|
ActusRhesus posted:I actually don't charge anyone...as my practice is primarily at the appellate/post conviction level. You've been called out on this before, the root of the problem is not the drug trade - it is prohibition. Attacking the problem at its root means ending prohibition, not keeping 300,000 people in prison on drug convictions. ActusRhesus posted:a. no. Then what's the point of charging him with producing heroin, unless you're trying to extract extrajudicial penalties for the kiddie rape?
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:he was looking at it from an inquisitorial system perspective...which we don't have. And we weren't discussing torture... or even coerced confessions...we were discussing illegal searches. You appeared to be advocating firing police while accepting their illegally collected evidence at the same time. If you're taking that back, great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Then what's the point of charging him with producing heroin, unless you're trying to extract extrajudicial penalties for the kiddie rape? are you loving serious?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:are you loving serious? Do you have an actual argument?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You appeared to be advocating firing police while accepting their illegally collected evidence at the same time. If you're taking that back, great. you appeared to be once again reading what you wanted to read, not what was actually written. Do you understand the difference between inquisitorial and adverserial systems? Do you understand that I can recognize that he makes a valid point for his own system, with some carry-over to ours, but still think that there are systemic differences that would prevent a complete cross-over of ideas? An inquisitorial system involves a neutral magistrate doing all the fact finding and evidence gathering...so yeah, I can see how in that context, the notion of an exclusionary rule is completely at odds with their system. We don't have an inquisitorial system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I think I've been pretty clear in my position that non-violent drug crimes shouldn't be prosecuted, full stop. The libertarian thread is thataway ----> The War on Drugs is a disaster, and liberalization of drug laws would be great. But if you seriously think that the sellers of, say, heroin should be inviolable in respect to their enterprises, then you'd better have a loving amazing affirmative argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The libertarian thread is thataway ----> SPOILER ALERT. he doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The libertarian thread is thataway ----> People operating large-scale drug enterprises can be brought up on all sorts of legitimate non-drug charges. Fraud, tax evasion, failure to comply with consumer protection laws, employment laws, labeling laws, and so on and on on. So yeah, my opinion is that drug charges in and of themselves are nonsense and are a combination of malicious laws by policy makers and following the path of least resistance for prosecutors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Isn't the way Garner died pretty much exactly what happened to Radio Raheem in "Do The Right Thing?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you appeared to be once again reading what you wanted to read, not what was actually written. Yeah I understand I was just pulling out the kernel if you will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:People operating large-scale drug enterprises can be brought up on all sorts of legitimate non-drug charges. Fraud, tax evasion, failure to comply with consumer protection laws, employment laws, labeling laws, and so on and on on. So yeah, my opinion is that drug charges in and of themselves are nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:People operating large-scale drug enterprises can be brought up on all sorts of legitimate non-drug charges. Fraud, tax evasion, failure to comply with consumer protection laws, employment laws, labeling laws, and so on and on on. So yeah, my opinion is that drug charges in and of themselves are nonsense. How exactly would one charge a heroin factory proprietor with consumer protection violations? Or labeling laws? Your entire statement presumes the product is already legal. Carts, horses, and the relevant order there for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How exactly would one charge a heroin factory proprietor with consumer protection violations? Or labeling laws? Your entire statement presumes the product is already legal. Carts, horses, and the relevant order there for. Yeah we actually have our horse in the place we want it to be, which is not to be prosecutors until the drug war ends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah we actually have our horse in the place we want it to be, which is not to be prosecutors until the drug war ends. pretty sure you shouldn't be a prosecutor after the drug war ends either. For starters, you'd have to resign yourself to being "part of the man, man."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
I actually agree with you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
I don't know why people are trying to get more radical than each other here, but I was trying to say that disciplining police officers for violating the constitution is not necessarily at odds with the adverserial system or the exclusionary rule for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:People operating large-scale drug enterprises can be brought up on all sorts of legitimate non-drug charges. Fraud, tax evasion, failure to comply with consumer protection laws, employment laws, labeling laws, and so on and on on. So yeah, my opinion is that drug charges in and of themselves are nonsense and are a combination of malicious laws by policy makers and following the path of least resistance for prosecutors. The internal logic here is nonexistent. If small- and medium-scale drug operations are beyond prosecution, then drug prohibition is at an end. In that case why wouldn't Bayer start selling Heroin (TM) again? The large-scale operations might as well be corporate at that point. You're arguing in favor of complete legalization, which is an extreme libertarian position, and requires an actual argument to back it up. Though I can see how you might be too busy sneering at the moral inferiority of the prosecutor in the thread to actually, y'know, make a loving case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Isn't the way Garner died pretty much exactly what happened to Radio Raheem in "Do The Right Thing?" Sort of. Raheem was actually asphyxiated with a baton. Garner was put in a sleeper hold and the officer released it after Garner went down. The temporary asphyxiation ended up triggering a cardiac arrest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How exactly would one charge a heroin factory proprietor with consumer protection violations? Or labeling laws? Your entire statement presumes the product is already legal. Carts, horses, and the relevant order there for. Any reason you decided to just gloss over the relevant criminal charges in that statement, namely the parts about fraud and tax evasion? And since when do civil charges for violating regulations require a legal product? You are the lawyer here so maybe you can enlighten me, but I don't believe there's anything that precludes (for example) going after a drug trafficker over minimum wage violations or child labor laws for paying kids a few bucks an hour to work on a street corner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Is it at least agreeable that the US needs to stop putting people in prison? Because we have by far the largest population in prison in the entire world, including China and Russia and yet our crime rate isn't substantially lower. Throwing people in torture dungeons just doesn't work all that great at preventing crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Any reason you decided to just gloss over the relevant criminal charges in that statement, namely the parts about fraud and tax evasion? The funny thing about illegal employment is that it's...you know...illegal...so no, I don't think you can gig someone on payroll taxes either. I think you're confusing cases like Al Capone who went down for tax crap. But some of Capone's business was legal...that's where they got him. You don't charge a straight up criminal enterprise for tax evasion. You don't go after them for back taxes, you forfeit the assets. Seriously. this comment. I just... are you high?