Initially my thoughts were "good riddance" and I was glad that finally an authority did something about these all too common jerks. Especially since he claimed to have a knive. I´m not too clear on wether he had it or not, though.
But then I started thinking that life in prison is excessive. Particulary since he uttered the threat while intoxicated. Maybe a decade would be enough, but life?
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14149 times:
If he had simply been drunk and disorderly he might have received a lesser sentence. But he did claim to have a knife and threaten to "hijack" the aircraft. Creating a false belief and fear is a serious matter.
But in India, depending on any minimum term direction given by the judge, a life sentence may only mean a term of 14 years as a convict becomes eligible for parole. I expect that his lawyers will be lodging an appeal.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 4): It almost sounds like the sentence ... is life in India.
LOL. I thought the same thing. I know that life in India (like anywhere else) can be tough but I'd hardly call it a sentence.
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7499 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13832 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 4): Drunk Passenger in India, Sentenced to Life ... might sound better.
Mods, would you please change the title to the above suggestion?
Quoting golfradio (Reply 5): This sentence must be in a lower court and in all probability will not stick. On appeal the sentence will be either commuted to time spent in custody or entirely thrown out.
Good point. Still, I bet the guy is not a happy camper tonight. In Mexico "life" at the most means 60 years for kidnappers, and 40 for the most serious crimes. A long time, still.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 6): If he had simply been drunk and disorderly he might have received a lesser sentence. But he did claim to have a knife and threaten to "hijack" the aircraft. Creating a false belief and fear is a serious matter.
Yes. I think making the claim that he had a knife and the threat to hijack make this much more significant than simply being "unruly" Still, I find life to be too much. Not knowing the rules in India, of course. Intoxication should be a mitigating factor I would imagine.
I have no sympathy for the guy, mind you. But I just think life is too much.
brahmin From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 13600 times:
The three strikes law is not a Federal law. it is a state law.
Three strikes law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the criminal justice law. For Internet disconnection policy, see Graduated response. For other uses of the term "Three Strikes", see Three Strikes (disambiguation).
Three Strikes Laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which mandates state courts to impose 25 years to life sentences on persons convicted of three or more serious criminal offenses. In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses and typically the defendant is given the possibility of parole with their life sentence. These statutes became very popular in the 1990s. Twenty-four states have some form of habitual offender laws.
The name comes from baseball, where a batter is permitted two strikes before striking out on the third.
The three strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. Violent and serious felonies are specifically listed in state laws. Violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or murder.
The practice of imposing longer prison sentences on repeat offenders (versus first-time offenders who commit the same crime) is nothing new, as judges often take into consideration prior offenses when sentencing. However, there is a more recent history of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders. For example, New York State has a Persistent Felony Offender law that dates back to the late 19th century. But such sentences were not compulsory in each case, and judges had much more discretion as to what term of incarceration should be imposed.
The first true "three strikes" law was passed in 1993, when Washington state voters approved Initiative 593. California passed its own in 1994, when their voters passed Proposition 184 by an overwhelming majority, with 72% in favor and 28% against. The initiative proposed to the voters had the title of Three Strikes and You're Out, referring to de facto life imprisonment after being convicted of three felonies.
The concept swiftly spread to other states, but none of them chose to adopt a law as sweeping as California's. By 2004, twenty-six states and the federal government had laws that satisfy the general criteria for designation as "three strikes" statutes — namely, that a third felony conviction brings a sentence of life in prison, with no parole possible until a long period of time, most commonly twenty-five years, has been served.
Enactment by states
The following states have enacted three strike laws:
In 1974: Texas PF Chap 12 shows the 3 strike law only changed the charge to a federal crime. Unlike the following states, where three convictions meant automatic life inprisonment
In 1993: Washington
In 1994: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota, and Louisiana
In 1995: Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin
In 1996: Florida, Tennessee,and Virginia
In 2006: Arizona
In 2012: Massachusetts
They are formally known among lawyers and legal academics as habitual offender laws. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment. A person accused under such laws is referred to in a few states (notably Connecticut and Kansas) as a "persistent offender," while Missouri uses the unique term "prior and persistent offender." These terms are used even though all of the offenses could occur in one incident.
The exact application of the three strikes laws varies considerably from state to state. Some states require all three felony convictions to be for violent crimes in order for the mandatory sentence to be pronounced, while California mandates the enhanced sentence for any third felony conviction so long as the first two felonies were deemed to be either "violent" or "serious," or both.
Effects in California
Violent crime, but especially homicide, has fallen in the Los Angeles area, as well as other areas of the southland—Los Angeles's 2010 homicide count was 297, less than a third of the 1992 high of 1,000 homicides. However, this may just be a correlation and not causal, as violent crime has also fallen in other areas of California where the three strikes law is not enforced. It should also be noted that punishments for homicides are extremely harsh, resulting in extremely long sentences, life sentences without the possibility of parole or even the death penalty, even for the first conviction, overshadowing any deterrent effect of the three strikes law.
However, there is some evidence that criminals on their last strike are more desperate to escape from police and therefore more likely to attack police. This does not reveal whether or not the criminals in question were or were not more desperate and willing to kill prior to their last strike.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 15571 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13517 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Since this was a hijacking scenario, while harsh, I understand the sentence. Note: I do not think being drunk is an excuse for anything other than sleeping with a person 'below one's normal standards' or puking in trash cans.
Quoting AR385 (Reply 9): I have no sympathy for the guy, mind you. But I just think life is too much.
Understood, but how would you have felt if your family were there? If this was the individual's first offense, I agree. But if the person had a prior history... No sympathy and no worries.
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 2):
If it were his third felony in many US jurisdictions...
