A thief in hoaxster's clothing! Cruel Craigs list prank wasn't a prank afterall
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
April 3, 2008 7:49am CST
Hello All,
Update: The hoaxsters have been caught! And, it's much worse than just a prank. See below for details.
I previously posted a discussion about a man who had his house ransacked & burglarized as a result of a Craig's List hoax. Not once but twice an ad was posted on Craig's List indicating that a homeowner was giving away his possessions. What's worse is the fact that the people who showed up to take his belongings initially refused to surrender those items, even after the homeowner identified himself and announced that he hadn't posted the invitation on Craigs list.
Well, here's the follow up to the story:
It turns out that the husband and wife who allegedly posted the ad had already burglarized the man's property, stealing and re-selling some equestrian tack. They posted the nefarius ad as a way to cover up their crime.
"JACKSONVILLE, Ore. -- [i]Police arrested two suspects Monday night in the cruel Craigslist hoax that cost a Southern Oregon man much of what he owned.
Amber Herbert, 28, of Medford, and her husband, Brandon Herbert, 29, were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit burglary and conspiracy to commit a computer crime."
"the Herberts originally went to the property because it was listed as a rental and they were looking for one. Then, they went back later and burglarized it."[/i]
Unbelievable! These thieving thugs targeted this innocent man twice! Grrrr!
[b]My questions to you are:
1. What are your thoughts about this mess?
2. Doesn't it seem somehow wrong that these two thieves are only being charged with 'Conspiracy to commit burglary', and 'Conspiracy to commit a computer crime'? Afterall, they DID admit to having stolen the saddles. If someone did this to you, would you be satisfied with these conspiracy charges?
3. And, now I'm going to tread into really controversial waters:
Isn't a more suitable punishment for these two to be sentenced to 'indentured servitude', until the man is fully compensated for his loss? I realize that this idea is unconventional in today's world. Though, how does the victim benefit by these two being locked up behind bars? [/b]
Thanks, I'm looking forward to all of your perspectives!
Link to the latest news update:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_040108_news_craigslist_hoax_arrest.1fa31526.html
Link -- Original MyLot posting:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_032408_news_craigslist_hoax.1ffb2c9c.html
1 person likes this
5 responses
@jewelenterprises (1996)
• Australia
4 Apr 08
This situation is just unbelievable... there are some hugely unscrupulous people out there who delight in stealing from others.
I would say that I think the idea of indentured servitude would be a good one. Make the perpetrators sell all their posessions and give the money to their victims to help them get a new start... then force them both to work and give 30% of their income to the victims until all the posessions have been replaced.
Having a strategy like this would probably do much more to deter thievery than any risk of jail.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Apr 08
Hello Jewelenterprises,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. I appreciate that you've put your thinking cap on to expound on the indentured servitude proposal.
I would say that IF the criminals have any valuable non-essential items, that selling those assets, and transfering the capitol gain to the victim is a good idea, in theory. Though, in it's application I can imagine an administrative nightmare. Plus, I would tend to doubt that most criminals have non-essential possessions with a high value. Although, this is an assumption on my part, and I could be completely wrong.
So, if tangible assets are a factor, how would you propose that they be identified, assessed, and disposed of? Would you propose that this be done by representatives from the criminal justice system? Kind of like existing government auctions? Or by private contractors -- which would add jobs to the employment role. Where I rather like your idea, if it's applicable, would you care to expound on your vision of how it might be most efficiently accomplished?
I also think that you're on to something with a straight garnishment plan. I was thinking about mandatory additional work to both: keep the criminals too tired to plan any more capers, and to provide a labor force for those jobs that average Americans do not want to do. Though, I am certainly open to hearing your expanded perspective on how a straight garnishment policy would work.
Oh, and I completely agree that this type of alternative punishment, would be a greater deterrent than a possible jail sentence. The idea of today's penal system doesn't seem to illicit the same kind of angst that yesteryear's 'chain gang' system did. My own perspective on the reason why is that back then, the reality of a prison day was a long, hard work day -- with no personal gain. Today, prisoners watch t.v., work out, read, play games, and educate themselves on the taxpayer's dime. Can that reasonably be considered punishment for crimes against society?
Great response, Jewelenterprises!
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Apr 08
Hello Jewelenterprises,
Thanks for the terrific follow-up. You've got some very interesting ideas.
I really respect your mention of a proposal to inventory a convicted criminal's belongings to search for other stolen property. Although, I'm thinking that 'the state' confiscating and selling those items may be perceived as just 'state sanctioned' thievery. I suspect that that concept will be met with ferocious opposition.
You also raise a good point about not under-estimating the tangible assets of thieves -- especially career criminals. Thanks for nudging me to put on my thinking cap, in this regard!
I believe that your quote (below) represents a very profound understanding of part of the problem with today's penal system(s):
"all it does is cause people to become 'institutionalised' which is dependance on the institute..."
Thanks for sharing!
