High-Tech Burglars May Get Longer Sentences In Louisiana 197
Hugh Pickens writes "Burglars and terrorists should be careful not to use Google Maps if they plan on committing crimes in the state of Louisiana. Nola reports that a bill approved 89-0 by the Louisiana House will require that judges impose an additional minimum sentence of at least 10 years on terrorist acts if the crime is committed with the aid of an Internet-generated 'virtual map.' The bill, already approved by the Louisiana Senate, defines a 'virtual street-level map' as one that is available on the Internet and can generate the location or picture of a home or building by entering the address of the structure or an individual's name on a website. If the map is used in the commission of a crime like burglary, the bill calls for the addition of at least one year in jail (PDF) to be added to the burglary sentence. The House measure is now being sent back to the Senate for approval of clarifying amendments made by a House committee."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I get caught with a map that shows the block where the house is that I robbed, it's not quite the same as if I have that, a less detailed map, with driving instructions on it, and a more detailed one with "X marks the spot" to be hit.
Double-ewe Tea Eff (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm genuinely baffled as to what reasoning could have been offered for this. "It's too easy if they use digital maps, so it's cheating"? To turn it around, if the criminal had to work harder to pick a house to burglarize he or she should get a discount on how much jail time he or she will have to serve?
I'm with other commenters who are basically suggesting this is just a way of creating a "bonus crime" with which to arbitrarily keep people imprisoned longer, but obviously that's probably not how it was ac
Re: (Score:2)
whenever I hear people talk about how these things are fine because it means they can throw in extras charges when they catch someone I just wonder why they don't get it over with and just make some laws like
10 years for wearing shoes in the commission of a crime,
20 years for possession of keys while committing a crime.
life for having eyebrows while committing a felony.
Re: (Score:2)
life for having eyebrows while committing a felony
At least that'll make criminals easier to spot. And weird as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, someplace with less inbreeding...
I know there are intelligent non-inbred people in Louisiana, but I'm wondering if the people that pushed that bill were not among them... Oh wait, it was mostly politicians, not much to discus there.
Re: (Score:2)
What idiot needs a map to burglarize a house?
The closest thing to a "map" is the house with large hedge walls, overgrown grass, and a stack of newspapers on the front porch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly there is a difference of some sort, but why on earth should your method of planning make any difference to the sentence? The punishment should fit the crime, not the navigational aids used! And the crime is the same. Burglary is no less distressing for the victim if the burglar got lost three times on the way to the property, so handing out tougher sentences to burglars who used Google Maps is actually an insult to the victims of low-tech criminals.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
No shit. The only thing they want is to keep people in jail longer, without having to prove as much. Proving premeditation is hard, and just because you looked up someone's address doesn't automatically make it premeditation. This makes them 'hard on crime' that the conservatives down here get such hard dicks for. I hate my state sometimes.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
It would be kind of hard to claim a robbery was a crime of opportunity (e.g. not premeditated) if the robber was found to have a map to the house, a picture of the front door, a satellite view of the surrounding neighborhood, and pictures of the inside (from Zillow, Redfin, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be kind of hard to claim a robbery was a crime of opportunity (e.g. not premeditated) if the robber was found to have a map to the house, a picture of the front door, a satellite view of the surrounding neighborhood, and pictures of the inside (from Zillow, Redfin, etc.).
Then why a special law for those circumstances? Premeditation is already something that boosts sentencing - if it is so easy to show premeditation then this new law is wasteful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While what you say sounds reasonable, it is not what they are talking about. If I have a detailed map and photos, plans and all sorts of other data on the home, I will get an automatic ten years /less/ then the person that decides to google the same place. They didn't say having a map is an extra ten years, they said that having an internet generated map is an extra ten years. I guess the figure any crook that still uses a paper map is so far behind the times that maybe they really do have to rob folks to l
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but because it uses the Internet they have to create new laws to accomidate the new techonology, just like how it was legal to run someone over with a car until they made that illegal.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because a CV is for academics and is too lengthy for most jobs. Unless you really mean a resume that some retard calls a CV.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it scares the old and technology illiterate people we call politicians. Half the supreme court doesn't know the difference between a pager and a cell phone.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Which one of them only half understands?
