> I seem to remember a homeless fellow who used a key to extract some change from a vending machine that was surprisingly on UoC property and got a 12-year sentence.
Well, there are two problems there:
- Being in a school is not an aggravating factor (in reality; I'm not making any claim about the law) for that crime;
- Stealing change from a vending machine shouldn't involve a 6-year sentence.
But neither of those really undermines the general concept of crimes on the property "usually" including an aggravating factor for the location.
It became a test case of whether there is a limit to punishments for crimes. Is a life sentence for littering constitutionally legal if there is a valid statute that says it is?
The courts eventually up-ended the person's sentence somewhat and reduced it to the minimum available, 6 years. I don't know whether the person had already served over that time before his sentence was adjusted, but I would hazard a guess that he had.
> It became a test case of whether there is a limit to punishments for crimes. Is a life sentence for littering constitutionally legal if there is a valid statute that says it is?
This can't be a correct description; a statute can't influence whether something is or isn't constitutional. They're different levels.
I tend to suspect that you're intentionally omitting whatever the case was actually about.
Well, there are two problems there:
- Being in a school is not an aggravating factor (in reality; I'm not making any claim about the law) for that crime;
- Stealing change from a vending machine shouldn't involve a 6-year sentence.
But neither of those really undermines the general concept of crimes on the property "usually" including an aggravating factor for the location.