RSS
Twitter
New York Wants To Punish Criminals For Incriminating Selves On YouTube
from the if-you-confess,-we-punish-you-more dept
We've been seeing plenty of stories lately that incorrectly place the blame when people film themselves doing something illegal and put that video online. This should be something where politicians and the police should be thrilled. After all, it makes it that much easier for the police to find them, arrest them and convict them of a crime. If people are so stupid to post evidence of their crime in public, then isn't that a good thing? Yet, politicians who incorrectly like to put the blame for the crime on the video of the crime, come up with harebrained proposals like a new one in New York that will make putting a video of yourself committing a violent crime online a felony in itself (above and beyond whatever charges you might face for the violence). Think about that for a second. New York politicians are basically telling people that they'll get charged with even greater crimes if they decide to incriminate themselves by posting evidence online. This makes no sense.
The reasoning behind the bill is that politicians believe people are committing these kinds of crimes for the publicity in the first place. The thinking is that such crimes wouldn't happen at all if they couldn't be put online. However, that's rather meaningless. If someone is going to commit a violent crime -- punish the violence itself. Not the fact that the idiots handed over the evidence as part of a publicity stunt. If the (small number) of idiots who commit violent crimes and post the videos online are getting caught and arrested for the violence itself, shouldn't that act as enough disincentive?
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Busy Work
The lawmakers need something to do so that they'll look busy.
Pretty much all of the criminal laws that we need have already been passed, so now the legislators spend their time increasing the penalties for existing laws and coming up with all kinds of variations of the existing laws - which then allows the prosecutor to really pile on the charges for a single crime.
I read an idea somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that all laws should have an expiration date. Then the legislators can spend their time reviewing and renewing the existing laws instead of coming up with all of these idiotic new laws.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Busy Work
Actually, I read the same comment in regards to an expiration date. It might even be on this site, and I agree, it makes an awful lot of sense and would basically mean job security for politicians!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"In other news, talking about crimes you've committed has been deemed to be promotng illegal activity and is now illegal. Henceforce, it will be against the law for criminals to confess a crime to the police..."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Sounds like a good idea. Why should the police have it easy ? They must be kept busy as well..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: confession as a crime
Nice comment. That sums it. I hope Mike and crew saw it.
--Glenn
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is the ny legislature we are talking about
no one should be surprised.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Piling-On laws
This is routine. Many laws are created only to be enforced as a bargaining tool. If DA doesn't have enough solid evidence to convict someone on a real charge, s/he adds charges with the piling-on laws. This takes the cost of defending one's self to astronomical heights. The defendants choice is plea bargain or poverty, regardless of guilt or innocence. This is a totally corrupt, apparently common, practice. The DA gets a "kill", vital for his bid for high political office. The defendant is hosed, regardless. The perp gets off scott free. The perp then gets to do more things, which provides the DA with additional opportunities for easy "kills". Win for DA, win for perp, lose for the average nobody and society at large. It helps that most jurors choose to be brain-dead sheeple.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
unconstitutional
Isn't this a violation of the first amendment anyway?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is NY remember. It should surprise no one that they make laws to either grease wheels or satisfy some inner insanity.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So when can we expect the law that fines FoxNews, CNN, and other news agencies for making violent crime a publicity/notoriety field day (especially for depressed wackos with unfortunate assualt rifle access)? I might actually be able to get behind that one.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If the perpetrator isn't deterred by the fact that the violence is illegal, will they be deterred by the fact that posting the video is illegal?
Maybe it's not about deterrence. Will this result in longer sentences for the bastards who do this? If so I can't say I'm entirely against it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Congress moves in reverse.....
if congress actually solved real problems they would have to do real work. This is just a way for them to look busy and waste more of our tax dollars.
In the end it will be found that this would violate the 1st amendment. But that won't stop them from spending millions of dollars to "look busy" for a while.
Personally I think it should be encouraged for criminals to post video evidence of their crimes online, but it should be required that they fill in their personal info too to make them easier to find. Then when they go to trial the only evidence needed should be the video and it should be an open and shut case. If they are dumb enough to incriminate themselves, why stand in their way?
We need some chlorine in the gene pool, I say we start with congress and spread out from there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I think you're all missing the point. Not only would such criminals be charged with the initial crime, but they would also be charged with posting the video in a public forum, as an act of bragging about the crime. Not only has the victim been harmed in the crime, but they are further damaged by the public display of the crime for entertainment purposes. It has nothing to do with the rights of the criminal, it concerns the rights of the victim and the general public to feel safe.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Victor, I think you have missed the point. If the act of posting a crime is a crime itself, then isn't all video that shows a crime -- even if it is a television show, a crime? When you watch CSI, is the act of filming it a crime? Do we put an exception to the rule that it is ok if it is not real? What have you gained? This is a dumb idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Seems to me, Fitz nailed the meat of it. This isn't aimed just at people posting videos of themselves, but people posting videos of others as well. Making that a crime gives them leverage to go after whoever posted it to get them to give up the person who actually did it. This way, they don't need to get a positive ID on the person from the video, as long as they track down whoever put it online.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Crimes shown on TV shows are done by actors. Nobody really got hurt. I think you would be more offended seeing your mother get raped during a home invasion on YouTube then watching a similar crime on a TV show. I agree that shows like CSI are stupid...they're all the same and I personally don't enjoy watching them because they're all the same, boring. You should stop sympathizing with the criminals in this case and think about the victims...the victims of the real crimes...who's suffering is extended through the posting of the experience on the internet.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If the motive for posting criminal activity on the internet is publicity, then why wouldn't the criminals post videos of themselves posting a video of the original crime. Two crimes in one! Wouldn't that just bring them more "fame"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
punish a celebrity in public
It's not as one-sided as you would have it.