Re: (Score:2)
Poor Justice Scalia thinks a pager is a pocket alarm clock that he hasn't quite figured out yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The only techno-illiterate statement in there is when Justice Roberts says that he didn't know that his text messages went through intermediate companies, he thought they went directly to the recipient (just like Niko
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, arguably it demonstrates premeditation; in reality it's probably going to be used rather like existing "extras", to bump up the sentence when desired. For example, it's perfectly legal to carry a crowbar or screwdriver in public. Use one while burgling a house or stealing a car, and suddenly you have "going equipped" added to the charge list.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If we want criminals to be sentenced longer, maybe we should actually raise the sentence for those crimes..
The only 'add ons' should be behavior we actually want to discourage independent of the crime...for example, add a penalty to committing a burglary with a weapon. Burglary, in theory, involves interacting with no other person (Or it's robbery), so the weapon doesn't technically matter, but we'd like burglars to not have weapons in case they run into people so it doesn't turn violent. So it might make
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we introduce Coventry?
break the country into sections. If you are an undesirable, you go to a section. If that section finds you undesirable they can kick you down the chain, till you're in a lawless country.
You can always sue for redress, or reinstatement of position to climb back up the ladder.
-nB
(yes, only slightly in jest, after all, Australia was formed this way.)
Re: (Score:2)
But don't we already have laws/processes that allow that sort of sentence scaling?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, arguably it demonstrates premeditation;
So in other words its covered by existing laws, and doesnt need another retarded law to cover it?
Re: (Score:3)
I was wondering the same thing -- it's like it's more illegal to use publicly available information in the commission of a crime.
Neither link seems to indicate why this is. It just strike me as a rather arbitrary law.
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell difference does it make whether someone used Google maps?
Precisely, it's a hell of a difference. And another two years will a burglar get for using a plastic electric screwdriver instead of a good old proper wood-and-iron screwdriver. The you screw around, the more you get screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to make premeditated burglary a crime with harsher penalties than opportunity burglary (Which, now that you mention it, I'm in favor of.), perhaps they should actually do that instead of fucking around with map possession.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I print out a map to my buddies house, go to his party, get drunk, and drunkenly grab his neighbor's lawn gnome on my way home.
It would be stupid of me. It would merit punishment for stealing a lawn gnome. But, why in the hell would it make sense for me to get a much harsher sentence than they guy in front of me who took a lawn gnome, but knew the area well enough that he didn't need to bring a ma
Re: (Score:2)
like others said, using a digital map is somewhat substantial evidence that the crime was premeditated.
So make the punishment for premeditation tougher, and rely on existing laws. If you have a law that says "murder is illegal", you dont need another that says "intentionally decapitating someone is also illegal".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is primarily aimed at 'abuse' of street view to case neighborhoods. Use of overhead satellite imagery, while less effective is also targeted for similar reasons.
SWIM's experiences with casing wealthy neighborhoods is that, especially considering his/her lack of inconspicuous clothing, skin colour, and/or vehicle (or whatever else is required to fit into said neighborhood), the casing can actually be more likely to generate calls to police/heat/residents with firearms than the actual robbery (the actual
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
decreasing attractiveness of this mode of robbery.
Couple of questions...
1) If you can demonstrate to the court sophistication, intent, and premeditation to the court, cant they just up the sentence based off of that?
2) if using google maps shows premeditation, then why do we need another law to establish that it is, in fact, premeditation?
3) Is the hopeful outcome that a criminal think "gee, I really wanted to rob that house, but man, that extra year from google maps is kind of harsh, I better not"? Is this realistic?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't.
