« FBI reports that violent and property crime was down in 2007 | Main | Execution news and notes »
June 9, 2008
YouTube sentencing for digital generation
Thanks to a friendly reader, I saw this notable USA Today article reporting on a creative sentencing for generation next:
A judge here is using YouTube to punish two boys who used the video-sharing website for a prank that ended with battery and criminal mischief charges against them.
The prank, known as "fire in the hole," has become common in the past year. It happened July 25 to fast-food worker Jessica Ceponis at the drive-through of the Taco Bell in Merritt Island, about 50 miles east of Orlando.
Ceponis handed a carload of teenagers their soft drinks. When she returned to the drive-through window to give them their change, they yelled, "Fire in the hole!" hurled a 32-ounce cup of soda at Ceponis and sped off. The teens posted a video of the incident on YouTube.com, alongside a number of other videos showing similar pranks.
Today, the teens are scheduled to post another video on YouTube: an apology that shows them facedown and handcuffed on the hood of a car. The judge, prosecutor and defense attorneys who devised this punishment hope it will serve as a deterrent. "You need to broadcast the apology so that the audience is seeing … there were consequences," said attorney Tony Hernandez, who represents one of the defendants in the case....
The teens wrote, filmed and edited the apology video. They also were sentenced to 100 hours each of community service. In addition, they each have to pay a $30 cleaning fee to the restaurant and write letters of apology. The charges will be dropped when the terms of the sentences are met.
So, in this context, do readers think a picture punishment is worth 1000 hours of jail time?
June 9, 2008 at 03:37 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e553477f278834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference YouTube sentencing for digital generation:
Comments
"The charges will be dropped when the terms of the sentences are met."
IMO, some conviction is needed here.Perhaps on a minor misdemeanor or disorderly conduct. But no conviction seems more like no consequence was suffered.
Posted by: a | Jun 9, 2008 4:32:15 PM
If those kids went to real prison, they'd probably never say the words "fire in the hole" again.
Posted by: anonymous | Jun 9, 2008 4:38:28 PM
I don't think throwing a cup of soda is worth a whole lot of jailtime with or without a video.
When I was a kid, there was no YouTube. There were, however, fathers. This sort of thing would probably not even become a police matter. It would be left to those fathers, and I rather think that, if they were like my father was, there would be no repeat episodes.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 9, 2008 4:47:43 PM
"If those kids went to real prison, they'd probably never say the words "fire in the hole" again."
Are we countenancing prison rape jokes here, Prof?
Hope not.
Posted by: anon | Jun 9, 2008 4:57:38 PM
anon:
I don't think Prof. Berman is or can be responsible for what commenters say. I'm quite sure he doesn't contenance rape of any kind.
Neither do I. But you might consider lightening up some.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 9, 2008 5:38:29 PM
I agree with you Bill. I shutter to think what would have happened to me when my father found out I did something stupid like that. My father who was a career Marine always made his expectations very clear when it came to his children.
Posted by: USMC | Jun 9, 2008 6:20:59 PM
If I would have been dumb enough to do that and the cops caught me, I'd beg to go to jail rather than face my father. Like USMC, my father always made clear what the expectations were.
Posted by: da2b | Jun 9, 2008 6:48:39 PM
Not suggesting Professor B has endorsed the comment -- I was calling it to his attention and suggesting that a response might be appropriate. This is, after all, a crime and punishment blog and many people are likely to joke about it in an off-handed way without putting much thought into it. Poorly said on my part.
As for your suggestion that I lighten up about prison rape.
No thanks.
(P.S. First hand accounts at the link -- you seem like a person of goodwill, so I am sure you will see my point of view if you take the time to read a few).
Posted by: anon | Jun 9, 2008 7:55:23 PM
USMC and da2b:
For at least a generation we've been told that marriage and traditional families are just a bunch of Puritan tripe that fails to show "tolerance" for "alternative life styles."
The results of this sort of thinking can now be seen in the growing prison population.
The real cause of increased incarceration is not that the police have run amok, or that we have a vicious, punitive society. The real cause is that we adopted an anything-goes morality and deluded ourselves into thinking that the only consequence of this would be peace and love.
Thank you for your participation here.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 9, 2008 8:03:21 PM
anon:
Fair enough. I took a look at the link. Thanks for the suggestion.
