|
People being weirdly accusatory and hostile towards a guy who pretty much agrees with what they're saying itt
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted: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. The tone in question is an overall legalistic way of phrasing things that puts posters on edge because it reminds them of the arguments of "legal = moral" that people like Genocide Tendency use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:The tone in question is an overall legalistic way of phrasing things that puts posters on edge because it reminds them of the arguments of "legal = moral" that people like Genocide Tendency use. You do know that GT is literally just trolling, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Ok. Specifically what cases are you talking about? Which fraud cases, over which the state office had jurisdiction, do you feel were inadequately handled? Saying things in the abstract doesn't allow for actual response. As for pleas, I'll let nm field that. But guarantee that sentences will be overall higher if the state had to take everything to trial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
^^^^^ On an individual level yes. They would be higher. If everyone went to trial, 80% of cases would be dismissed. The problem is that I can't legally and ethically advise every client to go to trial with the hope of jammingbup the system because it would nit be in the individual self interest. Shukaro posted:People being weirdly accusatory and hostile towards a guy who pretty much agrees with what they're saying itt You must be new here. Also, plea bargains are a strange beast because from am individual defendant perspective, they're a good thing. They minimize exposure and risk. Remember that most people are guilty (of something), but the punishment is too high. Note also that the threat isn't just from DAs. I've had trials I've lost where the DA basically offers what was offered before trial and the judge (who was all about that offer before trial) doubles it. From a systematic perspective, it is harmful. I've certainly seen not guilty and innocent people plea to charges both to avoid jail and even to avoid missing work and getting fired. It does give prosecutors a huge amount of power, particularly in the federal system. It also allows for the criminalization of everything because hundreds or thousands times more charges can be brought in a year than could be successfully prosecuted. Plea bargains are nasty, but I can't see a way to get rid of them. nm fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Plea bargains are the imperfect solution to the hosed-up-to-hell-and-back american "tough on crime" sentencing bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
I can't say I object to life sentences for murder, but we could do with decriminalizing a lot of poo poo that exists solely for revenuing, and just admit the war on drugs had failed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
I've been mostly lurking, but if I can give some free advice--which by Internet standards, is usually complete crap . . .ActusRhesus posted:Uhm, I'm trying to do that right now but posts like this do not encourage participation. I have something of a complex that makes me sympathize with anybody that is getting bullied, so the police brutality stories in this thread feed that complex. I am pretty sure I am not the only one. So there are probably some people in here that are walking in with an emotional bias against people they think are enabling all that bullying. Due to that bias, you have the misfortune of filling the role of an enabler just by being in "the system." So, sorry for that. It was kind of a trap. Anyways, I also mostly just lurk D&D, and post in more typical goony, nerdy areas like Minecraft and programming, but the common trend I've seen is that effortposts generally are rewarded. If you don't think an effortpost is worth it,  it. Haters are gonna hate, but the way to tell your e-reputation--or whatever we want to call it--is improved is that people will be doing all the defending for you. You won't have to sit there and turn it back each time.I was looking forward to the big post too. If everybody just shits on it, then you know the thread isn't for you and you can just move on with your life. I would have just made this a PM but I was hoping somebody else would come out of the bushes and confirm all this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Ok. Specifically what cases are you talking about? Which fraud cases, over which the state office had jurisdiction, do you feel were inadequately handled? Saying things in the abstract doesn't allow for actual response. http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/about quote:In February 2012, 49 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia and the federal government announced a historic joint state-federal settlement with the country’s five largest mortgage servicers: Despite the crimes committed, the banks paid a fine and the matter more or less went away. There were never any significant prosecutions of executives or other employees who committed the crimes, it was effectively a blanket "mistakes were made" situation. Further down, quote:Specifically, this settlement does not: So state AGs offices could still, if they wanted to, pursue criminal charges. There was unquestionably massive fraud going on, yet somehow the authorities failed to identify any individuals responsible for that fraud. You can't realistically say with a straight face that institutions can be responsible for fraud yet no individuals did anything illegal, yet the lack of prosecutions implies exactly that. It's like the joke of "racism without racists" - the idea that there can be a massive systemic problem yet the individuals contributing to that system are blameless. Yet at the same time prosecutors were more or less ignoring the criminal aspects of the largest fraud in history, there were tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people convicted of non-violent drug offenses, requiring what would have to be millions upon millions of prosecutorial man-hours of work. How can this possibly be an appropriate allocation of resources? Why wouldn't that time have been better spent investigating banks and their employees? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I can't say I object to life sentences for murder, but we could do with decriminalizing a lot of poo poo that exists solely for revenuing, and just admit the war on drugs had failed. I do honestly think you get rid of the war on drugs and you end a substantial part of the problem with the criminal justice system. Right now, volumes are just too high. Every defendant is a number and they get cookie cutter justice because that is all anyone had time for. The PD doesn't have time to fully investigate everyone's backgrounds and cases. The DA doesn't have time to pay attention to that even if the PD does. The court has "120 cases on calendar mr. Nm, and I have a lunch appointment make it quick!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/about So is your position that $50 billion in fines not including individual suits is insignificant punishment? As to prosecution, you say there was no question people broke the law. Which people and which laws? Also, if I recall correctly that was a DOJ driven initiative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Also, irs.gov lists quite a few mortgage fraud convictions. And according to DOJ website, citi, Jp Morgan, UBS, royal bank of Scotland, and Barclays did face criminal charges for currency manipulation, plead guilty, and paid 2.5 billion in criminal fines. As to the shielding of executives, that has a lot more to do with cronyism at the federal level than anything at the state level. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
