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."

45 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 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 ----
    3. 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 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 ----
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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).

  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)

  7. 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 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.
  8. 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 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.

    --
    #!
  11. 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 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!"

  12. 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.

    --
    #!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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?

  18. 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...
  19. 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."
  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.
  25. 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!
  26. 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!")