Ship of Fools: Public schoolboys should get a lower sentence

Thread: Public schoolboys should get a lower sentence Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028051

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I read this today and I was disgusted at the judges comments. Apparently if you go to a 'good school' ie. if your parents are rich you get a shorter sentence then if you're poor and were educated in a normal school.

I know this is unsurprising but this is a ridiculous situation to be in in 2014. How the fuck is this a good way to sentence anyone?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Are you sure the sentence was any less than that imposed on those of deprived backgrounds?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The judge stated as much in his sentencing! He referred to his 'Good Christian family' and having attended a 'very good school' (actually King's Bruton isn't very good; it's probably no more than good).

Anyway, an expensive education and being from the right kind of people, shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free card'.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think that the Judge was actually saying that this looked like an error by someone who will probably not repeat it, and will go on to be a good and useful citizen.

I think the reporting is somewhat biased, and, if correct, the actual comments were bad. So yes, just because he went to a good school, has good parents, and wants to continue his education should not mean he is "let off" or given a reduced sentence. Almost the opposite - he should be given a significant punishment to ensure that he learns the lesson and doesn't do it again.

"I know your school" sounds like an old boys network. That is wrong, completely. As if a judge knowing your school means anything. Ill judged comments at the least.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

A six month suspended sentence is probably the norm for growing a small amount of cannabis, especially if it's a first offence, so it doesn't appear that he's been let off lightly.

The judge's comments seem to be reminding him how lucky he's been with his privileged background and why he should be ashamed of himself.

[ 15. November 2014, 09:33: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

While some of the comments left me slightly uneasy, due to the class assumptions, I think it was a good judgement overall. To me, the judge was saying that the man had the background and future options not to do this again. The suspended sentence is of a significant amount of time. Send him to jail, and you may simply enable him to learn new tricks and disrupt his future long enough to make him go back to criminal behaviour.

It isn't unusual for judges to take individual circumstances into account when passing sentence.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The UK judicial system - judges and barristers especially - is riddled with class bias. The overwhelming majority are privately educated, Oxbridge graduates, and have become barristers (and thence judges) by using their and their parents' peer networks.

The sentence in the OP is relatively constrained by the sentencing guidelines, which are here. Cannibis is class B, and you could reasonably argue (as he was actually growing the stuff and selling it) he was taking a 'leading role' in the crime. The starting point is 4 years in prison, assuming a 100g-6kg stash.

I don't know if anyone's got the energy to appeal the sentence, and I have no particular wish to destroy one young man's life. But the idea that he's been stupid and silly, as opposed to knowingly and willfully setting up a criminal enterprise to supply controlled drugs? Don't buy that for a second.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Bear in mind that we don't know all of the story - we know what have been reported. I suspect by putting on a good contrite show, dressing up smartly, getting parental support etc he has managed to get a more lenient sentence than if he had been poor and from a broken home.

His background should not impact his sentencing. The truth is, if you do the right things, you put on the right show, you will be treated better. Heck, if it ever happened to me, I would use every trick I could to get leniency. That doesn't mean it is right, but today in our society, privilege is a way of getting away with things. That is wrong, but most of the time it is DADT.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

In Texas a kid who killed four people while driving drunk was given 10 years' probation but no jail time because he was a "victim" of "affluenza."
[Mad]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
In Texas a kid who killed four people while driving drunk was given 10 years' probation but no jail time because he was a "victim" of "affluenza."

A 16 year old is indeed a "kid" as you note. What sentence did you want? The article suggests 20 years was wanted. Do also think that it is legitimate that "healing process" is dependent on punishment as the article says?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
In Texas a kid who killed four people while driving drunk was given 10 years' probation but no jail time because he was a "victim" of "affluenza."

A 16 year old is indeed a "kid" as you note. What sentence did you want? The article suggests 20 years was wanted. Do also think that it is legitimate that "healing process" is dependent on punishment as the article says?

It's probably a Pond thing, but should a kid be in charge of a car?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
In Texas a kid who killed four people while driving drunk was given 10 years' probation but no jail time because he was a "victim" of "affluenza."

That sucks. I can accept and understand lower sentences for people who give the appearance of not being career criminals, but they should still be within the reasonable scales. Murder should mean jail time.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Prison is a brutal place packed with violence, injustice, and petty tyranny from the guards. (Not all, but enough.) In its arbitrariness, it tramples over everything the law claims to hold dear.

So if a person can possibly be spared it without endangering society, damn straight they should be.

In sentencing, creative arguments can be (and are) deployed on behalf of those from deprived backgrounds. They've got a much better excuse, after all. Sure, the rich can hire better lawyers, and might get a walk, but when it comes to a judge's discretion, it's a lottery. A judge can decide they've wasted their chances, and throw the book at 'em to "set an example."

Whatever his background, I'm glad he didn't get jailed.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
[...] His background should not impact his sentencing. [...]

Background should always impact sentencing. A woman who murders her abuser after years of physical and mental torture deserves an infinitely more lenient sentence than a woman who slays him to cash in on life insurance and run off with her lover.

Likewise, a kid who runs with a gang 'cause he raised himself while his mother's away with the pipe should expect an easier time of it than a kid who robs 'cause he's bored.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

According to this report he had four cannabis plants growing on the premises, and was supplying the drug to his friends. This guidance suggests to me that his role would in these circumstances be regarded most probably as 'lesser' (although possibly 'significant') rather than 'leading'.

The definitive sentencing guidelines class 9 plants or fewer as being a 'domestic' level of production in the lowest category of seriousness (Category 4) with an assumed yield of 40g/plant.

So we've got (IMO, according to the guidelines) a lesser role offender with a category 4 offence. The starting point is either a Band C fine (125%-175% of relevant weekly income) or a high level community order (150-300 hours). The range of sentence is anything (across the possible range of seriousness of offence here) from discharge to 6 months custody. Relevant mitigating circumstances include:

No previous convictions or no relevant or recent convictions
Remorse
Good character and/or exemplary conduct
Determination and/or demonstration of steps having been taken to address addiction or offending behaviour

And he pled guilty, which also reduces sentence. I think the sentence looks about normal.

I'm not sure (having read the various reports) whether the judge's remarks about the school have the force of "you went to a good school so you can't blame that a bad background led to your offending", or "you went to a good school which is part of your claim to good character", but in either event it doesn't appear to have altered the sentence.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Prison is a brutal place packed with violence, injustice, and petty tyranny from the guards. (Not all, but enough.) In its arbitrariness, it tramples over everything the law claims to hold dear.

So if a person can possibly be spared it without endangering society, damn straight they should be.

This is an entirely separate argument. The question is, given the sentencing guidelines, do people from wealthy, well-educated backgrounds receive lighter sentences for the same or similar offences than those from poor, badly-educated backgrounds?

The answer that should be yes. The answer is, at least on this data point, no. It certainly is 'no' when you consider the colour of the convicted criminal's skin.

The only time this is reversed is in the notion of Doli incapax, where kids from good families who have been taught right from wrong get tried, and those who've been raised by wolves (human or otherwise) get other interventions.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
According to this report he had four cannabis plants growing on the premises, and was supplying the drug to his friends. This guidance suggests to me that his role would in these circumstances be regarded most probably as 'lesser' (although possibly 'significant') rather than 'leading'.

Oh, so he had a wide range of pharmaceuticals as well as growing cannabis? At least he got Poca'd on top, but he was still bloody lucky.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is an entirely separate argument. The question is, given the sentencing guidelines, do people from wealthy, well-educated backgrounds receive lighter sentences for the same or similar offences than those from poor, badly-educated backgrounds?