I recently saw a documentary in which the point was made that when crimes in prison -- rape, assault and drug dealing, principally -- were dealt with by refering them to the prosecutor, rather than just as some administrative infraction, they went way down.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 9, 2008 8:10:16 PM
anon:
Fair enough. I took a look at the link. Thanks for the suggestion.
I recently saw a documentary in which the point was made that when crimes in prison -- rape, assault and drug dealing, principally -- were dealt with by refering them to the prosecutor, rather than just as some administrative infraction, they went way down.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 9, 2008 8:10:21 PM
"I recently saw a documentary in which the point was made that when crimes in prison -- rape, assault and drug dealing, principally -- were dealt with by refering them to the prosecutor, rather than just as some administrative infraction, they went way down."
I am ordinarily not a proponent of increases in the scale of incarceration, but if these numbers are solid, this proposal is definitely part of the solution.
Best,
anon
Posted by: anon | Jun 9, 2008 8:13:58 PM
Good idea and no need for a life-long record if this will do the trick. It might even be possible to see how effective it is by reading the comments to the video.
Posted by: George | Jun 9, 2008 8:46:32 PM
I love the creative sentencing...and the throwback to public shaming instead of prison time.
Posted by: lawschoolinmate | Jun 9, 2008 9:52:31 PM
When I was a kid, we could throw soft drinks at people without having to get the goddam cops involved. I'm actually surprised they weren't charged with some form of terrorism and locked up for 20 years or more.
Of course since parents won't be parents, I guess cops are all that we have.
Posted by: bruce | Jun 9, 2008 10:49:50 PM
"The real cause of increased incarceration is not that the police have run amok, or that we have a vicious, punitive society. The real cause is that we adopted an anything-goes morality and deluded ourselves into thinking that the only consequence of this would be peace and love."
What a simplistic world view! What is "an anything-goes morality"? As far as I know, folks don't believe that murder or using cocaine is a good thing. A PART of the reason for the absurd incarceration rate is that AUSAs, particularly those in the notorious Eastern District of Virginia, locked up for absurd lengths of time anyone (just happened that most were young black men) that possessed even a miniscule amount of crack cocaine. And yes, the ED VA is notorious for the rate at which it locked up young black men who possessed crack cocaine. Notorious because AUSAs would take the cases out of state court and make federal prosecutions out of the cases for no reason other than that they didn't think that these men were serving enough time in state prison. And look at all the good that came of that.
Posted by: John | Jun 10, 2008 9:17:26 AM
Bill, your 8:03 comment is pretty hilarious in its random invocations of culture wars talking points.
Your attempt to focus the blame on our increased prison population on an "anything-goes morality" is truly funny. In large part, we have a massive prison population because conservatives like you thought it would be a terrific idea to declare a war on drugs and attach lengthy, draconian prison terms to those offenses. Thus, many, many poor children grew up in broken, one-parent homes, leading to a new cycle of crime and imprisonment.
Good work!
PS The drug war & attendant mass incarceration has also led to the continued devaluation of your beloved institution of marriage, which here you seem to trumpet as the greatest thing in the world, but I suspect you're loath to share it with other groups due to prejudice -- but maybe you're not one of *those* conservatives, I don't know.
Posted by: Reader | Jun 10, 2008 10:06:07 AM
John:
"What is 'an anything-goes morality'"?
The theory that one way of living is as good as the next, and that to say otherwise is "judgmentalism"; that single-mother familes are as good as traditional ones, if not better, because they are a signal of women's liberation from male dominance; that drug use if acceptable, because what one puts into his own body is not society's concern (and besides drugs "expand consciousness"); that there's no shame in living as a client of the welfare state instead of taking responsibility for your own life; that dishonesty and deceit are not that bad, since "everyone does it"; that having children out of wedlock is OK -- and that to think differently is the mark of Puritanical "intolerance"; that crime is not the fault of the criminal but of the crushing society that "marginalized" him -- I can go on if you like.
"As far as I know, folks don't believe that murder or using cocaine is a good thing."
Sixteen thousand murders a year and widespread cocaine use tell me that a whole bunch of "folks" believe differently from what you think.
"A PART of the reason for the absurd incarceration rate is that AUSAs, particularly those in the notorious Eastern District of Virginia, locked up for absurd lengths of time anyone (just happened that most were young black men) that possessed even a miniscule amount of crack cocaine."
