Comments:Rap music fan sentenced to Beethoven, pays fine instead

strange punishment
isn't this considered a form of undemocratic or strange punishment? somehow i believe if it were a rock band there would be no classical music option given by the judge. i believe the judge gave him this option because of society's and his own personal beliefs about the hiphop culture.
 * It may fall under strange or unusual punishment, but that is perfectly legal as long as it is an alternative that can be accepted or turned down. Many judges in the United States have taken to such "creative sentencing" as a way to motivate low-level offenders from repeating their crimes and possibly having to go to jails, which are expensive and lacking in space. Kamnet (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For a punishment to be considered "cruel and unusual" it must be both, cruel AND unusual. Even if it is unusual, it's not close to cruel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.245.186 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be considered an unusual and possibly contestable sentence if it were, in fact, a sentence. Rather the judge offered this as an elective alternative to the full fine. I'm behind this entirely, meaningful reform among offenders is much more prevalent in elective programs rather than mandated. Too bad he didn't finish it, though, he's missing out on some good music. --192.231.40.3 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange tie-in
The funny thing is that hip-hop and rap music frequently sample classical music to create new and unique loops. Kamnet (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange?

Cruel and Unusual punishment?
Being [sentenced] to listen to one specific type of music for 20 hours as a form of probation is not cruel and unusual punishment. This is similar to some one vandalizing property then later being sentenced to perform community service by preserving the downtown area or fixing the same type of areas that were vandalized.

IT2(SW) Woo, USN-E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.145.36 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it a "punishment", let alone call it "cruel and unusual". I listen to it every day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.105.47 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty good idea. I think a more cruel and/or unusual punishment would be to make him listen to Captain Beefheart. And I don't think that the idea is necessarily supposed to be an 'effrontery' to his tastes in music, but since classical music has the most chance of being a type of music that he doesn't like, it should help him understand that his crime was subjecting others to music that they might not like. I don't know if this would end up being an effective method of preventing further offenses, but it's at least worth a shot.

I'd like to know how often this sentence is given and how often it works in deterring noise offenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.87.112 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.77.88 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How can something that is as universally communicative to the human soul as Beethoven and Chopin be possibly unbearable? Being a classical fan, if I had to listen to something entirely devoid of meaning and beauty like 50 Cent for 20 hours, now that would be a mortifying thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.88.230 (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as falling under the "cruel and unusual" theory, it definitely falls under "unusual". By giving the defendant the choice of listening to classical music or paying the standard fine, the judge is attacking Mr. Vactor's choice in music rather than punishing his failure to obey the noise ordinance. If Mr. Vactor was blasting Beethoven, would Judge Fornof-Lippencott give him the choice of listening to the Wu-Tang clan? Doubtful. I hate these "creative" punishments! Judges are not artists, they are interpreters of the law. How the hell would they enforce such a punishment anyway? And isn't $150 a bit much for a noise ordinance violation? I'd really hate to see how this judge punishes her children! Yeesh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.26.33 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that he would have been forced to listen to something that he did not choose to listen to. As an alternative to a fine both impose a cost and are aimed at making him recognize his fault in violating the noise ordinance. It has nothing to do with any of the types of music involved, the judge likely selected one which that guy was unlikely to enjoy to make the point that he was playing music at volumes that others did not enjoy. The quote used here could probably have used some more work to communicate that clearly, but it is too late to change now. 68.222.134.129 05:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

$150 a lot? Depends on your point of view. How much do you think getting the guy in a court room costs? Things like the salary for the people involved (judge, policemen and such), the court itself. The state (--> the tax payer) still has to pay a lot more than this meager $150. And yes, punishment in the US can be very cruel and very unusual but not at the same time, that's against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.165.201 (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea!
Sounds to me like the punishment fits the crime, i mean, violating a noise ordinance is more or less making the people around him listen to what they don't want to hear, so having him listen to what he doesn't want to hear is simply giving him a taste of his own medicine. However, a more effective punishment might have been to have him listen to rap for 20 hours so he can truly realize the error of his ways, and perhaps start listening to music that actually takes some shred of talent to create. :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.247.230 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"She also selects episodes of Dr. Phil and The Oprah Winfrey Show that she considers relevant to other misdemeanor offenses and supplies copies to the probation department." What? Reason number 457 not to live in Ohio... 24.7.161.68 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

U2 fan ordered to destroy CDs
The judge could have also applied the above sentence, like a UK court did, and order the guy to destroy his entire music collection. Something to think about Kamnet (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

YES.
Classical music is GREAT! ^_^ 76.65.16.86 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Why should we be subjected to thunderous profane rap music at stop lights and parking lots from these thugs? I say more judges should use creative sentencing. PerryO206.24.48.1

Depends
The type of person and song type changes everyhing.. It could be anything.

Good idea.
That's some pretty creative sentencing. Rap music sucks, that much is for certain, and i'm sure many of us who've had to put up with loud music only one type of person likes would appreciate it if such a sentence was handed out to their 'thug' neighbors.

Now that's a case of inspired justice. What an extremely witty way to enact eye-for-an-eye justice. I'd rather pay the fine myself than have to listen to classical music for 20 hours, but it is a good way of demonstrating how annoying it is to be forced to listen to other people's music.

—75.189.141.13 06:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

O.o
Wow. My way of life can be considered a punishment? I listen to that stuff six hours a day - locking me up in a room with hip hop CDs is quite a different matter, though... &mdash;La Pianista  (T•C) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If I lived in this town I would drive around blasting Beethoven, just to see what they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.63.152 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)