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?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Because you typically don't get voted out of office for being "tough on crime". Who wouldn't want "took bold action to protect your homes and families from the cyber-criminal menace" on their CV?

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?

[Rene S. Hollan]

My thoughts exactly. Shaky, though? No, I think the word you seek is circumstantial.

If I get caught with a map that shows the block where the house is that I robbed, it's not quite the same as if I have that, a less detailed map, with driving instructions on it, and a more detailed one with "X marks the spot" to be hit.

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?

[gstoddart]

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

I was wondering the same thing -- it's like it's more illegal to use publicly available information in the commission of a crime.

Neither link seems to indicate why this is. It just strike me as a rather arbitrary law.

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?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

Precisely, it's a hell of a difference. And another two years will a burglar get for using a plastic electric screwdriver instead of a good old proper wood-and-iron screwdriver. The you screw around, the more you get screwed.

Re:Why?

[Itninja]

Proving premeditation is hard, and just because you looked up someone's address doesn't automatically make it premeditation.

It would be kind of hard to claim a robbery was a crime of opportunity (e.g. not premeditated) if the robber was found to have a map to the house, a picture of the front door, a satellite view of the surrounding neighborhood, and pictures of the inside (from Zillow, Redfin, etc.).

Re:Why?

[MrCrassic]

like others said, using a digital map is somewhat substantial evidence that the crime was premeditated. However, how is this any different from buying a map at the gas station and using that as a reference? If this statute includes other Internet-based applications like Facebook or Foursquare (possibly popular in New Orleans or Baton Rouge), how is targeting a person through those channels any worse than doing extensive, off-line research like criminals did in the "good old days?" I guess it makes amateur robberies a little easier/rewarding, but 10 years?!

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?

[characterZer0]

Which one of them only half understands?

Re:Why?

[Darinbob]

It's an additional minimum of one year in jail if you have a CV while committing a crime.

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?

[LordLimecat]

decreasing attractiveness of this mode of robbery.

Couple of questions...
1) If you can demonstrate to the court sophistication, intent, and premeditation to the court, cant they just up the sentence based off of that?
2) if using google maps shows premeditation, then why do we need another law to establish that it is, in fact, premeditation?
3) Is the hopeful outcome that a criminal think "gee, I really wanted to rob that house, but man, that extra year from google maps is kind of harsh, I better not"? Is this realistic?

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.

I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion on this, except that criminals would get a charge of using/possessing cryptography while committing a crime.

Will this deter crime via newer methods? Doubt it.

Who actually profits from this: Same old people, defense lawyers, the private prison industry with a huge lobby behind it and the fact that anyone who stands in their way gets painted as soft on crime.

Re:I'm reminded of a Cypherpunks list discussion

[Peach Rings]

I don't buy that the prison industry conspiracy is to blame. It's the legislators that are idiotic enough to believe what the lobbyists are telling them, and too entrenched in politics to challenge senior lawmakers. I don't think my language is too strong here; nothing short of idiocy can describe the kind of new technology-related laws coming out of state legislatures. You'd think that a basic level of intelligence would be found among the most powerful people in the state.. I would genuinely rather have a random sampling of math majors at my university run my state because I know at least they can reason logically.

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

[blair1q]

how the hell they intend to prove that someone used an online map

1. Catch burglar.
2. Search burglar's home.
3. Seize burglar's computer.
4. Read browser history.
5. ???
6. Profit!

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.

And another fifteen years...

[Wiarumas]

And another fifteen years tacked on if the criminal tweets about it.

Longer fine if car used for getaway, not horse

[jollyreaper]

We must not let ourselves be terrorized by these new masters of high technology! Further fines levied against kidnappers who make ransom demands by phone rather than letters cut and pasted together with words from magazines.

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?

And if you use a GPS device, they hang you. (eom)

[Punk CPA]

EOM means end of message. Don't read this.

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?

The belief in punishment

[fluor2]

This has been the US way of thinking for ages. Yet you have more prisoners than any other countries.

The US needs to do something about why people go for such drastic steps, becoming burglars or similar. You cannot continue having a society where some win the great price and become rich whilst the majority stay poor. You need a better structure for so many things that I cannot see where to start.

The only great about the US now is the great minds that continue to immigrate from other countries. Yet for every great mind there is thousands of people growing up not even knowing anything except how to steal. It's time to wake up and try doing something about how peoples lives can get better in general.

Re:The belief in punishment

[OrwellianLurker]

You cannot continue having a society where some win the great price and become rich whilst the majority stay poor.

While the divide between the classes is large, it's a joke to claim that the majority is poor. Most Americans are above the poverty line and live well. Very few people are actually "poor."

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.