Some questions here: What is your definition of "absurd" and through what objective process did you arrive at that definition? Which AUSA "locked up" a defendant, for cocaine or anything else? I was under the impression that sentences were handed down by judges, not AUSA's. Is that incorrect? Any yes, we all know that AUSA's make the charging decision -- but that decision rests on the amount and type of drug the defendant has on him, which THE DEFENDANT controls, not the AUSA.
And what's with the obsession about race? Do you really want prosecutors to take account of race in deciding what to charge? Or in any other official act?
"And yes, the ED VA is notorious for the rate at which it locked up young black men who possessed crack cocaine."
Then I suggest they obey the law and not possess it. The overwhelming majority of young black men (and everybody else) stays away from crack. The minority who prefer to break the law can live with the consequences of their choice.
"Notorious because AUSAs would take the cases out of state court and make federal prosecutions out of the cases for no reason other than that they didn't think that these men were serving enough time in state prison. And look at all the good that came of that."
We were often ASKED by the state to take the cases, because we had better resources. And for "all the good that came of that": I refer you to the results of Project Exile, which concentrated on reducing the crack-linked (and epidemic) gun violence in Richmond. (Project Exile was initiated, by the way, by a Clinton-appointed US Attorney).
You're exactly right on that one. We displaced the state and went for federal time. In the first year of Project Exile, the murder rate in Richmond fell by half. In the second year, it fell by half again -- for "all the good that came of that."
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 10, 2008 10:06:47 AM
Reader:
"Your attempt to focus the blame on our increased prison population on an 'anything-goes morality' is truly funny."
That's it, Reader! Morality has nothing to do with how people behave! How could I have been so fooled for so long??!!
"In large part, we have a massive prison population because conservatives like you thought it would be a terrific idea to declare a war on drugs and attach lengthy, draconian prison terms to those offenses."
The sentences for drugs, and mandatory minimum sentencing statutes in particular (which I guess is what you're refering to, although you're too busy with ad hominems to say), were almost all passed by Democratic congresses in the 1970's and 1980's. The Controlled Substances Act of 1974 was passed by one of the most liberal and Democratic congresses in the last 50 years.
I had not been aware that John Conyers, Alcee Hastings, Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy were "conservatives," but hey, whatever turns you on.
"Thus, many, many poor children grew up in broken, one-parent homes, leading to a new cycle of crime and imprisonment."
This assumes that the father or boyfriend was living at home to begin with. Where's your evidence for that?
The fact that one may disgree with the drug laws does not entitle one to break them. If you decide to break them anyway, and get caught at it, the consequences of going to jail rest with you, not the rest of the world.
"The drug war & attendant mass incarceration has also led to the continued devaluation of your beloved institution of marriage..."
You offer absolutely no evidence to support this, and understandably so, since it's nonsense.
"...which here you seem to trumpet as the greatest thing in the world..."
I think it's a healthy institution, yes. Statistics about longevity, happiness, prospertiy and the well-being of children brought up by couples in a stable marriage support this view. Do you disagree?
"...but I suspect you're loath to share it with other groups due to prejudice -- but maybe you're not one of 'those' conservatives, I don't know."
You're right, you don't know.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 10, 2008 10:39:20 AM
This is a fantastic for of punishment for these kids. It would be silly to lock them up for throwing soda and they probably don't have tons of money to pay fines with, so having them film an embarrassing confession could work both as a punishment and a deterent. Prison are crowded enough, so creative punishments and penalties by judges who want to keep kids out of jail and helping the community are great solutions.
Posted by: JT | Jun 10, 2008 11:19:56 AM
There is nothing more subjective than "morality." It's a meaningless word. All societies choose their own moralities, from killing sub-standard babies (Spartans) to allowing the clubbing of seals (Inuits). Also, morality depends on the circumstances. Is treason immoral? Maybe. Had a German and member of the Nazi party spied for the Allies and gave us Nazi secrets, it would have been treason. But immoral? Everything is subjective. Maybe the girl who got soda thrown on her was a Nazi sympathizer. Is it immoral to throw soda on a Nazi? Some people may say yes, others no. There are no right and wrong answers to what encompasses morality. Yes you can phrase something such that it's always immoral by definition, like "murder is always immoral" ... but it is defined as the unlawul (i.e. wrongful) killing of another human being.... so it always, by definition, has a basis for being immoral (though treason was illegal under Nazi law, too).
