Kim Dotcom's Lawyer Plays Down Megaupload Worker's Guilty Plea

mrspoonsi writes with the latest from Kim Dotcom. "Kim Dotcom's US lawyer has denied that a guilty plea by one of the Megaupload's former employees has major implications for his client's case. Andrus Nomm was sentenced to a year in jail after pleading guilty on Friday to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement while working for the now defunct file-sharing site. The US is currently trying to extradite Mr Dotcom, who founded Megaupload, from New Zealand to stand trial. Mr Dotcom denies wrongdoing. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has alleged that Megaupload's staff had "operated websites that wilfully reproduced and distributed infringing copies of copyrighted works" over a period of five years, causing more than $400m (£260m) of harm to copyright owners. Nomm — a 36-year-old Estonian citizen — agreed to this damages estimate as part of his plea, according to a press release from the DoJ. He had been living in the Netherlands before he travelled to Virginia to make the deal with the US authorities. The DoJ added that Nomm had acknowledged that through his work as a computer programmer for Megaupload, he had become aware of copyright-infringing material being stored on its sites, including films and TV shows that had contained FBI anti-piracy warnings. It said he had also admitted to having downloaded copyright-infringing files himself. "This conviction is a significant step forward in the largest criminal copyright case in US history," said assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell."

Comments

Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[Frosty Piss]

the smaller "players" don't have the cash-ola that "Dot Com" has to pay lawyers to keep the authorities at bay, so it's not surprising that the "little people" are taking the heat and folding. Why is "Dot Com" not paying the lawyer fees for the people he employed to do his dirty work?

Mr "Dot Com" might be in the "right" here, but he's still a douche bag.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is "Dot Com" not paying the lawyer fees for the people he employed to do his dirty work?

Because the US Government has seized all his assets. Which you easily could and should have known.

So your comment doesn't tell us anything about the issue at hand, and everything about you: you are ignorant of the facts, ignorant of your own ignorance, unwilling to educate yourself about anything, but totally willing to judge. You are a prime example of why I oppose trial by jury. Moron.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[chilenexus]

KDC's lawyer probably advised him that getting involved in those cases would make him appear guilty, and despite not being factual, would still have an impact on jury deliberations. With all the data and assets of the company being seized by the US, would he even have the cash to afford defending the employees? Sure sounds like dirty prosecutorial tactics: deny the defendants access to their own income and property so they will have a hard time putting up a defense.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[ggraham412]

His assets have been seized, he only gets enough from the authorities to cover his living expenses and his own legal fees. He cannot afford to hire lawyers for other people.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[SumDog]

Nah. It wont' happen here. First, Kim isn't even a citizen and John Key admitted the data collection on him was illegal. NZ's laws have since changed so it's now legal. Also, no one is in jail for the illegal search.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[vux984]

Sure sounds like dirty prosecutorial tactics: deny the defendants access to their own income and property so they will have a hard time putting up a defense.

What's the alternative? They don't seize evidence of a crime, defeating their ability to prosecute the case, because the criminals are using evidence in question to make money...??

That's bonkers.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[Frosty Piss]

His assets have been seized, he only gets enough from the authorities to cover his living expenses and his own legal fees.

Sure. And he hasn't been engaged in any money producing business since then. Right.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[Frosty Piss]

Again, "Dot Com" is not poor, and infact has been involved in significant money producing ventures since then.

But thanks for being a stooge.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[sjames]

Because the feds have seized his assets and surprise, surprise, won't let him spend any defending his employees.

So complain about the d-bag feds.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[sjames]

What makes you think he is free to spend the money he makes? You didn't think the feds have a sense of fair play, did you?

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[tbuddy]

He gave all his money to his family to appear broke on paper.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[davecb]

He seems to be close to owing more to his lawyers than the sum of what he has and what he claims is his family's. If the cause is the US seizing his assets on the basis of his guilt after charging him with something expensive, then the obvious conclusions follow...

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[davecb]

If they're innocent until proven guilty, should the profits of their putative crimes be seized? Or should it wait until after they're convicted, if at all?

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[AK Marc]

His name is Kim Dotcom (legally). If you feel the need to put his surname it quotes, you should at least be able to get it right. It makes you look like an idiot when you both put his name in quotes, and don't give it correctly. When you are that ignorant of the names of the people involved, it only makes you look like the douche bag.

Re:Where Is My D-Bag Boss?

[squiggleslash]

All his assets? You know, I could have sworn that he's currently running another great big "cloud storage" operation called Mega, but presumably if all his assets were seized then that was just someone else called Kim Dotcom. Or maybe it all runs from a single $1/month VPS service. Or Amazon keeps sending out AWS bills that he doesn't pay. Or...

Re:He's paid to defend his client no matter what

[Etherwalk]

A lawyer is paid to defend his client no matter what. What he says to the public really doesn't mean anything.

First, that's not *entirely* true--there are rules on how the lawyer is allowed to defend the client.

Shouldn't the same be true of the DA?

From the Summary: "This conviction is a significant step forward in the largest criminal copyright case in US history," said assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell."

Not an American, not doing business in America.

[sunyjim]

Why would a German Finnish national. Who is living in New Zealand, and does business in Hong Kong be extradited to the USA? None of his business had anything at all to do with the USA. Sure he had American clients but Amazon has Chinese clients. Do you want the chinese government to be able to extradite the head of Amazon.com JeffBezos to China because that Chinese guy bought something that is illegal there? The American government wouldn't stand for it. The laws of the USA do not apply outside the country. You are not the world police.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Tom]

Yes and no.

This is exactly what extradition hearings are for - to determine these questions. In general, you are right and the USA is famous for overreach. On the other hand, it is international law and a good idea that you can't hide your criminal activities simply by living 10m across the border.

But again, the details are to be determined in a court, and it's a NZ court that will decide whether or not to extradite him.

So legally speaking, everything is exactly as it should be.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[SumDog]

Extradition treaties are if someone commits a crime within your country and then flees to avoid prosecution. If a Japanese company uses Amazon Web Services to facilitate something that's a crime in the US, but not in Japan; should all of Amazon's assets be seized and their executives be arrested? or should the US demand extradition of the Japanese business holders?

This has nothing to do with law and more to do with big movie industries continued extension of the entire Napster / MPAA / RIAA bullshit.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Opportunist]

He didn't get across the border. That's exactly the point. I hate Kimmie from way back, but this still doesn't mean that he should be subject to the whims of a douchebag DOJ who thinks his precious laws mean shit anything outside its jurisdiction.

Kimmie isn't a US citizen. He operates no business in the US. So how the fuck does the US DOJ want to justify an extradition?

You're right. The legal web is way more complex. Way more complex than the US DOJ wants to admit because "Duh, but we wanna!" is not going to work out for them.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Opportunist]

Wait, really? Hooooo boy, I think all those Chinese martial arts movies that US pirates copy mean that they can prep for some quality time in a Chinese prison?

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Mathinker]

> So legally speaking, everything is exactly as it should be.

You really haven't been following the details of this case, I suppose (just joking, yes, I actually know that you slobber over every detail, because you really, really dislike Kim Dotcom). "Legally speaking", you're not supposed to make up weird new interpretations of laws, like what the DOJ has been doing, even if what you want to accomplish might be good for society (not that I'm convinced about that, but anyway). "Legally speaking", you're not supposed to deny the accused access to evidence which might help his defense. Etc., etc., ...

Most importantly, personally I'd say that "legally speaking" isn't that important here. What is important is that governments shouldn't be doing things which ethically speaking are questionable.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[DNS-and-BIND]

I love your high-handed, lecturing tone. If there's one thing that people like, it's being talked down to. Is it satisfying to do that?

What makes you think Americans support this? Many Americans despise their own federal government for precisely the reasons you outlined above - they have too much power and enjoy abusing it. To act fairly would be to follow the rules. To act capriciously is to be the rules.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[PRMan]

And Legally Speaking, you are not supposed to seize the assets and destroy the business of a presumed-innocent man. Legally Speaking, he should be able to use those assets to hire a defense team. And by "Legally Speaking", I mean the 4th Amendment.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[cavreader]

Who is this "US"? Is that all 350+ million inhabitants? And you actually think a "Chinese" martial arts movie means it was produced in China? I suppose you think "The Interview" was produced in NK and they are really just upset about people violating their copyrights?

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[davecb]

Regrettably, extradition hearings look to see if a case can be made by the prosecutors. If so, the person is shipped off, unless there is an extraordinary issue, like the person is to be executed for jaywalking (;-))

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[penguinoid]

That's how extradition treaties work. They generally only apply to things that are illegal in both countries, or were done in the country in which it is illegal.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[rtb61]

And the New Zealand government is a lamb with it's hind legs stuck in the gum boots of the US government getting the ride off it's life in order to gain the questionable benefits of access to US markets (getting paid with what is becoming funny money might not really be all that beneficial after all and likely not pay for all that pain and humiliation). So all of it corrupt from go and still to get there whoa.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[AK Marc]

Extradition and "border" matters when you commit a crime while somewhere, then flee. They don't apply when you rob someone in Brazil, then flee to Madagascar, so Ireland tries to extradite you to have you face charges for speeding. What he's accused of isn't a crime where he is. And he didn't do the crime in the US. So there is no activation of the US extradition treaties. This should be recognized in court, and the case dismissed. But John Key is more interested in getting on the Security Council than following NZ or international law, so Kim is being prosecuted past the fullest extent of the law.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[fafalone]

You are not the world police.

We've decided we are. What are you going to do about it?

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Tom]

yes, I actually know that you slobber over every detail, because you really, really dislike Kim Dotcom

Not him personally, but his kind of people. Every time one of these parasites goes away, society as a whole benefits. Unfortunately, one of the reasons these kind of people survive is that they're like Ophiocordyceps unilateralis and can make the same people that they exploit like and defend them.

"Legally speaking", you're not supposed to make up weird new interpretations of laws,

You've never been in a real, non-trivial court case in your life, I assume? Interpreting the law is what lawyers and judges do for a living, and in most interesting cases, basically you have the facts and two sides debating how to interpret the facts and how to interpret and apply the law to them. And new interpretations of laws are so common that there's a whole industry publishing books with collections of them.

What is important is that governments shouldn't be doing things which ethically speaking are questionable.

The difference between the law and ethics is that the law is a public, written and detailled record. Ethics is a fuzzy concept that no two people agree upon exactly. Ethics is the environment that law is born from, but the process of codifying, specifying and actually writing it down is very important and one of the reasons that "the rule of law" is basically a precondition for civilization.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Mathinker]

> "the rule of law" is basically a precondition for civilization

And you are very satisfied with "the rule of law" in the US currently, and do not sense any problem with its functioning?

To me, it seems to be functioning worse and worse as time progresses, and I even feel that this trend is, unfortunately, accelerating. The debacle which is the Megaupload case is just the tip of the iceberg.

To get back to the case in question, don't you find it peculiar that the DOJ would make a condition of this plea bargain to be that the programmer in question "testifies" to the dollar amount of the economic damage to the rightsholders? Even if he had knowledge of exactly how many files were infringing and their download counts, he couldn't possibly be qualified to make such an estimate. Or is he an expert in economics and the movie industry, also?

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Tom]

judge a person's worthiness as a human being based solely on your misfounded opinion because "Law, gubmint said so!"

Not in the least. If what Kimble did were legal, my opinion of him wouldn't be one inch better. In fact, a lot of these parasites work completely within the law, not because they are good people but because they understand that exploiting holes in the system lets them abuse society longer with less risk.

outside an extremely small portion of lawmakers had any involvement in determining if these things were illegal.

I'm quite a big fan of copyright, to be honest. Because I'm an author and a software developer. I'm not a fan of the corporate extensions to it, because for all I care when I'm dead my children can find jobs like I did. Covering them for around 20 years is good, just in case you die young, to make sure your kids have a start in life anyway, but death + 70 years? Crazy.

But you misrepresent our culture if you paint this as a backroom conspiracy. Most people on the street would agree that musicians, painters, authors, etc. deserve to make a living. What is determined by a small number of lawmakers is the details, and yes some backroom dealings from lobby work. But reality is grey, not black or white.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Tom]

And you are very satisfied with "the rule of law" in the US currently, and do not sense any problem with its functioning?

I'm not, but even if I disagree on the specifics of the law about, say, murder (maybe I'd prefer longer jailtime, or shorter), I very much think that murder should be illegal.

I will gladly discuss how the laws and the system could be improved, but to doubt the foundation of society because you're unhappy with the way the government finally nailed a scumbag, that's a dangerous road.

don't you find it peculiar that the DOJ would make a condition of this plea bargain to be that the programmer in question "testifies" to the dollar amount of the economic damage to the rightsholders?

Par for the course. Do you think Kimbles lawyers will be less sleazy? The adversial court system pretty much demands that both sides use any trick available.

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Mathinker]

but to doubt the foundation of society because you're unhappy with the way the government finally nailed a scumbag, that's a dangerous road.

I have no doubt about the value of "the rule of law", but I have plenty of doubts about its implementation. I can be very unhappy with the way the government decided to run the Megaupload case without necessarily disagreeing that quite possibly Megaupload deserved to be shut down or be forced to change how it did business (and ditto for Dotcom).

The adversial court system pretty much demands that both sides use any trick available.

If I were to accept this, as you seem to blithely do, then I guess that yes, I would have to doubt the value of "the rule of law". I not only reject this, I find that the court system is designed to actively discourage many such tricks. I rather doubt that this "testimony" (the economic damage part) will be actually used if Dotcom comes to trial. It would be ripped apart by any reasonable defense attorney (or more likely, preemptive action would be taken to prevent it from being presented to the jury). It seems to me that the DOJ is just covering its public relations ass, here (or even more likely, its corporate relations ass).

Re:Not an American, not doing business in America.

[Tom]

It's not like Kim is just a pirate: he is stealing from the other pirates, the ones who legally rob authors like you.

Painting him like some kind of Robin Hood is exactly what he wants. The truth of the matter is that he almost certainly doesn't give a fuck who he's taking from. His past crimes are evidence that he'll screw over you, me, his companions and friends, everyone, as long as he can make a buck from it.

without being able to do anything about the ones who get the lion's share resulting for your work, the legal distributors.

But that is a different fight to be fought with different weapons.

I wouldn't be the least surprised if Kimble and Hollywood were working together in this, making a big show for the world, and in the end Hollywood will get some new laws and Kimble will get to live in comfort with his fortune left intact and no charges. Both sides are the kind of scumbags for such stunts.

Re:Why plea deal?

[kelemvor4]

Wouldn't you rather have your day in court to fight bullshit charges?

Only if you really think you can win. Otherwise folks who ask for their day in court (In the US anyway) are severely penalized vs those that plead guilty. It sounds like this is a "Plea bargain" situation, too. Where the perpetrators of the case bought his plea in exchange for a lesser sentence than he might have received on his own.

Tip of a wave of prosecutions against devs?

[ggraham412]

Not sure why Andrus Nomm is charged with anything. Was he responsible for business decisions at the company?

If he was just a developer, I'm wondering if we'll start seeing a more prosecutions against developers working for a DOJ targeted company just to get them to roll on their bosses. In this case, is he any more responsible for other peoples' file sharing than Kim Dotcom's secretary?

As for his own illegal download, yeah, him and about 2 billion other people, (probably also including Kim Dotcom's secretary).

Re:Tip of a wave of prosecutions against devs?

[Tom]

Not sure why Andrus Nomm is charged with anything. Was he responsible for business decisions at the company?

He is charged because he knowingly participated in a criminal operation.

If you participate in a bank robbery, they will charge you with robbing a bank, even if you were not responsible for coming up with the idea, you know?

Re:Tip of a wave of prosecutions against devs?

[Mathinker]

> Merely knowing that infringing files are stored

I find it amusing that even someone defending Megaupload thinks that it would have been possible to know, a priori, that files uploaded by its clients were infringing. Viacom v. YouTube, anyone?

Now if it refused to take down files after being notified by the rightsholder, that's something else. In the case in question, the DOJ claims that Megaupload had the responsibility to take down all files similar or identical to those which it was notified were infringing, but it's not clear to me that that is a valid argument (I suppose it depends on how the takedown requests were formulated).

Re:Tip of a wave of prosecutions against devs?

[PRMan]

Not to mention that they took everything down except for, as you mentioned, 1. duplicates (because you don't know that a DVD copy is being used illegally, maybe they have permission) and 2. Files that the US Government asked them NOT to take down as part of a criminal investigation.

Re:Tip of a wave of prosecutions against devs?

[Tom]

It was a file storage site, and any such site inevitably contains copyrighted information. Merely knowing that infringing files are stored doesn't make it a criminal operation.

You missed or forgot about the part where intra-office communications revealed that they knowingly and intentionally encouraged illegal uploads, even searching them out?

There's a difference between hosting a forum where you can't be sure that someone will not copy a chapter from a book into a posting, and doing everything in your power to actively get illegal content into your site.

And yes, copying is not theft, and I never said it was. Maybe you took the bank robbery metaphor a little too literal? I could've used anything else, the point is that knowingly contributing to a crime makes you a criminal, and that's what he was prosecuted for.

Re:Why plea deal?

[davester666]

He probably could win, if he had a similar budget that the gov't spent on investigating and litigating him.

However, it is likely he was out of funds [or could see that he would be out of funds prior to the resolution of charges], and he would be tied up in court for years, so he chose the best way out, a resolution that gets his life going again in a year and probably with some money to do so.

Re:Why plea deal?

[Tom]

Which, even though it is massively abused, is at its core a good idea and used exactly in the way that it was intended to in this case: Give the small guy a smaller sentence if he helps you jail the big boss, who has the resources and connections to fight you tooth and nail with the best lawyers money can buy.

Re:Why plea deal?

[SumDog]

The justice system in most high income countries, including America, is fucked. It favours those with money or who are willing to be disloyal in exchange for pleas ... it favours the most unfavourable people while keeping the people most rehabilitation in a perpetual state of incarceration.

Coerced false conffesion

[jmcvetta]

The US kangaroo courts operate on a principal of coerced false confession. The oppressive multitude of petty laws is used to heavily over-charge defendants. They are then offered the choice of "confessing" or spending the rest of their life in the hellish sensory deprivation torture chambers of the American gulag.

Consider that "of the 82,092 defendants terminated during Fiscal Year 2013, 75,718, or 92 percent, either pled guilty or were found guilty" and "during Fiscal Year 2013, a total of 73,397, or 97 percent,of all convicted defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial." Source: United States Attorneys' Statistical Report 2013 Only 3% of federal prisoners were convicted by an actual trial!

That someone plead guilty at an American trial is no more damming than if they had farted.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[westlake]

Only 3% of federal prisoners were convicted by an actual trial!

The evidence to be presented for both the prosecution and defense generally has to exposed in pre-trial discovery.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[vux984]

Consider that "of the 82,092 defendants terminated during Fiscal Year 2013, 75,718, or 92 percent, either pled guilty or were found guilty"

What about the other 8%?

Were those not-guilty? Or does it include defendants whose cases that were dismissed at some point along the way?

At 92% guilty rate might mean what you say, or it might mean that cases against are largely settled and dropped during the pre-trial process.

And what about legitimate plea-bargains? Where the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser version of something ACTUALLY DID for expediency. And not just out of fear of being massively "over-convicted" at trial?

Or its a combination of all of the above. I don't think I disagree with you that "over-charging occurs" but; even without overcharging we'd see very high conviction rates. Its not worth the prosecutions time to prosecute cases until they think they WILL win.

Or to turn the tables on you ... What do you think a reasonable conviction rate SHOULD BE?

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[Anonymous Coward]

This is complete bullshit. Federal rules state that essentially any witness testimony cannot be required to be disclosed until AFTER the person has testified in court. Most cases have little forensic evidence and rely almost entirely on witness testimony. Try preparing a defense when you don't know who is testifying against you or what they are going to say. Good luck. Prosecutor's are supposed to hand over exculpatory evidence (Brady v. Maryland) but they reserve the right to decide what is exculpatory. For instance, let's say you have Person A confesses to a crime and doesn't implicate Person B. Person A is questioned several times over a period of months and never implicates Person B. Finally, after a ear in jail, and being threatened with a 50 year sentence, Person A implicates Person B in exchange for a 10 year sentence. Prosecutors can, and do, decide that the confession which did not implicate Person B and which was held to for a year is not exculpatory and do not reveal it's existence to the defense. How does the defendant make use of it. If the defendant does, somehow, find out about the original confession how do they get their hands on it? They have to file a motion which immediately suspends their right to a speedy trial until the motion is resolved. All during this time they are kept locked up and threatened with a huge sentence if they don't take a deal. Happens every day in the federal gulag.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[jmcvetta]

There is no such thing as a legitimate coerced confession ("plea bargain"), the very concept is antithetical to most ideas of justice.

As for your factual questions, I encourage you to poke around the linked US Attorney's Statistical Report. It may be an official gubmint publication, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

I am not here asserting what is the "right" conviction rate. Rather I simply assert that our American system of coerced false confession is patently unjust and immoral.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[vux984]

There is no such thing as a legitimate coerced confession ("plea bargain"), the very concept is antithetical to most ideas of justice.

Equating "plea bargain" with "coerced confession" is invalid. There are lot of plea bargains where it is not a coerced confession.

If I get into a bar fight, grab a bottle, and hit someone with it. (And when its over, everyone involved is fine, a bit of bruising etc...)

That's still aggravated assault. They've got plenty of evidence and a conviction is all but inevitable. Its not an overcharge, its exactly what I did.

So my lawyer suggests we offer to plea in exchange for a suspended sentence. I've got no record, the prosecution figures there's good odds that'll be the outcome anyway... I get quick closure and to move on, less time is wasted and the tax payer saves a bunch of money.

How exactly is that antithetical to justice? What would be more just exactly?

I am not here asserting what is the "right" conviction rate

That is exactly what you are doing by asserting that 92% is somehow improper. So what do you think a proper rate would be?

Rather I simply assert that our American system of coerced false confession is patently unjust and immoral.

It is. When it happens. But how often does it happen exactly? How do I know how much its going on? You cited the 92% guilt-pleas / found guilt rate as your sole point of evidence. But when I called you on it, you backed away from it meaning anything specific.

If we eliminate the "problem of coerced false confessions" what exactly would that do to the conviction rate exactly? If you can't quantify that meaningfully then why should I be impressed or convinced by the 92% statistic? Why even bring it up?

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[jmcvetta]

The 92% guilty rate is not the interesting part. Rather what strikes me is that 97% of the "guilty" have "confessed".

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[houghi]

So my lawyer suggests we offer to plea in exchange for a suspended sentence.

And that is a problem. It turns people who are not judges into judges.
It takes out the juridical part out of the juridical system.
Punishmnet (or getting off free) should not be the result of how god each party is at bargaining. It should be blind to that.

And how that that fight start where you grabbed a bottle? Where I live it would not be anything you would go to prison for anyway. But questions that should be asked would be: what started the fight? How did the fight eveolve? What happend after the fight? Are there any other things that bight have an influence? Were y ou cooperative? Did you show shame and/or guilt during the trial.

That all will then make the decision into what sentense should be given if found guilty. Even if you admitted all the way, it must be still up to the judge on what sentence you get.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[vux984]

The 92% guilty rate is not the interesting part. Rather what strikes me is that 97% of the "guilty" have "confessed".

Again... WHY is that interesting? Is it different in OTHER countries? Is it possible that 97% of guilty cases are along the lines of my example... where the defendant is merely pleading guilty to doing EXACTLY what he or she did; since the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive.

I mean, I have kids. 97% of the time I bust them for something they confess to it too. Because they know I've busted them; either I've caught them red handed or the evidence is irrefutable. They aren't being coerced into false confessions... they did something wrong, and they got caught.

It is perfectly normal and healthy to just admit it; and then make reparations and seek forgiveness.

It would be better if our justice system was more like that. In Canada (and elsewhere I presume) a lot of the native groups have their own justice systems that are more traditional. They are overseen by a "real judge" and the outcomes need to be approved but they are largely autonomous, and in many respects I think its a better system than our more adversarial one.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[vux984]

And that is a problem. It turns people who are not judges into judges.

Your presume that it would be better if every dispute was adjudicated by a judge. I disagree.

Facilitating letting people sort things out amongst themselves is usually the best policy. Lots of tribal systems use many of those informal approaches and while its not suitable for every situation, and its good that one can fall back to the courts, it really works a lot better in many situations than our adversarial system with a bunch of lawyers and judge.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[jmcvetta]

A 97% "confession" rate is something straight out of a Stalinist tyranny. This is a political value judgement - that's NOT the society I want to live in.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[vux984]

A 97% "confession" rate is something straight out of a Stalinist tyranny.

Normal, healthy, sane, overall good people not only confess without coercion, but even voluntarily will turn themselves in before the police even have them as a suspect. And massive numbers of normal people will confess to something they did actually do if they are accused, especially if they believe they've probably been caught.

  A 97% confession rate tells us NOTHING at all by itself about whether or not its a "Stalinist tyranny".

It just tells us people aren't all sociopaths.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[jmcvetta]

True, the 97% "confession" rate doesn't tell us whether or not we're a Stalinist tyranny. But it's solid prima facie evidence of some variant of tyranny.

Also, no sane person would willingly subject themselves to a lifetime of torture in the gulags. To do so would itself call into doubt their sanity. Not sure what you were smoking when you wrote that.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[vux984]

True, the 97% "confession" rate doesn't tell us whether or not we're a Stalinist tyranny. But it's solid prima facie evidence of some variant of tyranny.

Because in a utopia it would be 100% confession rate; even the spanish inquisition couldn't quite get 100%; a few people died before confessing. So what exactly do you think the rate should be, and why?

You need to SUPPORT your argument, not merely REPEAT the claim.

Also, no sane person would willingly subject themselves to a lifetime of torture in the gulags.

What about those with a guilty conscious? Who are tired of running, of being paranoid they'll be caught? Perhaps even the gulag would be a relief.

Besides, what percentage of people confessing to crimes ended up with a "lifetime of torture in the gulags"? Suspended sentences, time served, probation, fines, etc, etc... are all pretty common outcomes. And not all prisons are "gulags" either. And few sentences are anywhere near life.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[jmcvetta]

So you consider the Spanish Inquisition to be nearly a utopia? Now I understand your position better!

I'm not inclined to accept confession as evidence at all. When a person "confesses" to a court there is very high likelihood and risk that they have done so under some form of duress. If the prosecution has no case other than a confession, then they simply have no case. I have heard the law indeed operates this way in some of the European states.

Re:Coerced false conffesion

[vux984]

So you consider the Spanish Inquisition to be nearly a utopia?

Quite the opposite. And THAT was my point. Confession rate is USELESS as an indicator.

When a person "confesses" to a court there is very high likelihood and risk that they have done so under some form of duress.

Normal sane well-adjusted people admit wrong doing all the time. It's what normal sane well-adjusted people do when they've done something wrong.

Yes, there is a risk they were coerced. But how do you access that risk? The confession rate alone doesn't tell us how many were coerced vs how many were not.

If the prosecution has no case other than a confession, then they simply have no case. I have heard the law indeed operates this way in some of the European states.

Cite? I'd like to learn more about European states cases wherein the accused can confess, supply the prosecution all the details of the crime... and then the case is thrown out; even though they are sitting in the court room with a guilty plea entered.

Now, if you are suggesting that all the prosecution has is a confession and then the defendant pleads NOT guilty, and recants the confession and THAT is all that the police have as evidence then sure I could see that getting tossed out of court... in any country.

Re:Fascinating news story!

[Mathinker]

I gotta admit this post is quite amusing... someone should moderate it Funny...

Re:Why plea deal?

[sjames]

Here's the deal. I will charge you with rape, murder, child molestation, bank robbery, and having a bad attitude. The minimum sentence will be 40 years, but I'm going for the max. the trial will take about a year. The cost will put your wife and children on the street and leave you with the world's most overworked public defender, so you better believe I'll get that conviction.

OR...you could plead guilty to aggravated littering and with time served we can have you home by Friday.

Re:Hypocrisy at it's best, just look at youtube...

[Fwipp]

Google plays ball with the *AA folk, and will slap up ads on your copyrighted content, making you money-for-nothing.

Re:Why plea deal?

[davecb]

Plea deals are a bug-fix for wasted efforts in the courts, but like many bug-fixes, they contain their own bugs.

If the court process is expensive enough, any organization with money can can almost always bankrupt someone with less money, and thereby force them into accepting a plea deal. If it's officers of the court (prosecutors) it's particularly heinous: they're using the defendant's money against them..

The bug-fix needs a bug-fix, one that isn't subject to being gamed. In Canada we used to have supported programmes for fighting unjust laws, and even unfair convictions. We still have them, but they're done almost completely pro-bono. IMHO, the government of the day seems quite unwilling to pay for anything that advances the cause of justice...

--dave
No, IANAL, I'm just grumpy about at political attacks on and perversion of natural justice.

Fucked.com

[seoras]

Lots of good, irrelevant, points here which I do agree with. However Dotcom was lured to NZ, entrapped, in exchange for "The Hobbit" being filmed here - or at least that was the threat from the US if they'd didn't agree to help rope him up and hand him over.
The Kiwi's hate Dotcom for 2 reasons.
1) "Tall poppy syndrome". Kiwi's hate those who brag on success and Dotcom sticks out above everyone in NZ like a soar thumb.
2) The NZ media have savaged him and he has totally underestimated the population's belief in their media. His attempt at politics here in the recent elections was eye wateringly awful.
This recent event is just another fanning of the flames of the pyre on which they intend to burn him.
More bad PR to justify to Kiwi's why a "citizen", as Dotcom likes to remind them he is, should be handed over to the USA.
I'm not a Kiwi but I do live in NZ. Not a comforting thought....
PS
Kinda sad that professional sportsmen stand a better chance of getting away with murder in the USA than online "entrepreneur's" do of avoiding extradition there and a life time in a cell for running a business that offers much of the same as competing US business do.

Re:Why plea deal?

[CurryCamel]

most high income countries including USA

?
Name three other? Or at least define "high income country".
I won't try to dispute what you say about the American justice system, but its rather unique...

Nomm, nomm, nomm

[oldmac31310]

Nomm, nomm, nomm