The answer that should be yes. The answer is, at least on this data point, no. It certainly is 'no' when you consider the colour of the convicted criminal's skin.

The only time this is reversed is in the notion of Doli incapax, where kids from good families who have been taught right from wrong get tried, and those who've been raised by wolves (human or otherwise) get other interventions.

He's one guy.

To establish patterns of discrimination, you'd need data from a bunch of sentences for this crime. Right now, we've no idea whether a person of color, before the same judge, on the same charge, would've received a more sever sentence.

This is just anecdote.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Posh judge handing down a sentence on a posh kid who went to a posh school from a posh family.

Don't give me that apologetic BS. This is no different to your tactics elsewhere.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Posh kid from a Christian background should get a tougher sentence on the grounds he should have known better.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

All judges will be "posh" in the sense that they went to law school, often a good one.

The person being sentenced was "posh" in the sense he had a comfortable background and decent education.

This is, apparently, enough to reach a conclusion that the sentence was one rich guy giving another an easy ride. Well fine, I trouble myself with things like evidence, but whatever works for ya. Mandatory minimums for everyone who graduated college, just to be sure.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You trouble yourself with evidence? Then you agree that rich people receive more lenient treatment than poor, that white s treated better than black?
Evidence. We have evidence. True, without going into this judge's history we cannot know that he judged this case with a bias. But given his statement, we have evidence that he likely would. The evidence? His statement. It indicates bias. It is the very definition of bias.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
To establish patterns of discrimination, you'd need data from a bunch of sentences for this crime. Right now, we've no idea whether a person of color, before the same judge, on the same charge, would've received a more sever sentence.

This is just anecdote.

You mean, like this? Or this? Or this (pdf), if you're an American?

So, when an anecdote fits a known, observable, repeatable pattern, what do we call it?

Alternatively, don't be so deliberately pig-shit stupid because you can't be arsed to look beyond the end of your nose, and then have the front to parade your ignorance on the internet.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You trouble yourself with evidence? Then you agree that rich people receive more lenient treatment than poor, that white s treated better than black?
Evidence. We have evidence. True, without going into this judge's history we cannot know that he judged this case with a bias. But given his statement, we have evidence that he likely would. The evidence? His statement. It indicates bias. It is the very definition of bias.

I took the trouble to look in Debrett's. M'lud is from Southampton and has extensive involvement in the CofE in Southern England. I'm not at all surprised he's aware that Joseph Collins, resident near Warminster, Wiltshire, is from a good Christian family.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Doc Tor, that's race, not class. Presumably basic reading comprehension factors into your porcine idiocy scale. Piggie, heal thyself. [Devil]

The problem with these studies is that each case is different. The do, at first sight, strongly suggest racial bias, but to know for sure, we'd have to see details of each crime. Ultimately, it's a qualitative judgment.

LilBuddha the statement doesn't indicate bias at all. The judge said that Collins went to a good school. Given the tuition costs, that's presumably a statement of fact. The judge didn't say that it mitigated his crime.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Doc Tor, that's race, not class. Presumably basic reading comprehension factors into your porcine idiocy scale. Piggie, heal thyself.

Oh FFS.

quote:
Right now, we've no idea whether a person of color, before the same judge, on the same charge, would've received a more sever sentence.

If you can't even remember what you wrote, what I was responding to, then either you're a manipulative dipshit attempting to gaslight me, or you're too stupid to breathe. Don't rush back to let me know which it is.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Rush? Pal, I'm strolling. [Cool]

Ethnicity was one factor amongst many in your post. I took it as specimen count, but you focused on it exclusively when it came to put-up time. I'll spell it in future, have no worry.

This is by the by. You fired off a bunch of insults. Hey, we're kicking in Dante's hood, that's how the game's played here, but if you choose to play it that way, I'll assume you're flyting, not debating.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Whatever else went on, it was a pretty stupid remark for a judge to make, if he indeed said "I know your school." Judges should stick to sentences not peripheral comments - keep the reasoning to an objective, separate written statement.

That said, I've seen or one two "suspect" things myself in a courtroom, that does lend credence to the suspicion that a degree of bias operates in the law.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I agree, ! . Whatever else was going on, the judge's chummy comments to the defendant were ill- advised.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Whatever else went on, it was a pretty stupid remark for a judge to make, if he indeed said "I know your school." Judges should stick to sentences not peripheral comments - keep the reasoning to an objective, separate written statement.

You would expect judges to at least appear to be impartial.

quote:

That said, I've seen or one two "suspect" things myself in a courtroom, that does lend credence to the suspicion that a degree of bias operates in the law.

A degree or two wouldn't be much of a problem. When it gives the appearance of an entire semi-circle, who can be surprised when people lose faith in the judicial system.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Of course there's bias within the law, it's run by people, people shot through with biases, prejudices and assumptions.

The ADA's gonna look more kindly on the tearful, pretty teen with a bright future ahead of her than the sullen gangbanger with a string of priors. No system can ever be perfect enough to stop things like that. What it can do is minimize bias with safeguards like sentencing guidelines and appeals.

Merely commenting on a convict's school doesn't show that they've been ditched, nor does it show that the judge is looking to be BFF with the person he's sentencing. It may simply be part of the narrative he's had typed up. Hey, judges can get bored spending their days on the bench, some like to spin a yarn every so often.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Of course there's bias within the law, it's run by people, people shot through with biases, prejudices and assumptions.

The ADA's gonna look more kindly on the tearful, pretty teen with a bright future ahead of her than the sullen gangbanger with a string of priors. No system can ever be perfect enough to stop things like that. What it can do is minimize bias with safeguards like sentencing guidelines and appeals.

Merely commenting on a convict's school doesn't show that they've been ditched, nor does it show that the judge is looking to be BFF with the person he's sentencing. It may simply be part of the narrative he's had typed up. Hey, judges can get bored spending their days on the bench, some like to spin a yarn every so often.

I wouldn't be surprised if this one is going to be spending more time fly-fishing, gardening and with his family.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[...] who can be surprised when people lose faith in the judicial system.

Good God, people have faith in the criminal justice system? I'd hope we all know that it's a deeply flawed, often brutal enterprise, albeit a necessary one.

The only way it's kept even remotely fair is by a complete lack of faith, and aggressively fighting for the rights of those caught up in it. When it comes to the exercise of coercion, the operating assumption should be that that it'll tend towards injustice and cruelty, unless it's held to account.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Attending a "good" school is no guarantor of good behaviour. It simply means if one is going to steal, it will be from a greater number of people.
Having more resources does mean that, in general, one is less likely to commit a crime because the need is not present.
This kid has shown that he is willing to break the law even absent that need. Once again, if it demonstrates anything about his character, it is that he lacks a good one. That, despite his advantages, he will still make poor choices.

The judge commented on his religion and schooling. In the sentencing. Occam's Razor and common sense indicate that this is related.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Hey, judges can get bored spending their days on the bench, some like to spin a yarn every so often.

Hey, it's not reasonable to expect bored, long-- suffering judges to uphold standards of professionalism in the courtroom!

I think the people expecting such standards to be kept are showing a lot more respect for judges and the legal profession in general than people who blow off a rhetorical misstep as " spinning a yarn." It implies that they have faith that most people involved are capable of keeping those standards.

[ 15. November 2014, 16:52: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Rush? Pal, I'm strolling.

Ethnicity was one factor amongst many in your post. I took it as specimen count, but you focused on it exclusively when it came to put-up time. I'll spell it in future, have no worry.

Damn right. If you make stupid arguments, you get called on them. If you make stupid arguments and struggle on through the hail of evidence, insisting that you're right despite everything, then expect everyone else to point at you and laugh.

