Man sentenced to 30 months in prison after “lasering” two aircraft in 201

Under new law, people who fire lasers at aircraft can face up to 10 years in prison.

Read the whole story

 

[Sorbitol]

Buddy of mine was at a star party a few months ago and was using a 100mW green laser to point out objects in the sky (one of several people doing so). This was well away from town down in the swamps and miles away from the airport. Cops swooped in with 6 cars like it was some kind of terrorist camp and almost arrested everyone. No pilots were harmed during the observation of Andromeda.

Overboard?

No, not at all. Whatever you consider "miles away from the airport" is likely quite close in aviation terms. Airliners travel around 250 mph coming in for landing, and even a Cessna flies at 120 mph or so. This means an airliner 5 - 10 minutes from landing could still be 20 - 40 miles away from the airport.

If the police responded, it was likely because a pilot noticed and reported it. This distracted the pilot for a minute or so and tied up time on the perpetually congested ATC frequencies. All because your buddy was being irresponsible and not watching where he pointed the thing. He's lucky he did not get arrested.

A 100 mW laser is ridiculously over-the-top, by the way, which makes his carelessness doubly serious. That is 20x the FDA safety limit for a laser pointer. My 5 mW green laser has a perfectly visible beam at night.

Yeah, 100 mW is nice to have for at home experiments and star charting.
I kind of wish that I purchased a 300 mW one before the crackdown ban.
You can still find them, however. But they are much more the cost than they were.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

One thing I find consistently stunning when I read articles about people going to jail in the US is how prison is seen as a way for society to take vengeance on criminals, along with the talk about minimum sentences, as if politicians knew a judge's job better than a judge. (In my view, and in the Supreme Court of Canada's view as well, minimal sentences are a violation of the boundaries between legislative powers and judicial powers.) The general feeling is "you have been stupid, so now we're going to make you miserable for years," and quite frankly I don't see where this is leading.

It actually is the job of the legislature to assign sentences to criminal actions; the justice system cannot create laws, after all, nor can they arbitrarily assign penalties to them.

It is a means of society punishing criminals. It is also a means of preventing criminals from committing more crimes - it is worth noting that since the US started imprisoning more and more people, the crime rate here HAS actually dropped, possibly in part due to the single fact that a fairly high percentage of criminals are actually in jail. I mean, if you get rid of all the criminals, who commits crimes?

This guy is obviously not a danger to society anymore and yet you still want him inside for almost three years. He's not going to do it again, and I'm pretty sure he didn't need 30 months of prison to learn that (let alone 10 years). This is much more likely to make him a worse person than he his right now, and I don't understand what he or society is gaining from that.

How is this guy not a danger to society? How much of "I'm sorry" is because he is going to jail and knows that being sorry will make him suffer less? If he was SORRY he would have turned himself in. He didn't.

Will his stint in prison make him a better person? Maybe, maybe not. He knows now what the punishment is for recklessly putting the lives of other people in danger for shits and giggles.

But people talk about rehabilitating criminals, but in truth, well...

People often point to countries like Sweden as model countries. Relapse rate within 3 years in Sweden? Per their government, 41%. That is comparable to the US rate in 1999 (45.4%) and 2004 (43.3%), per Pew Trusts' study on the matter, which appears to be considered reliable by the US government. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/ ... ons%20.pdf

So... well, that suggests that for all the pretty words that the Swedes have about their system, it isn't any better than the US system at preventing criminals from falling back into crime.

Its also interesting to note that some people are chronic criminals, at least in Sweden (10% of reoffenders commit 29% of the offenses committed by reoffenders), suggesting that locking those people up and throwing away the key is not a bad strategy.

It also suggests that our attempt at spending more money on corrections and rehabilitating prisoners has failed, as the rate appears to be fairly constant, suggesting that rehabilitation programs are unsuccessful and a waste of money as-is - at least as far as avoiding reoffense goes (it may be successful at averting post-imprisonment poverty).

 

[openaperture]

What are these things useful for? The wicked laser site just had pictures of dorks pretending to be jedi.

 

[jasonvalhalla]

You gotta wonder why guys do this kinda thing. Like when someone built a sand castle on the beach. Everybody admires it, but a 12-year-old boy just feels the urge to kick it in.
We have this destructive element in us, where we just like to see what happens when we break something.

