I’m pretty uncomfortable with the suggestion or implication that the felony charge is somehow justified or deserving because of his viewpoints (maybe those who disagree with Aaron Swartz’s politics think it was similarly appropriate to nab him on a trumped up charge?). The real story should be that stealing $6 of something can get you felony charges, and this is a story that could easily have been presented without this dude and with a very sympathetic purported “felon” instead.
Either transparently and unambiguously criminalize his viewpoints and speech, or treat the crime he’s accused of in a neutral an unprejudiced way (which is perhaps what the police did, but is not what the media is doing).
Some states treat theft from a place that one is not authorized to enter as an aggravated form of theft (or even burglary). I think the prior trespass warning is probably key here.
Not for me. While I find the beliefs espoused by the Aryan Brotherhood and their ilk utterly repugnant, I am not comforted by the idea that such problems can tacitly be managed by gross distortions in the judicial system.
In some measure, it’s a free speech issue. If we’re happy to let the punishment for an insignificant crime be excessive because we don’t like someone’s stated beliefs, it can potentially be viewed as a form of censorship. One that is far harder than direct sanctions to prove conclusively, but no less chilling for it.
Where I work any prior theft conviction makes your next theft a felony, but they generally won’t approve a felony for food (at least personal consumption type, steal a box of steaks or lobsters, then thats different). So yeah, racist dirtbag, but that wouldn’t get approved as a felony somewhere busy, too many cases…
Aryan Brotherhood isn’t philosophical. For example, they admit non-whites, mostly because they are just a prison gang that has gotten big into narcotic smuggling. The comment in passing is probably taking directly from the police report, under “known criminal associates”.
The article may as well be, “known criminal associate and repeat offender sent to jail with one weird trick”.
Right there seem to be a lot of people confusing the AB for a standard white supremacist group. Like you said they’re a prison gang (read: organised criminal conspiracy, not a bunch of dudes “protecting” each other) that effectively controls the drug trade within the prison system, an increasing presence outside of the prison system, and are responsible for a surprisingly disproportionate amount of violence and murders within prisons. Even disregarding ideology its not like they’re the sort of people who’re just minding their own business, holding asshole views. I’d hazard a guess that both his previous thefts and his record as a prisoner are a lot more violent than shop lifting a couple of hot pockets.
So its entirely possible that pushing this as a felony has more to do with leveraging this guy against his organisation. Or is a sideways attempt to get at him for other, more serious crimes. That being said I don’t necessarily think its wise to send a member of the Aryan Brotherhood back to a place that is controlled by the Aryan Brotherhood over some drunken shop lifting (if it really is that simple).
Texas gets crazy with felonies - is small-quantity marijuana possession still a felony there, or have they backed off? (Used to be they really liked to do that, because a felony conviction meant you couldn’t own a gun, and they didn’t like hippies and liberals being allowed to own guns.)
But while criminal organizations are a legitimate concern, I still think it’s problematic to attack them through general laws, as opposed to laws that clearly and explicitly target this kind of gang activity. I mean, that’s why we have things like criminal conspiracy, RICO, and collusion laws. He may have been a gang associate (and may still be), but we also have freedom of association. If his shoplifting and trespassing was unrelated to gang activity, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to criminalize the shoplifting of food as a gang activity.
There are probably lots of kids growing up in rough neighbourhoods that could be tagged as “known criminal associates” even though they are not gang members and are law abiding individuals.
@xeni could you please help our understanding of the headline? It contains a reference to a certain group, but then addresses it no further in the story. Did some part of the story get cut?