I mean, there are whole books on the subject. If you want a quick snapshot, try this. That edumacation thing is wonderful. I suggest you try it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

We often hear the story about how the nice young man from a good school made one mistake, but it's an aberration, and he's a nice young man and deserves a second chance, whereas the scum from the housing estate is a hardened criminal, his family are hardened criminals, and we need to be protected from his criminal lifestyle.

If we strip out the obvious prejudice, is there any factual basis at all? Do young men from "nice" families benefit from the "short sharp shock" of being arrested and tried, and go on to lead a law-abiding life to a greater extent than their poorer coaevals? Has anyone done a proper study, where you control for background, education etc.?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Doc Tor, c'mon, let's decide, d'you want a debate, or a grade-school pissing match?

If it's a debate you're jonesing for, you'll need to do better than a link to Amazon, and a piece that, bizarrely, projects that flaws of NYC's bail system onto the entire union.

Kelly Alves, what professional standards is the judge supposed to've broken? Spinning yarns is a trial lawyer's raison d'être! All those defense attorneys presenting their client as a blameless paragon of fluffiness; all those prosecutors sobbing before ledger blowups of the victim. When it comes to sentencing, judges live for homilies. This is positively restrained.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Call me a cynic, but a cannabis grower who wants to go on to study horticulture doesn't sound like a chap who's decided to put his criminal past behind him.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Doc Tor, c'mon, let's decide, d'you want a debate, or a grade-school pissing match?

If it's a debate you're jonesing for, you'll need to do better than a link to Amazon, and a piece that, bizarrely, projects that flaws of NYC's bail system onto the entire union.

Kelly Alves, what professional standards is the judge supposed to've broken? Spinning yarns is a trial lawyer's raison d'être! All those defense attorneys presenting their client as a blameless paragon of fluffiness; all those prosecutors sobbing before ledger blowups of the victim. When it comes to sentencing, judges live for homilies. This is positively restrained.

Professional standard -- guarding your commentary against things that imply bias. Most judges manage to pull off homilies without getting this criticism thrown at them. And again, I think my assumption that most judges care about this is more respectful than your apparent belief that they are more concerned about their chance to shine than to project an attitude of fairness. Do you really think most people in the legal profession "live for " the spectacle, rather than for the idea of helping people get a fair trial and seeing justice done?

[ 15. November 2014, 17:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We often hear the story about how the nice young man from a good school made one mistake, but it's an aberration, and he's a nice young man and deserves a second chance, whereas the scum from the housing estate is a hardened criminal, his family are hardened criminals, and we need to be protected from his criminal lifestyle.

If we strip out the obvious prejudice, is there any factual basis at all? Do young men from "nice" families benefit from the "short sharp shock" of being arrested and tried, and go on to lead a law-abiding life to a greater extent than their poorer coaevals? Has anyone done a proper study, where you control for background, education etc.?

If there's no priors, then regardless of background, sentencing guidelines (and a judge's common sense) tend to be lenient (mandatory minimums excepted).

I'm not sure it even is prejudice. A prosecutor would need a heart of stone to send a remorseful kid with a clean record off to do hard time, especially when s/he'll be aware that the kid runs a serious risk of ending up in sexual slavery. Law without compassion descends swiftly into bureaucratic horror.

I'd be interested to read studies on this if anyone's got 'em. There's so many variables (definition of privileged/crime charged/1st or repeat offenses, etc) that it'd be tough to do, but instructive.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Professional standard -- guarding your commentary against things that imply bias. Most judges manage to pull off homilies without getting this criticism thrown at them. And again, I think my assumption that most judges care about this is more respectful than your apparent belief that they are more concerned about their chance to shine than to project an attitude of fairness. Do you really think most people in the legal profession "live for " the spectacle, rather than for the idea of helping people get a fair trial and seeing justice done?

Nope, I think they live to do their job, which isn't delivering "justice."

Defense attorneys' job is to get their client off. Short of suborning perjury and other crimes, they're unfettered. They can, and do, falsely accuse witnesses, get evidence suppressed, and cast any doubt as reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are, officially, held to a higher standard, in that they're expected to act fairly, but if they've probable cause and a realistic chance of winning, they'll go for it. Judges are there to enforce the law as it's written.

Sometimes this is just. Many times, it isn't.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Nope, I think they live to do their job, which isn't delivering "justice."

Defense attorneys' job is to get their client off. Short of suborning perjury and other crimes, they're unfettered. They can, and do, falsely accuse witnesses, get evidence suppressed, and cast any doubt as reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are, officially, held to a higher standard, in that they're expected to act fairly, but if they've probable cause and a realistic chance of winning, they'll go for it. Judges are there to enforce the law as it's written.

Sometimes this is just. Many times, it isn't.

Wow. Re- read what you wrote, then, because none of this was in it.

And what does it benefit anyone, incidentally, if nobody points it out when justice is not served?

[ 15. November 2014, 17:58: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Wow. Re- read what you wrote, then, because none of this was in it.

Well in an oral system of trials, these priorities often present as theater. Trial lawyers get a rush out of it, especially cross-examination and closings. Surely this is uncontroversial.

quote:
And what does it benefit anyone, incidentally, if nobody points it out when justice is not served?

Of course not, it should be pointed out. The system, as a whole, aims for justice, even if its participants have other priorities. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

IMO, justice is best served by a fair and honest jury, who apply common sense and compassion to the evidence, and aren't afraid to nullify bad laws.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

There is a difference between someone getting a rush out of the proceeding and someone msking it their raison d'etre ( your phrase) in such a way that compromises their professional behavior-- which is exactly what you said was acceptable. If I were a lawyer, I'd be pretty damn insulted if someone said my need for drama might overtake my standards. And that that was to be expected.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

I don't think mentioning the guy's school was unprofessional, as there's no clear sign of bias. Sentencing is an art, not a science. Background is relevant, especially the likelihood of recidivism. Education, past and future, is part of that. A kid from the projects could equally point to their academic record.

Judges ramble all the time. They crack (bad) jokes, they make smartass comments, they get testy. In short, they're human. Rarely does it rise to the level of reversible error.

If the prosecutor thinks the sentence is too light, they can appeal, and get it raised. If they're happy with it, it suggests, in their eyes at least, that this was an OK result.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Oh, that's all right then.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Unless you can show how it's reversible error, yup, that's exactly what it is. [Cool]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

The goal post shifting is making me cross eyed. If you don't think mentioning the stuff the judge did was unprofessional, why not start there, instead of painting this flamboyant picture of a courtroom whose natural state seemed to be roadside carnival?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Gothic flourish comes natural in this bailiwick. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'd be interested to read studies on this if anyone's got 'em.

Lots of people have them. You seem to not want to read them.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Defense attorneys' job is to get their client off. Short of suborning perjury and other crimes, they're unfettered. They can, and do, falsely accuse witnesses, get evidence suppressed, and cast any doubt as reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are, officially, held to a higher standard, in that they're expected to act fairly, but if they've probable cause and a realistic chance of winning, they'll go for it. Judges are there to enforce the law as it's written.

Sometimes this is just. Many times, it isn't.

Holy shit. Where do you live?

I've had it explained to me numerous times that I, as a citizen, can be charged with perjury for so much as giving a false statement to a police officer, while prosecutors are completely free to lie to judges and say anything they damn well want to get a conviction. Because.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but apparently it's the way the world works.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'd be interested to read studies on this if anyone's got 'em.

Lots of people have them. You seem to not want to read them.

