Katrina Looters get 15 Years in Prison
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/lo....ap/index.html

Extensive is an understatement... Fifteen years in prison for stealing liquor? Some felonies don't even warrant 15 years in prison. I highly doubt that any of the items they stole would have been sold off at a later date. Since the state of Lousiana is taking a no tolerance policy towards looters, I wonder if they're going to search out and find those persons who stole milk and bread from convenience stores and lock them up for 15 years as well.

No problem with long sentences for looters. If they had been stealing bread or baby formula, I'd understand it, and let them off, but stealing booze? No different from boosting stereos or I-Pods. I'm OK with the sentence.

I hope they rot in jail. I have no sympathy for looters, and as highthief said (what an ironic name) if they had been taking supplies necessary for life such as bread, water or baby formula I'm sure they would have been let off.

The punishment seems excessive, but I wonder what the rap sheet looks like for these individuals. If they have had prior convictions for theft or some other criminal behaviors, then I don't blame the judge for handing down such a punishment. If they have no other prior arrests, then perhaps a short sentence like 3 to 6 months in jail plus community service might be more appropriate. Still, I think some jail time is warranted. They were stealing for the sake of stealing while the authorities were busy, not for survival.

Add my name to the list of those that have absolutely no problem with the extended stay at the Louisianna state pen.
You need supplies to survive? No problem. Take what you need. Alcohol, stereos and televisions? Nope. At that point, sufficient time needs to be given (15 years is good) for these upstanding models of citizenry to contemplate any further contributions to society ( by being removed from it) that they may be allowed to make in the future.
Along those same lines, while a pair of shoes, or two, may constitute a need...20 pairs do not. There is a line between taking what is necessary for survival, and profiting. If 20 pairs of soggy shoes can be considered profiting.

I suppose it's just me, but I don't see how stealing items which would have more-than-likely been disposed of warrants a 15-year prison sentence.

And holding it against folk who have lost _everything_? At least they'll have a home in prison, I suppose.

just because they can justify the stealing in their minds, doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished for it. They stole. They get punished.

As for other felonies having lesser sentences, well... that's for that sentence... this particular crime had a specific penalty... What's the old expression - Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time? (or at least if youare going to do the crime, be good enough at it that you arent going to get caught.

You make an excellent point. Next time there is a big disaster looming I'm heading down that way with my U-haul and gonna load up with Plasma's, Computers and other high ticket stuff cause it's gonna all be destroyed anyhow.

They stole alcohol six days after the storm passed-- Not plasma TV's, not computers, not iPods and not any other technical device.

As I'm assuming that most of the people here didn't have to go through the Katrina disaster, it would be wrong of us to tell others what they should and shouldn't have done in the given circumstances. Whatever reasons they had for stealing liquor, they stole it. But 15 years because of it? Come on. That's ridiculous.

I hope the sentence was in line with what it would have been during a non-emergency. I somehow doubt that though.

traffic fines are doubled in a work area.. .why shouldn't punishment for crimes committed during a state of emergency be more than they would in a non-emergency? bad circumstances should not give peopel free reign to do whatever they want.

I don't think anyone denies that there shouldn't be some type of consequences, but 15-years in prison is ridiculous. At the max, they should have been fined a few hundred dollars and given community service.

Maybe this is unduly harsh, I dunno, but actually...I hope the exact opposite is true. I want a stiffer sentence for stealing non-essential items during an emergency. To me...it takes a special kind of person to sink that low.

Then again...after six days of wallowing in swamp muck...maybe I'd be one of 'em...who knows. Maybe I'd need a case of beer just to get through until tomorrow. I'd hope not.

well, then, next time there's a state of emergency, don't loot and it won't be a problem :)

Seems a little harsh to me. People steal cars, grand theft for chist sake and get less jail time. If I were the judge handing down the sentance about six months is what I would give.

I'd do it.

I suppose that's why I think 15 years is unfair.

That said, I really have no place arguing with people who're ethically strong enough to not do it.

15 years does seem a bit harsh for what would otherwise be petty larceny. The fact that they did it during a state of emergency, however, speaks tons as to what kind of people they are.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Maybe. I'd rather have the judge leaning towards a heftier sentence than a lighter one.

Lets say its not a store but your house they were doing this in?

