Another 'Thought Piece' That Goes Beyond The Cliché

[Kathianne]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/8-ways-to-stop-overzealous-prosecutors-from-destroying-lives/267360/


8 Ways to Stop Overzealous Prosecutors from Destroying Lives By Conor Friedersdorf


Aaron Swartz was mistreated by the criminal justice system, but no more than countless less famous defendants who'd benefit from reforms like these.

Federal prosecutors are facing unusual scrutiny of the tremendous power that they wield due to the suicide of Aaron Swartz. The open Internet activist was threatened with decades in prison if he contested charges that he used MIT's computer network to illegally download millions of academic papers. Sen. John Cornyn is pressing (http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-74077719/) for an investigation into whether the United States Attorney's Office in Boston inappropriately targeted the 26-year-old Reddit co-founder. Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, wants to look into the case too. Said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/277353-lawmakers-blast-trumped-up-doj-prosecution-of-internet-activist), "I think the Department of Justice was way out of line on the case."

Perhaps so.

But as legal scholar Orin Kerr points out (http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/), the hardball tactics used against Swartz are "business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country -- mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone much caring." The need for systemic reform to prevent already widespread abuses are what makes a new paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713) by University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn Reynolds so timely. Its title, "Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime," alludes to a common saying: that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. There's truth in that quip, Professor Reynolds argues, and that's problematic: grand juries are supposed to meaningfully check overzealous prosecutors. "Though people suspected of a crime have extensive due process rights in dealing with the police, and people charged with a crime have even more extensive due process rights in court, the actual decision whether or not to charge a person with a crime is almost completely unconstrained," he writes. "Yet, because of overcharging and plea bargains, that decision is probably the single most important event in the chain of criminal procedure."

How to afford Americans more meaningful due process and protect them against prosecutorial overreach? In the balance of the paper, Professor Reynolds sets forth five possible legal reforms:



Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a "qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors" -- in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren't carrying out their duties in good faith.



If a personal is charged with a crime and acquitted, make the prosecution pay their legal bill. Or if there are multiple crimes being adjudicated, "we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant's legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging."



Ban plea bargains all together, so that every criminal charge filed would have to be backed up in open court.



Alternatively, "we might require that the prosecution's plea offers be presented to a jury or judge before sentencing. Jurors might then wonder why they are being asked to sentence a defendant to 20 years without parole when the prosecution was willing to settle for 5. 15 years in jail seems a rather stiff punishment for making the state undergo the bother of a trial."



Consider whether regulatory violations should be subject to criminal sanctions at all.


The paper itself (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713) is more detailed, but short enough to read in a few minutes. It is also explicit about soliciting additional reform ideas and inviting debate about the ones summarized in the text.

Orin Kerr has a reform suggestion of his own:

Multiple overlapping crimes gives prosecutors an unfair advantage at trial that in turn pressures defendants unfairly to take a guilty plea. That's the case because the jury is easily misled. When the jury sees a multi-count indictment involving many different crimes, the jurors have two natural reactions. First, they think they can "split the difference" and convict on some but not all. This is just wrong, as it turns out; at sentencing, a conviction as to only one crime is treated just as severely as a conviction as to all crimes. But the jury doesn't know that, giving the prosecution an advantage. Relatedly, the jury likely thinks that the defendant's conduct is extra serious if it is charged under lots of criminal offenses instead of one. The existence of multiple overlapping crimes therefore gives the prosecutors an unfair advantage; the answer is to narrow that advantage by eliminating entirely duplicative crimes.

Radley Balko suggests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/the-power-of-the-prosecut_n_2488653.html?1358359916) decreasing the total number of laws:

Every new criminal law gives prosecutors more power. Once we have so many laws that it's likely we're all breaking at least one of them, the prosecutor's job is no longer about enforcing the laws, but about choosing which laws to enforce. It's then a short slide to the next step: Choosing what people need to be made into criminals, then simply picking the laws necessary to make that happen.
And I'd like to add a final reform idea of my own. Would it be useful if prosecutors were forced, once a year or so, to team up with a public defender and help run a case "from the other side"? Incentives are important. But I'm trying to think of a way to change the prosecutorial mindset too.


