Mary Purcell is a resident of New York. She was upset that her mother and brother had planned to fly just before the 10 year anniversary of 9-11. Purcell called Soutwest Airlines and claimed that she had overheard her boyfriend discussing placing a bomb on the flight from New York to Albuquerque.
The airport notified a bomb squad who brought equipment and dogs and searched the plane. The flight was cleared to depart, with only a 15 minute delay.
FBI investigators traced the telephone call to Mary Purcell. When she was confronted with the information they had gathered, she claimed at first that she had called the airline to learn why the flight was delayed. Apparently it was revealed to her that she called the airline before the flight was delayed, and she confessed to trying to stop the flight.
She is charged with making a bomb threat, a felony that caries up to 10 years in prison. At some point during the time her case winds its way through the courts prosecutors are going to have to consider how they are going to deal with her charge and what consequences Purcell should face. If she has no prior record, Purcel, who is 37 years old, should be treated with some mercy.
She should pay any of the expenses that she incurred by her irresponsible actions. She acted recklessly and negligently but did she really act with felonious intent? In the rush to appear strong on law and order issues, legislatures have created 'felony creep' where more and more offenses are considered felonies. It is almost to the point where being convicted of a felony doesn't mean much. What is missing from this rush by politicians to portray themselves as some kind of superhero crime fighter, is the consideration of each case on its own merits.
Sure, Purcell did a really stupid thing. But was she trying to terrorize the occupants of the plane? Obviously not, her own family was on the plane, and her actions were out of concern for those same family members. Was she trying to disrupt the operations of the airlines? Yes, but just that one flight. Her reasoning for her actions is the only explanation that has been put forth and is logical - she was worried for the safety of her family. That is not a crime, nor is it the basis for the formation of criminal intent. Hopefully prosecutors in her case will treat her with some mercy if this is her first offense.