Its easy to say its ok to steal other peoples stuff, but there is a reason why the traditional method of looting control is shooting the looter.

15 years is fine by me.

Yes, but you need to examine the circumstances surrounding the looting. I stated this earlier, but it's easy for the people who weren't placed in the Katrina situation to say that they wouldn't loot. None of us can really say what we would and wouldn't do until that time arises.

With that being said, the crime doesn't fit the punishment. Yes, there should be some sort of penalty for stealing, but fifteen years is ridiculous.

I'd say 5 years on a chain gang repairing all the hurricane damage would be perfect. Compared to that sitting around being fed and sheltered while watching cable for 15 years seems like a slap on the wrist to me.

That would be an acceptable alternative to me.

If I were in a Katrina situation, I wouldn't be looting alcohol.

Now if all of civilization was ending I would be looting alcohol but only so I could trade it for pigs in barter town.

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/page...tory/288fc020c

Just for some perspective; a guy who broke into a tomb, decapitated a corpse to use as a BONG, stole a bowtie and eyeglasses... only got 1-7 years.

That's right.. he took the corpse's head so that he could bleach it and use it as a bong and he's getting half of the time of someone who stole booze from a store during an emergency..

That sounds good to me. A lot of people need their homes and businesses rebuilt.

Just to paraphrase your two posts - two men enter, one man leaves.

Thunderdome!

Back on topic, I actually agree with Ustwo. That happens about ever 4 months, so I guess I'm due. Looting is a symptom of societal breakdown, and one of the remedies is either opening fire or harsh punishment to restore order. I hope they have to serve their time at Angola.

The problem, then, is not that the looter that stole the alcohol got to harsh of a sentence. The problem is that the grave robber got much to light of a sentence. In BOR world, anyway.

Oh...and just for the record...

A.) No...in a Katrina type of situation, I would most certainly not be stealing alcohol, stereos and television sets. I do know myself that much. I would, on the other hand, be stealing food, medicine, diapers, formula, necessary clothing...that type of thing. Oh, you betcha I would.

B.) I like the idea of serving a third of the sentence...at hard labor. I like that idea a lot, as a matter of fact. I see that as a win/win scenario.

I really hope you would have had enough sense to get out of Dodge when you were told to and not decide to "ride it out..." because it won't be that bad...

Well most smart people did get out of dodge, but I think Bill is in 'what if mode' as in something happened suddenly, not 'what if I had a week of warning and I stayed put' mode :)

I just think that Mal gives me too much credit. :D

I don't know if it was true in this case or not, but one of my friend's cousins lived in New Orleans during the whole Katrina disaster. From what he said, often times stores were picked clean by the time that his friends got there to find food/water, and often times they would take alchohol to trade to others who had food and water.

Again, I'm not trying to imply that's what happened in this case, but it's possible.

***

Actually, giving it more thought - let's say that your house and everything you owned was destroyed. There isn't anything but miles of sewage water all around, and it's been a week since the disaster and you still haven't gotten any federal help. To be honest, I don't think getting absolutely smashed would seem like that bad of an option at that point....

Fair enough..

Precisely. That's why I said that I'd do it. :)

I did alude to this situation earlier in the thread. And, perhaps, in that kind of despair, baser insticts would surface. Somewhere, though, in the back of your mind, know that civilization will return and you will be given a spanking. Or shot...whichever the case may be.

15 years?
for stealing booze?
that's absurd, wholly out of whack with the actual crime these folk were convicted for.

sounds more like a show trial type situation to me: much more about affirming existing social hierarchies than about what these folk actually did.

insofar as the three people who were convicted function for folk who read about them as abstractions and not as human beings whose lives are going to be sacrificed for the greater good of private property, this does not seem to be a problem. i would imagine that views would be different if you knew--or even thought about---these people as human beings.

it seems to me that the misfortune suffered by these three folk, more than any other, is being among the first convicted under the new (and repressive) sentencing guidlines for emergency situations. i assume that these folk were not in a position to have good legal counsel, or maybe did not expect such a ridiculous sentence was possible--either way, a decent lawyer would have made sure this was not among the first cases to go through the system--let someone who actually committed a serious offense get the Symbolic Book of Bourgeois Property Relations thrown at them.

