April 19, 2005
Do the crime, do the time
Caltech Student Gets Prison for SUV Arson
I don’t know if this made the national news about a year and a half ago, but it was big out here in California. In the land of fruits, flakes, and nuts, one of the nuts decided it was about time to take a more active anti-SUV stance. That stance resulted in him and his friends visiting some personal houses, some dealerships, and torching several SUV’s. Well, the long arm of the law has decided to rein him in.
A Caltech graduate student convicted of helping to firebomb scores of sport utility vehicles was sentenced to more than eight years in federal prison and ordered to pay $3.5 million in restitution.
…Cottrell, 24, was convicted in November of conspiracy to commit arson and seven counts of arson for an August 2003 vandalism spree that damaged and destroyed about 125 SUVs at dealerships and homes in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles.
Cottrell was acquitted of using a destructive device — Molotov cocktails — in a crime of violence. That was the most serious charge he faced and it carried a sentence of at least 30 years in prison.
Normally, this would be the end of the story. Especially when you hear that this was a Caltech grad student, who had scored high math and physics honors in his undergrad work at the University of Chicago. Sounds like a Ted Kaczynski type to me: evil genius.
But the LA Times Magazine paints a different picture of this poor, troubled soul. It appears that he had Asperger’s Syndrome. This incredibly bright individual apparently didn’t understand what was going on, and thus shouldn’t be held responsible for what he did.
Asperger’s syndrome—a neurologically based developmental disorder named after the Austrian pediatrician who first recognized it in 1944—often is a strange sort of double-edged sword. It impairs a person’s ability to interact with others, but often comes coupled with powerful, if narrowly focused, intellectual gifts. People who are born with it generally just seem odd, not obviously impaired. As a result, it often goes undiagnosed. Estimates of its prevalence in America range from two in every 10,000 people to one in 250.
Its most obvious symptoms crop up in social interactions. People with Asperger’s tend to not understand facial expressions, body language and other nonverbal communications, and thus take statements literally, missing implied meanings and subtexts. They often lack empathy, blurting out truthful but unvarnished statements. Once set in a course of action, they are slow to process new information that suggests they should change what they are doing.
…
In his diagnostic report, Mesibov wrote that Cottrell’s condition “makes it hard for him to accurately gauge others’ intentions and makes him very slow to react if he does eventually figure out that this understanding of a social situation was in error. [He] also has much more difficulty than the average young adult of his age and ability in changing directions in a situation involving others, even if he is eventually able to figure out he is following the wrong course or that the consequences of what he is doing would be detrimental.”
In short: Because of his disorder, it is possible that Cottrell believed Johnson when he said he wasn’t going to lob any more Molotovs, and processed the information suggesting otherwise too slowly to realize he should leave.
So let me get this all straight. Cottrell is a defiant, extremely intelligent individual. He finds a certain sense of excitement and exhilaration in doing things that are socially unacceptable. In fact, he went out that night with the specific intent to destroy and vandalize private property, because he believes that the use of that property is inherently bad. These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed. Where the divergence comes is that the prosecution argues that he took an active role in the planning or carrying out of the arson. The defense argues that yes, he went out that night to be a bad boy, but he had no intent to be that bad.
You know what I think? I think this is a criminal example of the Peter Principle. That is the principle that in any organization, an individual rises to the level of his incompetence. I.e. you keep doing a job well, and you’ll get promoted until you no longer can handle doing your job well. Then, rather than get fired, or demoted, you’ll simply be stuck. Billy Cottrell wanted danger. He wanted excitement. He wanted to break the rules. And he did so, continuously for most of his life, until one night he bit off more than he could chew.
Billy Cottrell is a dangerous person. He doesn’t accept the restraints and the rules of the world around him. And he’s smart enough to cause some real damage if let free. But it seems that the LA Times finds his “syndrome” responsible for his actions, even though everything else in his history points to similar behavior. Ausperger’s Syndrome or not, Billy Cottrell has proved to the world that he doesn’t deserve his freedom. He is more than capable of understanding the implications of his actions, and those actions brought him 8 years in prison. Justice is served.
Update: Daily read and venerable opponent Dada Head has posted on this case. He seems to think that 8 years for causing several million dollars in damage is overkill. Furthermore, it’s excusable, because the dealership had insurance to pay for the damage. I wonder if he’d feel the same way if it was a religious nut-job who torched an abortion clinic?
15 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Maybe he also had Attention Deficit Disorder, after all, he’s in California, home of the big deficit.
Brad, It seems that many people try to blame things on anything/anyone other than themselves. No need for responsibility. Just because he has some kind of disorder doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be punished. Lucy Stern
Correction: I never said that it was excusable because of insurance; I just said it should be kept in mind when saying that he caused two million in damages.