Exactly. You keep flinging them at him like snowballs.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'd be interested to read studies on this if anyone's got 'em.

Lots of people have them. You seem to not want to read them.
Exactly. You keep flinging them at him like snowballs.

So that's why he looks like the StayPuft marshmallow man. Dang.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Holy shit. Where do you live?

Nirvana, apparently. [Big Grin]

quote:
I've had it explained to me numerous times that I, as a citizen, can be charged with perjury for so much as giving a false statement to a police officer, while prosecutors are completely free to lie to judges and say anything they damn well want to get a conviction. Because.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but apparently it's the way the world works.

I'm not sure what this is based on. There might not be a specific law that says, "Prosecutors can't lie to a judge," but it'd fall under contempt, misconduct in public office, malicious prosecution, etc, not to mention the professional consequences for violating the canon of legal ethics. Prosecutors are officers of the court, and expected to act like it.

Police can lie to suspects, and do, all the time (good thing too, or there'd by a lot fewer confessions from stupid criminals). Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. [Smile]

Doc Tor and Kelly Alves, we all know how snowballs fare in hell. [Devil]

If anyone wants to make an argument that cites specific parts of specific studies, an argument that factors in the methodology and acknowledges its flaws, it'll fare better.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If anyone wants to make an argument that cites specific parts of specific studies, an argument that factors in the methodology and acknowledges its flaws, it'll fare better.

Let me translate that for you:

"Even if you provide cast iron, copper-bottomed evidence I'm talking out of my arse, I can use these weasel words to ignore it."

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Defense attorneys' job is to get their client off. Short of suborning perjury and other crimes, they're unfettered. They can, and do, falsely accuse witnesses, get evidence suppressed, and cast any doubt as reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are, officially, held to a higher standard, in that they're expected to act fairly, but if they've probable cause and a realistic chance of winning, they'll go for it. Judges are there to enforce the law as it's written.

Sometimes this is just. Many times, it isn't.
Holy shit. Where do you live?

I've had it explained to me numerous times that I, as a citizen, can be charged with perjury for so much as giving a false statement to a police officer, while prosecutors are completely free to lie to judges and say anything they damn well want to get a conviction. Because.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but apparently it's the way the world works.

Where do you and Byron live? Here, lawyers behaving as either of you describes would be struck off. I cannot put something to a witness unless I have reasonable grounds to think it's true. Nor can I make a submission at the end of a case unless there is evidence to support it.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

You've provided jack, Doc Tor; you've posted a bunch of vaguely relevant links, alleging various kinds of bias, which anyone can do with 30 secs of googling. I see no indication you've even read the studies.

Before the net's cast over the entire criminal justice system, let's try and focus on the specific case. Which law or precedent are you claiming the judge's comments violate?

If you haven't got one, and he's acting within his discretion, then how d'you want his discretion to be curtailed? No references whatsoever to background? Or just education? What?

[ 15. November 2014, 20:10: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I was hoping a lawyer would chime in on that mess, because I was pretty sure that shit would get someone disbarred.

Does it happen? I'm sure it does. Is it SOP for most legal professionals? What an insulting implication.

[crosspost-- to Gee D.]

[ 15. November 2014, 20:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

S to the sentence itself: It's impossible to justify the comments the judge used, but a sentence like that sentence would be unremarkable here for the offence. I'd suspect that it is in the UK, but have no idea about comparable sentences in the US.

A matter for any judge sentencing is the support an offender may have in the community if given a bond, or when released on parole. Commonly a judge her will say that the offender's wife and family support him and have given good references - any person with that sort of sentencing material will get more leniency than a person with no such support. How much so is impossible to quantify; these are all matters which go into the intuitive task of determining a proper sentence for that crime for that offender.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

What sentence did you want in this case?

I'm thinking not much. Who was harmed? Do you want to destroy his life? The concern about how he'd be treated in jail has already been mentioned.

Re 16 driving a car. A learner's licence is provided at age 15 generally requiring taking driver education at school in Canada (varies). Limitations on the age 16 licence exist, varying place to place, but usually specifying zero alcohol tolerance, limits to numbers of people in the car with the driver and other such things.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'm not sure what this is based on. There might not be a specific law that says, "Prosecutors can't lie to a judge," but it'd fall under contempt, misconduct in public office, malicious prosecution, etc, not to mention the professional consequences for violating the canon of legal ethics. Prosecutors are officers of the court, and expected to act like it.

Police can lie to suspects, and do, all the time (good thing too, or there'd by a lot fewer confessions from stupid criminals). Perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

No, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of sitting next to a lawyer and asking how a prosecutor can say something demonstrably false to a judge and get away with it while he patiently explained to me that the rules were different for what the prosecutor could say and what I could say.

We have a center for prosecutor integrity precisely because prosecutors are rarely if ever held accountable for their actions.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Where do you and Byron live? Here, lawyers behaving as either of you describes would be struck off. I cannot put something to a witness unless I have reasonable grounds to think it's true. Nor can I make a submission at the end of a case unless there is evidence to support it.

Ever watched The Wire?

I live in a place where I've met people who were thrown in prison for a couple of weeks because they told a cop their name was Toya instead of Latoya and were impressed when their public defense attorney was actually willing to fight to have the charges dismissed instead of pleaded out to probation and fines they couldn't pay because getting thrown in prison had cost them their jobs. It's a country where Martha Coakley can serve as Attorney General and make a bid for a Senate seat.

I'm not saying there aren't prosecutors who act with integrity. Just that power corrupts and our system is broken.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
You've provided jack, Doc Tor; you've posted a bunch of vaguely relevant links, alleging various kinds of bias, which anyone can do with 30 secs of googling. I see no indication you've even read the studies.

You do realise that the second link I gave is a UK government report on itself, calling its own justice system biased against ethnic minorities.

No? Not good enough? Something tells me a signed affidavit from God Himself wouldn't pass your muster if it meant you had to entertain the thought that you might be wrong. That alone makes you an arse.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of sitting next to a lawyer and asking how a prosecutor can say something demonstrably false to a judge and get away with it while he patiently explained to me that the rules were different for what the prosecutor could say and what I could say. [...]

Well prosecutors aren't on oath, if that's what you mean, so no, they couldn't be charged with perjury. If it was demonstrably false, did your attorney inform the judge, and/or file a complaint with the state bar?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You do realise that the second link I gave is a UK government report on itself, calling its own justice system biased against ethnic minorities.

No? Not good enough? Something tells me a signed affidavit from God Himself wouldn't pass your muster if it meant you had to entertain the thought that you might be wrong. That alone makes you an arse.

OK, accepting (arguendo) that the British justice system is racist, what does this have to do with the judge and comments in question, beyond "the system sucks"? This tangent's so vague there's little to be said about it.

Are you accepting that the judge didn't actually do anything illegal?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The goalposts suddenly seemed to have moved, not just around the pitch, but onto a different pitch altogether. Well done. You must feel very special.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, nobody said " illegal" just "unfair, unwise, unprofessional"

And holy shit, this guy is strange. It's like trying to follow the Speedy Gonzales character at Bugs Bunny On Ice.

[ 15. November 2014, 20:43: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, nobody said " illegal" just "unfair, unwise, unprofessional"

I allowed for that above: if folk want judges' sentencing discretion curtailed, in what way? No account taken of a convicted person's education, or only limited account? If limited, in what way?

For example: a convicted person's doing well at school, and has a place at college. They're busted for a DUI, and come up for sentencing and show remorse. Should their lawyer be forbidden from arguing that justice would be better served by them continuing their education?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And holy shit, this guy is strange. It's like trying to follow the Speedy Gonzales character at Bugs Bunny On Ice.

