|
ActusRhesus posted:agreed...which is why their sentences are generally different (and should be). But to claim the two are in no way connected is a bit off. Frankly, the low level guy is more useful as a cooperating witness than a long term inmate. What I mean is it's perfectly reasonable to argue that it is not an appropriate use of the government's criminal power to go after the low-level street dealer, especially given the fact that the punishment for being convicted of a crime isn't just the sentence, it's that you are a convicted criminal and the attendant problems with employment, etc. That sort of 'flat-fee' punishment you get merely by being a convict makes it so you can quite reasonably argue that no prosecution of a low-level street dealer is just because they'll be seriously overpunished by any conviction relative to the harm they cause.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
I think the disconnect was that most people use 'non-violent' as a short version of 'did not cause direct harm to others' - which is clearly what people are talking about when they speak of non-violent offenders in the context of drug use. e: hell that was even implicit in how AR was using it by excluding (non-violent) distributors when speaking of non-violent drug crimes. tsa fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:were all 2,000 people knowledgeable of/complicit in the fraud? Far more people knew of and were complicit in the fraud than were prosecuted, and an even smaller subset of them went to prison. The same is true to a far greater extent in the latest financial crisis. I wonder, are you capable of realizing that there can be a middle ground to things? -Refusing to criminally prosecute bank executives for fraud while fining their companies is under-enforcement of non-violent crime. -Sending every middle manager to maximum security prison for decades is over-enforcement of non-violent crime. The Enron case actually presents a decent middle ground. A handful of executives went to a relatively humane prison, the enterprise itself was completely broken up, and all of the middle managers, accountants, analysts, etc who would have had to be complicit in a fraud of that scale did not have their lives destroyed and any hope of a future shattered by a felony conviction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What I mean is it's perfectly reasonable to argue that it is not an appropriate use of the government's criminal power to go after the low-level street dealer, especially given the fact that the punishment for being convicted of a crime isn't just the sentence, it's that you are a convicted criminal and the attendant problems with employment, etc. That sort of 'flat-fee' punishment you get merely by being a convict makes it so you can quite reasonably argue that no prosecution of a low-level street dealer is just because they'll be seriously overpunished by any conviction relative to the harm they cause. I buy that argument for the possession case, because I have sympathy for people with substance abuse issues and agree they are people we should be looking to rehabilitate. Not so much the dealer. If you make the decision to profit from illegal activity, then yeah...there are going to be consequences for that. (Btw...how much do you think a "low level" dealer makes? Answer: quite a lot. They tend not to get rich though because...well, conviction interrupts career longevity.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:all of the middle managers, accountants, analysts, etc who would have had to be complicit in a fraud of that scale did not have their lives destroyed and any hope of a future shattered by a felony conviction. There's also a "sufficiency of the evidence" issue, and a "cooperating witness" issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:I think the disconnect was that most people use 'non-violent' as a short version of 'did not cause direct harm to others' - which is clearly what people are talking about when they speak of non-violent offenders in the context of drug use. I disagree. People who don't think drugs should be decriminalized talk about the distinction between nonviolent and violent drug offenders all the time. People who do think they should be decriminalized are using the nonviolent label to differentiate the people they think shouldn't be criminals (users, low-level nonviolent dealers) from the people who unambiguously should be criminals, the people using violence as part of their drug crimes. The phrase you're thinking of is "victimless crimes", not non-violent crimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I buy that argument for the possession case, because I have sympathy for people with substance abuse issues and agree they are people we should be looking to rehabilitate. Not so much the dealer. If you make the decision to profit from illegal activity, then yeah...there are going to be consequences for that. (Btw...how much do you think a "low level" dealer makes? Answer: quite a lot. They tend not to get rich though because...well, conviction interrupts career longevity.) That's...not correct. http://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/5049.pdf quote:Earnings