I have a little experience with Asperger’s, since my son’s special services teacher thinks he has it. He’s a brilliant, socially-challenged boy who takes everything literally. So, one thing jumps out at me immediately from the description of Cottrell’s behavior. If he suffers from Asperger’s enough to claim some diminished responsibility for how the crime turned out, then the very act of rule-breaking would have strongly gone against his nature in the first place. And in my son’s case, which no doctor considers severe enough to diagnose Asperger’s, a strong tendency in his constitution is nearly impossible to overcome.
Dada,
The fact that it’s covered by insurance is no reason to be “kept in mind”. All that means is that the costs of the actions are distributed across more people. The act is just as bad, regardless of whether or not it’s covered by insurance.
Diane,
From your experience, how much of this is really a “syndrome”? How much of the social stigma that your son may face (and believe me, I’ve faced a bit myself) is due to the fact that his intelligence and reasoning ability is far beyond his peers, and that they are ostracizing him for it, not that he is somehow deficient in other ways? I think we are far too quick these days to label anything that doesn’t fall dead center in the bell curve as a disorder. Much like the ADD debate, I’m sure that there are some people out there that have a true problem, and it can be diagnosed as Asperger’s. But the number of times the term has cropped up lately makes me think that it’s quickly becoming over-diagnosed, and it’s a quick way to try to label people who are bright but not socially “adjusted” enough as having a disorder, and thus giving them an excuse not to fix it.
Re: insurance:
Well, I was just pointing out that I didn’t say it excused anything.
I think it is important to keep in mind, though. First of all, if they didn’t have insurance, burning their cars would certainly be a harm done to them. Since they did, no significant harms is done to them.
Are the insurance companies “harmed” by having pay out? That seems like a bizarre thing to say; that is what insurance companies are for. In a way, they NEED these kinds of things to happen every once in a while; otherwise no one would buy insurance.
Basically, since the cost of his actions are dissipated over more people, they become less significant, harder to quantify, and it becomes harder to be confident that the costs were dramatically greater than any possible benefits. All in all, the ‘damage’ done ends up pretty inconsequential.
If his syndrome really is bad enough to relieve him of responsibility, then he should NOT be allowed to live unsupervised. Part of being an adult is being responsible for one’s actions.
In addition to being a danger to others, he poses a danger to himself by doing these things.
That assumes, of course, that he really is that bad.
dada,
Dissipating costs does not make them disappear. The whole world is several million dollars less well off on account of this individual.
Let’s say I cause $6 Billion in damage, but somehow find a way to make sure that it is equally spread among everyone in the world. If each person is only responsible for $1 in damage, I really haven’t done anything bad, have I?
And to claim that this somehow is “good” for the insurance company because misfortune causes them increased business is likewise not an economically sane claim to make.
Before Cottrell’s actions, there were 125 SUV’s and $3.5M int he world. Now the $3.5M still exists, but the 125 SUV’s do not. It is a net loss, and that loss is what should count when counting his punishment, not who the costs are distributed among.
On an aside, it amazes me that people who are supposed to be smart think they’re anonymous when they’re on the internet…sending e-mails from your personal computer talking about a crime you’ve committed isn’t the smartest thing in the world…IP trace, anyone?
Brad,
“…Billy Cottrell is a dangerous person. He doesn’t accept the restraints and the rules of the world around him. And he’s smart enough to cause some real damage if let free. But it seems that the LA Times finds his “syndrome” responsible for his actions, even though everything else in his history points to similar behavior. Ausperger’s Syndrome or not, Billy Cottrell has proved to the world that he doesn’t deserve his freedom. He is more than capable of understanding the implications of his actions, and those actions brought him 8 years in prison. Justice is served….”
Very well said.
The point does not revolve around the “inconsequentiality” of the damage. The point is that property was wilfully destroyed in a manner consistent with terrorist tactics.
(American Heritage definition) Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Cottrell was found guilty of the crime. The defense tactics were unsuccessful — happily so. IMHO, eight years isn’t long enough.
Dissipating costs does not make them disappear.
It is true that the costs do not disappear, no doubt. But it still could change the amount of harm done. It seems to me that overall ’suffering’ is greater if I steal all of one person’s money–let’s say a million dollars–than if I steal a single dollar from a million people. Arguably, no one would miss a dollar; it would have exactly zero impact on your life, while the person who loses the million would be dramatically affected.
Now, obviously we can’t just let people do that; I’m not saying that. But that doesn’t mean we can’t recognize a moral difference between the two scenarios; one simply does more harm than the other.