 

[Sorbitol]

Now that I think of it, any powerful laser should be obtainable to anyone who has a license to use it and an actual use.
Same thing with people wanting to fly long range uav's from their basement.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

And the long and short of it is that if you want to be able to buy these things, then the tradeoff is that the misuse of them is a "big boy" crime. Because plane crashes are a "big deal."

The number of "laser attacks" per year in California alone: 3500

The number of plane crashes caused by "laser attacks" worldwide ever: 0

So it would seem that there is very strong evidence that this is not the super-danger that this thread, and these laws, make it out to be. Right? Because that's what the data clearly demonstrates.

For more perspective, consider that police helicopters shine 40 million candlepower Night Sun spotlights on people all the time, even cars being driven at high speeds. I've yet to see anyone complaining about this as anything more than a nuisance to their sleep.

I find it more than a little ironic that this same site hosts an article about video game and violence where everyone says it's not an issue, but then turns around and claims this is super dangerous when the evidence is even stronger and more obvious that it's not.

I'm sure this will result in all sorts of brainless "it only takes one" posts, but the data is the data. As a pilot and someone that's had his fair share of laser-in-the-eye events, I cannot escape the feeling that this is simply the latest moral panic.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

People often point to countries like Sweden as model countries. Relapse rate within 3 years in Sweden? Per their government, 41%. That is comparable to the US rate in 1999 (45.4%) and 2004 (43.3%), per Pew Trusts' study on the matter, which appears to be considered reliable by the US government. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/ ... ons%20.pdf

So... well, that suggests that for all the pretty words that the Swedes have about their system, it isn't any better than the US system at preventing criminals from falling back into crime.

No, what it suggests is that the US puts lots of non-criminals in jail.

In any statistical analysis, the very first thing you do is throw out the high and low outliers. That's because they tend to skew the results.

The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world, and *by far* the highest in the western world. For comparison, the US has almost 750 people in jail for every 100,000 citizens, while right next door in Canada it's 140, and in Mexico, in the midst of a nation-wide drug war, it's 206. These are within the normal range for the "western world", the US is an extreme outlier, worldwide.

So what the data actually illustrates is that US jails are filled with people that aren't really criminals, are unlikely to offend, and likely wouldn't be considered offenders in any other country. In contrast, most countries prisons are filled with violent career criminals. Among which group would one expect a higher recidivism rate?

 

[Maury Markowitz]

"In the US 1600s, e.g at Old Newgate Prison, near Granby, CT, the practice of intentional blinding was routinely used. This blinding can be done by passing a red hot iron before the eyes and even if the eyelids remain tightly closed, the infrared radiation will go through and burn out the retina's permanently blinding the person."

Interesting. Especially because Old Newgate Prison didn't open until 1773. One suspects the entire claim. Especially when it can only be found in a Wiki talk page about how the passage in question was added by an anon user with no documentation to back it up.

 

[Ragnarredbeard]

I wonder how practical it is to fit laser filters to cockpit windows? Or is it a good idea for pilots to wear some kind of eye protection?

Admittedly, most of my experience with lasers is from the military, but filters are very specific. Green laser would take one filter, red another, and so on. Typically the filters are built into goggles that the pilot wears. Problem would be that if you wear goggles with both the green and red filters you would be compromsing quit a bit of your visual acuity.

 

[jaderanderson]

Doesn't this powerful lasers emit a IR radiation that can cause blindness?

Why would you point this at other people? Damn...

 

[Deleted member 1]

Sounds just about right for attempted murder.

 

[dfiler]

The number of "laser attacks" per year in California alone: 3500

The number of plane crashes caused by "laser attacks" worldwide ever: 0

So it would seem that there is very strong evidence that this is not the super-danger that this thread, and these laws, make it out to be. Right? Because that's what the data clearly demonstrates.

...

I'm sure this will result in all sorts of brainless "it only takes one" posts, but the data is the data. As a pilot and someone that's had his fair share of laser-in-the-eye events, I cannot escape the feeling that this is simply the latest moral panic.

This was what I was wondering, has there ever actually been an accident or eye damage to a pilot? The interest in this isn't meant as criticism but rather an honest attempt to gauge what is going on.

Pointing lasers at people is definitely unneeded danger and something which should be illegal and prosecuted, especially when pointed at someone operating a vehicle. But is the outrage seen in some of our comments truly warranted?

It seems likely that beautiful women walking on the sidewalk pose greater danger. Seriously, I have personally witnessed multiple crashes caused by drivers ogling someone they found attractive. Granted, the analogy is poor because there is justification to look good beyond causing car accidents. But it does put the magnitude of risk in perspective.

