Atomic Dog

But nothing you mentioned constitutes a legitimate crime. And by my understanding, the law does not exist to punish people who haven't comitted a crime.

__________________

Ferris Bueller

You cant treat this person with the same rationale you would a child. You cant. A child who cant read that touches a statue labeled "do not touch" doesnt know better. A college student who has been around since 9/11 knows the state of paranoia the country is in and more than likely knows the strict security at airports is always in force these days. We're not talking about a lack of knowledge, we're talking about ignorance or stupidity, you choose. However, remember that neither is an excuse.

Take someone from Colorado, where they have the "make my day law", allowing you to use deadly force against someone who is unlawfully on your property or threatening bodily harm. Transplant him to any state that doesnt have that law. Someone breaks into his house and he kills the intruder. Does he deserve to not receive punishment under the law because he didnt know any better? Of course not. He should have known that the laws of the state he used to live in are not necessarily the same in his new locale. He's an adult, and as such, expected to act like one.

This girl is a college student living in a paranoid state. She walks into an airport with electronics and batteries taped to her chest and a wad of clay-like substance in her hand. She refuses to answer any questions. Suspicious? Certainly. Perceivable threat? Absolutely. Was appropriate action taken? Yes. Does she deserve to get off cause she acted stupidly and/or ignorantly? No. She's an adult and culpable for her actions.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

Bc2ID

possesion of a hoax device on airport property is a federal crime. And before you refute that, the definition of a hoax device is up to the police and the prosecutor.

__________________

tHa_KhAn

I'm sure if she pulls out her class schedule that shows "Electronic Arts" a few minutes before she arrives she'll be off fairly light. However, if she didn't have class that day and she has no alibi as to where she was before besides home....maybe not so much.

__________________

Bc2ID

I don't doubt that she will get off lightly...however she will still have a record which is more like poetic justice. She will always have the reminder of a few MP5's pointed at her head and maybe that will make her think before she leaves the house. People are charged with numerous serious crimes and usually get a lighter sentence because of their lack of involvement with the law. I would not be surprised that she will get a stiff fine (which Daddy will pay) and a load of community service. Do I think she should do some time? Absolutely..remember even Paris went to jail. Do I think she will end up going to prison? Nope. Her alibi really carries no weight, you can find arrival information on the web, which is something she should be familiar with (CPU Enigneer and all). After she asked for the flight information she proceeded to get back on mass transit when she was apprehended. Her story has a few holes in it that she will have to explain.

__________________

leejo

As a practical matter, "hoax device" is up to a jury. Yes, the police and the prosecutor can detain and prosecute based on their best judgment (or political fears/ambitions, as Nifong demonstrated).

After the initial rabble rabble I expect the Daddy-funded atty and the DA will work something out. If she's just a dumb kid and has a good story for why this device was on her, I don't see why she should be punished much more. The state is entitled to, say, 80 hours of her time running the mail machine at the courthouse next summer in exchange for dropping the charges. She seems more likely to become an absent-minded professor than a suicide bomber, and here's to prosecutorial discretion.

The police did great. She screwed up big time. Everyone's ok. Move on.

Atomic Dog

Just so you know...cops and prosecutors don't define these terms. There are people who actually make laws and law books that are referenced where these matters are concerned. Here is the Massachusetts law concerning "hoax devices."

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm

The key words that apply to this incident are as follows:

The entire law is as follows:

So, by Massachusetts law, if there was no intention of causing panic, then there's no grounds for prosecution. If they can prove she had intent, then they have a case. But the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Not the defense.

__________________

leejo

Again, as a practical matter, if a jury decides it's a hoax device, or not, it's a hoax device, or not. I don't think we disagree here, but my understanding of the legal system may be a little different from yours. The law says what it says but the jury decides. Ask Dow Corning, Fred Goldman, Phil Spector, Michael Jackson's little buddies, etc.

Atomic Dog

Certainly juries are the deciding force in the judicial system. But the difference between her and people like Corning, Goldman, Spector, Jackson, Simpson, Blake, etc., is these are people with very high profiles and were more than likely actually guilty of their crimes. Unfortunately the system seems to favor these people over the average person.

If this girl is innocent and the prosecutors cannot establish her intent to be in accordance with the laws on hoax devices, then I think any decent attorney is going to get her off. They also have the ATHF "hoax device" case which occured recently to establish precedence. Those guys got off.