This is bad as tacking on time due to it being a 'hate' crime.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is not google maps, it is google street view, and satellite view to spot nice houses located in secluded areas and nice neighborhoods, as well as escape routes avoiding the major roads, etc. Do your scouting from home rather than take the chance of being spotted looking out of place in the gated community like areas. Think of the potential as the resolution on these technologies gets higher, is there a dog at the house, how tall is the fence in the back yard, exactly where is the nearest road, e
I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion on this, except that criminals would get a charge of using/possessing cryptography while committing a crime.
Will this deter crime via newer methods? Doubt it.
Who actually profits from this: Same old people, defense lawyers, the private prison industry with a huge lobby behind it and the fact that anyone who stands in their way gets painted as soft on crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy that the prison industry conspiracy is to blame. It's the legislators that are idiotic enough to believe what the lobbyists are telling them, and too entrenched in politics to challenge senior lawmakers. I don't think my language is too strong here; nothing short of idiocy can describe the kind of new technology-related laws coming out of state legislatures. You'd think that a basic level of intelligence would be found among the most powerful people in the state.. I would genuinely rather have a
Knee-jerk, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's why the proposed law is bad:
1. It's way too specific. Why internet-generated maps? What about instructions to make burglary tools or improvised weapons?
2. If the use of "high tech" makes the punishment worse, is that not a condemnation of "high tech" itself? That would be a bad thing.
No, the thing that makes the crime worse is the premeditation, and the use of high-tech just offers evidence of this.
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to know how the hell they intend to prove that someone used an online map. Unenforceable laws are a royal waste of public funds.
Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (Score:4, Informative)
how the hell they intend to prove that someone used an online map
1. Catch burglar.
2. Search burglar's home.
3. Seize burglar's computer.
4. Read browser history.
5. ???
6. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smart crooks will avoid leaving traces of their research.
But - and this is a big but - most crooks are dumb as a bag of crowbars.
Which still isn't as dumb as the paranoid nutjob who dreamed up this law.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll just ask Google, and Google will tell them.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, of course, if the burglar did the research from a library or other public computer. Or from a friend's house, or... etc. etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.. so long as he didn't check his gmail while he was at the library.
Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
So, this means Criminals should just use a Rand-McNally book instead, and shave a year off their potential sentence. Good law.
Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
They're trying to dumb down the internet... Next they'll charge Google with aiding and abetting, and make them remove the maps altogether..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's actually the sentiment that motivates them. Some people and politicians are worried about Google Street View being used to commit crimes, and since it's not clear there's any defensible way they could go after Street View itself, they hit on the other possibility: go after the people who use it to commit crimes. But of course, that leads to the nonsensical law we have here, where committing the same crimes without Street View is somehow better.
My guess is the reasoning is: Street View makes i
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the EU/UK....
Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, burglary is always premeditated.
There's no way to accidentally burgle someone's house, or do it in a fit of passion, or in self-defense.
This law is no more or less a stupid abuse of legislative power than the classic example of passing a law saying that Pi is 3.0 instead of 3.14159...
it's a clear demonstration that plural voting is no way to prove validity.
Re: (Score:2)
Up to no good Teen #2: "Yeah! Lets!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but there is a difference between what I described and carefully planning the burglary in advance.
Not really. The idea the parent was making is that you can use accidents, or losing control of yourself, or acting on instinct as part of your defense.
You can't say "it felt natural" to burgle. If thats your defense, you won't last long.
Re: (Score:2)
Save your crticisms for the fucking stupid legislators who thought up this stupid law. By they way, did you notice that this
is a broadening of the use of premeditation to cover burglary. I can only find references to premeditated MURDER, which, by the way, can be as short as mere seconds in some instances.
Do your own research before you start bashing someone else, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Gah, bad spelling of "criticism"
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, unfair enough.
I'll concede it is virtually impossible for me to prove "always".
So let's do this: you find me just one counterexample in which a burglary was declared not to be premeditated.