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I buy that argument for the possession case, because I have sympathy for people with substance abuse issues and agree they are people we should be looking to rehabilitate. Not so much the dealer. If you make the decision to profit from illegal activity, then yeah...there are going to be consequences for that. (Btw...how much do you think a "low level" dealer makes? Answer: quite a lot. They tend not to get rich though because...well, conviction interrupts career longevity.) Apply this logic to the literally thousands of low-level analysts, accountants, compliance staff, etc (who by the way earn far more than any low-level dealer) who would have had to be aware of fraud and still profited from illegal activity at banks during the financial crisis and see where this gets you. Was fraud under-prosecuted in the wake of the financial crisis? Absolutely. But if we're to follow your guidance for going after drug dealers, NYPD SWAT should have been tearing down doors left and right to drag off 20-something accountants to jail in their pajamas, where if they were lucky they might be able to cooperate and plea down to something that won't send them to prison for most of their adult life. Even at best, they would be effectively unemployable outside of a McDonalds (if that) for the rest of their lives and their families' assets (e: personal, not corporate, assets) could be seized by law enforcement. There are some people who think that might be the appropriate recourse, but as I see it the result is just more misery and crime in the long run. Prosecuting executives and seizing all corporate assets would have been sufficient, in my opinion, just as it would be sufficient to dismantle illicit drug enterprises. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So...big drug enterprise = bad. BIG WEED.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's...not correct. move here, then. our last street dealer bust had over 100K in their house. I guess it depends on how you define "Street dealer." guy pushing a few bags to fund his own habit vs. guy making his own sales. It's one of the reasons we also have a statutory distinction between selling if you are an addict vs a non-user. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:move here, then. our last street dealer bust had over 100K in their house. How much of that was working assets? Do you know if he had any outstanding debts? A pile of cash says absolutely nothing about someone's income without context. e: To put it another way, your low level dealer could have taken possession of some amount of drugs for partial up-front payment with an agreement to repay the rest after sale, or he may have been required to pay a portion of earnings to his superiors. Just because he has a relatively large amount of cash on him at the moment he was caught doesn't automatically mean that his net income is anything extraordinary, and EvilWeasel pointed out literature from actual economists with data that it is in fact not all that lucrative of a job for most people. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How much of that was working assets? Do you know if he had any outstanding debts? A pile of cash says absolutely nothing about someone's income without context. seeing as the bust also uncovered a lot of recent overseas money transfer receipts, and this cash was squirreled away in more personal areas of the home, it's pretty safe to assume those are the after cost proceeds. It's also telling how often our defendants who qualify for a public defender based on their reportable income are able to post cash bonds. This belief that there isn't a lot of money to be made pushing drugs is a little inconsistent with my own experiences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:move here, then. our last street dealer bust had over 100K in their house. I mean I'm sure there's the odd street dealer who hits it rich, but there's three different studies cited in that link and they all support that it's not a lucrative profession. I'm sure you've seen what you've seen but between studies on the issue and your experience, the studies carry a lot more weight. I would guess there's some filtering between the reality and what cases go to you for trial (especially if you do appellate work). It's certainly just not correct that it's a lucrative profession and people only don't strike it rich because they get caught too early - on average it just doesn't pay well on a monthly basis even when you don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:seeing as the bust also uncovered a lot of recent overseas money transfer receipts, and this cash was squirreled away in more personal areas of the home, it's pretty safe to assume those are the after cost proceeds. In other words, you really don't know what their expenses or full balance sheet look like, and are just making assumptions about income based on a pile of cash that you saw? Jeez, I really hope they keep you off of financial crimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:full balance sheet. bahahahahahahahhahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean I'm sure there's the odd street dealer who hits it rich, but there's three different studies cited in that link and they all support that it's not a lucrative profession. I'm sure you've seen what you've seen but between studies on the issue and your experience, the studies carry a lot more weight. I would guess there's some filtering between the reality and what cases go to you for trial (especially if you do appellate work). Again, I think the difference here is how we are defining street dealer. Do you define it as "anyone who has picked up some drugs of any quantity and sold it for a profit along with other sources of income" or "someone who is actively employed as a drug dealer." I think that may be where we are crossing wires. Even your article shows a big difference between casual and daily dealers. When I say "low level" I include anyone who actually interacts with a buyer vice people involved only in the trafficking or manufacture aspect of an enterprise. I'm looking at more the people for whom this is their regular occupation, not an income supplement. Because a lot of people running the operation are also doing their own sales. Less people involved, less people to snitch. It's not like they sit up in the villa watching the serfs labor. At least not here, anyway. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:In other words, you really don't know what their expenses or full balance sheet look like, and are just making assumptions about income based on a pile of cash that you saw? Jeez, I really hope they keep you off of financial crimes. Drug dealers: a section of the populace well known for keeping careful track of their finances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What type of search would be allowed on just "I smell weed?" I'm not sure I know of a fact pattern where that would be all you need. The wierdest thing is like half of them find no weed, but meth or guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
nm posted:I've lost this supression motion several times. I smelled weed is enough for a vehicle search in California. It is enough in MN too. ugh. Yeah, I can't say I'm a fan of that. It's really not that hard to get a warrant. But then, you said the magic word "vehicle." There's a lot of bullshit fourth amendment interpretation based on the "motor vehicle exception" because...you know...all that smelled weed could drive away any minute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
nm posted:I've lost this supression motion several times. I smelled weed is enough for a vehicle search in California. It is enough in MN too. OK too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:bahahahahahahahhahahaha. -Troika- posted:Drug dealers: a section of the populace well known for keeping careful track of their finances. Yeah, I'm sure no drug dealer has ever owed anyone money or been obligated to make future purchases. They don't use Quickbooks, so those liabilities don't exist or something? It's really not as simple as pile of cash = lots of income, and it's pretty telling that a prosecutor would just laugh off the distinction and assume that busting a dude with the totally shocking and unheard of amount of $100,000 at the moment is meaningful in any way. I wonder, did you guys seize the money? Did he have to pay for bail and legal fees? What did his earnings look like after law enforcement took their cut?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
nm posted:I've lost this supression motion several times. I smelled weed is enough for a vehicle search in California. It is enough in MN too. joat mon posted:OK too. I don't know if it's enough in GA, but it's certainly enough to detain while they get a dog out, who will inevitably alert. Which has led to at least one case where someone was left with an inoperable car - driver's side seat removed and cut into, steering wheel torn up by the dog, etc. A four hour search that turned up nothing, and no recourse for the victim. (Not me, kid of a friend.) It'd be nice if a dog's false positive rate could be used against it, but no, that unnecessarily undermines the value of those beautiful and noble counting horses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Guys the balance sheet doesn't have to be written out to be real. It may be in somebody's head or it may be in code on an encrypted server somewhere (a distant second to keeping it in your head, security wise). But 100k in cash on hand, as in all business, has nothing to do with profit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:A four hour search that turned up nothing, and no recourse for the victim. (Not me, kid of a friend.) Is that true? I know a couple of cases, and it was covered by insurance who then went after the police and I was led to believe the police's insurance then paid out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Was he a dealer, or was he a distributor? How long had he been working and saving up the cash? How many people did he owe and did he buy his supply with cash in advance? 100k on hand sounds a lot more like low level distributor cash than dealer cash. And yeah, ActusRhesus, your opinions here are clearly pretty biased by your position and the fact you'd never (by your own admission) see cases involving the vast majority of drug dealers. And prosecutors totally help ruin lives, even if you think the people with the ruined lives deserve it. Hell, I think many of them deserve it - better to ruin a life than to let them ruin the lives of others. But your argument that you're somehow not responsible even in situations where the person would have gotten off with a different, crappier prosecutor, is pretty silly. I appreciate your input on a lot of topics, but sometimes when you talk you make it really obvious you've got a bit of dehumanization of the other going on. Probably necessary for the job, and completely understandable, but it does quite obviously colour your arguments sometimes. Which reminds me, I don't recall your answer to the question brought up earlier on this vein, so I'll rephrase my own version of it. If we could implement a policy resulting in 30 fewer bystanders killed a year on average by police, at the cost of 2 more police a year being killed, would you support that change in policy? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Which reminds me, I don't recall your answer to the question brought up earlier on this vein, so I'll rephrase my own version of it. This is basically the trolley problem and the answer is going to depend a lot more on people's answer to that than their views on police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Is that true? I know a couple of cases, and it was covered by insurance who then went after the police and I was led to believe the police's insurance then paid out. Often depends on whether or not you can prove negligence or misconduct, and "they found nothing where the dog 'alerted'" doesn't seem to be enough in many cases. Seriously, don't look at articles about damages from failed drug raids/searches if you value your sanity, because they largely end with "the cops had a warrant, so your house that is now uninhabitable / vehicle that is now inoperable is your problem". EDIT: I can't find the article right now, but there was at least one case where insurance refused to pay out on the damages from a bad raid (as in, no evidence was found that the raid was justified) because the insurance company said the warrant was more indicative of illegal activity than the fact that none was found. Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is basically the trolley problem and the answer is going to depend a lot more on people's answer to that than their views on police. How about this: You can choose to implement one of two policies. One will definitely be implemented. One will kill 2 additional police officers per year, the other 4 bystanders. Which do you choose? Is that one better? (There's even ways to argue one option would be superior to the other, but it will at least establish a starting point) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:But let's use the example of kiddie porn rather than drugs. Kiddie Porn is rightly seen to be much worse than drug use because the consumption of child pornography is itself a harm to the victim, in addition to the harm caused by increasing demand for the materials. Drug users are not harming other people by consuming drugs. Drug users are uniquely considered to be both victims and perpetrators of drug possession "crimes". Child pornography continues to harm its victims each and every time it is consumed and distributed. Paroline v. US was a very interesting Supreme Court case dealing with the limits of liability for the perpetrators. Sotomayor's dissent is closest to my view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:bahahahahahahahhahahaha. By the way, you never answered whether you supported arresting, charging with felony fraud, and seizing all the personal assets of every low-level analyst and accountant who had even the slightest complicity with the fraud that resulted in the financial crisis, or whether such a campaign of mass arrest, incarceration, and seizure might be counterproductive? Because it certainly appears to be your approach to drug crime. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:By the way, you never answered whether you supported arresting, charging with felony fraud, and seizing all the personal assets of every low-level analyst and accountant who had even the slightest complicity with the fraud that resulted in the financial crisis, or whether such a campaign of mass arrest, incarceration, and seizure might be counterproductive? Because it certainly appears to be your approach to drug crime. the ones who there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt were complicit in fraud? Yes. I would charge them with whatever could be proven. The deterrent message alone, I think, would be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Eric Garner grand jury no-billed Pantaleo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Eric Garner grand jury no-billed Pantaleo. I know very little about that case, but given what I know of the facts, that is more surprising than brown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Hey guys we just need to invest in body cameras and then we'll be fine! *violently chokes man to death on camera* Well, I see no cause for alarm here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
nm posted:I know very little about that case, but given what I know of the facts, that is more surprising than brown. If you're surprised, I don't think you've been paying attention lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Hey guys we just need to invest in body cameras and then we'll be fine! Pretty much. Body cameras aren't going to do anything as long as the justice system considers police above the law and most of America will invent a reason to excuse cops for when they get caught brutalizing non-violent victims on camera. Look forward to the 12 year old's murderer being let off by a grand jury in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
They also had Daniel Pantaleo, the cop who killed him, give a testimony to the grand jury. I'm sensing some sort of strange, strange pattern.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They also had Daniel Pantaleo, the cop who killed him, give a testimony to the grand jury. In New York the defendant has a right to do this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Radish posted:Pretty much. Body cameras aren't going to do anything as long as the justice system considers police above the law and most of America will invent a reason for when they see cops brutalize non-violent victims on camera. Look forward to the 12 year old's murderer being let off by a grand jury in the near future. Yes it will. City of Rialto had a dirty police force. Since dashcams, use of force and complaints have collapsed. Yes, they can be turned off and what is seen can be twisted, but it is changing, making cops think. I've gotten several cases of resisting dismissed because of taser or body cams. It is making a real, postive change. It won't fix everythong, but it helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:In New York the defendant has a right to do this. That's interesting, I didn't know that, but I was more insinuating that I feel it's likely that the prosecution treated him like Wilson. I heard a lot of talk about how it was weird in that case, and from posters here saying it's usually in the prosecution's favor to have the person up for charges to testify, but in the released records it was very clear the prosecution treated him with kid gloves and painted him in a favorable light. I would be surprised if it was any different here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:49
|
|