Beep beep.

Hell brings the tricky bastard out in me, I admit. I'll dial it back. [Cool]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

For his own sake, and especially if he actually believed it, you'd think he himself would want to make that argument carefully and thoroughly.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, nobody said " illegal" just "unfair, unwise, unprofessional"
I allowed for that above: if folk want judges' sentencing discretion curtailed, in what way? No account taken of a convicted person's education, or only limited account? If limited, in what way?

For example: a convicted person's doing well at school, and has a place at college. They're busted for a DUI, and come up for sentencing and show remorse. Should their lawyer be forbidden from arguing that justice would be better served by them continuing their education?

Wow, getting winded just trying to keep up with the moving targets.
BTW, your example is not a complete argument. But then, if you wished to truly make a point, you would stop switching arguments.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What sentence did you want in this case?

It is not about the sentence this kid received, but that the same is not generally accorded across the board.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Call me a cynic, but a cannabis grower who wants to go on to study horticulture doesn't sound like a chap who's decided to put his criminal past behind him.

Perhaps he deserves extra credit for independent study?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

OK.

I believe that judges should enjoy broad discretion in sentencing. Part of that discretion is assessing the convicted person's background and character. Observing that, "I know the school where you were a student. It's a very good school which would have given you a good grounding for later life," does not, in itself, display bias or favoritism, since it's an observation of fact, and since it relates to the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, it's relevant.

Let's frame it differently, without the pricey school. A young kid from the projects comes up before the judge for dealing pot. His lawyer raises his 4.0 GPA and acceptance to a good school on a scholarship. She pleads for leniency, and points out the kid's promising future.

Are people here arguing that the judge should be allowed to take no account of this?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You cannot see the difference in your examples?

In the first, privilege is deemed the only necessary excuse.
In the second, the benefit of the doubt must be earned.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wow, getting winded just trying to keep up with the moving targets.
BTW, your example is not a complete argument. But then, if you wished to truly make a point, you would stop switching arguments.

My argument's the same as it was in my first two posts: prison should be avoided if at all possible; and a convict's background should be taken into account in sentencing.

Things got off-point when the focus was widened to encompass every conceivable flaw in justice system, and not by me. But hey, if that's how things were going, I ran with it.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You cannot see the difference in your examples?

In the first, privilege is deemed the only necessary excuse.
In the second, the benefit of the doubt must be earned.

Education can be relevant regardless of whether it's privileged or earned (and for all we know, Collins was at the private school on scholarship). When it comes to sentencing, the courts aren't interesting in furthering social justice: they're interested in seriousness of the crime, risk to the public, and potential for rehabilitation.

In this case, the crime was victimless and non-violent, and with college lined up, the potential for rehabilitation was high. The judge specifically said Collins should "start a new life." Whether horticulture is the best field ... [Biased]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I totally think the character of the defendant can be taken into account. I just think it is professionally stupid for any legal professional-- lawyer, judge, whoever-- to phrase things in a way that can be interpreted as " you're one of my kind, so you're ok." Reason number one: they stand the chance of seriously dicking over their client if they indulge in such talk.

If the judge had been more careful, perhaps people wouldn't be calling for the case to be reviewed. Why put the defendant in that position?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
a convict's background should be taken into account in sentencing.

And you seem to think a "good" school is one of these criteria. this is merely privilege as an excuse.
This thread began on the inequity in the system. It has been moved about and you have done most of the moving.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

I don't see the judge saying "you're my kind." A quick Google tells me that he attended Taunton's School, Southampton, which was, at the time, a free grammar school. People are reading a lot into it that might not be there. He could simply be saying, "You've got a promising future, don't blow it," which judges say all the time to young defendants with a clean record.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

My response is the last sentence of my last post. The judge assuming everyone would know what he meant by the reference to his school landed him on the front page, didn't it?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And you seem to think a "good" school is one of these criteria. this is merely privilege as an excuse.

I couldn't give a rat's ass where a defendant was educated. All that matters is that a sentence fits the crime. Part of that determination is their background and future potential.

quote:
This thread began on the inequity in the system. It has been moved about and you have done most of the moving.

OK, so like I asked, how, as regards the account judges can pay education in sentencing, d'you want the system reformed?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This history of circumstances of the offender are required to be taken into account in Canadian criminal law. The decision which this is named for is R. v. Gladue and the method is named after the case; Gladue Report. However, it specifically applies not to the rich school boy type, it applies to cultural and socio-demographic disadvantaged aboriginal offenders.

I sure want it balanced with dangerous to people and violence potential.

I wonder how this thread would read if it was "Poor racial minorities should get a lower sentence".

[ 15. November 2014, 21:36: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My response is the last sentence of my last post. The judge assuming everyone would know what he meant by the reference to his school landed him on the front page, didn't it?

OK, accepting that connotation the sake of argument, how d'you want this area of the law to be reformed?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I don't. I am talking about professional behavior, and it is the individual's job to regulate that. But the public sure as hell is entitled to an opinion about it.

That's what I mean by goalpost shifting-- you were the one who brought up law reform, not me.

[ 15. November 2014, 22:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Also, given how empathetic you seem toward the young man in the case, I am surprised you do not respond to my concern that judicial carelessness in discussing the case might fuck over they guy he is supposed to be helping out.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A degree or two wouldn't be much of a problem. When it gives the appearance of an entire semi-circle, who can be surprised when people lose faith in the judicial system.

Yeah I was being rather disingenuous there. The "degree or two" includes a case where Police evidence and charges that borne no relation at all to the original citation sheet. Problem was, unlike most people, the person concerned decided to show up in court with the evidence ruled inadmissible) yet enough to crash the case and for the judge to invite him tpo take legal action.

[ 16. November 2014, 12:54: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
[...] His background should not impact his sentencing. [...]
Background should always impact sentencing. A woman who murders her abuser after years of physical and mental torture deserves an infinitely more lenient sentence than a woman who slays him to cash in on life insurance and run off with her lover.

Likewise, a kid who runs with a gang 'cause he raised himself while his mother's away with the pipe should expect an easier time of it than a kid who robs 'cause he's bored.

I do not agree that it is always relevant; in your first example I would call the information you provide the context of the crime rather than background. Indeed the first woman would probably not be found guilty of murder at all here but manslaughter. Should the type of her education and the religion of her parents also be taken into consideration for the sentencing?

Your later comments about defence lawyers may be true in the US but not this side of the pond, which is closer to the Australian model as expressed by Gee D. The US legal system may be broken but it does not necessarily follow that the same is true for the rest of the world.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I do not agree that it is always relevant; in your first example I would call the information you provide the context of the crime rather than background. Indeed the first woman would probably not be found guilty of murder at all here but manslaughter. Should the type of her education and the religion of her parents also be taken into consideration for the sentencing?

It'll vary by jurisdiction, but unless an emotional distress/irresistible impulse defense is available, if it ain't self-defense, intentionally killing is murder. Criminal law's unyielding like that.

As for sentencing, generally, anything materially relevant ought to be included. If the guilty party wants to get their mom up to sob on their behalf, A-OK, it's for the judge to decide whether to take notice.

quote:
Your later comments about defence lawyers may be true in the US but not this side of the pond, which is closer to the Australian model as expressed by Gee D. The US legal system may be broken but it does not necessarily follow that the same is true for the rest of the world.

They hold for any adversarial system. The "accuse the witness" trick can be seen in the docco of this Scottish trial. Ditto getting evidence suppressed in England. Even if the question's never answered, it plants doubt in the jury's mind.

