It would be the perfect answer to it.
Yes it was damaged, it was defaced.
Thatâs like trying to claim a painting wasnât damaged just because someone throws a bucket of paint on it.
Defacing federal monuments is a felony and the violators should face felony penalties as a result.
Nah, that wasnât it. Nice attempt though.
In his report on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, Sensenbrenner specifically cited attacks on national cemeteries.
He mentioned seven national cemeteries in Hawaii were vandalized with âracist and profane statementsâ in 1997. He said grave markers and tombs were desecrated, causing several thousand dollars of damage.
1 Like
so in 2003 they passed a law because of event that happened in 1997?
This Warrior died defending his wounded and was awarded the countryâs highest award for valor.
âJust have them clean it upâ indeed.
attack graves is much more serious then attack monuments.
It is an attack on every soldier who has served and the nation itself.
No. You have to read the report, not just the MSN story.
In 1997, Congress passed legislation to enhance penalties for acts of vandalism at Federal cemeteries.8As introduced, this legislation would have created a new Federal crime of ââvandalism at national cemeteries.ââ9The new offense, which was similar to existing prohi-bitions for the destruction of other types of Federal property, would have enhanced criminal penalties for injuring or destroying prop-erty located within Federal cemeteries. As enacted, however this legislation required the Sentencing Commission to amend the sen-tencing guidelines to provide a sentencing enhancement of two lev-els for any offense against the property of a Federal cemetery.10In 1998, the Sentencing Commission issued these guidelines.
The 2003 act just added a little more to the deal.
How about those who damaged the WWII memorial? That was damaged.
Now come onâŚyou knowâŚthisâŚis libdifferent.
1 Like
Here is an article from late May citing 17 arrests. Even if local prosecutors in DC decide against prosecution, I am pretty sure the Federal government can still charge under this Veterans Memorial Preservation Act of 2003.
1 Like
I think it would send a message to the rest of the thugs wanting to destroy just for the hell of it. 
Ten years sounds about right to me.
probably unconstitutional under the 8th amendment
The sentencing guidelines here are clear including maximum jail time of 10 years if found guilty.
Seriously doubt how the aforementioned law or maximum sentences is without constitutional merit.
The simple recap here on The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ⌠The amendment is meant to safeguard Americans against excessive punishments.
A 10 year (120 month) jail sentence would be a level 31-32 federal offense based on the sentencing table for first time offenders. Thatâs equal to or greater than a base level offense for voluntary manslaughter, criminal sexual abuse of a minor, kidnapping, burglary of a residence with loss of more than $9.5 million, possession of child pornography, perjury, obstruction of justice, arsonâŚyou can find more. The thought that defacing or removing a statue would carry a jail sentence equal to or longer than any on that list seems excessive.
At least all are now officially forewarned of the potential legal consequencesâŚ
It is neither cruel nor unusual much less âCruel and Unusualâ.
Why is that? Itâs an attack on the nation and our history and should carry an appropriate sentence.
2 Likes
