|
nm posted:Wait, what? How the gently caress would 9-11 impact racism against black people? Barrak Hussein Obama  e: If I have a chance today I'll try to find some of the papers I was looking at which were dealing with juror bias against african americans & minorities. Zarkov Cortez fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Aug 4, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
People arguing without a hint of irony that we should judge individual people and events based on generalizations, statistics, and trends instead of examining the actual facts of the incident in a thread about racism is the best thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People arguing without a hint of irony that we should judge individual people and events based on generalizations, statistics, and trends instead of examining the actual facts of the incident in a thread about racism is the best thing ever. Nobody is saying to do that, though. What's being said is that, given that we know that racism plays a part in traffic stops, this case looks as though racism may have played a part, given the cops continued unnecessary escalation. It is also possible the cop was just being a dick. Either way doesn't change the larger truth: There is systemic racism in the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People arguing without a hint of irony that we should judge individual people and events based on generalizations, statistics, and trends instead of examining the actual facts of the incident in a thread about racism is the best thing ever. No, we should judge the cop for his lovely behavior and needless brutality. However, acknowledging that the skin color of his uppity and disrespectful victim was probably what egged him on to power trip and give her nuisance commands to assert his dominance and put her back in her place is an important part of preventing tragedies like this from happening in the future, because we won't eliminate incidents like this without getting rid of the racist policing that results in black people being targeted for harassment and beatings. E: Also Obdicut you win, quit rubbing it in that I was wrong  E2: But seriously how did you find that image of a (UK?) billboard about police corruption VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I understand what you're saying here, the reason why people get so angry with ActusRhesus *is* mostly because of her tone. Her posts are almost all extremely condescending (despite not being in a position where she has access to any special expertise that couldn't be easily explained or linked to on wikipedia or something; a prosecutor isn't exactly equal to being a professor). I would probably be a lot "nicer" if I weren't constantly dog piled on. I actually do have an interest in helping people understand things without being lovely, hence the creation of the ask/tell. But saying *i* am mean and ignoring the mountains of poo poo hurled at me is disingenuous at best. Especially when it's not just me, people here do it to blarzgh too. You also grossly mischaracterize my posts. I have suggested a number of reforms. You say it was "only after prodding" but do you seriously expect immediate and reasoned response to "gently caress you jackboot just admit you are a racist" Also, re "she's not a professor" no. I am not. Law professors are not held to the same academic standards as other academics and generally are in a worse position to opine on law than those who practice it daily. Thinking a law professors view is more valid in and of itself shows a lack of understanding. Also, you may want to think twice about arguments that boil down to "well I know you make the same points...but her TONE is bad." They can come across as sexist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
I appreciate your informative posts AR, but dropping back in here to accuse people of being stupid constitution-haters, even after people modified or dropped their proposals after your explanation of the sixth amendment, while ignoring all suggestions that didn't have those problems is a bit annoying, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I appreciate your informative posts AR, but dropping back in here to accuse people of being stupid constitution-haters, even after people modified or dropped their proposals after your explanation of the sixth amendment, while ignoring all suggestions that didn't have those problems is a bit annoying, for what it's worth. To be fair, it's hard to keep up with all the arguments when one is constantly put on probation. Those were the points being raised last time I was in the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Well that seems like an opportunity for a win-win because I like reading your posts about legal procedure in your state, and those aren't the ones that land you on probation :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
AR is spot on about law professors by the way. Some schools hold their faculty to a high standard, but there are so many really bad law schools that have really bad faculty that separating the wheat from the chaff requires some research. The ground-level practice of law is so overwhelmingly different from law school and legal academics as to almost be different fields entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well that seems like an opportunity for a win-win because I like reading your posts about legal procedure in your state, and those aren't the ones that land you on probation :iamafag: Yeah but some of the responses to them (not necessarily yours) help create the antagonistic environment that leads to the posts that get me probated. I'll admit I don't always play nice. But I don't think it's without provocation. To turn to the issue at hand, racial profiling, yeah. It's a thing and that is wrong. And because it's historically been a thing, you will never convince a minority they weren't pulled over for driving whole black. You can have the most valid stop ever but the driver will still think "oh great. Driving while black." The only way I see to stop that is to rebuild faith in the community. Hire more minority officers from the community. Teach professionalism in interaction. I am phone posting but google free inhabitant arrest. A++ to that officer responding professionally up to the point physical restraint was necessary. And community outreach goes