<time datetime="2013-01-21T06:00:00-05:00">
</time>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/8-ways-to-stop-overzealous-prosecutors-from-destroying-lives/267360/

The Department of Justice under obama has been a joke. Refusal to prosecute voter fraud cases, voter intimidation cases(New Black Panther Party members on video) , Fast and Furious gun smuggling cover up. Benghazi cover up etc..

When that bastard was sworn in again , today for the first time in my long life I was not proud of my country!!
I fail to see how any decent person can be .. -Tyr

[ConHog]

The Department of Justice under obama has been a joke. Refusal to prosecute voter fraud cases, voter intimidation cases(New Black Panther Party members on video) , Fast and Furious gun smuggling cover up. Benghazi cover up etc..

When that bastard was sworn in again , today for the first time in my long life I was not proud of my country!!
I fail to see how any decent person can be .. -Tyr

Completely irrelevant to the thread.

As for the OP. He makes some good points and some bad points.

Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a "qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors" -- in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren't carrying out their duties in good faith.

yeah right. Courts fuck up what is good faith all the time, I in noway feel I should be financially on the hook if some bozo judge incorrectly decides my wife didn't act in good faith on a case.

If a personal is charged with a crime and acquitted, make the prosecution pay their legal bill. Or if there are multiple crimes being adjudicated, "we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant's legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging."

No problem , let's also hold defendants and their families financially responsible for the costs of prosecutions shall they be found guilty , also for the cost of their incarceration.

As for overcharging, that is mostly related to plea bargains, well get to that next.

Ban plea bargains all together, so that every criminal charge filed would have to be backed up in open court.

Dumb suggestion is dumb. Plea Bargains easily take 1/2 the burden off of prosecutors, and most of the time you end up with a sentence that is fairly close to what the defendant would probably have actually served if found guilty. Also plea bargains give prosecutors a valuable tool in moving up the food chain as they say. Why would anyone ever turn on someone who was involved in a crime with them if there were no incentive on their end?

This is also why prosecutors "over charge" which isn't actually over charging at all, it is just a tool that is used. For instance, say a guy is busted for dealing meth, that's five years, but IF he also had say a gun on him, well that COULD jack it up to 25 years. Now let's say a prosecutor says "Hmm , maybe I can plea bargain THIS guy to 10 years total and get HIS dealer in the process" That's a win win.

Consider whether regulatory violations should be subject to criminal sanctions at all.

Frankly, this just sounds like he's trying to argue that we should decriminalize white collar crime.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Completely irrelevant to the thread.

As for the OP. He makes some good points and some bad points.

Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a "qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors" -- in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren't carrying out their duties in good faith.

yeah right. Courts fuck up what is good faith all the time, I in noway feel I should be financially on the hook if some bozo judge incorrectly decides my wife didn't act in good faith on a case.

If a personal is charged with a crime and acquitted, make the prosecution pay their legal bill. Or if there are multiple crimes being adjudicated, "we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant's legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging."

No problem , let's also hold defendants and their families financially responsible for the costs of prosecutions shall they be found guilty , also for the cost of their incarceration.

As for overcharging, that is mostly related to plea bargains, well get to that next.

Ban plea bargains all together, so that every criminal charge filed would have to be backed up in open court.

Dumb suggestion is dumb. Plea Bargains easily take 1/2 the burden off of prosecutors, and most of the time you end up with a sentence that is fairly close to what the defendant would probably have actually served if found guilty. Also plea bargains give prosecutors a valuable tool in moving up the food chain as they say. Why would anyone ever turn on someone who was involved in a crime with them if there were no incentive on their end?

This is also why prosecutors "over charge" which isn't actually over charging at all, it is just a tool that is used. For instance, say a guy is busted for dealing meth, that's five years, but IF he also had say a gun on him, well that COULD jack it up to 25 years. Now let's say a prosecutor says "Hmm , maybe I can plea bargain THIS guy to 10 years total and get HIS dealer in the process" That's a win win.

Consider whether regulatory violations should be subject to criminal sanctions at all.