Posting a video of a VIOLENT crime online would serve to glorify this type of act and encourage more public acts of violence.
@Boost, fortunately the first amendment doesn't encourage doing harm to others
Also, in the event that the person posting the video online was not actually involved in the actions, this would allow the law to cast a wider net and help prevent people gaining from others' pain.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: punish a celebrity in public
@punish (14)
Your response to the comment regarding the first amendment makes no sense; it has nothing to do with "encouraging" anything. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...", not that congress cannot abridge free speech unless they feel its okay.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: punish a celebrity in public
You make a good point Fitz. I didn't think about people posting crimes their friends committed while they filmed.
Although wouldn't they be an accessory to the crime if they knowingly video taped it and didn't report it? The law would still be somewhat redundant wouldn't it?
Can someone familiar with the law clarify this please?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
not so dumb
I don't think it's a dumb law at all. The point is to deter the people who are committing crimes with the specific intention of posting them online. In the courtroom it might not have so much influence on the actual sentencing of crimes, but as the law is publicized, we'll get the deterrent effect.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Good call
Good call Victor (#12). I think you are right on target. Public display of the rime for entertainment is wrong but it is being encouraged. Good for NY if they are trying to slow it down.
And for the Anonymous Coward (#15). WTF? Do you really think CSI is a film documenting real crimes? WAA!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Thank you. You just pointed the idiocity (heard it on nascar so it must be a word) of "hate crimes".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I support the new law, some dopes are doing these crimes for the whole purpose of putting it online, it just as well they are charged harder than if they didn't post the crime online.
Magusyk
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
instead of expiration dates, any law that isnt used on a perpetrator, tried, gone to court, and found guilty, should expire within a certain period of time. Therefore they wouldnt need to waste their time making sure murder was still legal, but having sex with a pig would FINALLY be legal! Finally we could stop petitioning on THAT unfair law
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
cctv
i commit crimes because they are seen on cctv
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Hate Crime"
I guess this falls in the category of hate crimes! A more tougher sentence if when you kill someone you hate them, and a lesser sentence whne you love someone then kill them!
The funny thing is these politicians have voters that support them!
They are all corrupt!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So... How about COPS?
I'm following #15 down the rabbit hole here, just a little bit:
So, there could imaginably be exceptions made (or for that matter, not even necessary when you think about it) for shows like Law & Order, CSI, et. al., where there is no actual commission of crime taking place. However, what about shows like COPS, or others where the crime on tape is real? How could you make an exemption for that, without putting a Mack truck-sized hole in the law?
I'm with #6 - First Amendment FTW.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
my thoughts as follows:
violent crime is bad.
the more technical the law the faster it becomes abused.
many proposed laws seem to be politically motivated.
I am not a lawyer, and as such can't give advise, but I can bitch!
felony conviction as a -separate- crime seems harsh, and I oppose such a law.
I believe that it should be an aggregating factor to the crime itself. (such as armed robbery goes, did one get robbed with a knife, pistol, or a ten barrel 50cal minigun mounted under the poptop of my truck ;) )
The law should be written such that if one were to commit the crime to incite other crimes it would be a bit more harsher then say, one's buddy got a shot of one sticking some poor guy in the face.
Also it should be an aggravating factor if the purpose of the video was to further the attack on a person. Now I know it might be hard to prove intent in this case, but it would certainly hold up in certain cases.
If the video was posted by a third party, leads to the arrest of the perpetrator, and the victim has the right have the video taken down for Any reason. Then no action should be taken against the poster.
on a completely unrelated note this makes me want to get together with a few of my buddies over in communications to create a troll video for what looks like a realistic beating. although there are probably laws that labels the planning of such a movie as 'attempting to incite terrorism' or some other bs and punishable by repeated slapping with a wet trout. (or whatever the cia is using these days)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I sympathise with the idea in principle, but what's wrong with simply charging whoever holds the camera as an accessory and/or with conspiracy to commit? I believe it's also considered an aggravating factor in the UK, which means the judge can tack on an extra few years in prison if they deem it appropriate.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here In NY
One of the problems here is that we got a system that creates crap laws to enrich lawyers. And empower judges beyond administrators of law.
Yet so any of our politicians are closet pederasts, Elliot?
We can't get Megan' law passed here.
Also they are real good a setting up commissions to oversee things like road tolls, and not do the job they were voted in to do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Two minds
I'm a bit torn here. On the one hand, I'd say we should reward them for making the investigation and conviction that much easier on the authorities. On the other hand, I kind of think we should punish them a little more harsly, just cause they were so stupid.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment