably higher than the average first time conviction for arson.</p>
<p>I’ll say right off the top that I have no more knowledge about this case than what I have read here. </p>
<p>That said, and at the risk of appearing to “lecture” (a criticism directed at a previous poster), let me suggest that it’s difficult to talk about criminal sentencing in a sensible and useful fashion without reference to the underlying purposes of criminal punishment. Those purposes are usually thought to include (1) retribution, (2) deterrence, (3) incapacitation, and (4) rehabilitation. Part of what can make sentencing such a devilishly difficult task is that, in many cases, these purposes will seem to point in different directions. </p>
<p>For example, it may well be the case that these defendants do not appear to present any particular threat of ongoing harm, making a lengthy sentence seem unnecessary under the incapacitation and rehabilitation rationales.</p>
<p>As for retribution, it is usually thought to include two factors: (1) the gravity of the resulting harm, and (2) the actor’s culpability. As for the first, it couldn’t be any greater than it is in a case involving loss of life. As for the second, there seems to be a lot of debate here as to how culpable these guys were, the consensus (to the extent there is one) being that they’re less blameworthy than someone who acts with the intent to kill.</p>
<p>Finally, as for deterrence, there’s a lot of room for difference of opinion as to how that rationale ought to play in a case such as this. One might make the argument, for example, that from a deterrent standpoint, cases involving “stupid” behavior are among those that warrant the stiffest sentences - at least where, as here, the consequences of the behavior were grave (and could therefore appear to justify a stiff sentence under the “harm” component of the retribution rationale as well) - as what you’re trying to do through such a sentence, as much as anything else, is send a message to others in an effort to inhibit such behavior in the future.</p>
<p>In any event, the main point of this insomniac post isn’t to come down one way or the other as to the appropriateness of any particular sentence in this case. It’s simply to offer another way of thinking and talking about that question - one that focuses on the purposes of punishment.</p>
<p>Deterrence…in our paper today was a small mention of the 2 fraternity members who are going to jail to 2 years over a hazing incident - there was an ear drum rupture, not sure if hearing was effected permanently, no death-to teach others a lesson. go figure. Like the Seton Hall case this went on tiil they got the verdict they wanted “The second jury also was unable to reach a verdict for the other three defendants, and they are to be tried a third time in March.”
<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/ap/national/mainD8MV9IOG4.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/ap/national/mainD8MV9IOG4.shtml</a>
“Two Florida A&M University fraternity brothers each received two-year prison terms Monday from a judge who said she wanted to send a message with the state’s first prosecution under its new felony hazing law.”</p>
<p>Not to get paranoid but … they want to put 5 frat brothers in jail, and I wonder if race has to do with it. Making a political statement?</p>