By the time someone has committed 3 felonies they have been convicted of, there is typically a few dozen they got away with. I don't care if the 3rd felony is minor, anyone convicted of a felony *after* two priors is not worth worrying about.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 6): a life sentence may only mean a term of 14 years as a convict becomes eligible for parole. I expect that his lawyers will be lodging an appeal.
I hope he has better lawyers for the appeal.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7499 posts, RR: 41
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13477 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 14): Understood, but how would you have felt if your family were there?
It really should not matter how I feel, though, should it? I would probably hate the guy, of course, and I´m glad I´m not in that position, but the justice system is what it is. Maybe in some countries they take into account the familiy´s feelings but not in most other places I´m familiar with. The law hands down sentences pretty coldly without thinking about anything else but what is written in the code.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 14): If this was the individual's first offense, I agree. But if the person had a prior history... No sympathy and no worries.
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2999 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13011 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18): Life for wielding a knife? One cannot be sentenced what "could" have happened, one can only be sentenced for what actaully happened.
This ruling is ridiculous. One can argue about what he would have got in Germany - 2 years on probation, but life?
This is way overboard.
What's next, prison for thought crimes?
Not excusing what he did, which was absolutely stupid, but come on.
Are those people who were trying to take over that plane in TRV all gonna go to the slammer for life as well?
Don't forget, they were actually physically moving towards the cockpit and NOT drunk (from what is reported at least). That seems a lot worse of an offense to me.
BTW, how did that guy manage to get a plane on to the plane... just sayin'.
Nimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3394 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12663 times:
Seems like the judge went overboard here - I understand zero tolerance and advocate it highly - that could have been in the form of lifetime ban from taking any flight or train or public transport (for instance), coupled with a couple of years of jail time. But a life sentence seems like an overkill, that is given to convicted murderers in India - and in this case there were no deaths (thankfully).
Accidentally From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 647 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10893 times:
Just wanted to say that this punishment is incredibly excessive. He surely deserved some kind of punishment, but geez this is nuts. I think this kind of thing happens often here in the US too...life sentences for being caught with marijuana, but a child rapist gets ten years. Absolutely crazy.
Cricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2994 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8686 times:
Quoting Nimish (Reply 20): Seems like the judge went overboard here - I understand zero tolerance and advocate it highly - that could have been in the form of lifetime ban from taking any flight or train or public transport (for instance), coupled with a couple of years of jail time. But a life sentence seems like an overkill, that is given to convicted murderers in India - and in this case there were no deaths (thankfully).
The Delhi High Court gave this judgement, it is likely that the Supreme Court will reduce it, but couple it with a lifetime flying ban. The guy was returning to DEL from GOI on a 6E flight was more than a little tipsy and apparently loudly announced that he was a part of the IC 814 hijackers, as good as saying that you are a Taliban terrorist IMHO and also claimed that he had infected needles. Given that hit-and-run drivers get out in four years most of the time, this is overkill. But while the judgement could well get reduced this headline will put wannabe idiots who say such things in their place.
Every few weeks there are cases of people calling up airlines in India claiming there are 'bombs' on board - often disgruntled idiots who missed their flights (sometimes former lovers have called claiming their ex-partner is a terrorist) and I believe these clowns ought to be put in prison for a while as well.
asctty From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8398 times:
One thing for everyone to remember - You have to consider what will happen if you break the law in the presiding country. Behave whilst you are abroad or suffer the consequences, even if they are considered to be extreme by your home standards. It is OK to have a drink before boarding and on the plane, but if the crew consider that you are putting the other PAX at risk stand by for some severe punishment. Life in jail is of course a bit much, but what should the tariff be? That's up to the country where you are arrested.
: Probably to set an example so others are deffered from trying out the same.
: The life sentence made the headlines. By the time the sentence gets reduced, the media will have moved on. An excellent way to send a message to the p
: Yes, but you should consider how this headline falls back on India in the world media. There must be something wrong with the court system in India if
: He was not sentenced for what could have happened - he was sentenced for threatening a hijacking, which has severe penalties considering the threat I
: while at diminished responsibility and the keyword is "threatening" . He did not know what he was talking about.. In simple words, it does not count.
: This can happen in the United States too. Attempted Homicide is a convictable offense here. Shame that logic doesn't have flip side here. Sure would
: This guy was "threatening", not "attempting". He did not injure anyone.
: Right. Without actually being on that flight we don't know what he said, but I don't think it is far fetched to assume that the threat lacked suffici
: I agree that the sentence does appear a bit steep but as I pointed out above, life does not mean life as parole usually means a much shorter term and
: totally agree just what i was thinking...make an example of this guy and wen the court (supreme) hears the judgement i will be surpised if its more t
: I love that understatement would you agree with me, that this drunkard, in Germany and most other European countries, would not serve a single day in
: Guilty of a classical education,as charged, M'Lud. That would surely depend on whether the prosecuting sergeant was wanting to get home early to watc
: In the US they could have even sent him off to Guantanamo. Europe might be chilled out, but other than the UK you folks haven't really known what it
: Try Spain or Italy (back in the 80's). They had their fair share of bombings... So has Germany for that matter. But those incidents happen more or les
: An interesting comment and when earlier today I did a search for reportage in the West, not a single newspaper had picked this case up. Indeed, some
: While I do agree that the sentence in this case is way exaggerated, the sentences pronounced in Western Europe are often a bad joke. Like that rapist
: The penalty for communicating information which potentially endangers commercial flight safety is a life sentence as per the law. The judge does not
: That is your opinion. Where you live, according to the law, it may not be an excuse. I don´t know. In many other places it is a mitigating circumsta
: The Drunks should know the laws too, before drinking......The law applies to all.
: This thread will be locked as it generated into an off-topic debate about anything from global warming into a political debate. Any posts added after