All you moral absolutists love to whine about "moral relativists" as you simply can't comprehend the idea that there is no objective morality. But that's only because you're stupid and short-sighted. In reality, you follow a subjective morality every second of your life. But you turn a blind eye towards it, convincing yourself that you live based on a consistent morality. You don't. Of course this is why religion is so appealing to stupid people, because it gives them the illusion of moral absolutes. In practice they pick and choose which parts of the bible/koran/torah/dianetics they want to follow, so there's nothing absolute about it. The really stupid ones convince themselves that as long as they have faith and love jesus, everything they do is per se moral. Those are the true sociopaths and they should be locked up.
Posted by: bruce | Jun 10, 2008 11:32:00 AM
Public shaming?... please? Another slap on the wrist that these kids will be laughing about for years to come. If you want REAL punishment that might actually dissuade others try at least a week in jail, followed by 100 hours actually working in the drive-thru with a sign around their necks saying what they did.
If they chose not to do this, they can do max time in jail instead. Once again, it's the very real LACK of (harsh)consequences that will not deter any delinquent from this behaviour. I'm a goody-two-shoes, and I wouldn't even sweat this punishment.
We need to move away from this amorphous "punishment fitting the crime" rhetoric, and move toward punishment that will DETER the crime later. The problem is, the bar of what will deter societies malcontents has moved wayyyy over, but societies punishments have not. older Judges (especially) act like they are sentencing Beaver Cleaver who just "had a bad lapse of judgment" when in fact they should consider assume they are looking at the next Michael Vick. They should dole out punishment so onerous, that punks would consider the "reward" of humiliating some single Mom working to support her kids in a drive-thru not worth the RISK of massive public humiliation and an ADULT police record later.
Of course, if an entire generation hadn't been coddled with time-outs and "MY baby ain't do nu'in!", and parents had done their societal duty of raising children who feared and respected them, instead if raising "friends" who liked them.... I wouldn't be facing $10,000 in legal fees for beating a 17-year-old local football star senseless after he threw one of these sodas at me and my wife coming out of a Burger King. (We were just customers, and he said he couldn't hit the window person, so he just chose us).
Of course, he has yet to be charged (and won't, he's a minority-we have a black DA) while I, after coming back from 2 tours in Afghanistan in the USMC, will likely have a criminal record that will affect my entire life. SO, YES folks, this is not just some intellectual exercise, as you enter the legal profession consider this: The entire reason for law (and your profession) is to maintain order in a society. When those who follow the rules watch those who don't continually excused, why should we feel obligated to follow the law much less respect those who work in such a corrupted system. Justice, on both sides, must be meetered out quickly and fairly, or it is not justice at all.
The law's main purpose is to prevent anarchy by giving the victims the promise that some real measure of justice and fairness will prevail if they agree to not seek it on it's own. But a simple look around today (at least by us Non-lawyers) shows that if true justice is to found, it is NOT in the US Legal System.
Posted by: student of life | Jun 10, 2008 11:48:34 AM
In other words, you went ballistic over fizzy water being thrown at you, and you want to blame everyone but yourself.
Posted by: | Jun 10, 2008 12:04:50 PM
We need to move away from this amorphous "punishment fitting the crime" rhetoric, and move toward punishment that will DETER the crime later.
We could execute people for driving over the speed limit. That would deter future speeding. If you're not in favor of that, is it because the punishment doesn't fit the crime?
Posted by: bruce | Jun 10, 2008 2:02:15 PM
It's so easy to be anti-crime. It takes no intellectual honesty, no fortitude, no perserverence, no strength, and no vision. No competing interests to balance, no thinking, learning, or even basic mentation is required. You know that the vast majority of vapid, wide-eyed plebians will readily concur with you. There will always be victims to use as examples (what else are victims used for?) to appeal to the emotion of others. And in our binary world of false logic, if you're not against crime then you must, ergo, be for it.
"We need to punish criminals more harshly" is the first refuge of the scoundrel. The most vacuous, insipid, position anyone could possibly have.
Posted by: bruce | Jun 10, 2008 2:11:09 PM