Frankly, this just sounds like he's trying to argue that we should decriminalize white collar crime.

How is my comment completely irrelevant to the thread?? When the thread is about prosecutors , the justice system and possible misconduct!!???
Your declaration of "irrelevant" seems to be a catch all for you.. To add weight to your rejection of my point of view.

Example from the op--


Aaron Swartz was mistreated by the criminal justice system, but no more than countless less famous defendants who'd benefit from reforms like these.

[Kathianne]

Completely irrelevant to the thread.

As for the OP. He makes some good points and some bad points.

Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a "qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors" -- in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren't carrying out their duties in good faith.

yeah right. Courts fuck up what is good faith all the time, I in noway feel I should be financially on the hook if some bozo judge incorrectly decides my wife didn't act in good faith on a case.

If a personal is charged with a crime and acquitted, make the prosecution pay their legal bill. Or if there are multiple crimes being adjudicated, "we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant's legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging."

No problem , let's also hold defendants and their families financially responsible for the costs of prosecutions shall they be found guilty , also for the cost of their incarceration.

As for overcharging, that is mostly related to plea bargains, well get to that next.

Ban plea bargains all together, so that every criminal charge filed would have to be backed up in open court.

Dumb suggestion is dumb. Plea Bargains easily take 1/2 the burden off of prosecutors, and most of the time you end up with a sentence that is fairly close to what the defendant would probably have actually served if found guilty. Also plea bargains give prosecutors a valuable tool in moving up the food chain as they say. Why would anyone ever turn on someone who was involved in a crime with them if there were no incentive on their end?

This is also why prosecutors "over charge" which isn't actually over charging at all, it is just a tool that is used. For instance, say a guy is busted for dealing meth, that's five years, but IF he also had say a gun on him, well that COULD jack it up to 25 years. Now let's say a prosecutor says "Hmm , maybe I can plea bargain THIS guy to 10 years total and get HIS dealer in the process" That's a win win.

Consider whether regulatory violations should be subject to criminal sanctions at all.

Frankly, this just sounds like he's trying to argue that we should decriminalize white collar crime.

I may be wrong, but what I get out of the above post is an assumption of guilt for those charged? The standard is a presumption of innocence.

[ConHog]

I may be wrong, but what I get out of the above post is an assumption of guilt for those charged? The standard is a presumption of innocence.

Not at all, how did you come to that conclusion? I mean I admit that between my career and that of my wife's that I have an opinion that the police do a pretty good job of only arresting guilty people; but I also realize that shit happens and sometimes that isn't the case, and I also believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

[fj1200]

How is my comment completely irrelevant to the thread?? When the thread is about prosecutors , the justice system and possible misconduct!!???

Because the issues predate who happens to be POTUS at present.


I may be wrong, but what I get out of the above post is an assumption of guilt for those charged? The standard is a presumption of innocence.

The juries should/would presume innocence but I don't think that's the prosecutor's fall back position. Their job is to advocate for their position which is to seek justice for the innocent, no?

I'd guess to presume that Swartz was railroaded would be to presume that he did not have good lawyers. Unlikely I think.

[ConHog]

Because the issues predate who happens to be POTUS at present.




Nope, everything is bam bam's fault




The juries should/would presume innocence but I don't think that's the prosecutor's fall back position. Their job is to advocate for their position which is to seek justice for the innocent, no?

I'd guess to presume that Swartz was railroaded would be to presume that he did not have good lawyers. Unlikely I think.

Absolutely correct. Not saying some prosecutors don't move forward with cases they aren't absolutely positive about. But as a rule if you're going to court , it's because the prosecutors KNOW you are guilty.

[fj1200]

Absolutely correct. Not saying some prosecutors don't move forward with cases they aren't absolutely positive about. But as a rule if you're going to court , it's because the prosecutors KNOW you are guilty.

There's what you know and what you can prove. I see plea bargains as a way of playing the odds; do I allow a plea to a half sentence if I'm 50% sure I can convict?

[ConHog]

There's what you know and what you can prove. I see plea bargains as a way of playing the odds; do I allow a plea to a half sentence if I'm 50% sure I can convict?

That is for sure part of it. If you think you know but you're not 100% , offer a guy half of what he's looking at if convicted, if he accepts you can probably bet he is guilty.

[tailfins]

Completely irrelevant to the thread.

As for the OP. He makes some good points and some bad points.

1.


Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a "qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors" -- in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren't carrying out their duties in good faith.

yeah right. Courts **** up what is good faith all the time, I in noway feel I should be financially on the hook if some bozo judge incorrectly decides my wife didn't act in good faith on a case.



2.


If a personal is charged with a crime and acquitted, make the prosecution pay their legal bill. Or if there are multiple crimes being adjudicated, "we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant's legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging."

No problem , let's also hold defendants and their families financially responsible for the costs of prosecutions shall they be found guilty , also for the cost of their incarceration.


As for overcharging, that is mostly related to plea bargains, well get to that next.

3.


Ban plea bargains all together, so that every criminal charge filed would have to be backed up in open court.

Dumb suggestion is dumb. Plea Bargains easily take 1/2 the burden off of prosecutors, and most of the time you end up with a sentence that is fairly close to what the defendant would probably have actually served if found guilty. Also plea bargains give prosecutors a valuable tool in moving up the food chain as they say. Why would anyone ever turn on someone who was involved in a crime with them if there were no incentive on their end?

This is also why prosecutors "over charge" which isn't actually over charging at all, it is just a tool that is used. For instance, say a guy is busted for dealing meth, that's five years, but IF he also had say a gun on him, well that COULD jack it up to 25 years. Now let's say a prosecutor says "Hmm , maybe I can plea bargain THIS guy to 10 years total and get HIS dealer in the process" That's a win win.


Consider whether regulatory violations should be subject to criminal sanctions at all.

Frankly, this just sounds like he's trying to argue that we should decriminalize white collar crime.

1. Courts are run by prosecutors. There isn't much of an innocent until proven guilty system if you look at the conviction rates. Also defendants are grossly underrepresented by counsel.
2. Why should an innocent person be financially ruined? As far as convicts paying, they do to the point of lifetime slavery. Have you looked at obscene amounts being charged as court costs? The criminal justice system is designed to be a legal free labor slavery system. Have you looked at recidivism rates? Some parolees are sent back to prison for years for jaywalking (literally).
3. You admit the plea bargain process is dishonest. I have read of innocent people being coerced into a plea bargain. A plea bargain should be just that, a bargain, less than the typical sentence. It should be a REAL break, not a FAKE BREAK. I disagree with doing away with plea bargains altogether, but placing a five year maximum on incarceration for convictions obtained with a plea bargain would be a good idea.

[ConHog]

1. Courts are run by prosecutors. There isn't much of an innocent until proven guilty system if you look at the conviction rates. Also defendants are grossly underrepresented by counsel.
2. Why should an innocent person be financially ruined? As far as convicts paying, they do to the point of lifetime slavery. Have you looked at obscene amounts being charged as court costs? The criminal justice system is designed to be a legal free labor slavery system. Have you looked at recidivism rates? Some parolees are sent back to prison for years for jaywalking (literally).
3. You admit the plea bargain process is dishonest. I have read of innocent people being coerced into a plea bargain. A plea bargain should be just that, a bargain, less than the typical sentence. It should be a REAL break, not a FAKE BREAK.

1. Courts are ran by judges, not prosecutors. The conviction rate is what it is because prosecutors are careful about who they take to trial and try to make sure their cases are solid before doing so. Not because juries don't presume innocence.

2. There is no life time slavery. Hell, there isn't even hard labor. As for the obscene court costs LOL are you under the impression that the court systems are MAKING money?

I happen to agree with you that some parole officers are a little too anxious to revoke parole. That has NOTHING to do with the courts who have NO choice when a parole violation is charged. That is mandatory for them .

3. I admitted no such thing. It isn't dishonest. It's a useful tool. And yes SOMETIMES cops and DAs misuse it, no different than sometimes criminals misuse guns, but we don't throw all the guns away.

[Kathianne]

There's what you know and what you can prove. I see plea bargains as a way of playing the odds; do I allow a plea to a half sentence if I'm 50% sure I can convict?

