Log in

View Full Version : 'eco-terrorist' To Be Given Mandatory Sentence



Osman Ghazi
22nd September 2004, 19:29
Judge Rejects Accused Ecoterrorist's Argument that Arson is Nonviolent

By Brian Carnell

Tuesday, August 3, 2004

A judge this week refused to throw out charges accusing William Jensen Cottrell, 24, of using a destructive device in a violent crime. Cottrell is accused of setting fire to more than 100 sports utility vehicles at a California dealership on behalf of the Earth Liberation Front.

Cottrell was arrested in the crime after an e-mail was sent to the Los Angeles Times complaining that the man originally arrested for that crime, Josh Connole, had no role in the crime and claimed the crime for the Animal Liberation Front. Connole was released three days after his arrest.

That e-mail was traced back to a Caltech computer laboratory. Records of security cards used to gain access to the lab allowed police to narrow down the suspects and eventually to the arrest of Cottrell.

Cottrell is charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson and the use of a destructive device in a violent crime. Cottrell's lawyer filed a number of motions trying to convince the judge to dismiss the last charge, including one claiming that arson is not an inherently violent crime. The judge disagreed, ruling that the crime was clearly one of violence.

Why the focus on one charge? Using a destructive device in a violent crime is a federal felony that carries a mandatory minimum of 30 years in jail.

One of Cottrell's attorneys, Michael Mayock, said that he believes prosecutors are adding that charge in an effort to force Cottrell to agree to a deal. So far, though, according to Cottrell, prosecutors have not offered Cottrell a plea deal.



I'll just say this: when property damage is punished more harshly than murder, something is seriously ed up.

Commie Girl
22nd September 2004, 21:05
Yes, but this is from a country that regularily "over" sentences its citizens. Where else do people get 2 or 3 life sentences plus 50 years?

truthaddict11
22nd September 2004, 22:52
because life sentences arent technically until you die thats why you see some people such as serial killers and mass murders getting 5 or 6 life sentences

LSD
22nd September 2004, 23:12
Mandatory sentences have always been a bad idea.

They take the justice out of sentencing, and are basically just an opportunity for politicans to prove that they're "tough on law and order."

There's a reason that there are judges and juries, and that isn't to sit back and hand out the sentence that Sam Brownback thinks is appropriate for everyone.


But then we all know that even "mandatory minimums" are as subjective as anythings else. I notice that Rush Limbaugh seems to be living quite comforatbly. Think I would get off as easy if I were to go to my local dennys and score me some vicadin....