Please don't use the "prosecutors go for the maximum penalty they can" defence for trivialising this shit.
Even if that was the case, penalties should be suggested proportionally to the crime -- not inflated to scare people.
For one, an inflated penalty makes the person more likely to want to avoid trial and take a plea bargain EVEN if he is innocent. "Should I risk 13 years with a trial or go for 2 years?".
Second, the role of the prosecutor is not to scare people and score points, it's to try to punish a crime appropriately.
Third, the inflated penalty also changes the perception of the judge and the jury, and makes them more likely to take the case as more serious than it is. E.g something that should actually be punished with something like 6 month probation, when inflated to a "13 years in jail" scare, can appear much more serious (and the offender much more dangerous) to the jury.
Who is more likely to be punished with, say, 6 years in jail? Someone for which the prosecutor suggested a 13 year penalty, or someone for which the prosecutor suggested 2 years?
> Third, the inflated penalty also changes the perception of the judge and the jury
Yeah, if the real "deserved penalty" is 6 months probation, starting at 13 years anchors that number in people's heads, and the sympathetic jury will feel great for only giving him 1 year in prison, when that is a sentence double in length and immeasurably worse in magnitude compared to the deserved penalty.
Juries don't issue sentences except in death penalty cases. I swear, I have never seen so many legal misconceptions in any other online community as I have in HN.
Most people on HN are not lawyers. If you see a mistake you can point it out without the snark, especially when you're just being pedantic. How does the decision being made by a judge change the problem that outrageous maximums frame the expected range for the decision maker and cause excessive penalties to seem reasonable when compared with extraordinarily excessive penalties?
You don't need to be a lawyer to have basic familiarity with the legal process. Knowing that juries issue verdicts and judges issue sentence is something people should have realized by the time they made it out of school.
You know what else people should learn in school? how to recognize a bullshit news article on a site that traffics in conspiracy theories.
>You know what else people should learn in school? how to recognize a bullshit news article on a site that traffics in conspiracy theories.
Judge the article by itself, not by what else the site that has it might show. Not to mention the obvious fact that you can find independent confirmations of the same story elsewhere.
Except if you believe the story in the article is a conspiracy theory itself.
Like, you know, the "conspiracy theory" about Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide after facing a disgusting case of "prosecutorial discretion"?
Or tons of people who were "made an example" or used as a stepping ladder for a political career by some prosecutor?
Judge the article by itself, not by what else the site that has it might show
The quality of stories on the site are a very good indicator of the low editorial standards there.
Not to mention the obvious fact that you can find independent confirmations of the same story elsewhere.
No, it's all just reprints of the same RT article (and RT is well known for poor journalism). This is called churnalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism
The story itself is flawed because it misleads its readers. It doesn't include any fact-checking on California law, any link to the case, or any kind of meaningful context, like why the judge would have (correctly and appropriately) told Olson's attorney not to bring up the first amendment to the jury - because trial juries are finders of fact, not arbiters of law, and the first amendment does not confer a right to damage or destruction of other people's property, so it wasn't a valid defense.
We have a common law legal system in America. Legal questions are decided by judges (whose decisions can be appealed) and factual questions are decided by juries. A responsibly reported article would have explained why Olson's attorney had no business trying to make a first amendment argument to a jury: the law in America does not work that way, it has never worked that way, and Olson's lawyer could never have passed the bar if he actually thought it worked that way.
Like, you know, the "conspiracy theory" about Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide after facing a disgusting case of "prosecutorial discretion"?
Bullshit. He was facing a 6 month sentence, a very light penalty for actions that were obviously illegal and which he knew to be illegal. I don't know why Swartz killed himself and neither do you.
First, who excluded death penalty cases from this discussion?
Second, the jury still determines if the accused is guilty or not. A prosecutor asking for a huge penalty can (and will tend to) sway them to think the accused as "more guilty".
After all, "he wouldn't ask for such a high penalty if the guy was all innocent", they'd think (that they could be advised not to judge by that is BS too).
