Breach Collective, the nonprofit leading the charge to ban natural gas in Oregon, opposes bill that would increase penalties for infrastructure destruction and mass poisonings.
Even as a prosecutor for 30 years, this bill makes me nervous. I have no wish to ally myself with either eco-terrorists or right wing extremists, but I wonder what actual good this law would do.
I was very dubious about so-called "hate crime" laws that were passed in the early 80s. If someone is targeted with criminal behavior a judge can take that into account in sentencing. I recall times when I charged (and convicted) someone with murder which was apparently motivated by hatred for the victim's sexual orientation or gender, but the idea of having to prove a relatively minor charge when murder meant a life sentence seemed performative.
In American law we rarely require the state to prove WHY someone did a bad thing, just that they DID it. My concern is that this will make whatever group is not in favor with the majority the potential target of what could be politically-based prosecutions.
Thanks for that insight, Josh. I'm not 100% sold on the bill as a whole, but do believe the reasons some give to oppose it are baseless and illuminating at the same time.
I don’t have an opinion one way or another on this law, but I wonder how it would apply to an earlier case regarding the Earth Liberation Front. If it’s a federal crime it wouldn’t apply.
Lacey Phillabaum was a reporter/writer at Bend’s alternative newspaper, the Source Weekly. She became a fugitive following her participation in an ELF act that destroyed a University of Washington horticulture lab. She was later apprehended by the FBI and agreed to help locate others involved in the crime in exchange for a lighter sentence.
The botanist whose lab was destroyed was not doing the research, genetically-engineering trees, that the ELF was so worked up about. The thing I wonder about is how does someone with an obvious set of skills, fail to do the simple task of verifying that the thing they oppose is actually occurring.
Even as a prosecutor for 30 years, this bill makes me nervous. I have no wish to ally myself with either eco-terrorists or right wing extremists, but I wonder what actual good this law would do.
I was very dubious about so-called "hate crime" laws that were passed in the early 80s. If someone is targeted with criminal behavior a judge can take that into account in sentencing. I recall times when I charged (and convicted) someone with murder which was apparently motivated by hatred for the victim's sexual orientation or gender, but the idea of having to prove a relatively minor charge when murder meant a life sentence seemed performative.
In American law we rarely require the state to prove WHY someone did a bad thing, just that they DID it. My concern is that this will make whatever group is not in favor with the majority the potential target of what could be politically-based prosecutions.
Thanks for that insight, Josh. I'm not 100% sold on the bill as a whole, but do believe the reasons some give to oppose it are baseless and illuminating at the same time.
I don’t have an opinion one way or another on this law, but I wonder how it would apply to an earlier case regarding the Earth Liberation Front. If it’s a federal crime it wouldn’t apply.
Lacey Phillabaum was a reporter/writer at Bend’s alternative newspaper, the Source Weekly. She became a fugitive following her participation in an ELF act that destroyed a University of Washington horticulture lab. She was later apprehended by the FBI and agreed to help locate others involved in the crime in exchange for a lighter sentence.
The botanist whose lab was destroyed was not doing the research, genetically-engineering trees, that the ELF was so worked up about. The thing I wonder about is how does someone with an obvious set of skills, fail to do the simple task of verifying that the thing they oppose is actually occurring.