[tqi]

> Mr. Cassidy could face $250,000 worth of penalty (excluding fines) for $1,500 worth of crime.

To state that the reason the maximum is 5 years is because the item was religious in nature, then ignore that fact when calculating the cost of the offense tells me this person is starting from a conclusion and working backwards. By this methodology, conspiracy to commit murder should get no jail time since the "cost" is $0.

I'm not saying 5 years would be fair in this instance, just that obviously this is about more than the raw monetary cost...

[giantg2]

The other important thing is that the maximums are there to cover the whole possibility of the crimes covered under that law (eg a rich guy burns down a church, etc). It doesn't mean that the maximum should be leveled in this specific case. It's a possibility, but it should be something sized more appropriately. Stating the possible maximums is a usual tactic to evoke empathy for someone charged, or for law enforcement to talk up in efforts to deter possible offenders. Either way, the probabilities tend to be exaggerated.

[henryreynolds]

You're absolutely right that the sum harm inflicted is greater than the cost to repair the altar. There's a certain point where trying to calculate ephemerals loses the thread.

For the inconvenience, missed opportunity, and emotional damage, I'd look to tort law. The entire matter could be resolved through civil suit without incarceration, and I'd rather see the victim whole than the criminal suffer.

[lolyyy2]

> For the inconvenience, missed opportunity, and emotional damage, I'd look to tort law.

How would that work in this case? The Catholic church should sue the guy on behalf of their members?

[henryreynolds]

Church of Satan, in this case. Didn't think anyone would read "Baphomet Statue" and assume it was owned by Christians.

That said, yes. Assuming the Church of Satan retains ownership, or at least responsibility for restoration, they are the injured party and owed restitution.