a long way. Our PD has a lot of programs targeting at risk kids, and some programs even tailored to minors and young adults with criminal records. Result is we have decent reputation in the community. Another factor people need to account for is that pretext stops will be more common in high crime areas, which are usually poor, which have more minorities. Therefore more minority traffic stops. If black people are 80% of a town's driving population, they will also be a majority of the traffic stops. So fixing the underlying crime issues will help negate the need for pretext stops. Hence one of our outreach programs that is geared towards employment for teens who are at risk of gang activity. It's not a perfect solution, but I can say our PD is pretty well respected and we don't have a triple digit murder rate any more. So yay! Phone posting forgive typos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:AR is spot on about law professors by the way. Some schools hold their faculty to a high standard, but there are so many really bad law schools that have really bad faculty that separating the wheat from the chaff requires some research. The ground-level practice of law is so overwhelmingly different from law school and legal academics as to almost be different fields entirely. People would have more respect for legal academia if things like "peer review" were used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Harik posted:Thanks, I'm not sure how I missed that when searching for dates. Which means either they got the grant I found after they did their fieldwork, or Fiscal Year 2002 means "all grants since 2001 and before 2002". I'll edit my previous post to include this. Here's an additional paper by Pager from 2009 on that topic: http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/5/777.short And from her recent publications, here's a paper in 2011 that also covers wage disparities: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/pdf_4.pdf Just in case anybody was still on the fence about whether or not we cured racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:People would have more respect for legal academia if things like "peer review" were used. If they did that, they would need to actually staff law reviews with professionals rather than law students in need of resume padding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Real academic fields have tons of undergrad research let alone grad research. Students on law reviews would still be fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Real academic fields have tons of undergrad research let alone grad research. Students on law reviews would still be fine. The issue isn't student papers in law reviews, it's the fact that students are the editorial staff for essentially all law reviews. You'd have to replace them with professionals, or at least law professors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Real academic fields have tons of undergrad research let alone grad research. Students on law reviews would still be fine. On, yes. Running, no. I agree with you. The lack of peer review makes legal scholarship a joke. But I doubt that will change. Too many people with too much skin in the "we can publish whatever we want" game. I say this as a former managing editor. "Yeah but I know the author and he promised me the next draft will be better (or actually finished)" was a valid reason to approve publication. I disagreed but meh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Hey Actus did you ever get around to responding to the stuff you couldn't because you were phoneposting, or did you decide it wasn't important after all? Also: quote:Another factor people need to account for is that pretext stops will be more common in high crime areas, which are usually poor, which have more minorities. Therefore more minority traffic stops. If black people are 80% of a town's driving population, they will also be a majority of the traffic stops. So fixing the underlying crime issues will help negate the need for pretext stops. Hence one of our outreach programs that is geared towards employment for teens who are at risk of gang activity. Again, controlling for other factors, racism is systemic in the justice system. Comparing like to like--a white neighborhood with high crime, or white residents of that black neighborhood by proportion to the black residents--you find that blacks are disproportionately stopped and arrested. The theory that poverty explains the effects we see would be improbable, given what we know about how racism operates, but it has been investigated and found not to be true. The work on algorithms to correctly account for confounders is very advanced. This is a paper about corrections for health outcomes, which is more my area, but any decent paper uses these corrections when running regressions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125322/
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Hey Actus did you ever get around to responding to the stuff you couldn't because you were phoneposting, or did you decide it wasn't important after all? You see? This is a perfect example of the tone that leads me to be less than enthusiastic about serious participation. I'm making an effort to be civil which is immediately met with "Derp Derp you said you'd post something and you didn't gotcha Derp Derp" And no, I didn't get around to it because I was too busy being on probation. Kind of unfair to complain about lack of timely response while simultaneously mashing the report button. Also, I'm not sure your healthcare link is relevant. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Literally the only academia on criminal law that should be paid attention to from non legal fields like sociology. Seriously, law schools treat professors with real world legal experence longer than 3 years like they have the plague. The problem is that the sociologists and the like don't know what the emat grinder is truely like (and as a result assume too much), but it isn't like law profs are better and at least there is some academic rigor. Edit: jesus gently caress, stop posting about poo poo that happened a week ago in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
