Slashdot Mirror


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."

94 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong title by JeffSh · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Wrong title by Bazar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
    2. Re:Wrong title by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      The defendant will already have access to the photos that show him in a good light. The prosecution will be the People of The United States of America. You can certainly show them in a bad light but it isn't going to help your case.

    3. Re:Wrong title by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Wrong title by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny

      I see what you mean.

      The flood was going to kill the animals anyway, might as well feed them to the homeless instead.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  2. Seems he was convicted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... of douchebaggery.

  3. This was just on the news in Philly by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last week some 18 year-old punk was speeding and hit two women who were in town from St. Louis to see the Cardinals play the Phillies. One of them later died.

    The cops found his MySpace page, and it's apparently full of pics of him drinking and smoking pot, and the article even says he used a mugshot from a prior arrest as his default photo. The cops got wind of it and snagged his computer and other stuff from his house with a search warrant, and they'll probably use it to stave off any attempt at the "but he's a good boy who just made a mistake" defense.

    After reading the article, I am completely disgusted... especially with his parents, under whose noses it seems much of his bad behavior has been going on. Call me old-fashioned, but I think parents should try to raise their kids to, you know, not be a colossal fuckup.

    The best part, IMHO, is that for all his "I'm just Mr. Buster Badass" posturing on his MySpace page, he is apparently throwing up in jail because he's so scared (insert derisive Nelson Muntz laugh here).

    ~Philly

    1. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Temporarily lost my password, so posting Anonymously, but am 'Wonderkid'.) Anyway, Philly, you are 100% spot on. There is a general decline in ethics both sides of the Atlantic. To understand why, read Lord of The Flies by William Golding, if you have not already. As soon as the immature are running the asylum, all hell will break out! (The immature are now running the asylum.)

    2. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by dnixon112 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google cache to the rescue! http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:PnpGwlSu35kJ:www.myspace.com/JoE_BoNeS+JoE_BoNeS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca I especially like the message someone left on his "fridge".

    5. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by Sigma+7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      The PC can contain evidence, such as unpublished photos. Saying you can't grab a PC for evidence is just like saying you can't search the personal diary for evidence (which obviously isn't the case.)

      In criminal court, search warrants can be issued as long as they can convince a judge that there's a good chance evidence can be improved or obtained. It's a tactic popular with child porn cases, but can be extended to other cases as well.

    6. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Over the horizon? Hell I'm flingin' poo now! It's very therapeutic You should see my monitor when there's a comment I don't agree with!

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    7. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by tweak13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The PC can contain evidence, such as unpublished photos.

      Unless those photos were of the crime scene, I agree with the GP. It's the state's job to prove that a crime was committed and that he was responsible. While attacking his character may be successful in getting him a harsher sentence, or maybe getting him convicted in the first place by manipulating the jury, it strikes me as a pretty unethical thing to do.

      If there's reasonable suspicion that the computer contained something related to the crime, yeah the cops should go search it. If the best reason they can come up with is, "we'd like to make him look like a douchebag," that isn't good enough. That judge was an idiot for going along with it.

    8. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by japhering · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry .. collecting from public sites is considered hearsay.. as anyone could take and manipulate an image before posting it. By taking the the computer the prosecutor was simply trying to verify that the pictures did come from the defendant.

      Now the question is really.. on what grounds did the judge grant the warrant....

    9. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by Free_Meson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless those photos were of the crime scene, I agree with the GP. It's the state's job to prove that a crime was committed and that he was responsible.

      He posted photos of himself smoking pot and drinking while underage on his social networking page. Those photos are evidence of a crime (namely, smoking pot and drinking while underage). That's sufficient PC to search his computer for additional photographs and other evidence of those crimes. Just because he's under arrest for vehicular homicide doesn't mean the police can't get a search warrant for evidence of other crimes.

      While attacking his character may be successful in getting him a harsher sentence, or maybe getting him convicted in the first place by manipulating the jury, it strikes me as a pretty unethical thing to do

      Generally the prosecution cannot introduce character evidence against a defendant until a defendant raises his own character as an issue. Depending on what's recovered, it may be possible to introduce evidence against him under one of the exceptions to this rule (MIMIC - motive, intent, lack of mistake, identity, common plan).

    10. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um. Wow that is a stretch. I guess you could create a trojan that searches for your pictures, uploads them to a server where a team of Photoshop experts doctor them and then upload them and change the date stamps...
      Seems a bit of a reach for me.
      Now pirated movies and or music maybe.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by value_added · · Score: 2, Funny

      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 ...

      I remember when I was a kid, I was given a small "chick" by a friend who was forced to give it away. My mum, being the sensible type (at least so I thought) let me keep it, like she let me keep most things I brought home as pets. The chick quickly grew to be a rooster and just as quickly I discovered roosters make lousy pets.

      We kept the thing in the backyard with a long length of clothesline tied to one of its legs. We lived in the middle of a medium-sized city, so we had to keep it constrained (not that constraining it helped with early morning crowing which woke up most of the neighbourhood). Once or twice a week, the rooster (we didn't give him a name) would manage to get loose and go do whatever it is roosters like to do. In his case, he like to walk up and down the sidewalk in front of our our house chasing strangers who happened to pass by. Can't tell you how many people who knocked on our door and yelled and screamed at my mum because they were "attacked" while on their way to the bus stop.

      To make a long story short, the poor guy didn't last out the year. Not because of anything the neighbours or local constabulatory did, but because my mum decided to make chicken for dinner. I was a kid, so I cried and cried, but eventually came out of my bedroom and sat down at the table in front of the biggest, most golden chicken I've ever seen. Some years later it dawned on me that the corn porridge which we kids refused to eat in the morning (typically called "polenta" when sold in restaurants) but was fed to the rooster, was the reason why it looked and tasted so good.

      Is that what you meant by run afowl?

    12. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by cduffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you took the parent much too seriously. At least, I hope you took the parent much too seriously; my impression was that it was made in jest, and not respective of the parent's true positions.

      Now -- I'm putting my 20-something Libertarian hat on for the rest of this post, as I think that (of all those I wear) it's most relevant.

      Personal responsibility is a Good Thing; it's only when the mechanism of state is used to enforce one particular view of what "personal responsibility" entails that there come problems. The Golden Rule isn't going anywhere -- people can understand that things they don't want others to do to them shouldn't be encouraged, and that they shouldn't do such things themselves. It's principally victimless crimes which we consider outdated -- and only inasmuch as they are considered criminal, not necessarily to the extent that they're considered good ideas: I may not want the police to be breaking down doors to arrest potheads, but there's no way in hell I want my kids toking up on a regular basis (and I'm not going to set a bad example for them -- or, at present, harm my focus on my career -- by doing so myself); while I may not teach them "right from wrong" in exactly the same way you would, there's no way I'd be a good parent if I didn't teach that actions have consequences, and that those consequences are important, and thus that intelligent people just Don't Do Certain Things. The folks in my social group who are having kids have cleaned up parts of their lives that would otherwise have set a bad example -- so again, when it becomes important, we tend to do the right thing.

      So -- don't worry. The generation after you might see things a little differently, but we're not (by and large) the raving irresponsible asshats like the those discussed in this story, and we don't like those people either. We'll figure things out -- your parents were worried about your generation too, and you turned out all right... right?

    13. Re:This was just on the news in Philly by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny
      Temporarily lost my password, so posting Anonymously

      .

      Until you actually find it, how do you know it's temporary?

  4. Re:This is Stupid by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'.

    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  5. Re:This is Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Oh, Bravo! by eekygeeky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is correct use of technology- hands down, a winning proposition.

    Now, it may not be so when prosecutors dredge up photos unrelated to, older, than, or from a different person with the same name, so this only argues for more transparent ways for hosts, services, and users to find unshakeable ways to authenticate what happens under their aegis. opt-in automatic encrypted transmission watermarks, anyone?

    responsibility, what a concept!

    (or learn 2 anon, use 7 proxies, etc)

    1. Re:Oh, Bravo! by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, it may not be so when prosecutors dredge up photos unrelated to, older, than, or from a different person with the same name, so this only argues for more transparent ways for hosts, services, and users to find unshakeable ways to authenticate what happens under their aegis. opt-in automatic encrypted transmission watermarks, anyone?

      Only problem is these photos were not used as evidence. The trial was already over. Only sentencing remained.

      Those photos never could have been admitted as evidence at his trial unless you got the photographer to take the stand and say that he witnessed Lipton partying, took the pictures, and that the subject was Lipton, etc. After all, you can't cross-examine a photograph.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  7. Re:This is Stupid by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    ... Hans Reiser has internet?

    ... 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.

  8. Good? by db32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    1. Re:Good? by notnAP · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You're turning this story into something it is not.

      This isn't about privacy. There was no attempt at privacy here.

      Anyone feeling threatened by this should up their agoraphobia medicine. Either that, or you should educate yourself in the difference between public and private. Just because you had the false impression that your myspace page was private doesn't make it so.

      Newsflash, the exterior of your home is also publicly visible. Hanging a billboard sized child pron poster on it will get you landed in jail, and no amount of "but I didn't think the police would be able to see it there" denial will help you.

    2. Re:Good? by db32 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And he didn't kill anyone either...he almost did. There is a large piece here to be said about posing for the camera while doing something stupid. I mean really now, its not like he was trying to hide from the camera. ANYONE at that party could have walked into the court room and said "Oh, by the way, this guy is a prick". The photo thing here really has about squat to do with privacy. It has to do with acting like a moron in public and being surprised someone kept a record of it and it came back to bite you. This isn't about privacy and I don't know why everyone keeps making it about privacy. When you go out in public and act like a moron you have NO expectation of privacy.

      And no, it does not SEEM like Josh was an idiot. He was an idiot and deserves worse punishment. I have absolutely 0 respect for drunk driving. 0, zip, nada, zilch, it is 100% preventable and fucking moronic to do. The fact that he didn't kill anyone (only put them in the hospital for weeks while he continued to party) doesn't make a damned bit of difference. To be honest I think we would see drunk driving drop off significantly if we treated EVERY incident as attempted murder. It pisses me off that more people have their lives ruined by drunk drivers than the number of drunk drivers who have their lives ruined over their own stupidity.

      Don't get me wrong, I have no kind of problem with drinking. I have been really drunk before and it has NEVER EVER EVER occurred to me "Gee, I should get in a car and go drive home" due to that reduced inhibitions crap. Fuck them.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:Good? by db32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!"

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  9. Idiotic argument by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.'

    1. Re:Idiotic argument by Asmor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

    2. Re:Idiotic argument by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you missed deterrent to committing the crimes in the first place. If people know they can get away with a lighter sentence if they cry a bit when they are caught, then there is less deterrent to becoming a crim.

    3. Re:Idiotic argument by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Idiotic argument by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that most criminals are stupid or have fundamental character flaws in the first place and are likely to be tripped up while pretending to be sorry. Is the system perfect? Hardly, but cookie cutter approaches are likely to be worse.

  10. Re:This is Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 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.

    Did it ever occur to you that there were circumstances, such as prior history, that could affect the sentence? The claim that blacks are being unfairly punished is a totally bogus one.

  11. Re:This is Stupid by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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).

    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  12. Re:This is Stupid by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    DUI level drunk driving or .15 swerve all over the road drunk driving?

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  13. Re:He does look like a jail bird by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What does a 25 year old (former) sex-offender from Texas, have to do with this 20 year old (former) college student from Rhode Island? Other than that they have the same names?

    --
    It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
  14. Re:This is Stupid by sharp-bang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The claim that blacks are being unfairly punished is a totally bogus one.

    No, it isn't. See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/04/civil.rights/index.html and http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/01/should_criminal.html for starters.

    --
    #!
  15. lousy defence lawyer by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting
    > Lipton holding a can of Red Bull in one hand,

    So what we have is a guy who was known for drinking alcoholic beverages, now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead. Any lawyer worth his or her fee, would've pointed out this evidenced change in behaviour as a sign that the subject no longer drank, and therefore should have a reduced sentence.

    It's all down to the interpretation.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:lousy defence lawyer by eekygeeky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's a picture of a man, laughing it up about his time in court, which was supposedly the solemn justice meted out for his terrible crime, which left a fellow man in crippled and maimed for life.

      the alchohol is not the issue, and the judge's comments accurately reflect this.

    2. Re:lousy defence lawyer by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what we have is a guy who was known for drinking alcoholic beverages, now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead.

      It was only 2 weeks after he nearly killed someone because of his partying antics. His lawyer is lousy, all right, but only because he should have made sure lipton:

      1. Did not go out partying at all.
      2. Enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous and started attending meetings.
      3. Enrolled in any other local alcohol treatment programs might be useful.
      4. Sure as shit stayed away from alcohol. We don't know he was drinking at that Halloween party, but I'm just saying, he was 20 years old. If he would have gotten a minor consumption ticket, the consequences would have been jail time.

      Apparently, the lawyer couldn't convince his client to lay low and pretend to be remorseful for just two frickin' weeks. It doesn't matter if Lipton was drunk in those pics or not. It showed he was out partying while the woman he nearly killed was still in the hospital.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    3. Re:lousy defence lawyer by Hubbell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What right does the government have to demand a citizen undergo RELIGIOUS counseling (that is what AA, and in essence, all 12 step programs are, the first step is admitting you have a problem that only 'a higher power than yourself' can fix and you must place your trust in him, meaning god)? Pretty sure that's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

    4. Re:lousy defence lawyer by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead."

      In a picture that he himself posted with "Remorseful?" as a caption. This was while awaiting sentencing, during which the court would like to know how much remorse he has. It's not so much that he was drinking Red Bull, but that he did so in a party, in a mock prison jumpsuit, with his free arm around sorority tail, consciously and deliberately yukking it up over the fact that he'd be facing his sentencing for his DUI conviction soon and that he wasn't half as remorseful as he was going to be telling the court.

      It's not "ZOMG, he's got a canned beverage!" it's "ZOMG, his lawyer told him that he'll probably get away with probation and a slap on the wrist if he just shows up wearing a tie and says 'your honor' a lot!"

    5. Re:lousy defence lawyer by pin0chet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Alcoholics Anonymous, the renowned 12-step program that directs problem drinkers to seek help from a higher power, says it's not a religion and is open to nonbelievers. But it has enough religious overtones that a parolee can't be ordered to attend its meetings as a condition of staying out of prison, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

      In fact, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the constitutional dividing line between church and state in such cases is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts.

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/BA99S1AKQ.DTL

    6. Re:lousy defence lawyer by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't mean God, it means any power higher than yourself - that could be God, it could be your uncle, it could be fate, it could be Gaia, it could be karma, or whatever. That step refers to acknowledging that there is something above, more important, and more powerful than yourself - i.e. you are not the centre of the world, and you have to look outside yourself to fix yourself.

    7. Re:lousy defence lawyer by nick_davison · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      Whilst Red Bull may not count as alcoholic, it is commonly accepted that sorority girls do.

      Much like those famous toads, lick one and you can usually get a pretty decent contact high just from the alcohol and roofies that secrete through their skin.

      I'd consider the undeserved stereotype argument but these are the same people who protested that SDSU's new sorority houses weren't being built close enough to the new frat houses and, in the state the girls intended to regularly get themselves in to, who knew what would happen to them as they staggered from one to another.

  16. Re:anti-employer EULA by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I don't know about preventing prosecutors from using photos. However . . . to deter employers from viewing and abusing social networking pages, employees might post legal terms of service [blogspot.com] under which employers agree to scram."

    I'd just look at the pages anyway then use the information as I see fit. I have no obligation to hire someone I don't like, and any insights into how that person will work on my team matter to me.

    The whole purpose of social networking is vanity and self-display. Fine and good, but don't expect to display then choose how viewers can use what you put out there.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  17. This will continue to occur by sharp-bang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    until such time as the preponderance of judges and attorneys can be embarrassed by archival pictures/movies on the Internet.

    --
    #!
  18. Uh? Hello? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Uh? Hello? by eekygeeky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Uh? Hello? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    3. Re:Uh? Hello? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Uh? Hello? by Thiez · · Score: 3, Informative

      > And if it was someone in your family lying painfully in the hospital, the photo of the defendant carrying on in a jailbird costume two weeks after the accident would likely fill you with rage. You'd want justice.

      You misspelled 'revenge'. And that's not what the law is for.

    5. Re:Uh? Hello? by tangent3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Uh? Hello? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We're judging people now because of character instead of actions? If so, some politicians should be shitting their pants right now.

      Who gets to define "moral" behaviour? You? Me? Some thinkofthechildren goon in Washington? Personally, I'd be shitting my pants now if it was the latter.

      What I want him to be, or what I want him to suffer like, is not important. That's what sets a legal system apart from mob rule. There is a very good reason that not the person who was wronged gets to decide on the punishment but why we have a legal code defining that.

      Does it change the state his victim is in when he mourns and cries? No. Does his victim gain anything out of him avoiding parties? No. So what is this about? Revenge? He must not enjoy his life because he made someone miserable?

      By that logic, some company execs should never party again. Ever.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Uh? Hello? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, in other words, if I start spewing on some online diary service how sorry I am and how bad I feel for it, I should get a minor slap on the wrist instead of some harsh verdict?

      Ok, I'll remember that in case I ever need it. I'll feel very sorry for anything I do from now on. Hey, I can do that, I'm good at fake excuses!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Uh? Hello? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Informative

      We're judging people now because of character instead of actions?

      Now? What do you mean by now? Do you have any clue whatsoever about how the American justice system actually works?

      Judges are given broad power over sentencing. They are permitted, nay expected, to use this power to give more punishment to the worst criminals. "Worst" being defined by things like not showing remorse, no ties to the community, prior criminal record etc. It all pretty much feeds into two questions: is this person likely to commit further crimes, and will his example serve to deter others? This information is all very relevant to those questions.

      In the case at hand, if a guy who seriously hurt someone was back out partying his heart out just two weeks later, do you think he's likely to commit the same crime again? I'd say, hell yes, put that fucker away.

      Sentencing is about punishment. Well guess what: if you say you're sorry and show remorse, society has decided that in general you deserve less punishment than some defiant ass monkey who doesn't change his behavior.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    9. Re:Uh? Hello? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The American legal system has always emphasized intent over action, and character dovetails into intent. Pretend I hit a pedestrian with my car. If I intended to hit and kill him because I hated him, I would be charged with murder. If my vehicle malfunctioned due to no fault of my own, I will not be charged with a crime. If I intentionally swerved into the pedestrian to avoid three kids who ran into the street, I would not be convicted of murder. In all three cases, the pedestrian is dead but my punishment differs based on my intent.

      When determining intent, character is often used as a proxy because you cannot measure intent directly. So if I hit someone with a car, and then go to a party wearing a jailbird shirt and laughs about it, one can infer that the defendant just didn't care so much. His intent was probably one of indifference to human life if he gets into a drunk driving accident and laughs about it at a party where alcohol was concerned.

      Additionally, character (remorsefulness) is considered a metric for recidivism. If the defendant is sincerely remorseful he may be less likely to re-offend, whereas a guy who is callous enough to party while his victim's family was mourning would be considered "cold-hearted" and likely to do it again.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  19. Re:This is Stupid by fractic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If he were black?

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

  20. Re:This is Stupid by samweber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, I did a google search, and in a few moments found such work. (Remove references to Conrad Black -- most results have cites to the original sources.)

    This sort of thing saddens me. People actually think that the US has become entirely color-blind? And, Slashdotters aren't able to do google searches?

    And I've personal experience with this too. I was on the jury of a murder case. It was astounding how often certain other jurers brought up race. For instance, apparently, all black men come "from the same place" and can tell each other apart perfectly!

  21. Re:This is Stupid by Xtravar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obama admitted to doing drugs, and he's not going to jail.

    Yet, once he's president, he'll have the official capacity to pardon all non-violent drug offenders... think he'll do it???

    --
    Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  22. We warn kids about this all the time... by Landshark17 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work as an Orientation Leader at my college; familiarizing incoming freshman with the campus and what it's like to be a college student, etc. One of the things we warn them about is to not put anything on facebook that they wouldn't want their family to see. Of course, they don't listen and we've had RAs write kids up for things they've done just because the RA saw pictures of it posted on facebook.

    When kids get their room assignments, they instantly check their roommates out on facebook. Every now and then we hear stories that even before they've met the roommate, parents ask for a new one because the roommate's facebook page makes them worry the kid might be gay.

    --
    This sig is false.
    1. Re:We warn kids about this all the time... by P51mus · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's an RA?

      "Resident Advisor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_assistant They help keep order, do events and such in a college dorm.

    2. Re:We warn kids about this all the time... by ciggieposeur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      parents ask for a new one because the roommate's facebook page makes them worry the kid might be gay.

      So Facebook is helping (potentially) gay students avoid having to room with bigots? Wonderful!

  23. Red Bull by rossdee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Last I checked, Red Bull was NOT an alcoholic beverage. Had he been photographed drinking alcohol I could understand the increased sentence.

    1. Re:Red Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, a couple of weeks ago I ran down someone while I was in a drunken stupor.

      Hey, want to go to a costume party and whoop it up this weekend? I'll wear my jailbird outfit.

      Yeah, that really sends the right message about how seriously someone is taking the situation. Hell, it could have been *water* and it still sends the wrong message. The impression you get is "Oops, my bad, and, damn, I was caught. Two weeks aught to be enough repentance. Let the partying resume!"

    2. Re:Red Bull by TheJodster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking as someone who got run over by a Ford Explorer driven by a drooling idiot, I bet you'd feel quite differently if this dumbass had put your stupid ass in the hospital.

      The most miserable part of going through months of surgeries and rehab to try to put your life back together is knowing that the jackass that hit you isn't even sorry about it. I got a year of misery and she got a new car.

      When he gets out of prison, he should have to take care of her lawn and clean her house once a week for the next 20 years. Every time he doesn't perform the work to her satisfaction, it's another week in jail.

      You can take that Red Bull and shove it. I don't give a shit what he was drinking. Putting on that costume and making a joke out of the misery he caused would have gotten him five to ten if I were a judge.

      --
      A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding...
    3. Re:Red Bull by Xelios · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting busted for drinking and driving is different than just drinking. Even if it were alcohol he was drinking I don't think it should have had any bearing on the case, as long as it wasn't a picture of him behind the wheel of a car while drinking.

      What should (and did) have a bearing on the case is him wearing his arrest like some sort of merit badge instead of treating it as an emberassing fuckup that he isn't proud of. That and his seemingly blatant disregard for the people he injured in the process.

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  24. Re:anti-employer EULA by strelitsa · · Score: 2

    If I were an employer and I saw such a codicil posted on the web site of somebody who wanted to work for me, that would be sufficient cause for me to instantly toss their application in the dumper. Otherwise, I would just surf there from a non-company computer and get my fill of proof of malfeasance on the part of the applicant with the applicant being none the wiser.

    And how could it possibly benefit any employer to agree to this? It does not violate a prospective employee's civil rights in any way - they themselves posted the material on a public web site available to anyone who wants to surf on in and see it. It would be like demanding that the HR Department at Xerox not be allowed to review or keep an applicant's paperwork if the applicant wrote "FUCK XEROX" in 50-point bold all over the back of the thing. If they had any brains at all, they just wouldn't hire that person.

    --
    No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
  25. Is it some sort of joke? by viscus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess some people still can't get in through their skulls that the internet isn't some sort of silly game. If you post something, anyone has access to it, including law enforcement. It's like that woman who tried to take out a hit on someone via Craigslist a while back. What the hell is going through these people's minds?

  26. Way to be logical... by ExtremePhobia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Way to be logical... by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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."

      First off, it was after he was already convicted, he was simply awaiting sentencing. So basically he was making light of his potential fate, one he probably doubted he'd get.

      Second, according to TFA, Douchebag captioned said photo "Remorseful?" So, again, making light of his conviction and his pending probation (or so he thought).

      "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!"

      A car accident in which she was the driver and she killed her passenger. Drinking and joking about it while awaiting sentencing for drunk driving, after having killed somebody, suggests someone that hasn't quite grasped the gravity of brutally killing someone sitting not two feet away from you.

      "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?"

      One in which she killed somebody.

      "AA doesn't teach you to act correctly when you drink, it tried to get you to stop drinking completely"

      Not that bad of an idea considering the fact that she killed someone and still saw to make light of it.

      "Not to say I don't think they deserved it but expecting people to become inhuman because of an accident is just plain stupid."

      How about ceasing the activity that previously lead to someone's death? Is that too much to expect? At least during the sentencing phase?

      "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?"

      In a picture that the guy himself captioned as "Remorseful?" He was busily, actively, and consciously flaunting the fact that he wasn't remorseful, one of the conditions he would have needed to satisfy if he were going to to get away with probation.

      Seriously, did you read the same linked article as I did?

  27. How to win any case in court : by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 2

    Have George Bush on your friends list.

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  28. Re:I am a law student... by lottameez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You could make that argument for anyone that breaks the law. People should know they will be held accountable for their actions.

    Laws are meant to protect society. If this guy, with his cavalier attitude toward hurting people, goes out and does it again...then what? Will you be ready to "fudge up his life" then?

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  29. Re:This is Stupid by Goobergunch · · Score: 2, Informative

    He'll only have the capacity to pardon non-violent drug offenders in federal prison -- not those imprisoned under state laws.

  30. Re:This is Stupid by rpillala · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most things I hear or read deal with sentencing disparities based on the race of the victim. Here's a GAO report (PDF) from 1990 submitted by what appears to be the Senate judiciary committee. Strom Thurmond is listed among the submitters. He's hardly leftist.

    From the findings:

    In 82 percent of the studies, race of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

    ...

    The race of victim influence was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process, although there were variations among studies as to whether there was a race of victim influence at specific stages. The evidence for the race of victim influence was stronger for the earlier stages of the judicial process (e.g. prosecutorial decision to charge defendant with a capital offense, decision to proceed to trial rather than plea bargain) than in later stages.

    The findings section does discuss some reasons their results are not the last word on this subject.

    http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/140845.pdf

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  31. Re:This is Stupid by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can tell you here in the south that if a black and a white both get busted for drugs,the white will get rehab and the black will get the pen. I have also been slammed up against the police car and had the cop tell me to my face " I don't know which makes me more sick: a long haired freak like you or the nigger you're riding with". So yeah,I hate to break the news to you,but the clean cut white boy walks while the black rots in jail. Is it fair,hell no. But that is the way it is. Unless you increase police pay by a hell of a lot more than it is now you are going to always have bullies taking the job for the power.

    I have also sat in court waiting to buy my way out of a pot bust(I know,a long haired white boy that smoked pot:shocking) and watched as black kids that had less than I did get sent up for anywhere from 6 months to as high as 3 to 5. Meanwhile I paid $800 and got told after my lawyer had a nice little behind the scenes talk with the judge to "have a nice day". Is it fair? Again,not so much. But as the old saying goes "money talks". I was just surprised how little money it took to walk away. But don't ever doubt for a second that your race, appearance and financial status affects how you are treated by the law. And as always this is my 02c based on my experiences with the system,YMMV

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  32. Re:This is Stupid by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really accurate. What you are in fact saying, is someone foolish enough to allow photos of them to be published on the internet which could possibly be interpreted as them being unrepentant, rather than perhaps being severely depressed and attempting to deal with that depression by the foolish consumption of alcohol which would alter their behaviour by affecting inhibitions.

    On the other hand of course are people who were careful enough and had better friends and hence no pictures were published of their activities, when attempting to deal with the guilt, shock and of course trying to bury the fear of upcoming penalties for their poor behaviour.

    After all isn't it extremely rare for people to deal with stress by drinking alcohol, or when dealing with depression, or when attempting to assuage a guilty conscience. Either the judges should wake up to themselves or everybody should be treated the same under law, that after all is one of the most important principles of justice that all should be treated equally.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  33. Been this way a long time, and should be by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:Red Bull(shit) by japhering · · Score: 2, Insightful

    morale of the story.. don't put your private life on public display.. because sooner or later someone will use it to their advantage

  35. Re:This is Stupid by nomadic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yet, once he's president, he'll have the official capacity to pardon all non-violent drug offenders... think he'll do it???

    He'll only have the capacity to pardon offenders of federal drug laws, not state.

  36. Re:Red Bull(shit) by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  37. Re:Red Bull(shit) by Toll_Free · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, what is the coping strategy of the guy in a wheelchair for the rest of his life?

    What is the coping strategy of the parents of the kid he kills while driving drunk?

    What is the coping strategy... Oh wait, nevermind. You have the same mindset he does. Fuck everyone else, you will be assimilated, and I can do whatever I want. Fuck your laws, rules, guidelines, etc. I CAN DO WHAT I WANT.

    Entitled punk. Welcome to the real world. The world where you actually have REPURCUSSIONS for your actions. Where when you FUCK up, it can come back to HAUNT you.

    That's the problem. His own actions / photos PROVED he was a "3 strikes" kind of kid. Bottom line. Had he had a little bit of intelligence (beyond how to pour a whore into bed), he would have realized that his popularity show (myspace page) COULD have fucked him in the future.

    But, then again, he would probably have signed up for an ARM mortgage, drove an Escalade EXT, complained the entire time about how much it costs to drive it, etc. all the time wondering why he has no money living above his means.

    Intelligence at it's finest.

    --Toll_Free

  38. Re:This is Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    No he wouldn't have.

    There are no black men in this country as powerful as George H. W. Bush. Period.

  39. Stupid is as stupid does (Was: Re:This is Stupid) by mhollis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  40. I'm really puzzled, still by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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."

    I still don't get why people even use facebook (or any social sites). Near as I can tell, it's a vestige of the adolescent misconception that you are the center of the universe and everything you do is interesting and important.

    Perhaps that's not fair. It persists well into adulthood as well.

    The fact that everything people do and say online lives forever and will affect you for the rest of your life seems to have not sunk in with many people. I'm glad my adolescence and early adulthood are long gone and forgotten by everyone. I can't imagine trying to explain what I did 30+ years later when I was in my mid teens.

    I'm assuming this whole thing is like the hula hoop. Seemed like a good idea for a while, and then we threw them out in the late 60's.
     

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  41. Re:This is Stupid by megaditto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There really isn't any reason why one that is drunk or under the influence of drugs, should be sitting at the wheel.

    I think you will find there is very little reason involved in such senseless crimes. DUI punishment is already pretty severe, yet people still do it, probably because they are drunk and can't reason.

    Then again, even very smart and reasonable people still commit pretty dumb crimes which are already punished by death (Re: Hans Reiser)

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  42. Re:You're not considering the money factor by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's not forget the possibility that a culture that built up around gangstas, bragging about prison time, and shooting people in the face for dissing you; might actually be committing more crimes. What is the product of this kind of culture? Black youth are six times more likely to die of homicide than white youth and seven times more likely to commit a homicide. Homicide is the leading cause of death among African-American males ages 15 to 29. I don't think about skin color, it's about cultural values. Bill Cosby has it right.

    --
    We are all just people.
  43. Re:This is Stupid by BTWR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yes, but they don't usually caption these drinking-jailbird-costume-wearing pictures "Remorseful?"

  44. Re:This is Stupid by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  45. Re:This is Stupid by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!")

  46. Photos tell facts better than context by jesterzog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    In general I don't have a problem of using extra sources of information like Facebook. What I find disturbing about this is that the judge's decision was influenced, even according to the judge, by photos that someone else posted to facebook. From what I can tell that photographer was never cross-examined to establish the actual context of the photograph. For all we know, someone who didn't like the guy might have coerced him into a non-representative situation for a moment so they could snap the photo to put on Facebook, then tag him in the photo to make it easy for any prosecuting lawyer to stumble upon.

    Was he dragged to a party by friends to take his mind of things after 2 weeks of hell? Who else was there? Were they all close friends, and were they the sorts of people who'd try to embarrass him for his mistake? Well I hope the courts investigated that properly. Perhaps he did deserve what he got in this case, but if it's as easy to influence a judge as this article implies, it concerns me.

  47. Re:You're not considering the money factor by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tee Vee doing gangsta rap doesn't make that indicative of what you call "black culture"

    I didn't that it "black culture", you did. I go to But the gangsta culture, is primarily made up of African-Americans. So when a very large percentage of gangsta culture goes to jail for the crimes that are bragged about on the radio, everyone says it's discrimination against African-Americans. Of course the black folks you know don't act like that, you met them in church, which if you had read the link to Bill Cosby's speech you would have seen that not going to church is one of reasons for the cultural failing of poor urban culture. My church here in NYC is about 25% Black, 40% Latino, 35% White. We don't have any gangs, we don't have any shootings, most everyone there is a very decent person (except me I'm a bigoted asshole). But when I come home from work on the subway and over hear a group of teenage boys bragging and laughing about jumping some kid, six to one: "Ha ha ha, I kicked him in the head BAM. Gotta respect me son." Can you guess what kind of music was playing from the crappy speaker in one of their cell phones? I'll give you a clue, the music strongly advocated that the way to get bitches was to earn money and respect by shooting people for failing to give you money and respect. I see something similar close to one a week. Now, this was at at 11pm on a week day, during the school year. Where the kids you knew growing up allowed at age 15 or so to be out at 11pm miles from home on a school night? Since I work evenings, I also get to see the kids hanging out during the day while school is in session. Guess what most of the teenage kids I see skipping school have in common? A culture that places very little value on education or authority. Now perhaps it is just chance that the majority of those kids have the same skin color, but it's not chance that those kids, embracing that culture, end up being crime statistics. Modern poor urban culture is a recipe for disaster. Until the people that propagate that culture face up to that, the situation will only get worse. Not everyone who is black is a proponent of that culture, but most of the people that propagate the culture are black. The culture is the problem, but the skin color is what is reported in the statistics that seem to point to racism.

    --
    We are all just people.