Or perhaps everyone of us who has ever texted even a single word when driving, has done something more dangerous than this idiot with the laser. Or perhaps if you've made multiple phone calls while driving, you may have put more people at risk. It's hard to know because with an exactly-zero rate of damage being done throughout all of human history, it is hard to gauge the relative risk posed by lasers pointed at airplanes. It may be safer than texting while driving...

 

[ZhanMing057]

"Handgun-level" regulation, at the federal level, is pretty loose. It's basically "be 21, buy from a dealer."

Most of the hoops are at the state and local level. Just sayin'.

EDIT: I wasn't thinking. It's more "be 21, and pass a background check if buying from a dealer, or just be 21 and buy from 'some dude' that's willing to sell you one privately." Though there are some other specifics. But it ain't hard, is the point.

So states should make their own laws regulating such devices.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a person can easily cause accidents or seriously injure someone with a high-power laser and get away with it, whereas using a handgun leaves evidence in the form of a bullet.

 

[cmacd]

The number of "laser attacks" per year in California alone: 3500

The number of plane crashes caused by "laser attacks" worldwide ever: 0

So it would seem that there is very strong evidence that this is not the super-danger that this thread, and these laws, make it out to be. Right? Because that's what the data clearly demonstrates.

...

I'm sure this will result in all sorts of brainless "it only takes one" posts, but the data is the data. As a pilot and someone that's had his fair share of laser-in-the-eye events, I cannot escape the feeling that this is simply the latest moral panic.

This was what I was wondering, has there ever actually been an accident or eye damage to a pilot? The interest in this isn't meant as criticism but rather an honest attempt to gauge what is going on.

Pointing lasers at people is definitely unneeded danger and something which should be illegal and prosecuted, especially when pointed at someone operating a vehicle. But is the outrage seen in some of our comments truly warranted?

It seems likely that beautiful women walking on the sidewalk pose greater danger. Seriously, I have personally witnessed multiple crashes caused by drivers ogling someone they found attractive. Granted, the analogy is poor because there is justification to look good beyond causing car accidents. But it does put the magnitude of risk in perspective.

Or perhaps everyone of us who has ever texted even a single word when driving, has done something more dangerous than this idiot with the laser. Or perhaps if you've made multiple phone calls while driving, you may have put more people at risk. It's hard to know because with an exactly-zero rate of damage being done throughout all of human history, it is hard to gauge the relative risk posed by lasers pointed at airplanes. It may be safer than texting while driving...

I'd definitely agree with stiffening the penalties on texting and driving.

However, going back to "the numbers," that danger is actually pretty low as well. What is it, like upwards or 30% in some demographics admit to doing it? Which means millions upon millions of texts each year sent while driving? And yet the total number of crashes is what, in the thousands?

 

[Titanium Dragon]

The number of "laser attacks" per year in California alone: 3500

The number of plane crashes caused by "laser attacks" worldwide ever: 0

Actually, no.

A) 3500 is the total number for the entire US, not California.

B) The level has increased dramatically in recent years; in 2005, the total number was under 300 for the whole US; now it is over 3000 per year.

No one has crashed... but that doesn't mean it isn't very dangerous, either. That's like saying its safe to stay in a swimming pool during a lightning storm because only 70 people die per year of lightning strikes. There are all sorts of safety precautions taken to ensure that one pilot having an issue for whatever reason doesn't cause a plan to crash, which is why none have crashed. and in most cases the lasers do not actually blind the pilots at a critical point.

In other words, you are not very good at evaluating risk.

For more perspective, consider that police helicopters shine 40 million candlepower Night Sun spotlights on people all the time, even cars being driven at high speeds. I've yet to see anyone complaining about this as anything more than a nuisance to their sleep.

This is a bit misleading. 40 million candlepower sounds like a lot (and it is quite bright), but nightsuns are not nearly as concentrated as a laser beam is. The more conentrated the light, the more intense it is. Moreover, with the laser it is like looking directly into the light, as opposed to looking at the reflected light, which is both more diffuse and less bright. Consider that the sun is putting out more than an order of magnitude greater intensity light than a nightsun does. If you look directly at the sun, you will have a spot in your eye, but you won't be blind, though it is distracting. A laser can be brighter than the sun directly in the beam. You can pop colored balloons with a laser, but not by leaving them out in the sun.

