Social Networking Sites Becoming Useful For Lawyers

chareverie writes "With how the internet has become, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have become a tool for crime solvers, employers, and now, lawyers. Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunk driving case, the college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner, with the words 'jail bird' on his costume. Not surprisingly, his prosecutor was able to obtain photos of him at the party that were posted on Facebook, and claimed he was an 'unrepentant partier who lived it up while his victim recovered in the hospital.' The photos were presented in a slideshow, with one of them showing Lipton holding a can of Red Bull in one hand, and an arm draped around a girl bearing sorority letters. The judge agreed with the prosecutor, and changed Lipton's sentence to two years in prison. The article also cites other instances of people getting harsher sentences from pictures of them posted online."

Comments

Wrong title

[JeffSh]

title should be "useful for prosecutors". while prosecutors are "lawyers", this article and topic is far more specific.

Re:Wrong title

[Bazar]

The methods this prosecutor used is a method any lawyer can use.

Its not too hard to picture a case where the defense uses a facebook profile that portrays their client in a good light, or the prosecution in a bad light.

So the title is suitable

Re:Wrong title

[nurb432]

Could have gone both ways, depending on the pictures.

If they were of him serving meals at the local homeless shelter or rescuing trapped animals during a flood, it would have worked for the defense instead.

So yes, the topic title is spot-on.

Re:This is Stupid

[urcreepyneighbor]

The laws should be defined more explicitly, so that the same punishment for the same crime can be applied.

Leave it up to the judge and jury. They will have intimate knowledge of the case, a legislature hundreds of miles away won't.

People with certain personalities

Personalities? What in the hell? Is "dumb" a personality? Read the article, man. People like this deserve to go to prison.

and as we know certain races,

No, I don't know.

get effected disproportionally because the law gives too much flexibility in determining the severity of the punishment.

Wait, what?

too much flexibility

All right. How about this: mandatory death sentence - Texas style, not California - for anyone convicted of drunk driving.

Happy, now?

Any fucktard that drives drunk deserves - at the very least - a serious asskickin'.

Re:This is Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with this. The kid obviously did not take the weight of the crime he committed seriously - he acted with contempt and callousness. Someone who acts like this, versus someone who does something bad but admits he was wrong and regrets it, should, as far as I am concerned, receive more punishment.

As far as you claims about race is concerned, that is totally bogus.

Good?

[db32]

I don't understand the problem here either. This is two "OMG Privacy" stories that have come up in the last few days. This isn't "OMG Privacy". This is quit being a fucking moron and advertising your private life to 3rd parties or the world. In each of the three cases I am fucking glad they found those pictures. Those pieces of shit deserve to be rotting in prison instead of out partying after that crap. In case you skip the article it talkes about 3 cases of DUI, in 2 of which people died and the third almost died. Then these pieces of human filth went out partying and posted pictures showing exactly how seriously they took the fact that they went out driving drunk and murdered someone. I am personally very happy these fuckwits posted these pictures and the prosecution found them. In at least two of the cases mentioned here the bastard was probably going to get probation.

So...let me put it this way. If you are a worthless dumbass criminal making life worse for other people PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post pictures of yourself doing illegal things online. Record yourself talking about the crime and make it an mp3. Take videos of you beating hobos or other nonsense and put them on youtube. I would much rather a society where the criminals effectively go to the authority and say "Hi, I'm a fucking moron criminal asshole, please arrest me!" than the world where the cops have to wiretap, and search, and investigate. So, please, in the interest of keeping our society free, go post your stupidity online, make it easy to find, that way the authority can leave the rest of us the fuck alone since we aren't doing anything wrong.

Re:Good?

[db32]

Explain to me how being a callous moron in public relates to privacy? So what someone else took a picture and posted it and identified him. That still has nothing to do with privacy. Unless you make the argument that Lipton was indoors on private property and the guy taking the picture broke in to take the picture. I think MySpace does tagging too, but I don't know. Either way, in no way shape or form is this about privacy. The pictures were of PUBLIC things. The fact that someone else posted a record of a public event that he attended without his knowledge is irrelevant. The fact that the prosecution got the pictures of a public event from a public place without his knowledge is irrelevant.

The notion that right to privacy has anything to do with protecting you from your own stupidity in public is unnerving. In fact it only serves to fuel the government/business desire to destroy real privacy. When people hold up stupid crap like this as an example of privacy violations the government gets to hold it up and say "See how bad these privacy advocate people are, don't listen to them". I am horrified what our government has done to our privacy lately. I am even more horrified what our populace has done to throw their privacy away (handing out personal information to every marketer and social website they can find for free handouts). Yet, the most frightening thing is how people seem to be rushing to idiots like this to defend them by redefining privacy with "You got caught being a total douche in public, that is a violation of your privacy!"

Idiotic argument

[dreamchaser]

The amount of true remorse that a defendant feels and expresses can and should be used when determining sentencing. It's called a 'mitigating circumstance.'

Re:Idiotic argument

[Asmor]

But what is the purpose of our legal system? If it is vengeance, then you're correct: remorse doesn't matter.

If, on the other hand, it is to reform perpetrators, make them ready to live in society, and try to ensure they don't lapse into recidivism, then remorse matters quite a great deal.

(Hint: In theory, if not so much in practice, the correct answer is the second paragraph)

Re:Idiotic argument

[DarkOx]

I think you are forgetting something important about our legal system. Punishment is not about retribution or its not supposed to be any way. Its to rehabilitate or to incapacitate the offender. I agree with your position where the point is to incapacitate. There are certain types of criminals like sex offenders for instance that we know usually can't be rehabilitated, there are people like murderers that are so dangerous we can't take the chance letting lose. Finally there are repeate offenders who demonstrait they will not change their behavior. In all of those cases you are right there should be a simple lookup table.

A sentence should come down to well you were convicted of X for the Yth time that will 10 years and $20,000 of your assets.

In cases like DUI maybe somebody really was just not thinking or was unable to grasp the posibile consequences of their actions. A FIRST TIME offender might be a fine candidate for rehabilitation. They need to be punished, and it has to hurt. How much it needs to hurt though is variable. If somebody is remorseful( yes it can be hard to tell ) then it may be that they learned the lesson and will never make that mistake again. Nobody has anything to gain by completely destroying their lives. It won't help the victim any that is for sure.

When you have someone like in this case though, its another story. This guy hurt people DUI and then not long after is doing the same bad behavior drinking to excess around others. He does not have remorse he will hurt someone again if some external force is not used to inflict pain on him since his conscience is apparently not doing it. He needs the book thrown at him. He needs to be made to suffer and greatly so he learns not but others in danger so he can party. This is why we need some flexibility in sentencing.

Re:This is Stupid

[urcreepyneighbor]

... but on the "races" bit, yes, for the same offense, blacks more often get jail time while whites walk. Justice might be blind, but it ain't colour-blind when it comes to sentencing.

I've heard that, but I'd need to see some actual data. Not a press release from a Leftist "thinktank".

I suspect the gap would magically disappear if you took the socioeconomic levels into account. I'm sure a poor white kid (with a public defender) would get a worse sentence than a black kid from a rich family (with a family-hired lawyer).

Re:This was just on the news in Philly

[nurb432]

Taking his PC i think was a bit overboard unless they had hard evidence that some crime was committed with the PC. The judge should never have permitted that warrant to go thru.

Collecting the public posts of images off myspace was more then justified however.

Uh? Hello?

[Opportunist]

Did I get that right? He went to court, got away with a rather mild verdict, then the prosecutor showed that he is "partying" and this is grounds for a more serious conviction?

Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?

This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.

Re:Uh? Hello?

[eekygeeky]

making fun of the legal system and the fact that he maimed another human being by his terrible, irresponsible behavior before he was finished with trial seems like an excellent reason to punish him more harshly. what's the problem?

and yes, he should be solemn, mournful, unhappy, grevious, penitent. he should not be "partying". he is a bad person, and shameful person, any expression of mirth or glee from him before his due punishment is inappropriate, hurtful, demonstrative of low character, and deserving of harsh recompense.

put yourself in the victim's shoes- how would you feel if you knew that while you writhed in agony for months in a hospital bed, the jackass who put you there through no fault of your own is yukking it up and making fun of your suffering?

you'd probably want him dead, not just slammed up for 2 years.

Re:Uh? Hello?

[Slashdot Parent]

Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?

The verdict never changed. It was the sentencing.

Lipton nearly killed someone, and was given an appropriate sentence. A lot of times, if a convict shows serious remorse, enrolls in alcohol treatment programs, etc., a judge will reduce the sentence because the convicted has already had some personal justice. Nothing new here.

In this case, Lipton showed no remorse, so the judge simply gave an appropriate sentence for his crime, rather than a reduced sentence.

The only "news" here is the fact that the prosecutor used Lipton's facebook profile to document Lipton's lack of remorse. The same thing would have happened had he prosecutor brought in witnesses who attended the party, or if Lipton got a minor consumption ticket (he is only 20, so he shouldn't have been drinking at all), etc.

Re:Uh? Hello?

[johnny cashed]

No, I think you have it wrong. 4 DUI cases. 2 resulting in fatalities, 2 with serious injuries. In every case presented, the evidence was revealed after conviction, before sentencing. There was evidence that the convicted were engaging in partying behavior after their crashes. Under the circumstances presented, yes, I think the partying was grounds for a harsher verdict. If the photos were all from pre crime partying, and it isn't directly relevant to the actual crime, then no, it shouldn't be grounds for a harsher verdict. It appears that in all these cases, the victims weren't acting remorseful enough to satisfy the judge. He has great latitude in sentencing. What else do you use as a metric to met out sentences? Socioeconomic status? Skin color? General looks? The range of sentencing is there for a reason.

If you do something stupid, kill someone in the process, and then can't keep your fucking head down for a period afterward, you deserve a harsher sentence. It isn't that hard to stay out of dumb situations. Don't let your "friends" photograph you with a obvious drink in you hand (ok, one guy had a Redbull, he allegedly joked about his case, poor behavior IMHO). This isn't just about them, this is also about society sending you a message. The judge is representative of the people.

Re:Uh? Hello?

[tangent3]

Did I get that right? He went to court, got away with a rather mild verdict, then the prosecutor showed that he is "partying" and this is grounds for a more serious conviction?

Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?

This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.

Nope, you did not get it right.
He did not get "a more serious conviction". He did not initially "get away with a rather mild verdict".

After you are convicted, there will be a sentencing trial where the judge decides your sentence. In the trial, the prosecutors will generally argue to give you a harsh sentence while your lawyer will argue why you deserve less than that, and depending on the facts available to the judge, he will make his decision.

RTFA. In this case, the prosecutors were initially going to recommend only a probation for this criminal, but when discovering the photos, they recommended the harsher sentence and the judge concurred.

I would have concurred too, and I think it's justice well served. If this bastard had gotten away with only a probation I would have been pretty pissed off with these prosecutors.

Re:This is Stupid

[fractic]

If he were black?

The same would have happened of course. He'd still have a rich and influential father.

Re:This was just on the news in Philly

[DarkOx]

Yes it is, and this wonderful utopian society we are constructing for ourselves is great. Nobody is afflicted with any of that nasty personal responsibility for anything they unless it manages to run afowl of those last few vestiges of silly old sensibilites we have not yet shacken off.

The best part is why have Facebook and MySpace so even those of us without the brainpower to use even the simplest of markup can easily show off for the entire world what kinda of asshats we can be when we really try.

We might not quite be able to get away with running some people down while drunk driving and then parting a few days later like nothing happen but I am confident we will get there, given trends. Somebody somewhere will find a way to make it forgiviable or at least excuseable. That seems to be where all our famous American enginuity is being placed these days. Why I can see future where we are free to rape each other and fling poo, just over the horizon... Dream with me people...

Way to be logical...

[ExtremePhobia]

I actually read the article to see if it was as bad as it sounded... and yes it is.

First of all, he was drinking Red Bull, which is non-alcoholic, and while he was at a party I'd be thinking he'd be excited to be alive. Just me though.

The other cases in the article are just as bad. A lady at a party drinking wine after a car accident? Wine just screams alcoholic!

The prosecution is saying she should be in AA? They know that she's an Alcoholic and didn't just make a bad choice? She's no longer aloud to drink anymore because of a bad choice? AA doesn't teach you to act correctly when you drink, it tried to get you to stop drinking completely

And to say "she was doing nothing but having a good time" is insane. Obviously she's been going from party to party non-stop for the past X months. How do you know she WASN'T going to AA? Just because you have a picture of something less than appealing doesn't mean you have to whole story.