Here's the part that amuses me: I know what premeditation is, and it's a lot less of a planning stage than you probably think it is.
Recalibrate your chimes. They're blowing in the wind.
Re:Knee-jerk, as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
"The 'high tech' map doesn't make the crime worse. It just serves as circumstantial evidence that it was premeditated. The harsher sentence should be imposed because the crime was planned, not because high tech was used."
"Premeditated" is an adjective only used when talking about murder, and used to distinguish different types of said act (as opposed to a crime of inflamed passion, for example). It is not used when talking about other types of crime.
Seriously -- How do you perform burglary without planning it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated
Re: (Score:2)
Deciding to rob a house one happens to come across with little security is a bit different than spending some time casing a joint, researching the security system, and using mapping software to plan a getaway route.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it doesn't provide any evidence at all that it was premeditated. It merely provides evidence that going to that particular location was premeditated, not that the person intended to commit a crime while there.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. The evidence of premeditation was circumstantial. The burden is to prove the map was obtained with the crime in mind. But, if it were, *BAM*, premeditation.
Re: (Score:2)
"Premeditated" is an adjective only used when talking about murder,
Uh, no. It's an adjective that right now is used to distinguish two different crimes, but it's used all the time in the legal system when talking about other crimes.
A lot of time evidence of a crime is actually evidence of premeditation, and used as evidence that you were planning to commit the crime, and hence it is likely you did commit the crime. (As you planning a crime and someone else committing it is unlikely.)
If a bank was robbe
Re: (Score:2)
They will use the plans as evidence they got the right person.
Re: (Score:2)
Premeditated" is an adjective only used when talking about murder
Not strictly true.
The usage is common enough in murder cases, of course.
premeditated [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's way too specific. Why internet-generated maps? What about instructions to make burglary tools or improvised weapons?
I seem to recall some concern raised somewhere about Google Streetview, the point being I suppose that it's a good way to scout the area, pick out an upscale house with poor security, etc. It may be an effort to deal with that without singling out Google.
2. If the use of "high tech" makes the punishment worse, is that not a condemnation of "high tech" itself? That would be a bad thing.
Well, I'm not saying it applies particularly well in this case, but in general "value of burglary = reward - (probably of being caught)*(punishment)" To deter crime you want 'value of burglary' to be zero or negative. Using high tech/clever solutions red
Re: (Score:2)
Burglary checklist:
. Lock pick
. Hammer
. Gloves
. Sack with $ sign
. Glass cutter
. Dark clothing
. Boot polish (to blacken face)
. No Google Map (don't want it to look like we planned this)
Waste of time. (Score:2)
Don't these idiots have other things to do? Something about an oil spill?
sounds like (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's enough to make anyone a little cranky.
Re: (Score:2)
They remade The Italian Job? WTF? That's a classic, man! Is there nothing sacred in this world anymore? I'm so tired of good movies being remade to squeeze out a little extra cash without needing to make up an original plot.
Whatever. I wonder who they got to play Mark Wahlberg's part...
And another fifteen years... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Thats not sufficient enough. Bring back the death penalty.
Longer fine if car used for getaway, not horse (Score:3, Funny)
We must not let ourselves be terrorized by these new masters of high technology! Further fines levied against kidnappers who make ransom demands by phone rather than letters cut and pasted together with words from magazines.
I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we also give longer sentences to criminals who rip us off with exotic investment instruments instead of good old-fashioned grifts and cons?
So Microsoft abets crime? Hm... (Score:2)
So that would indicate to me that Microsoft [microsoft.com] produces abetting [uslegal.com] technology. Shit, I can see in my own windows on a Bing bird's eye view w/Silverlight.
This, to me, is the same as guys who put up these. [linkbase.org] Nah, providing the tools is ok, just don't actually use them right?
Grand jury time!
What about the iPhone (Score:2)
I say add 20 years for the iPhone and 18 for the Android phones. Those extra 2 years the iPhone user gets will help pay for the remainder of their ATT contract.