What you did here, is you've taken several pedantic technicalities on this thread and run with them as far as you can.
This technique, and such contempt to the actual spirit of the law and justice (the issues under discussion), makes one assume that you are a lawyer or something close.
Cases like this are corrosive to the legitimacy of the judicial system.
And it seems all of our institutions are suffering from a crisis of legitimacy.
Our justices care not for justice; our law makers are so bought and paid for they should be logo'd up like race cars, and the executive branch... has become everything it said it would fight against during the campaign.
When what's left of the middle class begins to defect from the norms that keep society intact; what then?
Do we flee to the countryside and try to take up farming while being hunted by the landowners drones?
Die in cities torn by strife and insurrection?
Live in fear of debt collectors who can turn any life upside down with an impossible to fight "computer error" not in your favor?
I'm sure a lot of people will read your post and roll their eyes, but let me assure you that civil strife was the last thing on the minds of most Sarajevans in 1990, just a few years before the bloody civil war broke out in the countryside and the city was besieged. Yes, there were some that were perceptive (just like the above poster), but most said it will never happen here! -- after all, this is a cosmopolitan city that only recently hosted the Olympic Games.
Never underestimate the potential of society to quickly disintegrate under the right conditions. And I'd argue that the US, with 10% of the people suffering greatly, 10% astounded and shocked, and 80% paying no attention whatsoever, while our "leaders" lead us to slaughter, is at high risk for significant civil strife.
You have alleged that there are several factual inconsistencies in this story, could you name them for those of us who might be in the dark, or are you just a troll?
No, the fact that he's not engaging with the argument that you want to have indicates neither (a) that his argument is any less valid nor (b) that he finds no fault in what's happened. The point he's making is orthogonal to yours, is absolutely germane to the story, and your pretense of not knowing that is far closer to trolling than anything he's ever said.
The anti-intellectualism of HN on "Your Rights Online" stories is galling. On threads like these, people often seem to want to be told things that confirm their biases, and get angry when new facts are introduced. You just called 'anigbrowl (of all people) "worse than a troll". You should be embarrassed. But you're not, because the most vocal people on the thread agree with you. In other words, you're a bully. Go to hell.
>No, the fact that he's not engaging with the argument that you want to have indicates neither (a) that his argument is any less valid nor (b) that he finds no fault in what's happened. The point he's making is orthogonal to yours, is absolutely germane to the story, and your pretense of not knowing that is far closer to trolling than anything he's ever said.
I'm nearly 40. I don't "troll". I tell it like I see it, whether you agree with it or not. Believe it or not, there ARE people with legitimate totally different opinions than yours or his. To the point that they see the "legalism" expressed in his comments as not only absurd but also insulting to the very notion of justice.
I also find the "trolling" accusations immature and idiotic -- they belong to discussions between teenagers.
I never assume anybody is trolling, just because I don't like their viewpoints -- which is something some people on the internet do a lot. Perhaps the net is the only place where they learned to discuss. Because in actual face to face discussions nobody calls the other a "troll".
>The anti-intellectualism of HN on "Your Rights Online" stories is galling.
What "anti-intellectualism"? I, for one, am all for Kant, Hegel, Plato and their ilk. Up to good ole Teddy Adorno, Christopher Lasch and George Steiner.
Disagreeing with letter-of-the-law interpretations is not anti-intellectualism. If anything, it's the opposite. It goes contrary to the mechanistic, by-the-books justification of the status quo.
>You just called 'anigbrowl (of all people) "worse than a troll". You should be embarrassed. But you're not, because the most vocal people on the thread agree with you. In other words, you're a bully. Go to hell.
You tell me that "I should be embarrassed" and I should "go to hell" and It's me who is the "bully"? Who the fuck do you think you are?
I called anigbrowl "worse than a troll" in the context of the conversation, in that he was a "pedant". One (troll) is a BS accusation, the other (pedant) is something that seriously screws discussions by focusing on inconsequential details.
You also conveniently sidestepped anigbrowl's constant condescending and mocking comments to me and other commenters in this thread.