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Any reason you decided to just gloss over the relevant criminal charges in that statement, namely the parts about fraud and tax evasion? If the stuff is legal, why would they need to evade their taxes or commit "fraud"? (I have no idea what the latter refers to.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If the stuff is legal, why would they need to evade their taxes or commit "fraud"? (I have no idea what the latter refers to.) not to mention, to recognize its proceeds as taxable wages, you'd have to implicitly recognize it as a valid operation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
I have to disagree with characterizations of a non-retributive justice system as anarchy. It's the definition of tight state control over the individual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:not to mention, to recognize its proceeds as taxable wages, you'd have to implicitly recognize it as a valid operation. I... have you guys never heard of drug tax stamps? This is a pretty common thing in the US actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I have to disagree with characterizations of a non-retributive justice system as anarchy. It's the definition of tight state control over the individual. retributivism is only one of three sentencing philosophies. Retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation. An ideal system considers all three. And some people simply cannot be rehabilitated. So what do you do for them? I get that you're dealing with homeless youth, the overwhelming majority of whom probably do have a ton of rehabilitative potential if they end up in trouble. But do you seriously not get that not everyone does? How do you rehabilitate a sociopath?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You appeared to be advocating firing police while accepting their illegally collected evidence at the same time. If you're taking that back, great. You know the US is pretty much alone in throwing out illegally obtained evidence right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The funny thing about illegal employment is that it's...you know...illegal...so no, I don't think you can gig someone on payroll taxes either. I think you're confusing cases like Al Capone who went down for tax crap. But some of Capone's business was legal...that's where they got him. Maybe I'm missing something, so please educate me here. As I understand it, you are liable for taxes regardless of the source of income, and knowingly failing to list that income it is a criminal violation. Is that incorrect? Jack of Hearts posted:If the stuff is legal, why would they need to evade their taxes or commit "fraud"? (I have no idea what the latter refers to.) Well obviously, if they are completely above board with their heroin-production business, they wouldn't need to break any other laws. But then if they aren't actually doing anything that is otherwise illegal today beyond manufacturing drugs (which would also imply they are complying with FDA quality control regulations, etc), what is the problem exactly? As for fraud, it's pretty much impossible to run an illicit business without committing that crime. You would have to defraud banks, lessors, and more on an ongoing basis. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
fosborb posted:I... have you guys never heard of drug tax stamps? This is a pretty common thing in the US actually. Wow...I actually had not heard of that....quick google and BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man. This is pretty ridiculous. "Hi. I'm going to register for a tax stamp for my illegal drug operation." Seems at least some of the statutes have been successfully challenged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Maybe I'm missing something, so please educate me here. As I understand it, you are liable for taxes regardless of the source of income, and knowingly failing to list that income it is a criminal violation. Is that incorrect? In theory, yes. In practice, illegal business profits are just going to be subject to asset forfeiture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:retributivism is only one of three sentencing philosophies. Retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation. An ideal system considers all three. Why? Why retribution? quote:And some people simply cannot be rehabilitated. So what do you do for them? You house them, securely, and attempt to understand how you can keep the community safe while allowing the offender the most fulfilling life it is possible for them on balance to achieve. If they cannot be rehabilitated there is no reason to punish them, only to contain them. quote:I get that you're dealing with homeless youth, the overwhelming majority of whom probably do have a ton of rehabilitative potential if they end up in trouble. But do you seriously not get that not everyone does? Of course not, some folks are just lost balls in high weeds. I see some of them well before they turn 18. But why then is the answer to seek retribution upon them? What are you going to do, warn other people off of developing antisocial personality disorder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Well obviously, if they are completely above board with their heroin-production business, they wouldn't need to break any other laws. But then if they aren't actually doing anything illegal other than manufacturing drugs (which would also imply they are complying with FDA quality control regulations, etc), what is the problem exactly? Should heroin be legal or not? From your statement it appears your position is "illegal, though we should do virtually nothing to enforce said illegality, making it a farce." I mean, presumably the FDA has the power to ban heroin. And we should go after the largest operations because they're violating FDA regulations and other laws. But the medium-size operations? Leave them be. Or are you saying that as long as heroin is of pharmaceutical grade (i.e. complying with FDA quality control regulations) it should be wholly legal? Again, if you claim that it requires a hell of an affirmative argument, and in the absence of that, you're a complete idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You house them, securely, and attempt to understand how you can keep the community safe while allowing the offender the most fulfilling life it is possible for them on balance to achieve. That sounds expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
For starters, punishment helps bring closure to victims. They have a stake in this too. Isn't part of why everyone is so angry about the Darren Wilson case because there was no justice for the Brown family? Doesn't this thread repeatedly endorse holding rogue cops accountable? Newsflash: "i want someone held accountable" IS retributive philosophy.
ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why? Why retribution? How is an indefinite detention against will and judged necessary on past actions not punishment in the eyes of the detained?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You house them, securely, and attempt to understand how you can keep the community safe while allowing the offender the most fulfilling life it is possible for them on balance to achieve. If they cannot be rehabilitated there is no reason to punish them, only to contain them. In a highly-abstracted sense, leaving aside all the practical problems of implementing a death penalty, I don't understand why we're obligated to contain them rather than kill them. Declarations about "human dignity" and whatnot stray dangerously close to anti-choice arguments. If it were possible to know with certainty that a man were a violent sociopath, then why not do away with him?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Or are you saying that as long as heroin is of pharmaceutical grade (i.e. complying with FDA quality control regulations) it should be wholly legal? Again, if you claim that it requires a hell of an affirmative argument, and in the absence of that, you're a complete idiot. Yes, that is what I am saying. All available evidence suggests that the costs of prohibition are far worse than any alternatives. There is value in a comprehensive regulatory system that includes tracking sales, strict quality control and labeling guidelines, marketing bans, access to mental health services as needed, and other harm reduction tactics. But heavy-handed criminal enforcement on people participating in the industry is clearly both ineffectual and has unbearable societal costs. There are more than 300,000 people in prison today for drug charges. And your response is "well, maybe we should be careful about reform...."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yes, that is what I am saying. All available evidence suggests that the costs of prohibition are far worse than any alternatives. There is value in a comprehensive regulatory system that includes tracking sales, strict quality control and labeling guidelines, marketing bans, access to mental health services as needed, and other harm reduction tactics. But heavy-handed criminal enforcement on people participating in the industry is clearly both ineffectual and has unbearable societal costs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm not confident that the legal production of narcotics would eliminate the black market for narcotics. Illicit production is always cheaper than regulated production without strict enforcement of regulations. Any guesses as to what proportion of the cigarette and alcohol markets are supplied by illicit producers? Not referring to tax evasion here, but outright production outside of the regulatory framework for those products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:For starters, punishment helps bring closure to victims. They have a stake in this too. Isn't part of why everyone is so angry about the Darren Wilson case because there was no justice for the Brown family? Doesn't this thread repeatedly endorse holding rogue cops accountable? Newsflash: "i want someone held accountable" IS retributive philosophy. Accountability means change, which is more than punishing some shmoe on the beat. Like all murderers, Darren Wilson should have been convicted of murder, then sent to abide at a healing retreat with calm and beatific warders ready to make sure he gets to group therapy on time. And the corrupt policing system that produced him should be destroyed so that there's no brick on top of another one. You destroy corrupt institutions; you recover corrupted individuals. That's justice. That's what the people who are marching want, they don't want blood, they're not like you. I don't see how "punishment helps bring closure" is any more self-evidently true than "expensive funerals help bring closure." We're taught to believe that punishment brings closure. But a positive change is what brings closure. fosborb posted:How is an indefinite detention against will and judged necessary on past actions not punishment in the eyes of the detained? Well I mean they're free to look at it however they want. When I worked at a treatment program for sexually aggressive youth, almost all of them were grateful to be there instead of Echo Glen. But the purpose was to fix them and return them to their communities, because no other approach (other than summarily executing them) would work better to minimize the likelihood of their doing harm in the future. Most of them seemed to understand that they weren't being punished, that the judge was smart enough not to harm their own community by punishing them, and damning them to a cycle of incarceration, decline and re-offense. Some of them didn't understand, of course. They wouldn't participate in treatment, and had to leave the program and go to jail. But I would prefer that our system be more calm and patient with that kind of washout, and keep them in an environment that is restrictive but still respects their humanity and equality with others. And I see no reason that same logic shouldn't be applied to murderers. Jack of Hearts posted:In a highly-abstracted sense, leaving aside all the practical problems of implementing a death penalty, I don't understand why we're obligated to contain them rather than kill them. Declarations about "human dignity" and whatnot stray dangerously close to anti-choice arguments. If it were possible to know with certainty that a man were a violent sociopath, then why not do away with him? Because we're better than him. That's already the logic he applies to us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:24
|
|