High-Tech Burglars May Get Longer Sentences In Louisiana

Hugh Pickens writes "Burglars and terrorists should be careful not to use Google Maps if they plan on committing crimes in the state of Louisiana. Nola reports that a bill approved 89-0 by the Louisiana House will require that judges impose an additional minimum sentence of at least 10 years on terrorist acts if the crime is committed with the aid of an Internet-generated 'virtual map.' The bill, already approved by the Louisiana Senate, defines a 'virtual street-level map' as one that is available on the Internet and can generate the location or picture of a home or building by entering the address of the structure or an individual's name on a website. If the map is used in the commission of a crime like burglary, the bill calls for the addition of at least one year in jail (PDF) to be added to the burglary sentence. The House measure is now being sent back to the Senate for approval of clarifying amendments made by a House committee."

Comments

Why?

[squiggleslash]

What the hell difference does it make whether someone used Google maps?

Re:Why?

[ArchieBunker]

Because it scares the old and technology illiterate people we call politicians. Half the supreme court doesn't know the difference between a pager and a cell phone.

Re:Why?

[Tim C]

Well, arguably it demonstrates premeditation; in reality it's probably going to be used rather like existing "extras", to bump up the sentence when desired. For example, it's perfectly legal to carry a crowbar or screwdriver in public. Use one while burgling a house or stealing a car, and suddenly you have "going equipped" added to the charge list.

Re:Why?

[Paranatural]

No shit. The only thing they want is to keep people in jail longer, without having to prove as much. Proving premeditation is hard, and just because you looked up someone's address doesn't automatically make it premeditation. This makes them 'hard on crime' that the conservatives down here get such hard dicks for. I hate my state sometimes.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is primarily aimed at 'abuse' of street view to case neighborhoods. Use of overhead satellite imagery, while less effective is also targeted for similar reasons.

SWIM's experiences with casing wealthy neighborhoods is that, especially considering his/her lack of inconspicuous clothing, skin colour, and/or vehicle (or whatever else is required to fit into said neighborhood), the casing can actually be more likely to generate calls to police/heat/residents with firearms than the actual robbery (the actually robbery being well planned thanks to the casing).

The use of street view, more than showing premeditation, shows sophistication, reduces the chances of being caught, thus reducing the risk of this action, and therefore the attractiveness of robberies as a whole. This law attempts to compensate by increasing SWIM's potential sentence, thus increasing risk, and decreasing attractiveness of this mode of robbery.

Re:Why?

[Darinbob]

There's been this trend for the last few decades of pulling all decision making for sentencing away from judges. Some people had become concerned that some judges are "soft on crime", "liberal", or other un-American adjectives. Rather than allow these pinko freedom-hating judges to actually do their jobs, laws were passed that tied their hands and set minimum sentencing rules (not merely guidelines). Since every right thinking person knows that longer sentences are a good thing as it keeps those ex-cons away from our neighborhoods and country clubs, it stands to reason that making up more and more ways to tack on longer sentences is a patriotic thing for our legislators to do. Or something like that.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

But aren't there already laws on the book to increase sentences if there is premeditation in the crime? Why would it matter if the case for that premeditation was based on the possession of a paper map or pictures versus accessing an electronic equivalent? Or is this just tidying up the law so that electronic equivalents are included in the list of things that qualify?

Re:Why?

[MstrFool]

While what you say sounds reasonable, it is not what they are talking about. If I have a detailed map and photos, plans and all sorts of other data on the home, I will get an automatic ten years /less/ then the person that decides to google the same place. They didn't say having a map is an extra ten years, they said that having an internet generated map is an extra ten years. I guess the figure any crook that still uses a paper map is so far behind the times that maybe they really do have to rob folks to live.

Knee-jerk, as usual

[Rene S. Hollan]

The "high tech" map doesn't make the crime worse. It just serves as circumstantial evidence that it was premeditated. The harsher sentence should be imposed because the crime was planned, not because high tech was used.

Here's why the proposed law is bad:

1. It's way too specific. Why internet-generated maps? What about instructions to make burglary tools or improvised weapons?

2. If the use of "high tech" makes the punishment worse, is that not a condemnation of "high tech" itself? That would be a bad thing.

No, the thing that makes the crime worse is the premeditation, and the use of high-tech just offers evidence of this.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual

[MachineShedFred]

So, this means Criminals should just use a Rand-McNally book instead, and shave a year off their potential sentence. Good law.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual

[fustakrakich]

They're trying to dumb down the internet... Next they'll charge Google with aiding and abetting, and make them remove the maps altogether..

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual

[blair1q]

Er, burglary is always premeditated.

There's no way to accidentally burgle someone's house, or do it in a fit of passion, or in self-defense.

This law is no more or less a stupid abuse of legislative power than the classic example of passing a law saying that Pi is 3.0 instead of 3.14159...

it's a clear demonstration that plural voting is no way to prove validity.

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual

[dcollins]

"The 'high tech' map doesn't make the crime worse. It just serves as circumstantial evidence that it was premeditated. The harsher sentence should be imposed because the crime was planned, not because high tech was used."

"Premeditated" is an adjective only used when talking about murder, and used to distinguish different types of said act (as opposed to a crime of inflamed passion, for example). It is not used when talking about other types of crime.

Seriously -- How do you perform burglary without planning it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated

Re:Knee-jerk, as usual

[Trepidity]

I think that's actually the sentiment that motivates them. Some people and politicians are worried about Google Street View being used to commit crimes, and since it's not clear there's any defensible way they could go after Street View itself, they hit on the other possibility: go after the people who use it to commit crimes. But of course, that leads to the nonsensical law we have here, where committing the same crimes without Street View is somehow better.

My guess is the reasoning is: Street View makes it easier to commit crimes, which is bad, so some law should cover this. The law in question does nothing to address the root problem, but hey, gotta pass something.

The Act itself, not HOW it's done?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the punishment for the act itself be enough and that how they did it shouldn't matter?

If a thief bypasses a lock with some new fangled lock picking device, should they get more time than someone who bypassed a lock with lockpicks or a screwdriver?
If someone kills another person with a hand gun, should they get more time than if they killed the same person with a knife (all other circumstances being the same)?

That doesn't make any sense to me.
It's WHAT THEY DID that matters, now HOW they did it.

Re:The Act itself, not HOW it's done?

[linzeal]

The US justice system is designed for anyone to be charged with multiple charges for any crime so they can drop some of the charges and make a plea deal.

I have an idea

[jollyreaper]

Can we also give longer sentences to criminals who rip us off with exotic investment instruments instead of good old-fashioned grifts and cons?

Double-ewe Tea Eff

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

I'm genuinely baffled as to what reasoning could have been offered for this. "It's too easy if they use digital maps, so it's cheating"? To turn it around, if the criminal had to work harder to pick a house to burglarize he or she should get a discount on how much jail time he or she will have to serve?

I'm with other commenters who are basically suggesting this is just a way of creating a "bonus crime" with which to arbitrarily keep people imprisoned longer, but obviously that's probably not how it was actually sold in public.

Anybody have any links to an official explanation for this?

Re:I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the legislators that are idiotic enough to believe what the lobbyists are telling them

You'd be amazed what they can believe for the right amount of money.