"In fact, since the defendant has no previous convictions for vandalism that I'm aware of I'm pretty sure the maximum penalty that can be imposed under CA law (CA PC 640.5/6) is community service and a $1000 fine."
seems to imply that at least in this case it is slightly more than "just arithmetic".
This is a human we're talking about, too. Arithmetic, bleh.. speaking of that, if society gets to pay for the ill-meant fuckups of banks, why can't it pay for the well-meant fuckups of individuals?
Who would even mention 13 years, even as a joke, in this context? I think that's my question. I understand that such idle threats are used to get people to give in without trial, and that's bad enough, but in this case, I still can't fathom someone saying or writing it with a straight face. Without stopping to think for a second. That it would not actually come to such a punishment is a small, but not sufficient consolation for me, I'm still puzzled.
A lawyer, to drum up sympathetic media coverage for his client (and increase his own public profile).
a reporter, to get eyeballs on a story.
Seriously, just because you read it on a news site does not mean it is true.
It also means it doesn't, so I don't see your point?
A lawyer, to drum up sympathetic media coverage for his client (and increase his own public profile).
a reporter, to get eyeballs on a story.
Aaaaand: a prosecutor, to intimidate. Just because you leave out an option doesn't mean it's not one.