Cooper Spur Japanese Engraving / National Parks Vandal

[Bosterson]

More from that article (emphasis added):

In all, Lee pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor charges and was sentenced on October 7, garnering him a $1,500 fine and a year of unsupervised probation.

Lee and his legal team did not respond to multiple requests from KCET for comment, but in court documents, his court appointed federal defenders laid out a passionate case, concluding that Lee's conduct "represents an anomalous misjudgment that stains an otherwise stellar background," which includes community service with a youth ministry and the Special Olympics. They also credited him for admitting wrongdoing early into the investigation and for using his photography to encourage people to enjoy nature.

"Looking back on my time in Yosemite, I would have definitely done things differently," explained Lee in a court statement. "I would have made better decisions. I never had bad intentions; I love Yosemite and the beautiful community that lives there. I just wanted to capture Yosemite and share it with others who will never be able to. I never intentionally damaged nature or promoted any abuse of nature. I just wanted people to see how much I loved Yosemite in hopes I'd encourage them to see it for themselves."

The settlement also stipulates Lee to make a statement on his social media accounts recognizing the activities in many of his Yosemite photos were illegal. He'll also have to delete all such photos, even ones that were not the basis of charges.

That seems appropriate. He obviously owned up to what he did and apologized. The last thing we need to do is send more people to jail in this country, that solves nothing...

[mcds]

mcds, I don't think you have thought the matter through from the right viewpoint.

I don't think there is a right or wrong viewpoint, raven. So we differ on that point. There are only our societal norms.

I did substantiate that my viewpoint was reasonable by referencing the light sentence given to the
Boy Scout leaders for their permanent destruction. My viewpoint was backed up (intentionally or not) by vibramhead in his above post, a court case with a similarly light sentence - as I detailed in my post above.

Raven, you had the same chance of establishing that your viewpoint is reasonable, but didn't take it. If you think the precedent is different, that a small fine and probation followed by erasure from the public record is not fair, just, appropriate, please cite because I'd like to read up on the court cases that you feel are pertinent.

Without such substantiation, it appears to me that your viewpoint differs greatly from society's. Nothing wrong with that. But I hope you would want court cases to be dominated by societal norms, rather than the personal viewpoints of judges.

How about we encourage the federal agencies to move beyond minor players, to prosecute the Wilderness Society, which along with Edward Norton and Robert Redford produced an 8 minute video Protecting America's Wilderness that closes with people on mountain bikes, a clear violation of the Wilderness Act, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g8PXlsU3Ro

[raven]

All evil doers of the out-of-doors.should be treated that way -- the trail work scoundrels facing justice. I can see you now mcds, carrying water for forestkeeper while wearing prison garb, a picture of your saw and a cut log nearby.

mcds, your inclusion in my comment was an attempt at humor, because I think your work to be well thought out and executed; but a poorly written statute could include your work as graffiti or vandalism of a sort since it is not approved in advance. See my next reply for the bigger picture.

[raven]

mcds wrote:

raven wrote:

mcds, I don't think you have thought the matter through from the right viewpoint.

I don't think there is a right or wrong viewpoint, raven. So we differ on that point. There are only our societal norms.

mcds:

1. There is a difference between security -- preventing actions that would otherwise occur through before-the-fact interventions -- and law enforcement --sanctioning after misdeeds are committed. You might say the difference between looking upstream for things that might strike you, and dodging them versus looking downstream and recovering after being struck. Enforcement actions that only deal with after the fact events do nothing to prevent further events. Deterrence requires changing miscreants' anticipations.

2. On legal judgments:

a) Legal precedents involve law enforcement and do not address security well enough. In the US, few people are arrested before they have done anything.

b) A literature exists demonstrating how series of precedents can lead to bad conclusions. Specifically A>B>C>A, where > means "is preferred to". So I cannot take precedence as getting a story right other than in a very localized context. Recent history certainly demonstrates that the legal system in its current form manages to generate further vandalism.

3. The word "restoration" has been used as a means of implying the damage is limited in this discussion. What standard is being used for "restored"? How is success measured? How does the public get to judge restoration efforts? Who should pay for the restoration judgement program and any further work required? Anything less sounds like a cover up for those with good lawyers or connections, and a means of transferring the losses for even known crime to the public. BTW, there are many precedents: the BP oil spill is one; the Exxon Valdez another; the scars on the sides of barriers at curving freeway entries others.

[mcds]

mcds, your inclusion in my comment was an attempt at humor, because I think your work to be well thought out and executed; but a poorly written statute could include your work as graffiti or vandalism of a sort since it is not approved in advance. See my next reply for the bigger picture.

Thanks for clarifying that as humor. A couple comments though.

Whether a statute is poorly written or not is a bit impertinent. A law is "just words" until that law is upheld in court for a specific case. That scenario does not establish that all interpretations or applications of the law are valid. It establishes only that the law applies to that particular case. That precedent makes it likely the will also be upheld in similar cases in the future. So the question "is there an interpretation of a law under which a person could be charged?" is a question of harassment. People are arrested for trumped up charges, then released at some point with the arrest becoming part of their public record. That is the other side of 'frivolous lawsuits' ... authorities abusing laws by applying them for purposes not intended by the legislature. The pertinent question is: has there been a similar case in which the courts upheld the law?

Just because something has been approved by the USFS does not mean that it is legal. The USFS has been successfully sued for things the agency claimed were lawful. For example, the USFS could approve a new trail in wilderness, the work could be carried out by TKO or PCTA, then the USFS could be successfully sued for trail building based on wilderness regulations. A similar suit was successful against NPS when the agency built some replacement shelters Olympic National Park.

[forestkeeper]

Yes, ForestKeeper, "seriously." Caning was the sentence that Singapore...

"Yes, Forestkeeper, "seriously." what? What are you talking about Big Bear? I'm not even a part of this conversation. And why would I care what types of punishment other countries impose? I'm an American. I can care less how other countries conduct themselves.