Perhaps you identify with such abuse, and his stance of the "wise man, who has to educate the ignorant masses". It's, after all, what you do all the time too.
Before all the NSA leaks you told people, time and again, how it's totally implausible and conspiracy theory to believe they do those kind of things. And mocked them with a "wiser than thou" stance.
You consistently come out as a cold-war patriotic bigot who accepts the official government line hook-line and sinker.
Just a week or so ago, in the thread about Hastings, you mocked people considered a possible foul play on his death, dismissing them as conspiracy freaks, and adding condescendingly that "I only encouraged them".
Then, a few days later, the laters of Hastings with relation to FBI chasing him hit the press.
>Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke told The Huffington Post that what is known about the single-vehicle crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack." Clarke said, "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers" -- including the United States -- know how to remotely seize control of a car. "What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it's relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn't want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn't want the brakes on, to launch an air bag," Clarke told The Huffington Post. "You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it's not that hard." "So if there were a cyber attack on the car -- and I'm not saying there was," Clarke added, "I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."
I called anigbrowl "worse than a troll" in the context of the conversation, in that he was a "pedant". One (troll) is a BS accusation, the other (pedant) is something that seriously screws discussions by focusing on inconsequential details.
Except I don't think they're inconsequential at all, but rather key to understanding why this story is a crock. You started out in this thread with a pre-emptive finger-wagging rant; my suggestion is that you shouldn't dish out criticism if you can't take it.
As for your example of Hastings, the possibility of a conspiracy isn't evidence of a conspiracy. You don't appear to understand the difference.
>Except I don't think they're inconsequential at all, but rather key to understanding why this story is a crock. You started out in this thread with a pre-emptive finger-wagging rant; my suggestion is that you shouldn't dish out criticism if you can't take it.
Excuse me, I'm the one that can't take criticism? You came with guns blazing against everyone with an opposite opinion (ignorants, etc), focusing on the technicalities but never addressing the larger picture. You even invoked reasons about why the piece should never even be posted (the news outlet violates HN quality criteria, and such), and you even wrote that I should not even be allowed to make an initial comment (in your words, a "pre-emptive rant"). Perhaps you think your criticism is the only valid one, and everything else is the ramblings of idiots.
>As for your example of Hastings, the possibility of a conspiracy isn't evidence of a conspiracy. You don't appear to understand the difference.
I never said it was "evidence". I just said it was an indication -- instead of openly mocking everyone even considering it.
How about the constraint not to put things in my mouth?
I'm also of the opinion that in real life (as opposed to government issued statements), the context, motive and feasibility (not to mention past track record), are good enough to seriously consider the possibility. People expecting "evidence" of such things are naive in the way governments work -- a study in anti-activist and anti-dissident history will give them tons of examples of shameless power abuse by such agencies, from dealing drugs to support Contras, to openly killing dissidents.
You're a bully, and the longest wall of text you can come up with trying to equate the people you want to push around with the NSA won't conceal that.
A 2 line response. So classy.
1) It avoids discussing any particulars of what I said. You're so above that.
2) It repeats the BS accusation of me being a bully. Now, wouldn't me being "a bully" require that I somehow have a "lot of power" over someone and harass him with that? What kind of power would that be? The "power" of writing my opinion?
It's ludicrous, tptacek , THE top HN dog (and, I dunno, somebody with hell-banning powers) accusing someone else of being "a bully". For all I know, my account could be killed for speaking my mind against your opinion. You can't say the same about me.
3) It adds a new strawman, that I "equate you with the NSA". I only said you are a sucker for the government party line. Not that you're NSA or do it on purpose.
4) The "long wall of text" accusation. People use it when somebody responds in detail, to casually dismiss him as a rambling lunatic. (Of course your own "walls of text" in other comment threads are just detailed responses, nothing bad with them.). Subtle.
Wait, you commented on your own submission with this rant? Why bring it up here? We've already hashed out this entire discussion, as you can see in my other comment that you've downvoted.