1 person likes this
@jewelenterprises (1996)
• Australia
5 Apr 08
As far as the inventory goes. The reason I mentioned that is because it's no good selling stolen property to pay for stolen property. A lot of people now mark valuables with 'identifiers' using ultra violet pens... personally, I think EVERY home should own one, it makes stolen property a LOT easier to find.
I think the main people that would view asset sales of perpetrators assets to pay for victims losses as 'state sanctioned thievery' would be the criminals themselves. Here in Australia, convicted felons frequently get their assets seized anyway. Look at Christopher Skase (I'm sure you've heard of him... if you haven't just look it up on the net)... it was long suspected that he transferred a lot of his assets to family and friends to keep the Australian government from confiscating them to compensate the people he ripped off. Unfortunately they couldn't prove it as they couldn't find documentation to prove it (he'd probably had it destroyed). But assets they could seize were seized.
So these type of things already happen... all I'm suggesting is that assets be sold to directly compensate the people involved rather than 'pooled' to compensate victims of crime in general.
Here in Australia that policy is accepted. If someone has emptied a persons house then it's only appropriate that they should lose their assets in return. It may seem harsh, but let them feel the way they made their victim feel
2 people like this
@drannhh (15219)
• United States
3 Apr 08
Isn't there just always more to this sort of thing than meets the eye? Thanks much for the amazing update, and one would think that law enforcement would rethink the crime now that new "facts" are in.
I dunno about part 2 because that sort of thing can be abused by the system, but I agree that some sort of restitution is much more appropriate than just jail and that we also have too many problems in our jail systems today to make them effective solutions. Somebody has to start thinking outside the box.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
3 Apr 08
Hello Drannhh,
You're welcome! It's really nice to know that law enforcement nabbed these two so quickly!
Yup, I would have thought that the law would at least charge them for having actually committed the burglary. Though, who knows -- the charges may be updated.
As for the indentured servitude: I've long been saying that we should use non-violent prison labor to tackle all those pesky jobs that everyone keeps saying "American's don't want to do", like picking vegetables. Or better yet: did you see my discussion about converting organic waste into fuel-grade oil? I could easily see the individual counties using convicted 'indentured servants' to sort the organic waste from the non-organic waste at the processing plants. That sounds like a mighty fine way for these two to 'work off' their crime. Whadýa think?
@drannhh (15219)
• United States
3 Apr 08
I dunno, LadyLuna. It is true that this country was pretty much built by indentured servants and that is our roots so to speak, but we had quite a few "foreign" students in our classes over the years and many of them had indentured servants in their households so outside of class, of course, we did discuss their experiences and I'll say it again, I just don't know. Usually I don't like to obfuscate language, and I know that when we say "exfoliate" we mean "kill" but for some reason I just would like a different name for what you are suggesting that "Indentured servant" --then maybe I could think about it with a more open mind. Were any of your ancestors servants, whether indentured or not? Oh, I didn't mean to pry, don't answer if the question makes you uncomfortable. Mine were.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Apr 08
This tale of crime has some very valuable lessons I hope people will take to heart.
1) Many thieves are very smart. Often they have detailed, creative ideas they put into motion out of complete selfishness and total disregard for others. Surely, no one can say these criminals were stupid, not creative, or considerate of others.
2) Thieves could use this creativity and intelligence to acquire what they want or need by legal means. Therefore, they deserve no sympathy of any kind. Throw them under the jail. Or throw away the key! (Insert you favorite 'lock'em up forever' cliche here)
3) Restitution should always be a part of sentancing. How about until restitution is made, the criminal is still regarded as on parole? (With all its limitations) even if he has served his complete prison sentance.
4) The average citizen is too kind hearted and naive to understand that people as cold hearted as these criminals are more common than they think.
I've often tried to tell others that many criminals are this calculating and mean and usually get told I'm the one who is "mean" or worse "projecting myself onto others".
Interesting post with a valuable lesson. Thanks.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
3 Apr 08
Hello Red,
You bring up a really good point about the odious nature of this scheme. As well, the fact that not all criminals are just dumb oafs. Some are calculating, creative malefactors!
Though to clarify, I was not suggesting that these criminals be required to 'pay restitution', per se. Rather, I am suggesting that the penal sentence might better be 'indentured servitude'. Meaning that instead of going to jail, or making restitution with money that they may have perhaps acquired through other illegal actions, that they be sentenced to having to 'work off' the value of the stolen items. That which the personally stole, as well as the items which they 'caused' to be stolen.
To do so would spare some prison costs, and would teach these criminals the true value of the cost of their actions.
I'm suggesting ankle bracelets, and tracking devices. Let them go to their regular jobs (if they have them), then go work an extra 4 hours per day (eight on Saturdays), for as long as it takes -- at a defined location, where the money they earn will be turned over to the victim.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Apr 08
Oh...! I like your idea. When such great ideas are put forward and most people agree with them, why can't we get our elected officials to go along? This puzzles me greatly.
1 person likes this
@arkaf61 (10881)
• Canada
6 Apr 08
Lady Luna, I"m so with you! = as usual:)
I really think that the punishment you suggest would certainly fit the crime so well.