__________________

leejo

Well I threw Dow Corning in as a red herring. Despite your statement that they were "more than likely guilty of their crimes" there has never been any scientific data that links silicon breast implants to the diseases for which DC was sued and for which they had to pony up so much money. In fact, jurors have been interviewed after these cases and have said (I paraphrase) "no I don't think the implant did it, but she's really sick and needs help and they have money".

That's just how it works. My point is that the jury gets two narratives, and whichever one they like the most, they will usually fit into a legal framework and justify their decision. As a side point, many jury decisions happen on Friday. All the jurors have an epiphany and see the light? Or they get sick of the job and want to go home? This is how the law works.

This girl has a decent story: she's an MIT student and can play the "I'm so smart I'm stupid" angle. Who truly wants her to be guilty?

sordavie

The point is that such people commonly don't know these things that we, those with a decent amount of common sense, take as obvious or for granted. So, yes, we should treat her like a child, if indeed the hypothesis is right because in this respect she is just like a child--not knowing better. I already gave a number of examples of how some grown adults have the mental development, in certain respects, as that of a child. My ex-housemate for instance had the emotional and social development of a preteen, and he's 31. He just didn't understand what kind of behavior or emotions were appropriate in what contexts. And, it's not for a lack of experiencing those contexts--after all he didn't grow up isolated in a box for 30 years. Rather, there is some underlying psychopathy that's preventing uptake of these kinds of things. So, in a real sense, they are, mentally, children in this respect.

To point out their age or that they attend a university is no response. Since age makes no difference if uptake is just not happening. Universities don't require that their students have lots of common sense. Indeed, there is no standardized testing for common sense and that's not often reflected in grades. As I mentioned, my ex-housemate received all sorts of academic accolades and awards. That was just a matter of him being extremely intelligent in areas of abstract thinking--mathematics, theoretical physics, philosophy, etc... He actually had a very hard time with nontheoretical physics. He could never get his experiments to work out because he just couldn't set them up--a matter of practicality.

So, these kinds of people should be treated in one regard like we do children, who just don't know any better, and in another regard like mentally ill offenders who just don't have the mental capacity to understand what they did wrong. These people need to be taught or need to treat whatever underlying psychopathy instead of being punished. We teach kids what they did that was inappropriate. We treat mentally ill offenders for their disorders. We don't punish either of them. This is a case that's somewhere in between. In this case, we have people who are like kids in that they just didn't know better, but are like the mentally ill in that they don't have the capacity for uptake when it comes to common sense and practicality.

Children with autism are also one of these middle cases. They also don't know better and they also don't have the ability for uptake of social norms. But, we shouldn't punish them for things that they do where they just didn't have the ability to learn not to do so or they just didn't know better.

Again, merely mentioning her age and that she attends a university is not strong evidence that she doesn't have this kind of psychology. That there is a higher incidence of this sort of thing at a school like MIT, that people who know her well describe her in this way, the scenario at the airport, etc..., is good evidence that she does.

__________________

Atomic Dog

I admit that I have no idea who Corning is, I assumed he fit the "I'm so famous I'm guilty" pattern with the rest of em.

Well, if she's innocent, I hope for her sake her jury will be reasonable people who are capable of understanding the law. If she's guilty, I hope they can see that as well. But from everything I've read so far, I don't imagine that she intended to cause any kind of scare.

__________________

Switch

Just to clarify, what did she intend the device to be? So much language is being used to imply that she MEANT to portray a bomb. If that wasn't her intention, it's slander to say so. Bomb threat, hoax-device, etc... you can't say these things unless that was her intent.

So was this thing supposed to be a 'fake bomb'? Or was it just a light bright type board with a little figure on it? Also, was the entire device outside of her shirt or were the lights poking through to make a little light figure? I'd say that makes a big difference about the degree of panic she was reasonably expected to instill.

There is certainly something alarming about an exposed wires and a battery. I'm just not sure whether that was the case. Alot of the stuff i found on google excludes actual detail and just says a bomb threat, or hoax. What was her intent. What was the device. I doubt she made a 'fake bomb', rather she made a lightup design, etc.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Atomic Dog

Supposedly it was an "artsy" thing she threw together to show her pride for her class on Career Day at MIT.

__________________

Switchcraft

Switch, I posted links to pics of the device here.