[RokStdy]

Not sure why this has been down-voted. I think you're obviously right about this case. We know for a fact that the author presents no great threat to society. So, in this case we can say that the officers that witnessed his conduct were correct in their assessment that he was no threat.

The problem is that the only people who seem to benefit from laws being enforced based on their spirit not their letter are white people. Minorities on the other hand don't seem to enjoy the same benefits.

And getting past the issue of faulty heuristics, the authors experience post-arrest was pretty ridiculous.

How is anyone or anything served by treating arrested people like that?

Keeping in mind that hypothetically you are innocent until proven guilty. You should not be punished until you've been convicted of something.

[dragontamer]

That isn't how law and justice works however.

There are 5 ways to commit a crime: * Accidentally (usually not a crime) * Through negligence (Malpractice) * Recklessly (Manslaughter) * Knowingly (2nd Degree Murder) * On Purpose (1st Degree Murder)

In the case of murder, all 5 cases leads to someone innocent dying. But the justice system is completely designed around figuring out the state of mind of the individual, and then punishing them either more severely or less severely... based on the state of mind.

We are looking at a man who premeditated and purposefully committed a crime. The justice system will be exceptionally harsh on him.

[Karunamon]

You never accidentally or "in the heat of the moment" graffiti a building. It's always premeditated. Even with that in mind, he was punished well above and beyond the usual amount for that particular crime.

[RokStdy]

I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Your scale seems somewhat accurate in terms of situations in which a person is killed, but would seem to have next to nothing to do with the case in point.

In what percentage of cases of vandalism that could be called tagging could the person be said to have committed the crime accidentally? Virtually none[1]. This crime is more or less always committed on purpose. Not always with journalistic intent, but still.

The author was punished more harshly because (it seems) he embarrassed people. That is unjust.

Not to mention the generally deplorable conditions in the holding cell where he was kept, filled with other people who presumably were guilty of nothing.

[1]Please. I understand that you could create any scenario in which anything happens. But the vast majority of people who commit a similar crime (spray paint on unowned surface) certainly are doing it on purpose.

[dragontamer]

My point is that the _state of mind_ of an individual plays the most important role in determining the individual's punishment.

This was no schoolboy on a dare, this was a political activist making a political point. The author was punished severely, but do not trust his reasons for it. (Last year, it was because of Stop and Frisk. This time, he doesn't even seem to have a political excuse... it seems more like a call to a generic "$%#$# the police").

He did NOT seek to "learn about the justice system", he explicitly tried to get arrested to protest the stop and frisk laws that were being implemented in New York City. Jailtimes and Probation are the expected risks you take when you a political dissident like that.

Besides, there are less obtrusive ways of protest than spray painting a public building.