JSTOR would not go along with. Indeed, they later released thousands of pieces to 'free net.' MIT went both ways, not wanting to participate, but not balking like JSTOR. Giving the justice department the chance to go forward.

What should have been a simple charge, was overcharged to the degree he could have faced over 30 years in jail, no way should that possibility have been there. Because of the overcharging, the 'plea deal' was 6 months I believe, not acceptable to him or for that matter to most of the folks that understood what he was doing.

He deserved a 'slap' and warning to work within the system, but was faced with draconian system. That's as wrong as the suspensions for '0 tolerance.' There are reasons for using judgment.

[ConHog]

JSTOR would not go along with. Indeed, they later released thousands of pieces to 'free net.' MIT went both ways, not wanting to participate, but not balking like JSTOR. Giving the justice department the chance to go forward.

What should have been a simple charge, was overcharged to the degree he could have faced over 30 years in jail, no way should that possibility have been there. Because of the overcharging, the 'plea deal' was 6 months I believe, not acceptable to him or for that matter to most of the folks that understood what he was doing.

He deserved a 'slap' and warning to work within the system, but was faced with draconian system. That's as wrong as the suspensions for '0 tolerance.' There are reasons for using judgment.

you do of course realize that over charge is a bit of misstatement, don't you? I mean prosecutors don't normally charge you with a crime unless you actually committed a crime.

Unless of course you argue that the charges were just made up out of thin air, which is another issue entirely.

[Kathianne]

you do of course realize that over charge is a bit of misstatement, don't you? I mean prosecutors don't normally charge you with a crime unless you actually committed a crime.

Unless of course you argue that the charges were just made up out of thin air, which is another issue entirely.

Charging with hundreds of counts to ratchet up the time possible for incarceration, when the 'crime' is actually little more than a misdemeanor? Overcharging. Compare this case and charges filed, to the real criminal in CO shooting. They held down to only those injured or killed. No charges that 'could have been' filed, only those that pertained to the actual event.

Indeed, some white collar crimes are basically let go, if contributor to the correct campaigns. Others? Overcharged and this one ended very badly.

[ConHog]

Charging with hundreds of counts to ratchet up the time possible for incarceration, when the 'crime' is actually little more than a misdemeanor? Overcharging. Compare this case and charges filed, to the real criminal in CO shooting. They held down to only those injured or killed. No charges that 'could have been' filed, only those that pertained to the actual event.

Indeed, some white collar crimes are basically let go, if contributor to the correct campaigns. Others? Overcharged and this one ended very badly.

you didn't answer my question. Do you agree that you , normally, will not be charged with a crime you did not commit?

overcharging is a situation where say someone shot another person and in reality it is a case of 2nd degree manslaughter, but a prosecutor MAY elect to charge with murder hoping to get a plea bargain to 2nd murder. THAT is an example of over charging.

Charging a guy with every crime he actually DID commit is not overcharging.

That's like saying if you get pulled over for speeding and while there the officer notices you didn't have your seat belt buckled and he goes ahead and writes you a ticket for that as well that he has over charged you. No he hasn't , you didn't have your seat belt on.

And further, if said officer let's the next speeder go without writing him a ticket, that has no bearing on whether you were correctly ticketed for speeding or not.

[Kathianne]

you didn't answer my question. Do you agree that you , normally, will not be charged with a crime you did not commit?

overcharging is a situation where say someone shot another person and in reality it is a case of 2nd degree manslaughter, but a prosecutor MAY elect to charge with murder hoping to get a plea bargain to 2nd murder. THAT is an example of over charging.

Charging a guy with every crime he actually DID commit is not overcharging.

That's like saying if you get pulled over for speeding and while there the officer notices you didn't have your seat belt buckled and he goes ahead and writes you a ticket for that as well that he has over charged you. No he hasn't , you didn't have your seat belt on.

And further, if said officer let's the next speeder go without writing him a ticket, that has no bearing on whether you were correctly ticketed for speeding or not.

Actually if charges were brought against an 'innocent person' odds are over charging would be involved, to make a forced plea agreement before trial more likely.