I have to imagine they'd have more than that for a Judge to up the sentence to two years. Not to say I don't think they deserved it but expecting people to become inhuman because of an accident is just plain stupid. A guy drinking red bull is a good example of just how RANDOM these pictures can be and yet they are grounds for upping a sentence? give me a break.

Been this way a long time, and should be

[phorm]

This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.

Ummm, you realize that this isn't a new thing, right? The facebook part might be, but many lawyers have often pushed for lenience in cases where clients have shown true remorse for their actions, and vise-versa for the prosecutors against those who don't.

Feeling sad for your actions and being willing to change is part of the reformation process, which is part of what the justice system is about. A kid that's partying it up 2 weeks after killing somebody isn't feeling remorse, and isn't so likely to reform after a slap-on-the-wrist or token sentencing.

Re:Red Bull(shit)

[Theaetetus]

It's shit like this that makes me want to become a defense lawyer. Fuck this prosecutor. The case needs to stand on what happened, not on the defendant's sense of humor.

The case did stand on what happened. This was sentencing, which does take into account the defendant's likelihood of recidivism, repentance, social utility, etc. And the defense uses mitigating factors (first offense, volunteers at a homeless shelter, joined AA, etc.) just as much as the prosecution does, if not more.

Maybe you should become a defense lawyer - a few years of law school would let you give an informed opinion on this instead of talking out of your ass.

Stupid is as stupid does (Was: Re:This is Stupid)

[mhollis]

Frankly, I'd rather elect someone who openly admits to behavior that may be in violation of law than someone who obsessively hides from the reality of his or her past. Both Nixon and GW Bush come to mind here.

And I wonder about Senator McCain with respect to admissions. Of course he did admit to wrongdoing with respect to the Savings and Loan scandals as well as other issues of favoritism. I have met Senator McCain and think he's a good man. Haven't met Senator Obama but I have read the thoughts of his he put into his books. Seems like an upstanding American patriot who would strive to do the right thing for America.

But what I cannot believe is that Senator McCain, after all he went through, did not do drugs and did not drink to excess. I lived across the street from a Vietnam veteran who was not imprisoned by the NVA and there were not enough drugs and there was not enough alcohol in the world for him after what he experienced as a draftee. I lived up the street from another who came back a paraplegic, and he regularly drank to excess.

Fact is, what you put on the Internet about yourself is public. So if you don't want someone to take advantage of you or to disparage your character, don't post anything that might be taken wrong. This lawyer was doing what all lawyers do in a very creative (for lawyers) way: He was raising questions as to the man's character before a jury so that the jury would disregard any testimony from him or from anyone who said he had a good character.

Re:This is Stupid

[Hatta]

Any fucktard that drives drunk deserves - at the very least - a serious asskickin'.

Set the BAC limit at a reasonable level and I'd agree with you. MADD, really a neoprohibitionist group, has been pressuring states to constantly lower the BAC to a point where it's really meaningless.
While there is measurable impairment at a .08 BAC, most drunk driving accidents are caused by recidivist alcoholics with a much higher BAC. If you really want to save people from drunk drivers, focus on them.

Re:This is Stupid

[Naturalis Philosopho]

So the college kid who hasn't lived long enough to be a "recidivist alcoholic" but who still has a .15 on the road gets... what? And the high school girl who "just had one beer" but weighs 90 pounds? How about all the other multitude of situations where people are unable to drive? I agree that BAC is a bogus measure, but, well, impaired is impaired. For that matter, why do drunks get jail when an old lady who plows into a crowd of pedestrians gets her license suspended for a month? It's an imperfect system, that's why. Run for town council if you want to change things.

If you can't drive after even one drink, you should be arrested no matter your BAC. Learn to drink at home, or at a bar that calls taxis for you, or, for cripes sake, with a designated driver. People stupid enough to take/post pictures of themselves like the people in the article (yeah, I read it) deserve the harsher sentence as they are showing that they are not remorseful and that they can't plan ahead ("gee, no one will ever see this if I post in on the intertubes!")