There is no "U.S. legal system." There's federal law, 50 different state systems, and D.C. and the various territories. They have their pros and cons, like any system.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, given how empathetic you seem toward the young man in the case, I am surprised you do not respond to my concern that judicial carelessness in discussing the case might fuck over they guy he is supposed to be helping out.

Unless the sentence is too lenient, I don't see how it would. Prosecutors generally have better things to do than appeal sentences for minor drug busts.

As for the judge's conduct, if you consider it unprofessional, surely you want the rules changed, and can detail what kind of reasoning ought to be banned in sentencing decisions?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Surely you are dancing around what I said. i already said I think personal behavior can't be legislated-- only critiqued. Why are you insisting I am trying to change laws?

And again, using my perogative to critique, whether or not it is likely something will be appealed, you're not going to convince me that it is not best practice to avoid the chance of appeal if possible.

[ 16. November 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Why can't it be legislated? Isn't "unprofessional," by definition, conduct that's inappropriate on the job? You could just support a ban on judges considering education, or, more specifically, privileged education.

If it doesn't rise to the level you consider should be banned, surely it's just a judicial quirk, like cracking bad jokes, or insisting on conducting trials from the well of the court?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And again, using my perogative to critique, whether or not it is likely something will be appealed, you're not going to convince me that it is not best practice to avoid the chance of appeal if possible.

Of course it is, but this is only going to appeal if there's reversible error, which is generally an extremely high burden. Triggered either by the sentence being inappropriate, and/or judicial misconduct. This comment about the school doesn't appear to come close.

If the sentence is in the normal range, the prosecution plain won't bother. Why would they? Appeal court reverses, it's reheard, and exactly the same sentence gets passed.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

All of which can and have been critiqued by peers and public. Sometime quite agressively. Two words-- Judge Ito.

I'm not for censuring anything - least of all critical opinions.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And again, using my perogative to critique, whether or not it is likely something will be appealed, you're not going to convince me that it is not best practice to avoid the chance of appeal if possible.
Of course it is, but blah blah blah..

Thank you. That was my entire point. The stuff after the "but" does nothing to alter it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

There is no "U.S. legal system." There's federal law, 50 different state systems, and D.C. and the various territories. They have their pros and cons, like any system.

Pathetic semantics. Let's say "Law applicable within the U.S" and grow the fuck up.

(cross-posted with Kelly Alves)

[ 16. November 2014, 15:09: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

I'm not saying you are, but if you consider the English judge's conduct to be professionally acceptable (in the sense you don't want it banned), I don't see why it's such a big deal.

As for Ito, much of the criticism focused on his evidentiary rulings being incorrect, so folk did want changes. The decision to allow cameras in was, in hindsight, a disaster, but few could've foreseen just how bad the circus would get. Live and learn.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'm not saying you are, but if you consider the English judge's conduct to be professionally acceptable (in the sense you don't want it banned), I don't see why it's such a big deal.

Please explain for me how thinking something isn't going to be solved by legislature is the same as finding it acceptable.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Pathetic semantics. Let's say "Law applicable within the U.S" and grow the fuck up.

If you consider "one system vs. 50+" to be semantics, then, well, each to their own.

Kelly, since there's a world of difference between error and reversible error, the rest of the post is pretty damn relevant.

This seems to boil down to, "we don't like judges commenting on preppy defendants education," well fine, I don't like judges who're prigs, but it's an irritation, not a substantive issue.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please explain for me how thinking something isn't going to be solved by legislature is the same as finding it acceptable.

It's more you don't appear to want it to be solved, even hypothetically, with, say, a ban on judge's considering education in sentencing. There's just no argument to engage with beyond "I don't like it," which, ironically, is the kind of arbitrariness the law seeks to avoid!

Perhaps we should just go old school, and ditch all this touchy-feely consideration of background and circumstance. Haul shackled prisoners up to the bar, deliver a thunderous jeremiad, and dispatch to the penitentiary. Job done.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Peer censure and protection of reputation can be a powerful motivator, so whether or not something can or should be legislated, the right of people to discuss what they find "irritating" or "unwise" should be unfettered. There is a difference between "best practice" and "tolerable practice."

You seem to want to keep dragging me toawrd admitting I am asking for legal censure-- i am not. You seem to be wanting to censure outside opinion. I say, fuck that. Outside opinion is necessary to inform self- regulation of things not legislatable.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Also (and I'm guessing you're not a lawyer) you have egregiously, and probably deliberately, conflated mitigation (facts concerning the offence, which may explain why a person committed an offence) and character witnesses (opinions regarding the convicted criminal's character).

Both may be relevant. But "he's a privately educated man" is not relevant. Hell, look at the Tory front bench. Hell, look at the Labour front bench for the that matter...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Byron,

You are either as dense as an iron block or a wanker.
For the moment, I shall charitably assume the first.
Regarding the OP:
1. Privilege shouldn't be a mitigating factor.
2. The judge's words point to him thinking it is.
Everything else you've argued is irrelevant.
Simple enough for you to comprehend?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

If he's a lawyer, he's fuckin' Irving Karanek

That is not a compliment.

[ got the wrong lawyer]

[ 16. November 2014, 15:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Byron,

You are either as dense as an iron block or a wanker.
For the moment, I shall charitably assume the first.
Regarding the OP:
1. Privilege shouldn't be a mitigating factor.
2. The judge's words point to him thinking it is.
Everything else you've argued is irrelevant.
Simple enough for you to comprehend?

That's simple enough but I'm sure he'll be along to move the goalposts shortly.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

LilBuddha, I enjoy flyting as much as the next guy, but if ya wanna play that game, put some effort in. Otherwise I'll assume you're just being insulting, which I'm so not interested in.

Doc Tor, when it comes to sentencing, they're all factors to be considered. We're not talking affirmative defenses here.

As regards privilege, no one's offered a scrap of evidence that Collins got off lightly 'cause he went to a pricey school. To begin to do that, you'd have to show his sentence is outside the normal range. Is it?

If it is, you'd have to exclude other factors. Has anyone here read the judge's full sentence? If not, you're working from extremely partial data, and could well be missing crucial factors.

But hey, whoever's convinced this is all some country club circle jerk, go right on believing.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If he's a lawyer, he's fuckin' Irving Karanek

That is not a compliment.

Good one!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If he's a lawyer, he's fuckin' Irving Karanek

That is not a compliment.

[ got the wrong lawyer]

Whoops, and I spelled it wrong, too. It's Kanarek. And seriously y'all, look him up-- Byron is doing a splendid imitation.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

I admit I'm a bleeding heart at times, but even I'd draw a distinction between serial murder and, horrors, cutting your blood blood pals a break. (Which is totally what happened, 'cause a single quote, like, implied it and everything.)

Anyone who can't, well, a judgeship's awaiting!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh forget the Mansons. Kanarek's courtroom behavior was notoriously shudderworthy before he ever took up with them. The whole reason he was hired by Team Manson is that he was so good at exhausting everyone in the courtroom to the point of despair. Judge and Prosecution team alike groaned collectively when they heard he was on the case. He could have been defending Mother Teresa and he still would have been an asshole.

Oh and to be clear, I am not comparing the judge's behavior to his-- nice spin, though- -I am comparing your dumb ass and your thread behavior to him. I genuinely thought, "who was that jackass Manson lawyer who kept objecting at everything that moved?That's him."

[ 16. November 2014, 19:38: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(I put it to the Shipmates. Vince Bugliosi called Kanarek ""the Toscanini of Tedium." I rest my case.)

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
LilBuddha, I enjoy flyting as much as the next guy, but if ya wanna play that game, put some effort in. Otherwise I'll assume you're just being insulting, which I'm so not interested in.