This really just shows you don't understand lasers or illumination in general. What's important is the concentration, not the absolute intensity. The moon is far, far, far brighter than a nightsun, but its light is much more diffuse. A laser is far, far less bright than a nightsun, but is far more intense in a narrow beam. It is the intensity which blinds you, not the overall light output.

No, what it suggests is that the US puts lots of non-criminals in jail.

In any statistical analysis, the very first thing you do is throw out the high and low outliers. That's because they tend to skew the results.

You clearly have no idea how to do statistical analysis.

Firstly, anyone who knows anything knows that you don't always throw out outliers because (herp derp) they're data. You figure out why they are outliers and consider whether they are significant before you throw them out; oftentimes they belong in with the rest of the data. Secondly, only a complete retard would throw out the very data that they are working with - if you are dealing with the US, you can't throw out the US as an outlier. Given that we are in fact speaking about the US here, you just proved that you are incompetent to even comment on it.

In any event, the US imprisons tons of people for several reasons:

1) The US actually catches a lot of criminals. US law enforcement is tight; we actually get a lot more criminals than most countries do, as a percentage of crimes committed. For instance, Mexico has a significantly higher crime rate than the US, and yet a significantly lower imprisonment rate in part because many people who commit crimes are never caught.

2) The US has a higher crime rate than China does. China, Japan, and the Koreas all have very low crime rates relative to Western countries. Thus, even though China has a larger population, its imprisonment rate is lower.

3) The US puts criminals in jail for a longer period of time than many other countries do.

Note that non-criminals being in jail isn't one of those reasons. That's because it isn't one. The US's rate of imprisonment of the innocent is quite low - even people who believe that there are massive numbers of innocent people in prison put the rate at no higher than 5%, and most analyses suggest a rate of less than half that.

Moreover, the fact that the US repeat offender rate is the same as Sweden's rate would suggest that, in fact, the prison populations are in fact comparable. If you knew anything about statistics, this would be obvious - the rates being similar indicate no difference in composition.

But of course you can't think that. The US must be imprisoning people for no reason! Except it doesn't.

The idea that US jails are full because of random laws is so bafflingly stupid that it isn't based on reality at all but rather on insane propaganda.

I know many of you guys are rabidly anti-American but maybe you should like, actually think before opening your mouths?

Then again, I suppose that's too much to hope for. If you had that much wisdom, you wouldn't hold the incorrect positions that you do in the first place.

 

[cmacd]

Note that non-criminals being in jail isn't one of those reasons. That's because it isn't one. The US's rate of imprisonment of the innocent is quite low - even people who believe that there are massive numbers of innocent people in prison put the rate at no higher than 5%, and most analyses suggest a rate of less than half that.

I can only assume by "noncriminals" he meant "those that shouldn't be criminals but are." Like nonviolent drug offenders. Which do make up a significant portion of our prison population. If you add nonviolent drug offenders who graduated to more serious crimes after going through the system, the number gets higher.

Thumbs-up to the rest of your post, though.

 

[jb226]

I'm trying, but it's hard to feel sorry for someone who thoughtlessly do something incredibly dangerous like this.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I still find the punishment disproportionate, especially for 19-year-old.

It's not about feeling sorry for somebody. One of my central beliefs regarding the legal system is that justice has to be justice for everybody, and that includes the perpetrator. There's a reason we stopped chopping the hands off of shoplifters; it isn't justice.

Now, I'm not trying to equate a two year sentence with chopping off somebody's hand. My point is simply that the punishment has to fit the crime. A two year felony conviction for this? It's going to follow him for life. Every job application he ever fills out is going to ask him if he has ever even been accused of a felony and they're certainly going to take note of a conviction. And two years--even if he's not likely to serve even half that--is hardly a walk in the park.

Some people are going to talk about a deterrent effect, but I don't buy it. If somebody thinks pointing a laser at a plane is a good time, some guy likely to be half a country away getting in trouble for it isn't going to stop it from happening.

It's dangerous. It should be punished. Two years is too much. I believe all of these things.

 

[Techtate]

I'm trying, but it's hard to feel sorry for someone who thoughtlessly do something incredibly dangerous like this. Especially since you bloody Need to see where you are and what you're doing and it's not like you can cover your eyes while both hands are occupied.

It's not just the aircraft, it's the people on the ground as well. If they were held up and guided by magic...

My perspective from being in a family of pilots:

If you gave me a modern aircraft with modern avionics, I could give you 100 people each with a 5mw green laser to point at me from the ground at any time after takeoff or while at altitude and I would never consider my life in danger, the only time it would be truly dangerous to me is while landing, not because I need to see outside the aircraft, but because I may not be able to shield my eyes with lots of people trying to blind me while I am that low and possibly close to the people pointing lasers at me.