As a general note, a move to actual peer review in law journals will only somewhat improve standards. JDs are professional degrees, and even PhDs in law tend not to get much statistical training. Sociology....you get some really good stuff, and you get some really bad stuff. I suspect the variance in sociology rigor is unusually high, due to the contested location of sociology during the science wars.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:To be fair, it's hard to keep up with all the arguments when one is constantly put on probation. Odd that a prosecutor would be held accountable for misbehavior. Oh man, this thread. This. Thread. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
peengers posted:Odd that a prosecutor would be held accountable for misbehavior. Oh man, this thread. This. Thread. In what way is that helping the discussion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Officer, you pulled me over today. Not to be mean, or because of a "quota" Not because my car is old, Not because I'm young and female.. But because I was speeding. I was pulled over today. I pulled over before you turned your lights on. I waited for you with my papers In my hand, outside the window. I called you sir, you called me ma'am. We were respectful toward one another. I did not lie, cry, or cut you down for doing your job. And you didn't have to argue with me. I didn't run, thus you didn't chase me. I didn't pull a gun on you, So you didn't shoot me. I did not resist, You didn't have to put hands on me. I did not pull out a camcorder I don't want you to feel scared to do your job Or like you are walking on eggshells because I need you to feel comfortable keeping us safe. And I want you to come home to your family tonight. I know you were sworn in.. You may have sworn your last breath For me or those like me, and for those like you. I will not tell you how to do your job. I know I can't do your job. Not many can. When you pulled me over today, I saw your unit.. A Setina guard on the front A camera behind the windshield A gun, a tazer, and handcuffs on your belt. And I know these things are to protect you, And to protect those like you, And to protect those like me. And I felt no need to complicate things Like others have done. Officer you pulled me over today. You wrote me a ticket today For something I know I did. But there are bigger things beyond tickets So I said "Thank You" And I meant it. Because on that ticket is a signature of a man That would sacrifice his last breath to keep us safe, And die for his brothers. And that signature is on a citation.. But I'll respect it when I see it. I know Safety comes at a price. I'd rather it be a few hundred bucks Than someone's life. Once again, Thank you. -R. Bivens Pro Police Community
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:In what way is that helping the discussion? An excellent point. How do you feel about the state of the legal system regarding prosecutorial misconduct, and how almost nothing is done about it when it's called into light?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
peengers posted:An excellent point. How do you feel about the state of the legal system regarding prosecutorial misconduct, and how almost nothing is done about it when it's called into light? I'm going to ignore the hostile and unnecessarily antagonistic tone of that question and refer you back to any of the numerous times I have said I strongly disagree with elected DAs and have zero tolerance for prosecutorial misconduct. However, while I think things like Orange County should result in disbarment, statistics on prosecutorial misconduct can be misleading because lumped in there are things like "didn't initially turn over police notes that prosecutor was never told existed, but turned them over as soon as they learned they existed" and "said the word victim during closing argument"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Hey Actus did you ever get around to responding to the stuff you couldn't because you were phoneposting, or did you decide it wasn't important after all? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Considering some of the most prolific posters in this thread have said that they don't feel the discussion should be "constrained" by legal realities, the meanings of words, or facts, it's pretty loving hilarious to get snotty about AR not providing D&D with the serious legal analysis it clearly deserves. Yeah, the tone policing is much more valuable input. Oh oh and your side had someone who said "Darkie McRetard" so it's "pretty loving hilarious" you're acting like you're not all racist. See how dumb that is? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:To turn to the issue at hand, racial profiling, yeah. It's a thing and that is wrong. And because it's historically been a thing, you will never convince a minority they weren't pulled over for driving whole black. You can have the most valid stop ever but the driver will still think "oh great. Driving while black." The incarcerated population in the US is incredibly high. Any number of statistics show that police are far more likely to treat minorities poorly. And yet there's like ONE case out of the dozens that have shown up in the news that doesn't have many people pointing to alternate explanations than racism. With that kind of bad faith, it's no wonder that minorities tend not to trust the police or legal system. Besides, as a minority, you can't really tell if a specific experience is caused by racism. Racists generally aren't open about that. People can also be very, very racist in their actions while honestly believing that they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Considering some of the most prolific posters in this thread have said that they don't feel the discussion should be "constrained" by legal realities, the meanings of words, or facts, it's pretty loving hilarious to get snotty about AR not providing D&D with the serious legal analysis it clearly deserves. Lol this thread. "There isn't enough legal info!. And how dare you ask for legal info!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