Doc Tor, when it comes to sentencing, they're all factors to be considered. We're not talking affirmative defenses here.

As regards privilege, no one's offered a scrap of evidence that Collins got off lightly 'cause he went to a pricey school. To begin to do that, you'd have to show his sentence is outside the normal range. Is it?

If it is, you'd have to exclude other factors. Has anyone here read the judge's full sentence? If not, you're working from extremely partial data, and could well be missing crucial factors.

But hey, whoever's convinced this is all some country club circle jerk, go right on believing.

I've had a look at sentencing guidelines and it looks like Collins was fortunate not to go to prison especially as, according to another source this isn't his first conviction.

On the other hand a six-month prison sentence is just that, whether suspended or not.

I still contend that Judge Clark has at best made himself look foolish and at worst, failed to appear impartial.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

I've no need to object to everything that moves, cause nothing is. Thanks to the total lack of evidence that the judge acted improperly, this hasn't left the starting gates.

Seriously tho, great insult. [Overused]

Only fair it's a freebie, y'all deserve some comp for a case so threadbare the Chewbacca defence couldn't make it stick.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(I put it to the Shipmates. Vince Bugliosi called Kanarek ""the Toscanini of Tedium." I rest my case.)

Those who jive class warrior retoric as little as they rank proof will, I have no doubt, concur!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Proof of what? I'm not claiming anything that needs proof. I am giving my perception.

And again, this seems to be what you are objecting about and again I say, that is bullshit. Public figures who don't take public perception into account are asking for trouble. And, as I keep saying, risk causing personal if not legal hassle for their clients down the line.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Perhaps earlier in the thread someone might have mentioned the testimony given by one of the survivors of the Japanese POW camps involved in the building of the railways in Thailand. When asked if he had found the conditions inhuman, he responded to the effect that he had been at Harrow.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Proof of what? I'm not claiming anything that needs proof. I am giving my perception.

And again, this seems to be what you are objecting about and again I say, that is bullshit. Public figures who don't take public perception into account are asking for trouble. And, as I keep saying, risk causing personal if not legal hassle for their clients down the line.

We don't need no stinkin' evidence, we got us perception!

No wonder the patron saint of hopeless cases came so readily to mind! [Snigger]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Bugmy's case is a recent discussion by the High Court here of the impact of great deprivation during formative years in the sentencing process.

Saysay, I have never seen The Wire - nor heard of it until your post. Assuming the Wikipedia article to be correct, it is a fictional TV series. Whether it accurately reflects normal procedures across US criminal courts, I have no idea. It may be more or less accurate than Perry Mason. No matter - it is fictional and being written for dramatic impact rather than as an accurate portrayal. Apart from anything else, it would be impossible to set out the entire process during the length of an episode. And so much of the procedure is so detailed as totally to lack drama.

Kelly Alves, a lawyer behaving like that here would be warned by judges. The message would get back to the barrister's chambers and warnings would be given by colleagues. If the behaviour continued, striking off proceedings would follow quickly, but by then the barrister's reputation would have suffered and work would probably have dropped off. Much the same really as if a specialist doctor's clinical practice was of a poor standard - fewer and fewer referrals by GPs. I can only think of a couple of cases in NSW over the last 20 years or more, and cannot now remember the names. The warning process by itself would normally have worked.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Byron,
ISTM, Kelly called you right.
You either evade the point or re-frame it into something not said.
You jump around more than a bare foot speed freak on hot sand.

[ 16. November 2014, 20:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I do not agree that it is always relevant; in your first example I would call the information you provide the context of the crime rather than background. Indeed the first woman would probably not be found guilty of murder at all here but manslaughter. Should the type of her education and the religion of her parents also be taken into consideration for the sentencing?
It'll vary by jurisdiction, but unless an emotional distress/irresistible impulse defense is available, if it ain't self-defense, intentionally killing is murder. Criminal law's unyielding like that.

Not in England; a battered wife can claim diminished responsibility according to the Fount of All Knowledge. I remember the fuss caused by the Ahluwalia case vividly.

I know it is quaint but I believe that the majority of barristers here involved in criminal law, whether prosecuting or defending, DO care about justice.
The UK and the US are not as similar as you apparently believe.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

OK lilBuddha, better, better. [Cool]

My position's solid & chilled: whatever you think about the judge's comment, as it doesn't approach reversible error, it's not a serious issue.

Of all the judicial abuses out there (sending good kids to a concrete jungle to "set an example"; shutting down valid defenses; refusing to dismiss inflated charges designed to coerce a plea bargain) this trivia is the one that gets a hellcall? For realz?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As regards privilege, no one's offered a scrap of evidence that Collins got off lightly 'cause he went to a pricey school. To begin to do that, you'd have to show his sentence is outside the normal range. Is it?

Oh, the irony: I did that on my first post on this thread. You've moved the goalposts around so much, they're now back where they were and the ball's just dribbled across the line.

Gooooooooooooollllllllllaaaaaaaaaa!

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Not in England; a battered wife can claim diminished responsibility according to the Fount of All Knowledge. I remember the fuss caused by the Ahluwalia case vividly.

Well yeah, I already noted the various excuse defenses that might be available. They're far from universal, and far from successful in all cases.

quote:
I know it is quaint but I believe that the majority of barristers here involved in criminal law, whether prosecuting or defending, DO care about justice.
The UK and the US are not as similar as you apparently believe.

Good counsel zealously defend their client, be it the defendant, or the state. I'm sure many do consider that justice. Question of definition, really. I consider justice to be the fairest possible outcome: as prosecution and defense are at-odds, it's a lottery on which side of justice they land. Often, given the law's many failings, neither comes close.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(highfives Doc)

And are you praying for me Byron? Awww, how sweet of you. Otherwise, see Lilbuddha's description of yourself.

One thing to be said for you,you are bringing out the genius in everyone around you.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Kelly Alves, a lawyer behaving like that here would be warned by judges. The message would get back to the barrister's chambers and warnings would be given by colleagues. If the behaviour continued, striking off proceedings would follow quickly, but by then the barrister's reputation would have suffered and work would probably have dropped off. Much the same really as if a specialist doctor's clinical practice was of a poor standard - fewer and fewer referrals by GPs. I can only think of a couple of cases in NSW over the last 20 years or more, and cannot now remember the names. The warning process by itself would normally have worked.

Kanarek was warned a bunch of times, and that was only during opening statements. He was jailed for contempt twice. I think he got replaced eventually but as the only other lawyer involved in the initial defense died under really suspicious circumstances, nobody was rushing to take the case on.

But my point was, the only reason he got the gig in the first place is that Team Manson could actually benefit from his being an obfuscating jackass. Which ironically made him effective in this case. (even Bugliosi said so.)But obviously didn't magically make him a skilled lawyer.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, the irony: I did that on my first post on this thread. You've moved the goalposts around so much, they're now back where they were and the ball's just dribbled across the line.

Gooooooooooooollllllllllaaaaaaaaaa!

OK, you did note that's the *starting point*, yes? Followed by all the potential mitigating factors?

It took me ten seconds to find another English cannabis dealer, with a stack of priors, also spared jail. Is he an alleged blue blood?

Here we have us a homeless guy dealing coke, suspended sentence. Sure he went to the right school before he ended up on the streets.

Moving beyond horticulture, aggravated assault with a knife lands ... wow, eight months suspended and a year's supervision. Maybe her school was co-ed with the judge?

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One thing to be said for you,you are bringing out the genius in everyone around you.

