Page 174 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 174 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
168
indicting vipers. This has led to punishments that are inconsistent and lacking in specificity. Moreover, many hoaxes are not prosecuted in any way because the costs of legal proceedings far outweigh any penalty, fine, or restitution imposed. Some vipers receive a sentence that includes jail, and others get a few hours of community service. In my view, this conveys the wrong message. With the many states and national governments, existing options are too varied to appropriately handle hoax situations as they arise. Legislative action should include greater uniformity by outlawing hoaxes and requiring that both offenses be charged. As this research has demonstrated, all hoaxes are a minimum of two unlawful actions, the hoax and the underlying crime.
Hoaxers give the impression of being self-absorbed. They cause great harm and appear to lack compassion for those caught in their web of deceit. In considering proper penalties, courts may decide that the motive of self-preservation is paramount.484 These people commit such acts for their own benefit, at an exorbitant cost to a host of innocent victims; their harm is extensive. Those not suffering from mental illness should receive more severe punishment in accordance with the harm caused. Lawmakers and prosecutors should set aside a belief that these are “just little white lies.” The problem with this perception is that, when a hoax is considered a white lie, defined as “a falsehood not meant to injure one, and of little moral import,” one infers that it is less offensive and more deserving of forgiveness than conscious lying, defined as: “an untruth in which the subject
484 Self-preservation as a motive was highlighted by this research. Psychology researchers will likely clarify this aspect and determine additional motives in future studies.
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 174 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 168 indicting vipers. This has led to punishments that are inconsistent and lacking in specificity. Moreover, many hoaxes are not prosecuted in any way because the costs of legal proceedings far outweigh any penalty, fine, or restitution imposed. Some vipers receive a sentence that includes jail, and others get a few hours of community service. In my view, this conveys the wrong message. With the many states and national governments, existing options are too varied to appropriately handle hoax situations as they arise. Legislative action should include greater uniformity by outlawing hoaxes and requiring that both offenses be charged. As this research has demonstrated, all hoaxes are a minimum of two unlawful actions, the hoax and the underlying crime. Hoaxers give the impression of being self-absorbed. They cause great harm and appear to lack compassion for those caught in their web of deceit. In considering proper penalties, courts may decide that the motive of self-preservation is paramount.484 These people commit such acts for their own benefit, at an exorbitant cost to a host of innocent victims; their harm is extensive. Those not suffering from mental illness should receive more severe punishment in accordance with the harm caused. Lawmakers and prosecutors should set aside a belief that these are “just little white lies.” The problem with this perception is that, when a hoax is considered a white lie, defined as “a falsehood not meant to injure one, and of little moral import,” one infers that it is less offensive and more deserving of forgiveness than conscious lying, defined as: “an untruth in which the subject 484 Self-preservation as a motive was highlighted by this research. Psychology researchers will likely clarify this aspect and determine additional motives in future studies. |