Now consider one man with a laser pointer. How do you think pilots can fly when flying into the sun. They block it one way or another shift their eyes/head, or look elsewhere. Its fairly easy to use a hat to block out direct light from any one source.

If I wrote the law, pointing a low powered laser at an airplane at altitude would be more than a slap on the wrist but not jail time, and not a felony; laser(s) confiscated, $500 fine, community service at the nearest airport. Doing it to an airplane on the ground, taking off, or landing especially would be more serious with jail time attached. Either way its a no-no, but the punishment should fit the actual amount of danger being introduced by the fool shining the laser.

That being said, if the laser is >5mw then you actually risk damaging someones sight, something like a 200mw laser to me would actually be a threat because even flashing me with it @2000 meters could cause eye damage. Thus it leaves the realm of temporary annoyance/distraction into the realm of assault.

If you are still unconvinced, find a pilot and ask them if he/she thinks their life would be in danger from a person with a standard 5mw laser pointer pointing it at his aircraft while he was climbing to or at altitude.

 

[NotAnAnthem]

I was living in student dorms in 2002 and a small private plane crashed, engulfed in flame outside my building, maybe 40 feet away from the door.

It eventually came out that it was a private pilot who was having fuel troubles and tried to find a safe place to land, finding the field next to our dorm, but due to the terrible lighting and winter he couldn't land safely and died, trying to avoid any populated area and setting his plane down.

I can't even imagine how terrifying it would be to go BLIND in a plane or aircraft. I don't know how to deter people from doing things like this other than serious sentencing. I don't like it but this is really serious.

 

[Ironicending]

I saw a comment earlier about the number of accidents caused by lasers being 0 but I have to wonder...how would be able to tell that a laser caused the accident?

Im glad Ars is bringing these types of articles to my attention because I didn't know this was an issue.

It has me wondering how many times a pilot crashed a plan and the accident was ruled human error. Was this often actually the result of an idiot shining a laser? Is there some kind of device on a plane that can tell us if this was the case?

I am not a pilot and know little about lasers or avionics so I am curious. What I have heard is a lot of stories about how easy it is for even experienced pilots to become disoriented without lasers because as far as i can tell, flying requires an insane amount of hardwork and concentration.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

This seems like something incredibly easy to do for a punishments this harsh.

Wat?

This isn't the Olympics. Sentencing isn't based on degree of difficulty.

 

[dfiler]

I saw a comment earlier about the number of accidents caused by lasers being 0 but I have to wonder...how would be able to tell that a laser caused the accident?

Im glad Ars is bringing these types of articles to my attention because I didn't know this was an issue.

It has me wondering how many times a pilot crashed a plan and the accident was ruled human error. Was this often actually the result of an idiot shining a laser? Is there some kind of device on a plane that can tell us if this was the case?

I am not a pilot and know little about lasers or avionics so I am curious. What I have heard is a lot of stories about how easy it is for even experienced pilots to become disoriented without lasers because as far as i can tell, flying requires an insane amount of hardwork and concentration.

We should be careful with assumptions. All airplane crashes are investigated, at least in relatively wealthy nations. Pilots are capable of sending out a distress call immediately if they are in trouble. As of yet, there hasn't been any evidence of lasers leading to an airplane crash. I'm not even aware of any pilots suffering vision loss. The article mentions temporary impairment. But who knows what that means. Is that like when you look into the headlights of an oncoming car and ability to see in the dark is limited until the pupils dilate again?

Keep in mind that, other than takeoff and landing, flying an aircraft is actually easier than driving a car. There's nothing to run into. You can even walk away from the controls most of the time.

This isn't justifying shining laasers at planes, but rather attempting to characterize the risk involved. When the rate of damage is precisely zero, it is hard to gauge the true risk. All we have to work with is an unknown chance of something bad happening. We don't know how many drunk teens and college students are like "hey let me shine this at that plane up there, oh nothing happened, beer!" I could have sworn I witnessed that exact scenario at some point while in school. So not only do we not know the likelyhood of resultant crashes, we don't know how many attempted lasings there are.

 

[atergo]

I'm a firm believer in suspended sentences.

This guy did something stupid. Give him 30 months, suspend it after six. If he gets in any more trouble, he gets an automatic 2 years, plus whatever for the new charges.