DAs offices, even when they have jurisdiction, will try to have thw feds try those types of cases. The feds have forensic accountants and the needed skill to try those cases. The manhatten DA is a distinct exception because die to its location and prestige, it has the ability to recruit those people and the resources to retain them. I worked for a very good forensic accountant who did expert witness stuff. He was extremely expensive, I don't think county das could have afforded him. The feds did, but onlybfor highly technical, they can keep most of it in house. State courts are also a worse place to try those cases because state judges are ofteb clowns and in any event don't have the clerks and other staff needed to keep up on the issues of a white collar case. I did see a few white collar cases, but they were often small potatoes stuff and basically confused everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So is your position that $50 billion in fines not including individual suits is insignificant punishment? You tell me, why doesn't your office fine drug offenders and call it a day?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You tell me, why doesn't your office fine drug offenders and call it a day? http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You tell me, why doesn't your office fine drug offenders and call it a day? If you've paid attention to her posts beyond, "she's a prosecutor" you'd determine she'd be in favor of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You tell me, why doesn't your office fine drug offenders and call it a day? Actually we give most of them diversionary programs and accelerated rehabilitation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
And to mirror nm, large scale fraud cases are almost impossible without a cooperating witness, which usually involves cutting the plea deals to which you are so opposed. Do you really think they could have convicted Jeffrey skilling without Andrew fastow's testimony? And even part of that conviction got vacated on appeal. Also, every try to explain fraud to a jury? It sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Murder all bankers, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually we give most of them diversionary programs and accelerated rehabilitation. I get that you don't want to share your location so we can't be more specific, but there is not a state in this country where there aren't large numbers of non-violent drug offenders serving substantially longer sentences than folks responsible for banking fraud at a much higher dollar value. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, every try to explain fraud to a jury? It sucks. Jury trials should be abolished as well, laypersons have no place deciding guilt or innocence. But I realize that's definitely unconstitutional so I guess that's out of the question as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:27
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I get that you don't want to share your location so we can't be more specific, but there is not a state in this country where there aren't large numbers of non-violent drug offers serving substantially longer sentences than folks responsible for banking fraud at a much higher dollar value. You just merged and confused several different causal systems. Drug use isn't the same as drug dealing, both of which are nonviolent dug offenses, other issues(already articulated) effect banking fraud outcomes and jurisdictions, and secondary charges and plea structures are a part of the variance in drug offense conviction rates. You're comparing apples and cinderblocks.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You just merged and confused several different causal systems. Drug use isn't the same as drug dealing, both of which are nonviolent dug offenses, other issues(already articulated) effect banking fraud outcomes and jurisdictions, and secondary charges and plea structures are a part of the variance in drug offense conviction rates. You're comparing apples and cinderblocks. Yes. This. Also a lot of those "non violent drug convictions" are the result of the plea deals you hate so much. There were other charges as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
So one thing that was always weird about the Sam Dubose stop is why did he hand a bottle of gin to the police officer? Answer: Because the officer asked about it and Dubose was explaining that it was a bottle of air freshener made to look like a bottle of gin. He handed this to the officer so he could verify for himself. http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/bottle_of_gin_shown_in_sam_dubose_traffic_stop_was_actually_air_freshener.html quote:According to the New York Daily News, the Hamilton County, Ohio, coroner analyzed the bottle and found that the liquid was in fact air freshener and that Dubose was telling the truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And to mirror nm, large scale fraud cases are almost impossible without a cooperating witness, which usually involves cutting the plea deals to which you are so opposed. We haven't discussed plea deals for information, really. That's a highly separate question. Obviously, there are some cases where all witnesses will be criminals and they have no incentive to cooperate without a plea deal. This is an area where I think plea deals have virtue. However, this too can obviously be abused. Mere game theory says its necessarily abused: in the case of a crime committed by two people, the one who makes the plea is in the better position. It requires good oversight, because the coercive aspect is still there, but I don't have a problem in a more lenient sentence being given to someone who is lower-down on the chain. If it's being used on two people who committed the crime together, I think it's too obviously problematic to use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Jury trials should be abolished as well, laypersons have no place deciding guilt or innocence. But I realize that's definitely unconstitutional so I guess that's out of the question as well. Some jurisdictions allow you to waive your right to a jury.