European Law Could Give Hackers Mimimum Two-Year Sentence 147
judgecorp writes "A proposed European law would apply a minimum two-year prison sentence for hacking across the region. This is a step up for nations including Britain, whose Computer Misuse Act currently has a two-year maximum sentence."
Queue the misapplications of this law (Score:5, Interesting)
Just watch and wait: it'll be the kid who takes apart his iPod to replace the broken battery who gets charged.
Minimum sentences, three strikes, all traps (Score:4, Interesting)
These ideas are all traps put in place by corrupt lawmakers and special interest groups that benefit from for profit prisons. Don't get it twisted.
Re:Minimum or minimum maximum (Score:4, Interesting)
Cyber attacks on IT systems would become a criminal offence punishable by at least two years in prison throughout the EU under a draft law backed by the Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday.
The maximum penalty to be imposed by Member States for these offences would be at least two years' imprisonment, and at least five years where there are aggravating circumstances such as the use of a tool specifically designed to for large-scale (e.g. "botnet") attacks, or attacks cause considerable damage (e.g. by disrupting system service), financial costs or loss of financial data.
At first glance these two paragraphs do appear to be contradicting each other - but it isn't clear which of these paragraphs is an EU press release and which is the journalist's interpretation. The article (and as a result the slashdot summary) may be misinterpreting the press release.
"maximum" may be a misprint here, or, the EU may, as usual, be trying to obfuscate the intent of their legislation.
Re:Minimum Sentences (Score:2, Interesting)
Minimum sentences as well as private prisons should be entirely unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I'm not as dazzled by your pronouncement as the moderators, so I'll ask, could you expand upon this a bit? Why do you claim this? Why is it unjust for there to be minimum sentences or prisons run by private companies for the government? In most legal systems it is the prosecutor that makes the primary decision about the possible penalties you will face by deciding what crimes to charge you with: none, minor charges, or serious charges, depending upon the merits of the case. Once the prosecutor files charges, the penalties available to the judge tend to be considerably more limited than the options open to the prosecutor in charging. One of the reasons legislatures tend to impose minimum sentences is to ensure more uniform treatment of serious crimes. Also, as to the prisons run for the government by corporations - those tend to hold people convicted of lesser crimes, so there should be fewer issues with them and force. Why is this bad? Why must it be a government employee who counts you daily to make sure you are still in prison?
Re:Minimum Sentences (Score:4, Interesting)
Ahh.. Yes. The people who actually UNDERSTAND the cases, and who knows ALL THE DETAILS gives out smaller sentences than people who HAVE NO CLUE would like..
A "funny" experiment was made a few years ago. A random group of people where selected they were first asked if they felt punishment for crimes were too soft, most agreed. They then looked at specific cases with all the details, and in each case when presented with all the evidence - most felt the punishment was too harsh.