When guilt is overwhelming, prosecutors tend to keep the number of charges down, to facilitate a speedy trial.

[ConHog]

Actually if charges were brought against an 'innocent person' odds are over charging would be involved, to make a forced plea agreement before trial more likely.

When guilt is overwhelming, prosecutors tend to keep the number of charges down, to facilitate a speedy trial.

Um no. First of all prosecutors do their damnest not to try innocent people. They have too many cases to play those kinds of games.

Second, prosecutors would ALWAYS like to get a plea bargain no matter the strength of a case. outside of Law & Order prosecutors are concerned with one thing , get a verdict , get to the next case. If that verdict can come via plea bargain great. In fact I would guess that 75% of my wife's cases are disposed of via plea bargain. Rarely does she go to trial.


also, you're wrong about the charges. Once again, they charge with EVERYTHING and let the defendant get a "win" by only pleading to certain things while dropping others during the negotiating process for a plea.
That is true for all prosecutors.

[bingster]

The Department of Justice under obama has been a joke. Refusal to prosecute voter fraud cases, voter intimidation cases(New Black Panther Party members on video) , Fast and Furious gun smuggling cover up. Benghazi cover up etc..

When that bastard was sworn in again , today for the first time in my long life I was not proud of my country!!
I fail to see how any decent person can be .. -Tyr

Refusal to prosecute voter fraud cases? You have to be kidding. Even George W. tried to find that unicorn and failed. Nobody refused to prosecute voter fraud cases. Try to find voter fraud cases except those that occurred from your own party employees- remember the guy who hired the girls to register Republicans only and toss Democratic registrations? Oh, sure, they fired the guy right away, but it didn't stop a well known crook from being hired by the Republican party.

You're probably part of the 67% of the Republican party who think Obama won the election because Acorn stole it for us. It was a Pew Report. Pew loves to make fun of you people. Acorn went away after your lies and misrepresentations drove a non-profit organization that only took care of poor people out of business. Even John McCain supported them before your disgusting witch hunt.

Black Panthers, my butt. You guys would accuse a Bill Cosby reunion show a Black Panther party. Fox News crap. Fast and Furious from the Bush Administration? Bengazi cover-up? Really, man, you need to turn off Fox and start either reading a news paper or watching a news station. Fox News is almost as mis-informative as Rush Limbaugh.

[ConHog]

Refusal to prosecute voter fraud cases? You have to be kidding. Even George W. tried to find that unicorn and failed. Nobody refused to prosecute voter fraud cases. Try to find voter fraud cases except those that occurred from your own party employees- remember the guy who hired the girls to register Republicans only and toss Democratic registrations? Oh, sure, they fired the guy right away, but it didn't stop a well known crook from being hired by the Republican party.

You're probably part of the 67% of the Republican party who think Obama won the election because Acorn stole it for us. It was a Pew Report. Pew loves to make fun of you people. Acorn went away after your lies and misrepresentations drove a non-profit organization that only took care of poor people out of business. Even John McCain supported them before your disgusting witch hunt.

Black Panthers, my butt. You guys would accuse a Bill Cosby reunion show a Black Panther party. Fox News crap. Fast and Furious from the Bush Administration? Bengazi cover-up? Really, man, you need to turn off Fox and start either reading a news paper or watching a news station. Fox News is almost as mis-informative as Rush Limbaugh.

The Black Panther incident in 2008 in Philly absolutely happened my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4MTQVMatW0


THAT can't be denied.

Neither can it be denied that the racist Eric Holder refused to prosecute.

[fj1200]

JSTOR would not go along with. Indeed, they later released thousands of pieces to 'free net.' MIT went both ways, not wanting to participate, but not balking like JSTOR. Giving the justice department the chance to go forward.

What should have been a simple charge, was overcharged to the degree he could have faced over 30 years in jail, no way should that possibility have been there. Because of the overcharging, the 'plea deal' was 6 months I believe, not acceptable to him or for that matter to most of the folks that understood what he was doing.

He deserved a 'slap' and warning to work within the system, but was faced with draconian system. That's as wrong as the suspensions for '0 tolerance.' There are reasons for using judgment.

