[b0ttler0cket]

Think about what you're writing. There's a huge difference. One is writing a few pieces of code. The other exists in the physical world. That means the person spray painting the police station ("house") effects a greater magnitude of real-world consequences. For example, a person who is willing to tag a police station is more likely to be involved in violent behavior involving lethal weapons than the prankster who changes a few lines of code. The one and the other are NOT the same. Saying they are is a really dangerous idea...think about why. How could you possibly treat the street hood and the 17 year old prankster in the same way...

What theory of justice would that fall under?

[b0ttler0cket]

"So long both teenagers are first time offenders, then the justice system should treat them the same."

Once again, I can't agree. That is not the only consideration taken into account. Absolutely not. That doesn't even begin to skim the surface of what's taken into consideration in sentencing and during the trial.

Here's a classic counter-example to this assertion.

PersonA steals prescription medicine to sell so he can buy more drugs to deal. PersonB steals prescription medicine so he can sell them and pay for his wife's dialysis.

That's the same crime, and let's say they're both first time offenders. Would they be treated the same? No. It's called mitigating factors. PersonB has more mitigating factors than PersonA, and is therefore not treated the same.

[roel_v]

By your 'logic', logging into a SCADA system and opening a dam is less serious than graffiti? Or, changing the header of Amazon.com to say 'FUCK YOU', causing customers to go elsewhere and cause real monetary losses is less serious than graffiti? Because one is 'virtual'? How can you claim that some act has more severe consequences, just because it's in the physical world? Is stealing a wallet with 10$ worse than wiring 10$ from someone else's account?

[b0ttler0cket]

Good points, roel. I want to say something about my "logic." I compared two similar scenarios. You're comparing industrial sabotage to tagging a wall. It's not fair to say that because this comparison fails, my logic is wrong is it? You set it up purposefully to fail. It's kind of straw-man-ish.

Is stealing a wallet with $10.00 worse than wiring $10.00 from someone else's account? I could easily argue yes in some circumstances. If you have your wallet stolen by someone, there's a much greater chance that you will come to physical harm. Getting $10.00 stolen from your PayPal account does not afford you this same risk. I believe that's pretty fair to say. Now, seeing as one has the potential to cause financial and physical harm and the other only has the potential to cause financial distress, should both crimes be treated the same? Should both perpetrators be punished with the same sentence if convicted?

That being said, industrial espionage is a serious thing, and at that point the distinction between a "cyber-crime" and a "real-world crime" begins to diminish.

My logic still holds up, doesn't it? Am I still missing something here?

[belorn]

So long both teenagers are first time offenders, then the justice system should treat them the same. Its true that the crowd surrounding a street hood tagger is likely to be much worse than the prankster, but we don't normally add harsher punishment depending on the people the accused hangs around (except in regard to conspiracy charges).

[analog]

I'd have to disagree that a tagger would be more likely to be involved in violence simply as a result of being a tagger.

[b0ttler0cket]

A tagger who has the nerve to tag a police station is more likely to be involved in violence than a fairly educated 17 year old adolescent who codes. Why is this not reasonably fair to say? I don't understand.

We're talking about tagging a police station. That's a direct affront to the authority that (arguably) establishes a respectable degree of order and attempts to ensure peace (lack of violence). A person who expresses contempt or animosity towards those who (in general) attempt to ensure peace seems to be a person that would perpetrate violence...right?

Why is this wrong? (I'll just throw in a little something to tell you I have an idea of what I'm talking about). I grew up in the projects where undercover police would ride around in taxi cabs and basically sit like homeless people near subway entrances. This is a very tense environment, and I've seen many people arrested with a fair amount of force by the police. I also saw the remains of numerous gunfights a few times while coming home from school. Now imagine tagging a police station in this kind of environment. It's quite a task isn't it? Certainly a person who spends their time coding could be considered less violent prone, right?