The whole world is several million dollars less well off on account of this individual.
See, I don’t even know what this could possibly mean. Can you really measure how “well off” the world is in numerical, let alone financial, terms? This way of looking at it just makes no sense to me, though it seems typical of the way that economists look at things.
And to claim that this somehow is “good” for the insurance company because misfortune causes them increased business is likewise not an economically sane claim to make.
I admit that in a way it does seem a little perverse, and even in a way wrong–obviously, in any given instance an insurance company would rather not pay out. But you have to acknowledge that the insurance industry, to a large extent, relies on bad things happening. (Exceptions being perhaps health insurance for routine check ups or something like that.) Put it this way: it would be very bad for the industry if they NEVER paid out, because it would mean their services were unnecessary. It is absolutely necessary for them to have to pay out once in a while; that’s just an indisputable fact.
it amazes me that people who are supposed to be smart think they’re anonymous when they’re on the internet…sending e-mails from your personal computer talking about a crime you’ve committed isn’t the smartest thing in the world…IP trace, anyone?
If I’m not mistaken, he sent the emails from a library’s computer, but the authorities figured out that he had done so within a specific ten-minute time period; they then looked at surveillance (sp?) tapes and also found out that his school email account had been accessed at the same time, etc. I’m not sure, but I believe that he at least wasn’t quite so stupid as to send them from home, although he obviously wasn’t careful enough about it.
I live out here in California, and that case is the tip of the iceberg.
Go north of me and you have railroad stakes being put in trees so that when the chainsaw cuts a tree and hits the stake, the chain comes off maiming the logger. We have seen logging trucks get torched.
We had a case right here in my own county of an arsonist burning down houses under construction. The guy got caught, and guess who is defending him!? The ACLU!!!
Ecoterrorists are no different than those psychos that blow themselves up in shopping malls!
Thanks for posting this.
Regards,
Roseville Conservative
See, I don’t even know what this could possibly mean. Can you really measure how “well off” the world is in numerical, let alone financial, terms? This way of looking at it just makes no sense to me, though it seems typical of the way that economists look at things.
Before the actions of Billy Cottrell, the world had $3.5M in wealth, plus 125 undamaged SUV’s. After those actions, the world transferred that $3.5M in wealth to pay for 125 SUV’s that were no longer saleable. Billy Cottrell essentially destroyed $3.5M in wealth.
I don’t know how to make it more clear. All the time, the effort, the raw materials, everything that went into the production of those SUV’s was wasted. The world had produced those SUV’s, and due to the actions of one environmentalist, all that work is for naught. The world has lost that time, that effort, and those raw materials. To think in any way that this is “innocuous” is ludicrous.
I admit that in a way it does seem a little perverse, and even in a way wrong–obviously, in any given instance an insurance company would rather not pay out. But you have to acknowledge that the insurance industry, to a large extent, relies on bad things happening. (Exceptions being perhaps health insurance for routine check ups or something like that.) Put it this way: it would be very bad for the industry if they NEVER paid out, because it would mean their services were unnecessary. It is absolutely necessary for them to have to pay out once in a while; that’s just an indisputable fact.
If nothing bad ever happened, and there was no need for insurance companies, the world would be a much better place. Insurance companies are a way of dealing with misfortune, as well as dealing with the actions of egotistical 20-somethings who think their view of the world is right for everyone. Insurance companies are a drain on everyone, in that they spread the costs of misfortune over people who don’t feel that misfortune. But given that misfortune is a fact in our world, they are a necessary drain. Billy Cottrell is adding to the misfortune. That may be a positive to the insurance companies, but it is a net negative to the world as a whole.
Brad,
You asked about my son’s condition above. All his symptoms are his and not from social stigma. He might face some stigma as he gets older, and, indeed, might be already, but it’s no cause. In fact, one of the benefits of being socially awkward, is that he is also blissfully unaware of it. He plays alone at recess, which is of great concern to teachers. But ask him his favorite part of school. Even more than math and science is recess. So, I don’t get concerned about it. He’s just hard-wired a certain way (this comment I made to another special services teacher which prompted her to ask me to take him to a neuologist!) Arrgh. It’s so ironic that we took him to special services as as a preschooler for the specific purpose of getting a diagnosis of “normal” on paper to show extended family so they would leave us alone. The diagnosis came back “Mildly Mentally Handicapped.” Now my retarded son is being considered for the gifted program. If I were willing to doctor shop, I could probably get a diagnosis for just about anything. So, as a result of all this, I have very, very little tolerance for all these syndromes. Why can’t we just accept that is a tremendous range to normal? I’m just an irked momma bear now.