Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners

Awesome information. Situations like these are definitely meant to send a message- Push back harder.

He who has the most money in court wins.

The difference between Animal Rights ‘crimes’ (so-called) and the other offences you list here is that vast amounts of money are invested in the targets of Animal Rights actions, and whenever these actions are successful, it hits the pockets of many of the legislators
and big business. Governments cannot risk that happening: after all, Animal Rights actions are so vastly different from many, or most other ‘crimes’ as they directly affect the status quo and threaten the wealth and security of those who legislate, and those amoral parasites for whom the legislators work so tirelessly.

David

Whether they’re openly hoping to get activists to intensify their actions or not, it does seem this could be a natural progression, as Earth’s assault by polluters keeps intensifying, perhaps calling for stronger resistance. If the lengthy prison sentences (and being incarcerated in a “Communications Management Unit”) – befitting a crime such as murder or other tactics generally attributed to “terrorists” – forced on those defending the planet are the consequences, what does one have to lose? Well, you get my point, right?
beset

i meant, if she did NOT sign an agreement of course.

And here’s another irony with the AETA – By default… it does not -nor will it ever “protect” vegans/animal rights activists. It excludes (some) members of the population. Anyone who is not an ARA may at sometime “benefit” from this AETA. Even in the case of “protecting” the nation’s interest in the “food” supply — or other “benefits” of “animal products”… But the AETA will never represent “our” group. We have no “interests” in this law. It’s unacceptable that our political/legal system has denied an entire segment of its citizens from “equal” advantage of “law”.

The AETA is an arbitrary and dangerous bit of pro-corporate, anti-liberty legislation… It should be disturbing to anyone whether or not they are for “animal rights”.

The one problem w/ this analysis is it crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Sentencing guidelines vary from state to state and from those states and the federal government. Plus, since the Booker decision, judges have been given some discretion to not sentence strictly to the guidelines, so dates on these sentences also matter. A better analysis would be federal cases only (such as doing a monetary crime like Madoff versus Marie Mason’s sentence etc) or a specific state (as in Oregon state cases only).

Last, there is a saying in prison: “do the crime you do the time.” Complaining about differences in sentences does not go over well in the prison population. What progressives should be about is examining the whole issue of prisons, the large incarceration rates in America, and treatment of all prisoners, rather than focusing on what is a systematic problem of unjust sentences. Even Bernie Madoff can complain that he received too long of a sentence compared to others…

Ah, but there is the judgment of your analysis. You are determining what is “worse,” which is why we should focus on the whole criminal/prison system rather than on specific individuals with specific sentences. And trust me, I know a lot about the “injustices” of sentencing disparities and proportionality. But at some point an individual must understand short of appealing, there is not much that can be done until the whole “system” is changed. While I may agree arson is not as bad as murder, there is an argument to be made that all crime is political and hence, making those kinds of judgments is not appropriate. Just some thoughts.

Excellent blog, Will. A few years ago, I was at a Dave Rovics anti-war gig in Ireland and he got us to sing a protest song that he and others were arrested for singing in the States at a concert. It was clearly a tongue in cheek song about consumerism and soulless shopping malls, yet the arrested were accused of inciting terrorist act. So you can’t sing a clearly satirical song about destroying shopping malls without being arrested, but you can legally bring an assualt rifle to a presidential speech. The mind boggles.

The level of punishment seems extreme, but repeatedly harassing someone does not sound like the actions of a saint either. If it is clear their actions were harassment, they should be punished.