the claim that "stealing is stealing" seems ridiculous in this context.
i suspect that behind it is a reaction to the television footage of looting that took place in the wake of katrina--and behind that assumptions that the existing system of property relations is somehow legitimate and so those who transgress it should fry. i say this because "stealing is stealing" only makes sense on those grounds: stealing booze is not like stealing a car is not like stealing technology for nuclear weapons--stealing is not a single action--you only can arrive at that conclusion if you confuse the characteristics of stealing as a gerund with the range of actions that itcanbe made to refer to. and again, if folk who approve of this draconian sentence above knew these three people--or even thought about them as human beings--that argument would not be advanced. it has no correlate in actual law (sentences are different from different types of offense, folks--if you were caught stealing lipstick from a mall store, that act is not the same as if you were caught stealing a semi-automatic rifle. not legally. not empirically.)

what i find most amazing, however, is that folk above seem to have been more bothered by the private property being removed than by the social conditions that were revealed through katrina and the multiple debacles involved with it and its aftermath. you had a really ugly view of the reality of class stratification in america--and you worry about booze being stolen. you had a glimpse of the extent to which the american system grinds up the lives of the poor--and you identify with the owner of a liquor store?

i dont get it.

Huh? From where...did you infer that? Based on that, I can also infer, from your post, that you believe that because these people were poor, that they had a right to steal private property. I don't think so.

You mentioned several times about if we could only view these people as human beings. Oh...wait a minute...no, that was "folk" as human beings...that's more neighborly, and down home, isn't it? Well, in order for me to view someone as a human being, the first step, it would seem, is to not behave as a pack of animals.

Look...conditions post Katrina were horendous beyond our capacity to appreciate. Social structure breaks down. I understand that. To further complicate the situation...help was not readily forthcoming...regardless of who's at fault. Suffice to say that it sucked...a lot? Does this give one the green light to steal whatever is not nailed down? And in some cases, that which is?

You compared their crime to that of stealing a car. Y'know...I'd have rather they tried to steal a car. Steal a car and try to get out and remove your family from that devestation. That I could see more readily than stealing alcohol. Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong, I don't know....but I don't think that just because your life sucks, that you should be given a free pass to do as you please.

It was a message. How many thousands of looters will never get caught or tried because the conditions do not warrant a good trial?

I have no pity for people who loot for profit, no matter how bad off they are socially. If a homeless person breaks into my house and steals my stuff am I not allowed to be as angry than if it was a person with a home?

They didn't steal food, they didn't steal water, they didn't take necissary things. Getting drunk is not a requirement because you're poor.

bor: i took a shower after i wrote the above and while moistening myself i realized that someone could take what i wrote as you did: my lack of clarity is at fault--the basic argument i am making is that 15 years to wholly out of whack. it is surreal in its excess. i would not argue that no sentence was required once these folks were caught and tried--but that 15 years is ridiculous.

second: these actions seem to me the result of the class order that the americans have chosen to allow for themselves. i think they are readily understandable in those terms, even if you still argue that some sort of sanction was appropriate.

third: i derived my take on the posts that approved of such a draconian sentence simply from reading through them. same logic over and over: stealing is stealing, let em fry. i dont buy it.

fourth: civilization is not simply a matter of constraints imposed from the outside, is it? you internalize social norms, you perform them, they shape what you see and how you see it, what you do and how you justify that doign to yourself. what breaks down in a situation like katrina is the system of outward constraints, the arm of the states monopoly on "legitimate violence" that functions to enforce the system of property relations--which may or may not be the same thing as what you might call "civilized"---you would hope, for example, that a civilized order would respect the dignity of all its members----including those least advantaged, wouldnt you?
i dont see that in the american class system.
i dont know how anyone could.
but hey, that's just me.

the confusion probably came from blurring two types of claims--one about the sentences and another about the class order in the states. sorry about that.

I do not wish to defend these looters but there is something wrong with a system that will give a few months sentence in minimum security to someone who steals hundreds of thousands of dollars from our pension funds and give 15 years hard time to someone who steals a few hundred dollars worth of booze.

