Page 143 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 143 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
137
It is my view that the punishment available through our present statutory scheme is woefully inadequate to present a meaningful deterrence to those who engage in fraudulent activities.394
Hoaxes are generally considered to be akin to, or associated with false reporting, lying and fraud, so in the absence of swift and appropriate punishment, there will likely be little deterrent effect in any new hoax legislation. The requirement for mandatory minimum sentences and other factors is a necessary to maintain the deterrence as a goal of anti-hoax legislation. According to Supervising Deputy DA Santa Clara County Hames:
Increasing prison terms would be a real plus. It would be society’s recognition that this type of harm is not longer going to be allowed. The numbers are increasing and the deterrent is not adequate. Once these crimes start stabilizing, it will indicate the deterrent is sufficient to meet the crime.395
Part and parcel of the problems associated with deterrence is the latitude available in the criminal courts’ systems. This raises “the sentencer’s dilemma.”396
The sentencer’s dilemma is the quandary of the impact of a non-traditional penalty when there is an expectation of a “normal” penalty. If the sentencer offers leniency in the absence of stated reasons, he is likely to be denounced by a public that expected a greater punishment, and a loss of deterrent effect may result. If the sentencer desires to impose a “harsher than normal” penalty, then he must also provide justification to avoid being considered cruel or biased. 397 In a court system that offers too many options for sentencing, there is an opportunity for the sentencer
394 Rebecca LaVally, Law Enforcement’s View, The Growing Menace of Fraud in California, California Senate Office of Research, Senate Publications, Sacramento, California, December 1994.
395 Ibid.
396 Nigel Walker, Why Punish? Oxford University Press, New York, 1991.
397 Ibid.
Object Description
| Title | An argument for the criminal hoax |
| Author | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Author email | user1963@yahoo.com; teachpolsci@yahoo.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-20 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Wong, Janelle S. Newland, Chester A. |
| Abstract | Hoaxes are part of the fabric of history. While many provide humor and lighthearted joy, the criminal hoax does not. To date, researchers have included aspects of the criminal hoax in larger academic works. This is an original typology that sets forth the criminal hoax as a distinct part of the larger field of law and public policy. This work provides newly created definitions including four distinct categories of hoaxes: the monetary hoax, the attention getter hoax, the hate crime hoax and the racial hoax. It further illustrates these types with actual detailed accounts of hoaxes and provides insights to each one. It makes policy recommendations concerning the four categories of needs: 1. legislative action, 2. a nationwide statistical database of hoax events, 3. media involvement, and 4. law enforcement training and action to deal with criminal hoaxes. Finally, it recommends further research to identify the causes and motivations of vipers. The ultimate goal of this project is to find ways to eliminate criminal hoaxes. |
| Keyword | criminal hoax; hoax categories |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1659 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Pellegrini-2397 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Pellegrini-2397.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 143 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 137 It is my view that the punishment available through our present statutory scheme is woefully inadequate to present a meaningful deterrence to those who engage in fraudulent activities.394 Hoaxes are generally considered to be akin to, or associated with false reporting, lying and fraud, so in the absence of swift and appropriate punishment, there will likely be little deterrent effect in any new hoax legislation. The requirement for mandatory minimum sentences and other factors is a necessary to maintain the deterrence as a goal of anti-hoax legislation. According to Supervising Deputy DA Santa Clara County Hames: Increasing prison terms would be a real plus. It would be society’s recognition that this type of harm is not longer going to be allowed. The numbers are increasing and the deterrent is not adequate. Once these crimes start stabilizing, it will indicate the deterrent is sufficient to meet the crime.395 Part and parcel of the problems associated with deterrence is the latitude available in the criminal courts’ systems. This raises “the sentencer’s dilemma.”396 The sentencer’s dilemma is the quandary of the impact of a non-traditional penalty when there is an expectation of a “normal” penalty. If the sentencer offers leniency in the absence of stated reasons, he is likely to be denounced by a public that expected a greater punishment, and a loss of deterrent effect may result. If the sentencer desires to impose a “harsher than normal” penalty, then he must also provide justification to avoid being considered cruel or biased. 397 In a court system that offers too many options for sentencing, there is an opportunity for the sentencer 394 Rebecca LaVally, Law Enforcement’s View, The Growing Menace of Fraud in California, California Senate Office of Research, Senate Publications, Sacramento, California, December 1994. 395 Ibid. 396 Nigel Walker, Why Punish? Oxford University Press, New York, 1991. 397 Ibid. |