Six months is long enough to learn that jail/prison is bad, without necessarily ruining his life.

 

[thekaj]

When the rate of damage is precisely zero, it is hard to gauge the true risk. All we have to work with is an unknown chance of something bad happening.

Not really. We know that flashing any laser in a person's eye will cause them to experience flash blindness. The more intense the laser, the longer the duration could be. We know that landings are pretty much the most risky part of a flight, requiring a great deal of concentration on the pilot's part. I don't think it's all that difficult to associate the two together and assume a high degree of risk in pointing a laser at an aircraft, especially as I believe I've seen data that notes that the vast majority of laserings take place near airports when planes are taking off and landing.

This isn't a case where the effects are unknown. You successfully shine a laser into a cockpit window, you could easily blind a pilot when they're performing a critical maneuver. That there aren't any recorded incidents of plane crashes due to this doesn't seem like a reason why it shouldn't be considered a very dangerous crime, because frankly, waiting to see if a 747 ever goes down in a residential neighborhood thanks to a laser flash, so we can have data on how serious it is, doesn't seem like a good tactic.

On the different topic of maximum sentencing rules, I am totally going to bookmark this Popehat article explaining how shitty it is for journalists to only report a maximum possible sentence, and why people shouldn't go all ape shit when they see the max sentence reported and assume that it's even remotely possible that some first-time offender will get it.

 

[dfiler]

I'm a firm believer in suspended sentences.

This guy did something stupid. Give him 30 months, suspend it after six. If he gets in any more trouble, he gets an automatic 2 years, plus whatever for the new charges.

Six months is long enough to learn that jail/prison is bad, without necessarily ruining his life.

Yep, it isn't like a drunk kid with a laser is going to be more deterred by the remote chance a prison sentence of 30 months rather than the remote possibility of 6 months. When people are doing something like this, it is typically just naive stupidity.

It might make some people feel good to punish the guy with a long prison sentence, but it is actually counter productive. Spending time in prison will turn a naive idiot into a genuine criminal. It changes their personality and perspective on life. Putting someone like him in jail for a lengthy period makes all of us more likely to be victimized when a criminal emerges after that sentence and goes onto a life of crime.

With that said, I'm not knowledgeable about the specifics and if this guy was just casually stupid or pathologically dangerous. If truly dangerous, yeah a long sentence is warranted. However if he is just stupid and young, making him live with with real criminals for 30 months is the best way to ensure that he too becomes real criminal that is pathologically dangerous.

The same dilemma exists with many crimes. What is the appropriate prison sentence as a deterrence with an understanding that sending people to prison makes them more likely to engage in future crimes. It is a complicated equation that I can only haphazardly guess at.

 

[atergo]

I'm a firm believer in suspended sentences.

This guy did something stupid. Give him 30 months, suspend it after six. If he gets in any more trouble, he gets an automatic 2 years, plus whatever for the new charges.

Six months is long enough to learn that jail/prison is bad, without necessarily ruining his life.

Yep, it isn't like a drunk kid with a laser is going to be more deterred by the remote chance a prison sentence of 30 months rather than the remote possibility of 6 months. When people are doing something like this, it is typically just naive stupidity.

It might make some people feel good to punish the guy with a long prison sentence, but it is actually counter productive. Spending time in prison will turn a naive idiot into a genuine criminal. It changes their personality and perspective on life. Putting someone like him in jail for a lengthy period makes all of us more likely to be victimized when a criminal emerges after that sentence and goes onto a life of crime.

With that said, I'm not knowledgeable about the specifics and if this guy was just casually stupid or pathologically dangerous. If truly dangerous, yeah a long sentence is warranted. However if he is just stupid and young, making him live with with real criminals for 30 months is the best way to ensure that he too becomes real criminal that is pathologically dangerous.

The same dilemma exists with many crimes. What is the appropriate prison sentence as a deterrence with an understanding that sending people to prison makes them more likely to engage in future crimes. It is a complicated equation that I can only haphazardly guess at.

Well, for one, put him in a county lockup, not a federal prison with die-hard inmates.

 

[dfiler]

When the rate of damage is precisely zero, it is hard to gauge the true risk. All we have to work with is an unknown chance of something bad happening.

Not really. We know that flashing any laser in a person's eye will cause them to experience flash blindness. The more intense the laser, the longer the duration could be. We know that landings are pretty much the most risky part of a flight, requiring a great deal of concentration on the pilot's part. I don't think it's all that difficult to associate the two together and assume a high degree of risk in pointing a laser at an aircraft, especially as I believe I've seen data that notes that the vast majority of laserings take place near airports when planes are taking off and landing.