No. I'm not minimizing it. It's a huge problem and an immediate solution probably isn't possible. You can't wave a magic wand and eradicate decades of racism. But what I am saying is that there are things you can do now to try to build up long term change over time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You see? This is a perfect example of the tone that leads me to be less than enthusiastic about serious participation. I'm making an effort to be civil which is immediately met with "Derp Derp you said you'd post something and you didn't gotcha Derp Derp" Nothing I said was uncivil. If you can't stand being asked to provide stuff you said that you would, then you're pretty thin-skinned. If you want to write up something long, you can do that off-site, you know, you don't have to wait for probation to end to write it, just to post it. It's kind of ridiculous how sensitive you are. Trying to be civil isn't some high bar, what I said to you was an very mild reminder of something you said you'd do, and yet you're flipping out about it. If you don't want to engage in that substantial discussion, if you'd rather drop the civility and go back to making the sorts of posts that get you probated, that seems silly to me but go ahead. quote:Also, I'm not sure your healthcare link is relevant. It is, for the reason I explained: When sociologists look at something about how race affects something, they do their best to account for all confounders and address them in the regression. People research the extent to which the cofounders have an effect, systematize that, turn it into algorithms, which are then used by other researchers so that they don't have to figure it out all over again. When you see criminologists offering up stats about the way that race affects arrests, it will usually be after a confounder analysis that has adjusted the raw numbers, and in general, the effect of those confounders is much smaller than the effect of race. This is very much true for stops and arrests. Dead Reckoning posted:Considering some of the most prolific posters in this thread have said that they don't feel the discussion should be "constrained" by legal realities, the meanings of words, or facts, it's pretty loving hilarious to get snotty about AR not providing D&D with the serious legal analysis it clearly deserves. I'm not one of those people, though. That said, she's under no obligation to provide serious legal analysis, but she said she'd write something substantive earlier, and she hasn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I have said I strongly disagree with elected DAs and have zero tolerance for prosecutorial misconduct. The problem is, "prosecutorial misconduct" is an almost impossible legal standard to meet. Prosecutors have enormous discretion within the law, even when perpetuating serious issues within the legal system. How would you suggest curbing abuses that don't rise to the level of legal misconduct? For example, -Threatening unreasonably long sentences for taking a case to trial, often for non-violent crimes, to force plea bargains to pad their win statistics and discourage defendants from having their day in court . -Setting bail amounts that are often blind to the ability of defendants to pay, often making it next to impossible for poorer defendants to fight a case without being stuck in jail for the duration of a long trial - which in turn also encourages plea bargains from defendants who would otherwise be willing to try a case in front of a jury. Rich people, of course, don't have this issue since they can meet bail. Also, how would you encourage prosecutors to devote greater efforts to white-collar crime? I realize these cases can often be more difficult to win, but it seems like most DA's offices have incredibly odd priorities with non-violent drug cases getting enormously more attention than white-collar fraud that has a far, far higher cost. You have mentioned you work for a state's DA office in a metropolitan area, which means that you almost certainly have jurisdiction over rampant fraud that occurred in the lead-up to the financial crisis. How much time has your office spent investigating and prosecuting those crimes compared to drug cases, and do you believe that's an appropriate allocation of resources?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Again, I would be really careful using terms like "overly sensitive" and "flipping out" when invalidating the position of a female poster. I don't think any of the above posts are even remotely "flipping out." If you read them as such that provides interesting insight on you. Also, I think it's pretty unreasonable to put someone on probation and expect them to sit around for a week constructing an effort post to release upon the lifting of their probation. I mean, does that actually sound reasonable to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Well, immunity from lawsuit, for one, which was judge-made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, I think it's pretty unreasonable to put someone on probation and expect them to sit around for a week constructing an effort post to release upon the lifting of their probation. I mean, does that actually sound reasonable to you? Hey if you don't want to provide it, don't, but it seems unreasonable to me to complain about the lack of good legal analysis in this thread, tell everyone that your knowledge is what's missing in the conversation, then decide you don't want to tell anyone what it is. If everyone here is too ignorant of the law to be worth talking to, and you don't want to talk about the law yourself then...why are you here? Just to complain that non-lawyers don't know as much as you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
1. As a general rule the plea bargain process benefits defendants more than the state. As for prosecutors padding their win record, get rid of elected DAs. We give zero fucks about our batting averages here. 2. Bail, I suppose I would tighten up what requires bail. However there is a public safety issue to take into consideration too. I deal primarily in homicide. Bail is the same for rich and poor if there is a risk to public safety: a lot. 3. Most white collar will be federal...I said I was high crime. I think you think I am NY. I'm not. So we really didn't have a stake in the financial collapse. I agree they should be prosecuted aggressively but most of those cases have to go federal, and yes. They are extremely hard to prove. Unless you get an Enron fact pattern where someone is willing to deal. Your post had a slightly accusatory edge to it. "My office" doesn't prosecute cases over which it has no jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Again, I would be really careful