I'm not quite sure I see your issue here. He committed a crime, overcharged I suppose, and would accept a plea down to 6 months. I don't think he should be the poster boy for the larger issue if it exists.

I can easily see prosecutors in this case and others trying to take a zero tolerance approach on a crime that is becoming more serious.

[mundame]

I don't feel sorry for him.

These suiciders have no vitality, no real vigor.

The feds are currently going after Anonymous bigtime and this was part of it -- I think he should have waited and seen what happened, live some more. Very unlikely he'd really have served more than 6 years, at worst, IMO. Impossible. With the kind of family and community support he had? Wouldn't happen.

He was just one of these depressives, out they go for recycle. I take no interest in suiciders; look what people are going through in Syria, and they are most of them struggling to live anyway.

[mundame]

you didn't answer my question. Do you agree that you , normally, will not be charged with a crime you did not commit?




There is something seriously wrong with your belief that people charged did the crime. Evidence, notably, dug up by Project Innocence, that so many, dozens and dozens, more every year, of people convicted of murders who are on Death Row ---------------------- never did it! Just --- never did the crime, were falsely convicted.

I have for years since that revelation started up assumed that most of these guys are not pure as the driven snow --- they were bad guys that the prosecutors wanted put away for something, anything, especially since they had a lot of pressure to "solve" a murder or several murders.

However, it may sometimes be even worse than that, simply Joe Blow who was misidentified and the prosecutors went with it.

If so many high-profile murders were attributed to the wrong man, and we know that happened for sure, then how many other lesser crimes were also attributed to the fall guy of the moment? It's a cliche that prisoners always claim they are innocent, but I am beginning to realize..............maybe a lot of them are!

Thank God for DNA testing. I personally think everyone should be DNA-catalogued at birth. Boy, that would solve a whole lot of crimes a few years later.

[ConHog]

There is something seriously wrong with your belief that people charged did the crime. Evidence, notably, dug up by Project Innocence, that so many, dozens and dozens, more every year, of people convicted of murders who are on Death Row ---------------------- never did it! Just --- never did the crime, were falsely convicted.

I have for years since that revelation started up assumed that most of these guys are not pure as the driven snow --- they were bad guys that the prosecutors wanted put away for something, anything, especially since they had a lot of pressure to "solve" a murder or several murders.

However, it may sometimes be even worse than that, simply Joe Blow who was misidentified and the prosecutors went with it.

If so many high-profile murders were attributed to the wrong man, and we know that happened for sure, then how many other lesser crimes were also attributed to the fall guy of the moment? It's a cliche that prisoners always claim they are innocent, but I am beginning to realize..............maybe a lot of them are!

Thank God for DNA testing. I personally think everyone should be DNA-catalogued at birth. Boy, that would solve a whole lot of crimes a few years later.

Again, outside of the movies this isn't happening everyday.

No doubt it happens some, but it isn't some commonplace practice to convict someone, anyone, for a crime.

Ultimately a jury of 12 have to be convinced that the right guy is on trial. Either that, or the person has to admit guilt in a plea bargain agreement.

If you dig a little deeper I would bet that those murder cases you spoke of were situations where later technology proven them innocent (mostly I'm speaking of DNA, but there are other tests that can determine other factors that simply didn't exist)

[mundame]

If you dig a little deeper I would bet that those murder cases you spoke of were situations where later technology proven them innocent (mostly I'm speaking of DNA, but there are other tests that can determine other factors that simply didn't exist)


That's what I'm talking about. Project Innocence, DNA testing of old evidence, dozens and dozens of men simply did not do the murder. I don't see how you could have missed this; several states have stopped the death penalty because of the high numbers of these false convictions that have been proven beyond doubt; nowadays every few months another white-haired man is let out after 34 years of imprisonment for something he didn't do, and the news covers it.

I used to be a proponent of the death penalty, perhaps still am, but it's made me think.

[Kathianne]

I'm not quite sure I see your issue here. He committed a crime, overcharged I suppose, and would accept a plea down to 6 months. I don't think he should be the poster boy for the larger issue if it exists.

