[RokStdy]

I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Your scale seems somewhat accurate in terms of situations in which a person is killed, but would seem to have next to nothing to do with the case in point.

In what percentage of cases of vandalism that could be called tagging could the person be said to have committed the crime accidentally? Virtually none[1]. This crime is more or less always committed on purpose. Not always with journalistic intent, but still.

The author was punished more harshly because (it seems) he embarrassed people. That is unjust.

Not to mention the generally deplorable conditions in the holding cell where he was kept, filled with other people who presumably were guilty of nothing.

[1]Please. I understand that you could create any scenario in which anything happens. But the vast majority of people who commit a similar crime (spray paint on unowned surface) certainly are doing it on purpose.

[dragontamer]

My point is that the _state of mind_ of an individual plays the most important role in determining the individual's punishment.

This was no schoolboy on a dare, this was a political activist making a political point. The author was punished severely, but do not trust his reasons for it. (Last year, it was because of Stop and Frisk. This time, he doesn't even seem to have a political excuse... it seems more like a call to a generic "$%#$# the police").

He did NOT seek to "learn about the justice system", he explicitly tried to get arrested to protest the stop and frisk laws that were being implemented in New York City. Jailtimes and Probation are the expected risks you take when you a political dissident like that.

Besides, there are less obtrusive ways of protest than spray painting a public building.