zlacker

>>fortra+(OP)
Maximum sentence is 10 years, she's unlikely to get that, but _minimum_ is 5 years IIRC. That's a _long_ time. And then you're a felon and you can't find a decent job. What was the calculus there, I wonder? Under what circumstances would a person rationally consider torching a police cruiser to be worth the risk of 5 years in the slammer?

>>m0zg+Wc
Apparently she picked up an already burning piece of wood and threw it in. So it's less likely that she left the house that morning with the intent of torching cars.

In the moment, with everyone and everthing going on around her, I doubt she was thinking rationally or even knew that torching a car would be a long prison sentence. (if someone asked me before reading this article, I would have assumed a large fine + some community service maybe; then again I am not American so I have no idea how sentences compare).

>>koyote+5e
Think that's pretty much why people are torching cop cars. You'd have to get up pretty early to prove that person is a danger to society, but now their whole life is fucked which doesn't help anyone. We could however use a few hours a week to pickup park trash to better society and the lesson would probably be learned.

>>jethro+Zh
She's kinda fucked either way. Even a misdemeanor would be annoying to have to explain every time she wanted a job, a felony would just about guarantee she'd only ever be able to be an entrepreneur. But otherwise I agree, skip jail, just hit her with a treasury offset for the cost of the car along with a suitable extra for penalty. She'll get the message for a long time.

>>rootus+Yn
> But otherwise I agree, skip jail, just hit her with a treasury offset for the cost of the car along with a suitable extra for penalty.

Then if someone can't pay it back, you either have to 1) not penalize them, making poverty equal immunity, or 2) jail them, making it jail for the poor and a fine for the rich. Neither seems fair.