Slashdot Mirror

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...

When someone stands accused of sexual assault in criminal court, does the ACLU believe in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard merely because that is what the Constitution requires, or because it is better to leave some guilty people unpunished than to punish many innocents? “The old-school ACLU knew there was no contradiction between defending due process and ‘supporting survivors,’” David French writes. “Indeed, it was through healthy processes that we not only determined whether a person had been victimized, but also prevented the accused from becoming a ‘survivor’ of a profound injustice.”

Says the criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield:

The ACLU cannot love constitutional rights only when it serves to further a cause on behalf of their favored marginalized group, then hate it when it doesn’t, and still be given credit as a voice for civil liberties Remember, due process “inappropriately favors the accused.”

Those four words are the ACLU’s epitaph.

If you think feminists are actually concerned about there being far more female teachers than male, or that there's not bias against men in childcare roles because of pedophilia paranoia, you haven't been paying attention.

I do in fact have links to that "curious" claim. The original article is here... sub-headline being "Sentencing systems around the world should be radically reformed to start with the assumption that women should not be sent to prison for their crimes"
And the blog post discussing that article with the comment by Judge Kopf (who, to be fair, is normally a very reasonable guy and one of the better federal judges) is here.

Scott Greenfield from simplejustice gives his take on Ms. Wu's whole-hearted attempt to represent *HER* desires and *HER* feelz and not anyone else in her failure run for Congress.

It's a good read. Scott is a lawyer who blogs daily... and he doesn't pull any punches. Unlike Ms. Wu he is able to view things objectively.

E

Another way to make money is to make excessive bail requirements in possible
collusion with bail bondsmen.

TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and
the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.

Now the "I'm sorry but it got long" part:

Bail from the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Excessive bail shall not be required"

Excessive is when it's greater than the amount necessary to bring the offender to trial. From Wikipidia:
"In Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Court found that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Judges are starting to agree: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2...

But some are still hungry for HUMONGOUS bail to avoid looking soft on crime when BAIL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME.

Man kills cop: 3 million dollars
http://www.philly.com/philly/n...

Man kills man: 2 million dollars
http://www.bellinghamherald.co...

Cop kills man: 1.5 million:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/ja...

The US DoJ ought to take a long hard look at how our nation's Courts are handing out large bail
requirements --unconstitutionally-- to make it look like they're "tough on crime."

In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND
the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.

We need a lot of reform in the criminal justice system. Hopefully the DoJ won't whitewash
bail while they look at the other methods that "the justice system" screws the people.

Full disclosure: I've never been arrested, offered bail, denied bail, nor am personally
part of the legal / "justice" system.

E

The War Nerd on well, war, Scott Greenfield on (mostly criminal) law, and Ken White on law and privacy.

Famous for sockpuppeting his own online threads.

Scott Greenfield adds some valuable additional commentary. The horror! He had to drop out of a "small private liberal arts college" and suffer the indignity of attending a public university. And this in an era when tuition was vastly lower than it is now.

I have a fair amount of sympathy for modern college students and graduates who are subsidizing a bonanza of administrators with no attendant benefit to themselves. But for Siegel to set himself up as one with such people is deeply deceitful. He wears his deadbeat status as a badge of honor.

You left out the bit about someone planting evidence in each scenario; example: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/30/plant-it-and-it-will-grow/

This book has a chapter on how even the best of police officers can go bad through cognitive dissonance and progressive desensitization (although bad training can speed that): http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909

Still, it's a tough situation for a police officer to constantly be making difficult decisions in often ambiguous circumstances, knowing there really are some at-the-moment messed up people out there, and also directed by politicians to enforce a lot of problematical laws (e.g. the drug war). In that sense, it's amazing many (most?) do their jobs as well as they do.

If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.

So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom.

Hacktivist heroes tend to go to prison. Some of them go to prison for a long time. He chose the path he was on when he knew the risks. When you take on the most powerful interests in the world you can't turn snitch.

Julian Assange shouldn't be surprised if he ends up in prison. Bradley Manning probably wasn't surprised to end up in prison. That is where you go when you get involved in vigilante action. But to claim to be a vigilante hero on one hand but then turn on other vigilante heroes out of fear of going to prison? That is a traitor, a snitch, and there is no point in making excuses for that.

You're right if you piss off the prosecutor or get involved in political protests you could be facing all of that. That is why immature kids shouldn't get involved in stuff without fully thinking it through. Sabu didn't think it through because he was a dumbass kid who got in over his head. If he would have taught it through then he would have known just by taking part in certain ops and being involved with certain groups, he had a higher probability of going to prison, a high probability of being the target of extrajudicial vigilantes, etc. You don't go pissing off large corporations, and expect never to get caught, never go to to jail, never to have your life or family attacked. Sabu knew and when it was his turn to take a sacrifice for his team he turned snitch.

If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.

So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom.