Having The Same Argument, Again.

[Hank Chinaski]

[QUOTE=sgtclub;422735]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No.

No, I'm not wrong?

I think he meant he has been unable to find a blog that expresses his opinion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

No, I'm not wrong?

No, you're not wrong. I don't think the government usually arrests people without good reason, but once it does, I think most prosecutors are happy to use the advantages that come with being the government. I think most people are mostly happy that the government does this, and don't want to pay the higher taxes it would take if everyone who was charged got good counsel and a trial instead of a plea bargain.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

One does wonder - since they had an undercover insider - why they did not wait for at least one overt act?

I was under the impression that they had more than was recounted in what club posted, but maybe not.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This is troubling. I have had several personal experiences lately, which lead me to believe that the government consistently overreaches when prosecuting crimes. The tactic seems to be to use the weight and resources of the government to crush individuals into submission (i.e., pleas), irrespective of the evidence. Am I wrong? Anyone with inside experience care to share?

I assume the government wouldn't be arresting them if they weren't bad people, don't you? If you don't, you're probably one of them anyways.

Take Arizona, for example. They won't be harassing real Americans, right?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I actually wasn't trying to draw any larger conclusions to the WOT, just using it as a jumping off point for my recent experiences.

My first thought was to say that prosecutors and police often overreach, but it's hard to generalize. There are a lot of prosecutors and law enforcement people out there, and there is a full spectrum. When I did crim defense, we saw this range all the time, from prosecutors who used their discretion in an intelligent, ethical way, to prosecutors who viewed the only legitimate role of defense counsel as being to negotiate plea bargains. The latter tended to fall into federal drug prosecution at the time -- and you regularly saw things like a defendant who was, at worst, a mule on one or two carries being charged as part of the 10-year conspiracy to import drugs, so that instead of facing a charge for helping to sell the two ounces of coke he actually carried he was facing a charge for conspiring to sell the four tons that the defs collectively had imported.

My second thought was to ask, what are these "recent experiences"? Have you been hanging out with the militia?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Krugman predicted the future twelve years ago:

Here’s how the story has been told: a year or two or three after the introduction of the euro, a recession develops in part – but only part – of Europe. This creates a conflict of interest between countries with weak economies and populist governments – read Italy, or Spain, or anyway someone from Europe’s slovenly south – and those with strong economies and a steely-eyed commitment to disciplined economic policy – read Germany. The weak economies want low interest rates, and wouldn’t mind a bit of inflation; but Germany is dead set on maintaining price stability at all cost. Nor can Europe deal with “asymmetric shocks” the way the United States does, by transferring workers from depressed areas to prosperous ones: Europeans are reluctant to move even within their countries, let alone across the many language barriers. The result is a ferocious political argument, and perhaps a financial crisis, as markets start to discount the bonds of weaker European governments.

Quel mess.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

My first thought was to say that prosecutors and police often overreach, but it's hard to generalize. There are a lot of prosecutors and law enforcement people out there, and there is a full spectrum. When I did crim defense, we saw this range all the time, from prosecutors who used their discretion in an intelligent, ethical way, to prosecutors who viewed the only legitimate role of defense counsel as being to negotiate plea bargains. The latter tended to fall into federal drug prosecution at the time -- and you regularly saw things like a defendant who was, at worst, a mule on one or two carries being charged as part of the 10-year conspiracy to import drugs, so that instead of facing a charge for helping to sell the two ounces of coke he actually carried he was facing a charge for conspiring to sell the four tons that the defs collectively had imported.

My second thought was to ask, what are these "recent experiences"? Have you been hanging out with the militia?

I can 2 all of this, but add that it's what we should expect when we have an electorate and particularly the media that now expect that the government is, and should be, powerful enough to PREVENT harm. All it takes is one screaming headline that says essentially "Authorities Knew [Set of Facts Not Collectively Meeting All Elements of a Crime/Impending Tragedy], Did Nothing" and you've created a monster of a public official. I see this from both sides, and pretty often public officials are beaten up for not doing something before something terrible (unlikely to occur) happens, and they see these headlines in their futures and make poor allocations of their resources.

That, and "innocent" people are hard to find in state courts. Plenty who are not guilty of the specific crime of which they stand accused, but few who are out-and-out the wrong guy etc. I think it makes people callous, both DA and PD. It's exhausting representing the same folks being churned through the system because their decisions are no better than children's, and add to that the way the Gov't gets pilloried the one in 300 times the piece of shit run-of-the-mill guy you're dealing with today then goes on to shoot four police officers, like you were supposed to see that in his eyes and put him away for life for burglary. So it's safer now for the DA to overcharge and oversentence -- the idea we can prevent future harm is now that strong.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was under the impression that they had more than was recounted in what club posted, but maybe not.

It was suggested, but after 2 days and 10 hours days of testimony, argument, and a skeptical judge, wouldn't you have introduced something?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I can 2 all of this, but add that it's what we should expect when we have an electorate and particularly the media that now expect that the government is, and should be, powerful enough to PREVENT harm. All it takes is one screaming headline that says essentially "Authorities Knew [Set of Facts Not Collectively Meeting All Elements of a Crime/Impending Tragedy], Did Nothing" and you've created a monster of a public official. I see this from both sides, and pretty often public officials are beaten up for not doing something before something terrible (unlikely to occur) happens, and they see these headlines in their futures and make poor allocations of their resources.

That, and "innocent" people are hard to find in state courts. Plenty who are not guilty of the specific crime of which they stand accused, but few who are out-and-out the wrong guy etc. I think it makes people callous, both DA and PD. It's exhausting representing the same folks being churned through the system because their decisions are no better than children's, and add to that the way the Gov't gets pilloried the one in 300 times the piece of shit run-of-the-mill guy you're dealing with today then goes on to shoot four police officers, like you were supposed to see that in his eyes and put him away for life for burglary. So it's safer now for the DA to overcharge and oversentence -- the idea we can prevent future harm is now that strong.

All that, sure. But because of the work I did, my experience was more that overreaching was an important tool in the prosecutorial box. The guy who was looking at 70 years for supposedly carrying two ounces of coke, because he was indicted as part of a massively broader conspiracy, was under enormous pressure to roll. This happens all the time. I am not arguing that it's bad or good, it is just the reality that this is often the best and sometimes the only way to get at the top drug defendants.

AoN: In a specific case I am thinking of, that pressure was countered by something very significant: Not the normal "but they'll kill me if I talk" but the far, far less common "I really wasn't involved in that." He really wasn't -- in something like 17,000 recorded phone calls the feds identified four that were to his number, and the substance of those calls was someone asking for "Juan." (A name that belonged to his son, among many others.) Eventually they relented and dismissed the guy. (They also dismissed the guy who they had arrested because he received several calls from "known drug conspirators" and was referred to as "The Mechanic." Turns out, he was the guy who fixed their cars. I shit you not.)


eta: Another tidbit I'd forgotten -- the indictment made much of the talk about "bringing the goat over", goat being obvious code for "large shipment of drugs." Except, it turned out, they were BBQing a goat that night.

Sometimes, law enforcement casts an awfully wide net....

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

My second thought was to ask, what are these "recent experiences"? Have you been hanging out with the militia?

1. Close friend arrested and being prosecuted for white collar crime. Multiple defendants. There is scant evidence against my friend. AG has dropped all charges but the conspiracy charge, but is squeezing him for a plea on that nonetheless.

2. I sat on a jury last December. Criminal case. When the prosecution rested, my thought was "That's it, they brought a case on THAT"? We acquitted in 90 minutes, and most of that time was convincing one holdout who was on the fence. I was seriously appalled, and frightened.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

2. I sat on a jury last December. Criminal case. When the prosecution rested, my thought was "That's it, they brought a case on THAT"? We acquitted in 90 minutes, and most of that time was convincing one holdout who was on the fence. I was seriously appalled, and frightened.

some of that is for the public's sense of order maybe? my wife sat on a murder case-

the guy admitted he shot this guy, for talking to his girlfriend- killed him in the middle of a residential street- the only question was murder 2 or 1? she kept coming home and saying "the D. will win," of "win" meant get murder 2. at the end of a week trial she got booted as an alternate, bummed because she had putt he time in, but also worried the mob would knock him to murder 1 when she saw NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support that. No worries- in an hour they came back with murder 2.

a month later we read the guy got a 46 year sentence. why go for murder 1, with no case, when 2 is effectively life? the only reason i can see is to appear tough.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

(They also dismissed the guy who they had arrested because he received several calls from "known drug conspirators" and was referred to as "The Mechanic." Turns out, he was the guy who fixed their cars. I shit you not.)

If this were on a TV show, it would be funny. That it happened to a real person is pretty scary.

eta: Another tidbit I'd forgotten -- the indictment made much of the talk about "bringing the goat over", goat being obvious code for "large shipment of drugs." Except, it turned out, they were BBQing a goat that night.

This is funny.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Most effective ad of the upcoming political season:

Scene 1: Republican Candidate X in a crowd at the convention chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill"

Scene 2: Oil coming ashore is Louisiana, fishing boats docked, beaches with dying animals on them and no people, burning rig

Scene 3: Republican Candidate (a) waffling and flip flopping or (b) defending their Drill, Baby, Spill positions

They earned this one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

some of that is for the public's sense of order maybe?

They ought to strip the license and whip until bloody and near dead any prosecutor bringing a case "for the public's sense of order." There's doing what's right, and doing what's wrong, and what a pack of half-educated Wal Mart shoppers think is for them to debate after American Idol, not something that should infect a process that potentially robs a man of his liberty (or life). I've seen people financially ruined going to trial to acquit themselves of a "novelty" or "example" case Uncle Sam or the State prosecutor decided to bring. Of all the abhorrent, disgusting and vile things individuals do in the name of "govt" for personal (well, "political") gain, this is by far the worst.

They need to write an oath for prosecutors that includes a pledge to never, ever bring a charge against a defendant purely to demonstrate they're "tough on crime" or to create a leverage position. The rule should be "claim conservatively." We also need defense lawyers in the grand juries. That rule is fucking outrageous.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Most effective ad of the upcoming political season:

Scene 1: Republican Candidate X in a crowd at the convention chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill"

Scene 2: Oil coming ashore is Louisiana, fishing boats docked, beaches with dying animals on them and no people, burning rig

Scene 3: Republican Candidate (a) waffling and flip flopping or (b) defending their Drill, Baby, Spill positions

They earned this one.

why do you think they never run polution commercials anymore? no one gives a shit, or more accurately, anyone who gives a shit already knows how they'll vote... how they'll vote in 2040 for that matter.

the average swing voter is looking at gas prices and middle east wars a lot more closely that oily seals.