>Wait, you commented on your own submission with this rant
What the fuck does that even mean?
Should the poster of an article not add his opinions on the article he posted?
I posted it because I found it interesting. Including interesting enough to comment on.
>Why bring it up here? We've already hashed out this entire discussion, as you can see in my other comment that you've downvoted.
Huh? I didn't downvote anything. In fact, when I left this thread, mine was still the only comment. I just come back and was pleasantly surprised to see 9 more comments added. Paranoid much?
There was a big long thread about this yesterday. Also, it's not cool to go into a preemptive sweary rant on your own submission.
Finally HN guidelines are that you should be selective about the quality of your submission; 'topinfopost.com' is a news aggregator (bad) that's chock full of conspiracy theories (worse). Other front page store is include photographs of ghosts and that the civil war in Syria is a Zionist plot. Seriously? This is your idea of a reliable news source? Stop wasting our time with this bullshit. The maximum penalty for vandalism in California (which is what this case is about) is 3 years. It isn't possible to get a 13 year sentence for vandalism in California. In fact, since the defendant has no previous convictions for vandalism that I'm aware of I'm pretty sure the maximum penalty that can be imposed under CA law (CA PC 640.5/6) is community service and a $1000 fine.
>There was a big long thread about this yesterday. Also, it's not cool to go into a preemptive sweary rant on your own submission.
Says who? Because, if anything, HN users seem to agreed with and voted for my comment (or "rant").
>Finally HN guidelines are that you should be selective about the quality of your submission; 'topinfopost.com' is a news aggregator (bad) that's chock full of conspiracy theories (worse). Other front page store is include photographs of ghosts and that the civil war in Syria is a Zionist plot. Seriously? This is your idea of a reliable news source?
I don't follow topinfopost, and could not care less what else it has on it, as long as the story I submitted is OK. Which is. You can corroborate it in other, no conspiracy outlets.
Not to mention that some of the very same issues emerged in the well known Aaron Swartz case -- and your arguments here are so generic that they also trivialise that instance of prosecutorial abuse.
>Stop wasting our time with this bullshit. The maximum penalty for vandalism in California (which is what this case is about) is 3 years. It isn't possible to get a 13 year sentence for vandalism in California.
Which is beside the point. You shouldn't be threatened with outrageous charges in the first place, no matter what you will actually get.
You shouldn't be threatened with outrageous charges
He isn't being threatened with outrageous charges. There is a law against graffiti [1], the prosecutor claims to have evidence that he broke it repeatedly, and he's being charged with that.
What are you outraged about? That he's being charged for writing it on the sidewalk? Sorry, in CA the sidewalk is considered the property of the building owner, who is also responsible for its upkeep. That he wrote it in chalk? chalk still needs cleaning up, but since the effort involved in down that is actually trivial his sentence will be adjusted accordingly. That he is being charged with 13 counts? Well it seems he went and wrote his messages critical of the bank at least that many times during a 6 month period.
Is it bad that the prosecutor is wasting time on what is essentially a frivolous case? Yes. Is there any risk the guy is actually going to jail for 13 years? No.
You don't get it, do you. The guy shouldn't do one second in jail. The threat of 13 years will almost assuredly lock the guy up for a lesser time and make it seem fair. It's not fair.
Even if that was the case, penalties should be suggested proportionally to the crime -- not inflated to scare people.
For one, an inflated penalty makes the person more likely to want to avoid trial and take a plea bargain EVEN if he is innocent. "Should I risk 13 years with a trial or go for 2 years?".
Second, the role of the prosecutor is not to scare people and score points, it's to try to punish a crime appropriately.
Third, the inflated penalty also changes the perception of the judge and the jury, and makes them more likely to take the case as more serious than it is. E.g something that should actually be punished with something like 6 month probation, when inflated to a "13 years in jail" scare, can appear much more serious (and the offender much more dangerous) to the jury.
Who is more likely to be punished with, say, 6 years in jail? Someone for which the prosecutor suggested a 13 year penalty, or someone for which the prosecutor suggested 2 years?