Hell we can make a grocery list:
Laptop: 20 years.
Smart phone: 15 years
PDA: 5 years on probation and $200 gift certificate to buy a smart phone.
iPad: iLIFE!
If you've ever looked at 4chan add 7 years for bad behavior.
I mean why stop at just one when we can tack on all kinds of useless, unconstitutional, soon to be struck down by the courts nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean why stop at just one when we can tack on all kinds of useless,
yes
unconstitutional,
quote possibly
soon to be struck down by the courts
alas, probably not.
nonsense
And if you use a GPS device, they hang you. (eom) (Score:2, Informative)
The belief in punishment (Score:5, Informative)
This has been the US way of thinking for ages. Yet you have more prisoners than any other countries.
The US needs to do something about why people go for such drastic steps, becoming burglars or similar. You cannot continue having a society where some win the great price and become rich whilst the majority stay poor. You need a better structure for so many things that I cannot see where to start.
The only great about the US now is the great minds that continue to immigrate from other countries. Yet for every great mind there is thousands of people growing up not even knowing anything except how to steal. It's time to wake up and try doing something about how peoples lives can get better in general.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You cannot continue having a society where some win the great price and become rich whilst the majority stay poor.
While the divide between the classes is large, it's a joke to claim that the majority is poor. Most Americans are above the poverty line and live well. Very few people are actually "poor."
Better to ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you talkin' about Willis???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'd better start issue jail time to people for using the phonebook too, I hear it's got people's addresses and shit in there. Who knows what kind of criminal acts they might be able to accomplish with that kind of information that would otherwise be impossible.
Also, I heard the other day that you can use a camera to take pictures of things and pictures are a more accurate representation of something than your memory - that's just asking for someone to use them to commit a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly it. And even more. Additional charges should be added because they make the crime worse, even if only in some abstract sense.
I mean, if a guy burglarizes my house when I'm not there, whether or not he has a gun doesn't really matter in specifics...but it does matter, because he has just behaved in a more unsafe manner. I could have shown up, and one of us would have probably ended up dead. Guns, in general, make felonies less safe for everyone, so punishing people for having them during
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, google map is not some privilege of citizenship. Anyone in the world is welcome -- in fact, they are eagerly invited -- by Google to use the service. Google makes this public service freely available to everyone in hopes they can make money selling advertising. If a burglar eats at McDonald's shortly before committing his crime, has he abused his "privilege" of using fast food technology? Where does it stop?
Very few, if any, criminals will be dissuaded by this law. The additional year of pun
Re: (Score:2)
why isn't anyone questioning "armed robbery" over simple "robbery"?
Interesting question. I'm not sure I see any good reason that armed robbery is worse than simple robbery. Someone might argue that an armed robber is more likely to injure his victim than an un-armed robber -- but in the absence of actual data indicating that, I have my doubts. A man with a gun can rob me just by brandishing his weapon -- whereas an unarmed man who wants to rob me, will probably have to kick my ass in a fistfight. Much more likely for me to get injured by the latter than the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. It is definitely worse to rob a man and beat the crap out of him. Because it's two crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminals who commit petty crimes for money are already not operating on a basis of ROI or a rational examination of probabilities; they assu
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless speeding is now considered an act of terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing new here (Score:2)
Use a:
phone: 10 points
gun: 30 points
That is how the system works now.
It is the way it has always worked.
The old-time judge and jury may not have been keeping a scorecard.
But they were always free to distinguish between the amateur and the pro. To consider evidence of premeditation. The reality - or the potential - for a violent escalation of the crime.
Tech extends the criminal's reach. It makes his job easier. Criminal prosecution for wire
Re: (Score:2)
In a lot of states they already do, such as Michigan where (IIRC) it's an extra mandatory five years for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm (including growing a single marijuana plant and having the gun in a locked gun safe).
Re: (Score:2)