When i read the title of this thread i was like "who the fuck is Katrina Looters and why did she got 15 years", incredible what a capital letter can do. Back on topic, it seems to me that the setence didn't fit the crime, i think 2 years woulded be more than enough and harsh enough, and i like even more the idea about been forced to contribute with the reconstruction efforts, that would be a wise sentence and a usefull one.

In the interests of being fair, did the POLICE OFFICERS LOOTING WALMART IN THIS VIDEO, http://www.metacafe.com/watch/31299/..._be_tolerated/

recieve 15 years in prison? Somehow, I bet you they didn't.

Still fair?

Firing squad.

They deserve 15 years for it. Not doing their jobs and looting on top of that. They whole heartedly deserve 15 years in prison and to lose their job.

No, firing squad.

My point is that it would be ridiculous to assign ANY of them such penalties, considering the necessity and universal "acceptance" even by police officers..

Fifteen years! FIFTEEN YEARS! Unless I missed something in the article this wasn't a violent crime, these people didn't hold up the place at gunpoint, how on earth is a fifteen year sentence for this crime justified? I like to think I believe in being tough on crime but this is ridiculous! I can't see justifying more than five years in prison for pretty much any nonviolent crime. Use a weapon, injure, kill, or threaten a persons life or well being, then yeah fifteen years is good. While it is wrong to help yourself to someone else's property there has to be a punishment commensurate with the crime. Now I could see three to five years for this crime, but fifteen years? Make the punishment fit the crime, this doesn't come close to fitting.
I don't care to be spending that much tax money on prisons to house people for ridiculously excessive amounts of time for things like this. Save it for the violent criminals.

I think this pulls in the "What's popular isn't always right" concept.

Because, to my knowledge, it isn't on the books. If there is some statute that doubles fines\time served during national emergencies, then educate me and I'll rethink my opinion. Until I see that, it's just some attention whoring judge trying to make a stand for something in a wrong manner.

There has always been this class divide for crimes and consequences. And I think as long as we have that divide, it will continue.

This is insane. You have about a massive breakdown of the social system and its rule during/after the storm, and then you inflict such long sentences on people who commit minor crimes in that time? I mean, we're not talking about violent crime here. When everybody is looting, taking a handful of people and giving them such hard sentences is ludicrous.

By the way, I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be a punishment in that case. Only that, if there is a punishment, it sure as hell shouldn't be 15 years in jail.

It may not be in the books, but if it's under the maximum penalties permitted than it's perfectly legal.

why is a "massive breakfown of the social system" an excuse for anything?

Not everyone was looting... just a handful of people.

I understand the first statement about stealing baby goods (so long as they do indeed have a child), but I can't bring myself to understand the latter... boosting stereos and iPods is clearly an attempt at making money down the road. I'm sure the same could be argued for booze, but it's just a drink... a liquid... something that could easily be broken, go bad, or made worthless by not being taken care of properly (see: hurricane time and conditions). Also, let's not forget that I'm sure many, many people at that time just wanted a drink. I know that's how my family were during the hurricanes that hit Florida.

They were convicted of attempting to leave the grocery with 27 bottles of liquor and wine, six cases of beer and one case of wine coolers, six days after Katrina made landfall.

They SURE were thirsty!

You are crackin me up, first good belly laugh all day!!!!:lol:

No sympathy for such lowlife opportunistic thieves. If it was an essential of life like water, bread, baby needs, that's survival. You can't fault people for getting the basics.

But all the rest? No sympathy for their 15 year sentence. Although, I might be happy with a 5 year sentence and some ridiculously huge number of public service hours. A number big enough that would take several years to work off.

Beer goes flat if you shake it too much, or if it's REALLY old, but that's it. Liquor doesn't "go bad". No one steals alcohol because they're thirsty, especially not in the huge amount that they stole.

And you know... if they came out of the store looking fucked up and devastated like everyone else, and had a single bottle of something, I doubt most people would care. The person just wants to go hide in a bottle for a little bit. Maybe his whole family is dead. But these people stole a TON of stuff.

Let them rot.

I wasn't saying it didn't have legal basis. Of course the judge isn't making sentences up. I'm saying the judge is not using sentencing discression as they should.

15 years is absolutely insane.

Do you people realize just how long 15 years is?? For stealing alcohol?

Nobody gets 15 years when they steal liquor during a riot.