This isn't a case where the effects are unknown. You successfully shine a laser into a cockpit window, you could easily blind a pilot when they're performing a critical maneuver. That there aren't any recorded incidents of plane crashes due to this doesn't seem like a reason why it shouldn't be considered a very dangerous crime, because frankly, waiting to see if a 747 ever goes down in a residential neighborhood thanks to a laser flash, so we can have data on how serious it is, doesn't seem like a good tactic.

On the different topic of maximum sentencing rules, I am totally going to bookmark this Popehat article explaining how shitty it is for journalists to only report a maximum possible sentence, and why people shouldn't go all ape shit when they see the max sentence reported and assume that it's even remotely possible that some first-time offender will get it.

What you are describing is a good characterization of the type of risk. What we don't know is the actually frequency of lasers pointed at plains nor the likelihood of one of those consequences coming true.

This is an important distinction in order to have a productive conversation. Saying the likelihood of disaster is unknown is not the same thing as saying that nothing should be done about it.

 

[dfiler]

Well, for one, put him in a county lockup, not a federal prison with die-hard inmates.

Good point. Do we know where he will be imprisoned for those 30 months?

 

[porypt]

I'm trying, but it's hard to feel sorry for someone who thoughtlessly do something incredibly dangerous like this. Especially since you bloody Need to see where you are and what you're doing and it's not like you can cover your eyes while both hands are occupied.

It's not just the aircraft, it's the people on the ground as well. If they were held up and guided by magic...

I don't get it. Why are you even trying to feel sorry?

 

[thekaj]

What you are describing is a good characterization of the type of risk. What we don't know is the actually frequency of lasers pointed at plains nor the likelihood of one of those consequences coming true.

This is an important distinction in order to have a productive conversation. Saying the likelihood of disaster is unknown is not the same thing as saying that nothing should be done about it.

I guess I just don't know what the point would be in trying to determine the risk of "successfully" blinding a pilot to the point of causing them to crash their plane. It's immaterial as to whether it's a 1 in 6,000 chance or a 1 in 6,000,000 chance, as that one incident ends up killing people. On the other hand, there is ZERO benefit to a civilian aiming a laser at a plane. So if you're trying to set up some sort of risk/benefit equation, you can't divide by zero. The risk, no matter how remote, are infinitely worse than the benefits to aiming a laser at a plane.

 

[dfiler]

What you are describing is a good characterization of the type of risk. What we don't know is the actually frequency of lasers pointed at plains nor the likelihood of one of those consequences coming true.

This is an important distinction in order to have a productive conversation. Saying the likelihood of disaster is unknown is not the same thing as saying that nothing should be done about it.

I guess I just don't know what the point would be in trying to determine the risk of "successfully" blinding a pilot to the point of causing them to crash their plane. It's immaterial as to whether it's a 1 in 6,000 chance or a 1 in 6,000,000 chance, as that one incident ends up killing people. On the other hand, there is ZERO benefit to a civilian aiming a laser at a plane. So if you're trying to set up some sort of risk/benefit equation, you can't divide by zero. The risk, no matter how remote, are infinitely worse than the benefits to aiming a laser at a plane.

The likelihood of death or injury most certainly does matter when evaluating the legality and appropriate punishment for dangerous behavior. It is a fundamental principle of all legal systems and most philosophies of morality.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

The same dilemma exists with many crimes. What is the appropriate prison sentence as a deterrence with an understanding that sending people to prison makes them more likely to engage in future crimes. It is a complicated equation that I can only haphazardly guess at.

There's really no evidence to suggest that being imprisoned makes you more likely to commit crimes, versus that being more likely to commit crimes makes you more likely to wind up in prison. The latter is certain - we know that there is a causative relationship between being more likely to commit crimes and being more likely to end up in prison. We don't know that being in prison is actually a catalyst for crime though, and in fact it probably isn't.

Well, for one, put him in a county lockup, not a federal prison with die-hard inmates.

Not everyone who commits a federal crime is a "die hard inmate". Remember, tax evasion is a federal crime as well. You won't be in with good people (tax evaders are a special kind of evil, as are people who defraud the federal government), but the idea that everyone in federal prison is there because they murdered a government agent is false.

The likelihood of death or injury most certainly does matter when evaluating the legality and appropriate punishment for dangerous behavior. It is a fundamental principle of all legal systems and most philosophies of morality.