Being behind bars is no party, but in the end it accomplishes little or nothing.
What you suggest would not only fit the crime but it would also in a a way compensate this poor man they purposely stole from and then made it even worse to cover their own theft.
I think many other crimes could be punished in similar ways, after all aren't the consequences supposed to have something to do with the crime? Prison might not be the most fitting consequence sometimes. It is also costly for taxpayers and a great University course in criminality.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Arkaf,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! I'd bet that the poor guy whose house was burglarized would appreciate it as well.
Did you happen to read Jewelenterprises' response? It would seem that our friends in Australia already employ some measure in this regard.
1 person likes this
@arkaf61 (10881)
• Canada
7 Apr 08
Yes, I'm happy that in some places there is already a different way that in my opinion might be more effective than just jail.
I"m afraid imprisonment might have had it's uses and still does in some cases, but it doesn't accomplish much, on the contrary.
Actually I go further and say that it is time to start looking into alternative methods.
With all that being incarcerated brings - and there are many negative things of course - it is nowadays often close to hotel living, without the inconvenience of paying for the bill. It's no piece of cake, but it is also no purgatory. Heck they can even take university courses while we - the common law abiding people - have to pay trough out teeth to get into, often having to let go of our dreams to have a degree because we can't afford it. There's gym, internet, tv, music, books...oh boy : jail me!I"m in need of a second mortgage just to pay for all that :)
I know that there are other negative things, and just the fact that one is not free is a big loss, but with all the bonuses added, it's certainly not as effective as it once was.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
7 Apr 08
Hello Arkaf,
I fully agree that incarceration is not the deterrent that it once was. And yeah, you're right about needing a second mortgage to pay for prison education on the outside. Grrr!
Yup, I'd say that it was long passed the time to start thinking 'outside the box'.
Do you think that only monetary crimes should seek this kind of alternative punishment? Naturally, violent criminals need to be extricated from society, as to limit their impact. Though, I'm wondering if other types of crime might apply. Any thoughts?
1 person likes this
@spanktastic2120 (172)
• United States
4 Apr 08
the people will have their criminal trial first, in which yes, i do believe their charges are too small, and then the home owner will most likely take them into civil court for the crime and sue for damages, in which case he will most likely win the full amount he is out, but however will probably never receive that money if they dont have it to pay.
OJ Simpson won his criminal trial, but was found guilty in the civil trial the family of the victim filed, and was ordered to pay an exorbitant sum.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Apr 08
Hello Spanktastic2120,
Please excuse my oversight in having not already welcomed you as a new member of the MyLot community. I hope you thoroughly enjoy your time here.
Thank you for your assessment of my proposal. To be sure, you raise a valid question. Specifically, would 'The People' perceived it as slavery?
Of course, this is all hypothetical, and I remain completely open to other's perspectives. I would have to believe that as I have proposed it, that this kind of alternative punishment would not be thought of as slavery. The convicted would essentially be sentenced to:
- 'house arrest',
- at their own established residence.
- They would be fitted with a monitoring ankle bracelet.
- They would be allowed to work at their own job (if they
have one),
- and would additionally be required to work a certain
number of extra hours per day, plus a full day on
Saturday (or whichever day is not their observed
Sabbath -- if applicable), and where the money earned
from the second job would be turned over to the victim,
until the debt is paid off.
I completely agree that having the criminal(s) live with the victim is terribly unwise, for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. Yup, that could get mighty ugly!
To clarify: I am proposing the above described punishment in lieu of a standard prison sentence -- and only for non-violent offenders. Though, after reading your response, I'm thinking that some prison time would be required to assess the willingness of the convict to peacably fulfill the requirements of the alternative sentence. As well, to give the convict a taste of the complete absence of personal liberty -- as is found in a 6'x6'cell.
I see that the response below yours, from
jewelenterprises is proposing a straight garnishment of 30% of the criminals wages. Hmmm, that's another idea to consider, eh?
Thanks again for the follow up! Very thought-provoking!
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Apr 08
Hello Spanktastic2120,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
You're right about the charges not adequately reflecting the admission of crime. Though that may change.
As well, you're right about the likelihood of a civil judgement, which the criminals most likely won't be able to pay. So, that leaves the victim without remedy for his material loss. Hence, the reason why I've proposed limited indentured servitude. Would you like to share any thoughts about my proposal.
If not, I completely understand. It is a controversial issue. As such, I'll thank you for your contributions!
@spanktastic2120 (172)
• United States
4 Apr 08
well i must first say im flattered at your direct request for my opinion. although indentured servitude would solve all of the problems this mane faces, and has been used as a method in the past, i dont think it could successfully be accomplished in this day and age, especially socially, and im sure there would be plenty of anti-slavery protesters should the court decision rule such a solution. the servitude could not be implemented until after the prisoners release from jail, so garnished wages would be just as good a solution. also having these people as slaves wouldnt be very effective consider he would have to house and feed them, and the debt they work off could not be legitimately determined. i dont see a victim having his aggressors as slaves going very smoothly.
1 person likes this