Stealing luxury items like alcohol doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I do think they deserve to be punished, but I also think 15 years is overdoing it.

Gilda

Everyone who says "15 years is too much"...

The judge was trying to make an example of them to discourage this behaviour in the future. Do you HONESTLY believe that these people will ACTUALLY serve all 15 years and not get an early release ?

They will be released within the year on good behavior and maybe a probationary period thereafter. The sentence is just there to show people that what those people did was deplorable, and deserves no mercy.

And honestly... if you are caught red-handed commiting a crime that you KNOW is against the law, how can ANY sentence be excessive ? You knowingly, and willingly commited a felony. Why should anyone give you ANY sympathy. It's not like they could have been framed or that they didn't realise what they were doing.

Duh, of course they are not going to serve all 15 years... But still, putting a tag of 15 years on the crime of stealing liquor is fucking bogus. Lame as hell.

What? What if the judge had sentenced them to death? That wouldn't have been excessive? Do you think about what you're typing?

What if people stole food to survive? They KNOWINGLY committed a felony. Should they also get 15 years in prison, because they committed a crime?

I would like the sentencing for non-violent theft more in line with the amount slolen. Steal a few hundred thousand via insider trading etc.. and get something like 10 years, steal a few hundred via looting etc..and get something like 90 days. Also have the thiefs make restitution and pay heavy fines of some multiple of what they stole.

I think sentencing should be a lot harder on the wealthy who steal instead of the other way around.

I think it's a ridiculous sentence. 15 years? How many years did they guy running FEMA get? None? Who really fucked more shit up?

You need to share whatever it is that you are smoking, because it can't be legal. People don't get let out before 1 year when they are handed 15. And I would bet my bank account they definitely get probation afterwards.

I had a change of opinion on this.

They should be fined twice the amount of the cost of what they stole and have to work an extravagant amount of community service.

"The judge said he wanted to send a message"

That part get me the most.

I also think a hefty fine and community service would have been a much better service.

To me it makes sense that a judge would want to send a message, I mean if you're in a state wide emergency there can be no tolerance for people looting expensive items that aren't necesseties. While it makes sense that a judge would want to do it, ultimately housing criminals for crimes like that will eventually prove to be less useful than hoped. Like it has been said, community service (chain gang style would be awesome) should have been necessary along with paying back the liquor store for the cost of what they tr ied to steal. Community service would be best, though, since being housed in jail provies food, a place to live, etc. If you have to do community service it takes up a lot of your time, you're doing good work in the process, and you're not being fed, housed and all of that.

Punishment for crimes normally falls into a few broad categories. Rehabilitation, deterrent, isolation from the rest of the community and revenge. If we look at each of these characteristics and consider logically from this moment in time how we can make the best society (remembering we can't change the past with our ruling today) I think we'll find that this sentence is not fair.

- Rehabilitation
It is very unlikely that someone locked up for 15 years will come out and not steal again. More likely they will become institutionalized and learn newer ways to commit crimes and have a new angst towards society.

- Deterrent
Its very unlikely that anyone will think during a natural disaster that they may receive 15 years for their crime and better not commit it. Its not considered a very serious attack against social justice or something that is likely to cause great guilt out of citizens. People know that people still from each other every day. The message here is - don't get made an example of.

- Isolation from the community
There is no evidence that these people were dangerous. The reality is that many people who commit crimes of passion or take advantage of circumstances like this are also people who can be very productive members of society. We are taught at a very young age that there is good people and bad people, and its often much more convenient to take on this view than to seriously consider the human mind and how people really behave because that is complicated and asks questions we don't like to think about.

- Revenge
This decision is based on fear and outrage experienced by the community at large created by the media coverage of this event. It shows what happen when people control the courts as well as the government, rulings are based on mob mentality rather than criminology, psychology and evidence. The truth is the court system is very complicated and should be left up to professionals who have studied it but people are arrogant and believe they know what is best for themselves without any attempt to research it.

I know murderers who have received lesser sentences than this. I challenge anyone who supports this ruling to critically examine it and to provide evidence of why it is the best course of action for the community at large. In your evidence you should provide economic and social gains.