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You just merged and confused several different causal systems. Drug use isn't the same as drug dealing, both of which are nonviolent dug offenses, other issues(already articulated) effect banking fraud outcomes and jurisdictions, and secondary charges and plea structures are a part of the variance in drug offense conviction rates. You're comparing apples and cinderblocks. Nobody ever referred to users though? It doesn't make sense to prosecute the people whose incomes weren't checked by banks either, the bank employees and their managers and executives are more analogous to dealers and traffickers. ActusRhesus - would you (or more generally, your office) offer a plea to a major trafficker that consisted of a portion of his profits and no criminal conviction? If not, why is this an appropriate penalty for extensive banking fraud? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Nobody ever referred to users though? It doesn't make sense to prosecute the people whose incomes weren't checked by banks either, the bank employees and their managers and executives are more analogous to dealers and traffickers. I think the difference is that operating a bank is not inherently illegal (cue  posts ) while dealing drugs is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Jury trials should be abolished as well, laypersons have no place deciding guilt or innocence. But I realize that's definitely unconstitutional so I guess that's out of the question as well. Wait...so are we now acknowledging that education and experience in the law *is* relevant?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Jury trials should be abolished as well, laypersons have no place deciding guilt or innocence. But I realize that's definitely unconstitutional so I guess that's out of the question as well. A thought that every DA and cop would agree with (at least from a practical perspective, they mightboppose it for other reasons). Juries aquit people. Judges almost never do because they're as cynical as the rest of the system. Re: drug dealers. They are somewhat less sympathic than drug users (though they can be one and the same), though I would suspect ending the drug war woulf end thier large scale incarceration. That said, "violent criminals" also go to jail too long in many cases as well. Google "estes robbery." nm fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Wait...so are we now acknowledging that education and experience in the law *is* relevant? When it comes to deciding, in a court of law, whether someone commited a crime? Of course. Not sure why you insinuated that I ever suggested otherwise though, or why you quoted me twice in separate posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
nm posted:A thought that every DA and cop would agree with (at least from a practical perspective, they mightboppose it for other reasons). Juries aquit people. Judges almost never do because they're as cynical as the rest of the system. Pretty much. Juries include...well...this thread. The only time it makes sense to go judge alone is a hyper technical defense, or a really emotionally charged case with meh evidence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:When it comes to deciding, in a court of law, whether someone commited a crime? Of course. You didn't, but this thread has explicitly stated that statements of practicing attorneys don't matter unless they are law professors. Today in fact. Also, if I understand your position, I am better suited to determine guilt than, say, obdicut?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
computer parts posted:I think the difference is that operating a bank is not inherently illegal (cue Also one involves corporate liability and the other involves personal liability (it's a lot more complicated than that, but unless you're going to shut it down you can't literally throw a corporation in jail). Drugs being illegal is appropriate, the problem regarding users is that once someone is addicted society really doesn't have any good way to deal with them and the damage is permanent. Addiction's incurable. Rehabilitation and treatment are a good idea, but they're also a) really expensive and b) usually ineffective. Dealing/distributing drugs is effectively murder by degrees. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You didn't, but this thread has explicitly stated that statements of practicing attorneys don't matter unless they are law professors. Today in fact. I would hope to hell you're better suited to determine guilt than I am. But it seems pretty obviously true that you would be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You didn't, but this thread has explicitly stated that statements of practicing attorneys don't matter unless they are law professors. Today in fact. That was one poster suggesting that your opinion matters less than a professor, and being corrected by several people, that's not really "this thread." Not trying to pick a fight, your comment just seemed somewhat hostile, but whatever. And yes, as someone more intimately familiar with how the law is applied I would consider you more suited than any random poster who doesn't have the necessary legal education, myself included. Though I'm not American to begin with, so take my opinion for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I would hope to hell you're better suited to determine guilt than I am. But it seems pretty obviously true that you would be. Quoting for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:That was one poster suggesting that your opinion matters less than a professor, and being corrected by several people, that's not really "this thread." Not trying to pick a fight, your comment just seemed somewhat hostile, but whatever. Fair enough. But nm is correct. Generally juries favor the defendant. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar and there is a lot I know that the jury doesn't. (Eg suppressed evidence, inadmissible evidence, hearsay, prior history etc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I would hope to hell you're better suited to determine guilt than I am. But it seems pretty obviously true that you would be. A DA never is, if only because as a result of dealing with the same cops over and over, they are more likely to believe them. Judges have the same problems. It is why we have an adversarial system. The other problem is that the meat grinder of the system makes you a cynical, bitter rear end in a top hat. You work with so many hosed up, broken, guilty people you assume anyone subject to the system is guilty. This is not to defend this, but it is human nature. I'd much rather have ignorant, even secrectly racist statist jurors try my cases than evenbthe most defense friendly judge. Remember that wrongful conviction are still a way bigger problem than a few cops not getting convicted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Pretty much. Juries include...well...this thread. I doubt it. Last time I was called to jury duty, the judge asked for a show of hands of whether anyone would doubt the testimony of a police officer, and briefly spoke to each of us. When I explained that I would need to take an officer's testimony, especially if they were involved on the case, with a grain of salt because they would have a vested interest in the case, I was immediately dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:57
|
|