Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
In an alarming case, U.S. attorneys exploited post-9/11 counterterrorism policies to pursue and prosecute an environmental activist.
  • Amerigo knows my mental state!

    "Yes, and really if a bunch of Arabs set fire to a few Texas oil wells to protest American carbon emissions, they should get probation and community service?"

    Nope. And neither should environmentalists (white, Arab, or otherwise) if they set fire to oil wells. If by "Arabs" you mean "foreign nationals waging war on the US" then different rules should apply.

    "If I kill a cop with my getaway vehicle leaving the scene of a bank robbery, then it is the same as any other accidental vehicular manslaughter where a pedestrian steps into the road unexpectedly?"

    Nope, they should not be treated the same.

    "In fact punishment for crimes has always taken intent into account, as far as the court can perceive it. One-size-fits-all punishments like deportation for stealing a loaf of bread have always been found to be unsatisfactory."

    Actually, people are being deported for petty crimes. My local jail has been the starting point of such deportations. I'm not sure why you brought that up, but we agree that it is unsatisfactory. But to address your larger point: yes intent can matter to an underlying crime. It is criminal per se to want to kill someone, and that may be an acceptable element to differentiate accidental or intentional homicide. It is not criminal per se to oppose biotechnology or abortion or integration, etc etc.

    "Crimes such as terrorism or killing cops are generally seen as particularly egregious because they are aimed at subverting democratic processes, the rule of law, and the machinery of law enforcement."

    Holding political opinions IS the democratic process and the rule of law should not be opposed to holding those opinions. The "machinery of law enforcement" is subservient to democracy, not above it.

    Environmental intent may be used in trials to help prove that a crime like arson occur (by showing motivation). That is legitimate. But we are talking about creating new crimes and penalties that target environmental intent.

    "The above poster is either a high-schooler having fun, or is mentally deranged."

    Ah. In the Soviet Union they placed political dissenters off to mental institutions. I assume you approve?