The likelihood of being caught is also a factor as well, though.

 

[atergo]

Not everyone who commits a federal crime is a "die hard inmate". Remember, tax evasion is a federal crime as well. You won't be in with good people (tax evaders are a special kind of evil, as are people who defraud the federal government), but the idea that everyone in federal prison is there because they murdered a government agent is false.

I never said it was true. However, if you put a 19 year old in a federal prison, how do you keep him from coming into contact with those die hard criminals?

 

[FoolzGold]

its a good think his name is not Waleed or Ammar, he would be donning an orange jump suit,and on a one way trip to Cuba.

 

[Fluppeteer]

I own a 50mW laser pointer that I use for pointing out constellations in astronomy. Not being a psychopath, I'm very careful that there isn't a plane in the way. I also own a 200mW laser. With that, I'd be extraordinarily careful if I were to point in at the sky - I'm not sure whether it's better or worse that I know the beam isn't focussed very well (it only pops balloons at close range - I actually got it to persuade a friend of not to use a 5mW laser as a presentation pointer). These things are useful, but if you're very unlucky then you don't need much exposure to blind someone, maybe permanently.

People who actively point one of these at a person, especially a person in charge of a vehicle, and especially when that vehicle has a large number of passengers, can only be trying to cause an accident or injury, just like dropping bricks onto a passing cars on a motorway, as a previous poster pointed out. You don't get to be "a bit stupid" when you're actively trying to cause other people to die, even if you're at a disconnect and can't see them. 19 is plenty old enough to know better and to think through the repercussions, and the press might stop an unwise parent from buying one of these for a five-year-old who genuinely isn't mature enough to act sensibly. I've no sympathy at all.

 

[180CS]

It costs about $80,000 on average to imprison someone for 2.5 years. Make that $100,000 if you're in California...

So let me get this straight - we're going to spend up to a hundred grand and take away 2-3 years of someones life because they weren't smart enough to know that thousands of feet up in the air, a laser beam will diffract causing the beam to expand thousands of time in size and pose a danger to pilots?

We passed legislation on how to punish someone for this, but didn't think to include a part about only selling them to people who understand the risk of owning one, instead of any thirteen year old with 10 bucks to blow on eBay? If we can regulate the sale of alcohol and tobacco online, we can regulate high powered laser pointers.

Yes, this person is an idiot, but so are the other 75% of Americans who haven't ever even been to college. Why not solve this through moderate regulation, a lesser first time punishment, and protective eye wear such as what one pilot mentioned in the article was wearing? Personally I think this would save a whole lot of time and money.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

So let me get this straight - we're going to spend up to a hundred grand and take away 2-3 years of someones life because they weren't smart enough to know that thousands of feet up in the air, a laser beam will diffract causing the beam to expand thousands of time in size and pose a danger to pilots?

Lasers have warnings on them to avoid eye contact with them. Modern ones also have warnings not to shine them at aircraft. There have been numerous cases of this in the news, and in any case, ignorance of the law is no excuse - if you're too stupid to realize "derp this might be dangerous" then you're probably too stupid to exist in society.

He claims he didn't know it was dangerous... but a lot of them claim that. Or claim some other ridiculous excuse.

We passed legislation on how to punish someone for this, but didn't think to include a part about only selling them to people who understand the risk of owning one, instead of any thirteen year old with 10 bucks to blow on eBay? If we can regulate the sale of alcohol and tobacco online, we can regulate high powered laser pointers.

Lasers are not especially dangerous, and restricting their sales isn't going to solve the problem. Sure, you could license them like you do guns... but that's probably a lot of work for little reward.

Yes, this person is an idiot, but so are the other 75% of Americans who haven't ever even been to college. Why not solve this through moderate regulation, a lesser first time punishment, and protective eye wear such as what one pilot mentioned in the article was wearing? Personally I think this would save a whole lot of time and money.

A) Going to college doesn't make you less of an idiot; a lot of people who go to college are morons, and there are people who don't go to college who aren't stupid.

B) Protective eye wear not only impairs visibility but also doesn't actually work; it can only protect from limited wavelengths of lasers, but a laser can be of any wavelength.

C) You do get a lighter sentence the first time you do it. That's why he only got sentenced to 30 months.

 

[David Gilbertson]

After reading the story, I Googled this upstanding citizen. You can't tell me his YouTube page isn't pretty damn funny.

http://www.youtube.com/user/adamgardenhire