using terms like "overly sensitive" and "flipping out" when invalidating the position of a female poster. I don't think any of the above posts are even remotely "flipping out." If you read them as such that provides interesting insight on you. I'm not invalidating your position, though. I'm asking you to give your position. I'm saying that the amount of complaining you do about how you're treated is excessive, especially since you give it right back. I am genuinely interested in your take, though this doesn't mean I won't criticize it. I'm trying to have a substantive conversation with you. If you want it narrowed down, I'm most interested in your take on prosecutors opposing bail in order to keep a defendant in jail and make them more amenable to a deal. quote:Also, I think it's pretty unreasonable to put someone on probation and expect them to sit around for a week constructing an effort post to release upon the lifting of their probation. I mean, does that actually sound reasonable to you? Well, I can't put people on probation, so I don't have any expectations. However, it really doesn't sound at all unreasonable for someone to respond being banned for arguing against people instead of arguments to take the time to develop their argument, especially when they said that they would do that. ActusRhesus posted:1. As a general rule the plea bargain process benefits defendants more than the state. As for prosecutors padding their win record, get rid of elected DAs. We give zero fucks about our batting averages here. It isn't simply a problem for elected prosecutors, since, as I already told you, the win-loss for non-elected prosecutors is about the same. There are lots of reasons why this would be true--appointed prosecutors are still exposed to most of the same pressures as elected ones, politics is still present, just at one remove. I didn't ask whether you felt the plea bargaining system benefited one group over the other--that's hard to quantify. There are clear structural, budgetary, and capacity reasons why the plea system has to exist, or we have to expand the court system in a big way. That's a huge pressure, not one that DAs are really culpable in; they have to work inside the environment that's determined for them by the government. quote:2. Bail, I suppose I would tighten up what requires bail. However there is a public safety issue to take into consideration too. I deal primarily in homicide. Bail is the same for rich and poor if there is a risk to public safety: a lot. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey if you don't want to provide it, don't, but it seems unreasonable to me to complain about the lack of good legal analysis in this thread, tell everyone that your knowledge is what's missing in the conversation, then decide you don't want to tell anyone what it is. Uhm, I'm trying to do that right now but posts like this do not encourage participation. And it's not "my knowledge" that's missing. It's basic legal understanding. Nm, discendo vox, and blarzhh's contributions also valid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:1. As a general rule the plea bargain process benefits defendants more than the state. As for prosecutors padding their win record, get rid of elected DAs. We give zero fucks about our batting averages here. At the risk of advocating something that would be unconstitutional in the US, I don't think justice is something to be bargained about. Plea bargains should be abolished altogether.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:1. As a general rule the plea bargain process benefits defendants more than the state. As for prosecutors padding their win record, get rid of elected DAs. We give zero fucks about our batting averages here. How do you figure? If the offered plea bargain sentence is sufficient for removing the defendant from society for a period of time that the prosecutor finds acceptable for public safety, then pushing for a higher sentence if a defendant chooses to exercise his right to a trial appears to serve no purpose other than threatening him with an unnecessary punishment to make the plea bargain a more attractive offer. ActusRhesus posted:2. Bail, I suppose I would tighten up what requires bail. However there is a public safety issue to take into consideration too. I deal primarily in homicide. Bail is the same for rich and poor if there is a risk to public safety: a lot. Isn't that a problem though? If someone presents a flight risk or public safety risk, why would you make it easier for that person to create that risk if they're rich? It seems absurd that you would deem someone a public safety risk, then let them out anyway because they happen to have financial resources. It would make much more sense to tie bail amounts to the defendant's ability to pay - like requesting a percentage of assets rather than a fixed sum - if the prosecutor feels that there is a sum of money that would make it reasonable to set bail in the first place. Same goes for fines for crimes. Wouldn't it be fairer to make fines for crimes a percentage of income or assets rather than a fixed sum? ActusRhesus posted:3. Most white collar will be federal...I said I was high crime. I think you think I am NY. I'm not. So we really didn't have a stake in the financial collapse. I agree they should be prosecuted aggressively but most of those cases have to go federal, and yes. They are extremely hard to prove. Unless you get an Enron fact pattern where someone is willing to deal. Your post had a slightly accusatory edge to it. "My office" doesn't prosecute cases over which it has no jurisdiction. I was actually under the impression you were in CT or that neighborhood, but we don't need to be specific for the purposes of my post other than I did not assume NY. Surely there are state laws against fraud wherever you work, and most of the large banks involved had operations and customers in every state. In fact, some banks settled with state AGs on matters regarding the financial crisis so the states most certainly have jurisdiction. So since you do have jurisdiction, same question. What is the proportion of resources devoted by your office to investigating the massive financial fraud of the last few year compared to prosecuting drug crimes, and do you feel that's an appropriate allocation of resources?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:17
|
|