I can easily see prosecutors in this case and others trying to take a zero tolerance approach on a crime that is becoming more serious.

There's a huge difference between Anonymous releasing military secrets that could get soldiers and intelligence folks killed and the release of doctoral papers and such. JSTOR the target, realized such and in fact made nearly all free as a result.

[fj1200]

^Legally?

[ConHog]

That's what I'm talking about. Project Innocence, DNA testing of old evidence, dozens and dozens of men simply did not do the murder. I don't see how you could have missed this; several states have stopped the death penalty because of the high numbers of these false convictions that have been proven beyond doubt; nowadays every few months another white-haired man is let out after 34 years of imprisonment for something he didn't do, and the news covers it.

I used to be a proponent of the death penalty, perhaps still am, but it's made me think.

Except for in rare instances, I am also against the death penalty, for the very reasons you listed. So I recognize that it happens, I just refute that it happens on purpose - on a regular basis I mean.

[Kathianne]

^Legally?

Questionable. That's likely the reason for 'overcharging.' If just the charge for putting the laptop in the storage closet, MIT wasn't pressing. However, when the myriad of charges were brought from prosecutor, they wouldn't 'step in' as did JSTOR, who's information was downloaded to the laptop. That info was 'free' on MIT campus.

[ConHog]

Questionable. That's likely the reason for 'overcharging.' If just the charge for putting the laptop in the storage closet, MIT wasn't pressing. However, when the myriad of charges were brought from prosecutor, they wouldn't 'step in' as did JSTOR, who's information was downloaded to the laptop. That info was 'free' on MIT campus.

I'm waiting to hear what crimes he was charged with that there is not at least reasonable evidence that he committed.

[Kathianne]

I'm waiting to hear what crimes he was charged with that there is not at least reasonable evidence that he committed.

Ham sandwich. He had access to MIT campus, legally through agreement with Harvard, where he was in residence. He had his own laptop, which he legally brought onto campus. While on campus he had legal access to JSTOR, including downloading. That he left the laptop in a storage closet, downloading thousands of files? It was that which is questionable. MIT finally chose not to press charges, but then the prosecutor added many more, totaling over 30 years IF convicted. Choice was to take 6 months in jail or hope the jury wouldn't 'split the differences' and give 5 years or more.

To compare that with Anonymous, is way out of line.

[Kathianne]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Aaron-Swartz-Died-For-Pier-by-Greg-Palast-130131-64.html


Aaron Swartz Died For Piers Morgan's SinsBy Greg Palast (http://www.opednews.com/author/author1833.html) (about the author) (http://www.opednews.com/author/author1833.html)
OpEdNews Op Eds <time datetime="2013-01-31T13:06:47" pubdate="">1/31/2013 at 13:06:47</time> http://www.opednews.com/populum/cachedimages/s_500_gregpalast_com_0_aarons.gif
Portrait of a Genius ( Not Piers Morgan)

In 2000, Aaron Swartz, aged 14, had just released his astonishing invention, RSS, liberating news and information, replacing the selection of the tiny minds of editors with your own wide judgment. Around the same time, one of Piers Morgan's stringers hacked into the phone of Sir Paul McCartney's wife and stole some highly personal, and highly valuable, information -- the type of gossip used to sell Morgan's grotty little scandal sheet, The Daily Mirror, the cornerstone of Morgan's $20 million fortune based on tittle and t*tties.

Electronic burglary for profit is a crime in the UK and USA both. But Piers is serving time on prime time, on CNN.

Aaron Swartz did not get a TV show. The Robin Hood of the Information Liberation Front faced 35 years in prison for a selfless act of civil disobedience. Swartz was charged for the crime of attempting to liberate documents from JSTOR computers. JSTOR is the Goldman Sachs and Politburo of university research papers, a giant information sucker squid that hordes research and discoveries crucial to the public - the public which paid for most of the research.

(If Oxford joined JSTOR when Isaac Newton published, only a well-heeled elite would have the secret of thermodynamics. If Newton worked for Microsoft, we'd be paying a royalty for the use of gravity.)

Aaron, rather than face a life in Obama's dungeon, chose suicide. And Piers?