Remember that the average cost of keeping a prisoner for a year is $20 000. The true losers / suckers are the taxpayer - not only have they been hit by an inept system that breeds people who place no value on the community and steal from it at any opportunity, they then get hit by an inept justice system which costs a fortune and delivers no results. Only repeat offenders. It just costs so much to make you feel like you are safe - especially when you make no attempt to learn and critically evaluate the best way to achieve that.

I'm with the thieves. Your society is broken and corrupt and although I live within it and enjoy participating in it but I will continue to fight for against your fear and irrationality for a better tomorrow. In the words of the late great Bill Hicks "Go back to bed America. Your government is in control".

People make loads of cash (or some form of barter) when disaster strikes selling booze and drugs. You'd probably make more selling a couple bottles of liquor, usual cash value of $25, than you would selling computers after a hurricane.

The point is stealing to survive is one thing after a disaster, and something virtually everyone understands. Stealing for profit or entertainment, when all those around you are suffering, is the mark of low life pond scum. IMO, of course.

While I don't know any murderers personally (at least that were caught) I think many of us who support this sort of thing would be far more likely to want the murderers to be harsher punished rather then lighter sentence be given because some murderer got less of one.

Arguing economics and gain in this situation is silly. The most economical law enforcement is the $1.25 a single bullet costs. Any system that is not based on physical punishment will be very uneconomical.

Being I do not believe in rehabilitation via the institution of prison itself society gains when such types are out of the general population.

Using a period of societal break down as an excuse for a personal crime spree shows you have very little value to society as a whole. The logical course of action would be to remove those individuals from society, only our compassion keeps this idea from reaching is very logical, economical and beneficial conclusion in the most direct manner.

Consider this - a hobo rustles through your garbage before the garbo's take it from your verge. They take a half-empty bottle of wine. What's that worth, 10-15 years? I mean, that hobo sure didn't need that wine to survive. He might even barter it away for a hamburger, or something terrible. Why doesn't he get a job and get his lazy arse of welfare? He might be crazy from crack or mentally ill. No chance of rehab, so a bullet to the head must be the only option.

Seriously, are looters that much of a menace to society that you would have them removed from it entirely? We can all sit back here and judge those who lost everything in New Orleans, but these people were there, and they were the ones that lost everything. They would very probably get lesser sentences if they marched into the store with a gun and demanded all the money in the till. It's political showboating and those that got sentenced where nothing but pawns.

I agree and I believe, there should be more outrage over the difference in sentencings. Stealing is stealing is it not?

Now they do this to people stealing alcohol, what about those cops videotaped and shown on national television looting Wal-Mart?

If this had been a bownout/blackout, an earthquake where it's over and people could start working on recovering almost immediately, or any tragedy where it hits and it's over, I could understand.

However, this was not just a Cat. 5 hurricane but the ensuing floods were devestating to the point where they are still having issues and we may truly never know how many died because of this.

At first, I sat here and believed they deserved the sentences.... but the more I thought of the question and what I WOULD DO, the more I realized I couldn't have an honest answer. If I had been in that situation, would I have stolen liquor? That I doubt, but would I have stolen anything other than the necessities of life?...... I cannot answer that in all honesty and I pray to my God I will never have to find out.

To the people who believe this sentence is fair..... that's your belief and that's cool, but just ask yourself what would you do in that situation? If you can't honestly answer that question.... perhaps you need to rethink you view. For those of you who believe you will never be in that situation..... I have pity on you, for your ego and self righteousness will eventually catch up to you.

I will say how did this case come about, how did they catch these particular 3, when there were literally thousands doing the same thing? And wouldn't it be better to find the violent criminals that have risen NO homocide rate recently?

you have to ask yourself a question though...where does it stop? what stops people from doing the same thing over and over again? Lord forbid another catastrophic phenomena of it's nature should hit anywhere again?

like the article said, the judge was just wanting people to know that it's not O.K to do stuff like that and that if you did that is the punishment you shall recieve.

the buck has got to stop somewhere.

I don't think it sets an example because people don't think they are going to be caught or haven't thought the action through completely to the conclusion. If you don't think you are going to be caught, then the alleged concequences have no meaning. For example, Texas is infamous for giving murderers the chair. Yet, people murder in TX all the time. Is it because they don't know that TX is easy with the death penalty, or is it because they didn't think things through all the way and\or didn't think they would get caught?