I needed a laugh today, thanks Kelly.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(highfives Doc)

And are you praying for me Byron? Awww, how sweet of you. Otherwise, see Lilbuddha's description of yourself.

One thing to be said for you,you are bringing out the genius in everyone around you.

In all respects bar the topic, it seems. [Devil]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, the irony: I did that on my first post on this thread. You've moved the goalposts around so much, they're now back where they were and the ball's just dribbled across the line.

Gooooooooooooollllllllllaaaaaaaaaa!
OK, you did note that's the *starting point*, yes? Followed by all the potential mitigating factors?

It took me ten seconds to find another English cannabis dealer, with a stack of priors, also spared jail. Is he an alleged blue blood?

Here we have us a homeless guy dealing coke, suspended sentence. Sure he went to the right school before he ended up on the streets.

Moving beyond horticulture, aggravated assault with a knife lands ... wow, eight months suspended and a year's supervision. Maybe her school was co-ed with the judge?

OK, thank you for something that actually pertains to the main point people are making. Again, you could have pulled that out of your ass a long time ago.

Still doesn't un-stupid the judge's delivery, though.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, the irony: I did that on my first post on this thread. You've moved the goalposts around so much, they're now back where they were and the ball's just dribbled across the line.

Gooooooooooooollllllllllaaaaaaaaaa!
OK, you did note that's the *starting point*, yes? Followed by all the potential mitigating factors?

It took me ten seconds to find another English cannabis dealer, with a stack of priors, also spared jail. Is he an alleged blue blood?

Here we have us a homeless guy dealing coke, suspended sentence. Sure he went to the right school before he ended up on the streets.

Moving beyond horticulture, aggravated assault with a knife lands ... wow, eight months suspended and a year's supervision. Maybe her school was co-ed with the judge?

Mitigating factors all over the place (no prior drug offences, violence and pregnancy respectively), all three settled into new accommodation (albeit not with Mummy and Daddy), but thank God no crass remarks from judges.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
OK, thank you for something that actually pertains to the main point people are making. Again, you could have pulled that out of your ass a long time ago.

Well maybe, but chomping through this Jack London riff would constipate anyone. [Biased]

quote:
Still doesn't un-stupid the judge's delivery, though.

Can't blame him if he did crap out, he knows everyone forgets his homily the second it leaves his lips.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mitigating factors all over the place (no prior drug offences, violence and pregnancy respectively), all three settled into new accommodation (albeit not with Mummy and Daddy), but thank God no crass remarks from judges.

Right then, how about a broken jaw, no mitigating factor beyond "I don't get drunk now."

This aggravated assault isn't so impressive, with the boozing only "limited," but again, suspended sentence, supervision, community service.

These good schools really need to buck up their intake, don't they?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
OK, you did note that's the *starting point*, yes? Followed by all the potential mitigating factors?

This(pdf) summarizes the process clearly and distinctly.

It seems that most of us think that going to a fee-paying school some 6 years previous to the conviction is not, and should not be, a mitigating factor. The judge made it sound like it was. We can argue about the starting point and the eventual tariff - I've made my thoughts on that clear - but his remarks were incredibly ill-advised because even if the tariff is defensible, it makes it look like it's not.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Can't blame him if he did crap out, he knows everyone forgets his homily the second it leaves his lips.

To quote one of my Spanish teachers, "Our Lord prayed for an excuse like that." In what other profession could you argue, "I said whatever wandered into my head because I figured nobody would listen anyway?"

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[...] It seems that most of us think that going to a fee-paying school some 6 years previous to the conviction is not, and should not be, a mitigating factor. The judge made it sound like it was. We can argue about the starting point and the eventual tariff - I've made my thoughts on that clear - but his remarks were incredibly ill-advised because even if the tariff is defensible, it makes it look like it's not.

The judge doesn't say that this school is a mitigating factor: according to the report, in mitigation, Collins' solicitor offered his client's plans to study, and the judge commented, in passing, that he had a "good grounding for later life."

Defense attorneys do the "my client's turning his life around" spiel all the time; judges dutifully respond with the "don't waste this chance" platitude. It's rote. Both parties know they're going through the motions. Rarely, turns out they're not, and there follows much rejoicing.

All that's different here is what folk choose to read into it. Lit crit likes to say that a text's meaning is injected as much as it's received. Boy is it ever.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
To quote one of my Spanish teachers, "Our Lord prayed for an excuse like that." In what other profession could you argue, "I said whatever wandered into my head because I figured nobody would listen anyway?"

Hey, judge can always get ordained in retirement. [Cool]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
To quote one of my Spanish teachers, "Our Lord prayed for an excuse like that." In what other profession could you argue, "I said whatever wandered into my head because I figured nobody would listen anyway?"
Hey, judge can always get ordained in retirement.

Are you under the impression that ministers don't get huge amounts of flak for any little rhetorical fart they might produce at the pulpit? Because I encourage you to ask that question in Ecclesiantics for a refreshing burst of education from our clergyfolk.

In fact, I had actually used that as a comparison at first, but deleted it on the grounds that too many preachers would pile on in agreement and derail the thread.

[ 16. November 2014, 21:48: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I know it is quaint but I believe that the majority of barristers here involved in criminal law, whether prosecuting or defending, DO care about justice.
The UK and the US are not as similar as you apparently believe.
Good counsel zealously defend their client, be it the defendant, or the state. I'm sure many do consider that justice. Question of definition, really. I consider justice to be the fairest possible outcome: as prosecution and defense are at-odds, it's a lottery on which side of justice they land. Often, given the law's many failings, neither comes close.

Can you substantiate your assertions with reference to English criminal trials from the 21st century?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Can you substantiate your assertions with reference to English criminal trials from the 21st century?

What assertions? Zealous representation and justice falling unevenly aren't factual claims, they're opinions. I'm surely plenty folk have an entirely different definition of justice, and what makes a good advocate.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Are you under the impression that ministers don't get huge amounts of flak for any little rhetorical fart they might produce at the pulpit? Because I encourage you to ask that question in Ecclesiantics for a refreshing burst of education from our clergyfolk.

In fact, I had actually used that as a comparison at first, but deleted it on the grounds that too many preachers would pile on in agreement and derail the thread.

That was pure snark, no disrespect for riveting jeremiads intended. [Smile]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Saysay, I have never seen The Wire - nor heard of it until your post. Assuming the Wikipedia article to be correct, it is a fictional TV series. Whether it accurately reflects normal procedures across US criminal courts, I have no idea. It may be more or less accurate than Perry Mason. No matter - it is fictional and being written for dramatic impact rather than as an accurate portrayal. Apart from anything else, it would be impossible to set out the entire process during the length of an episode. And so much of the procedure is so detailed as totally to lack drama.

The Wire is not a show like Law & Order.

It may be fiction, but it does a good job of portraying the naked race and class war powerful people in the US are playing on the rest of us. I understand that in other countries things in the judicial system may not have gotten that bad.

In the US, they are. I have been told multiple times by multiple people working within the system (sometimes as cops and prosecutors) that at this point there is simply no way to hold cops and prosecutors accountable for anything. Read this site if you don't believe me. (And that's one thousands trying to document some of the abuses).

And now a quote from The Wire:

quote:
Maurice 'Maury' Levy: You are amoral, are you not? You are feeding off the violence and the despair of the drug trade. You are stealing from those who themselves are stealing the lifeblood from our city. You are a parasite who leeches off...
Omar: Just like you, man.
Maurice 'Maury' Levy: ...the culture of drugs. Excuse me? What?
Omar: I got the shotgun, you got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Factual claims?! Doc Tor gave you this link but you jumped away to another topic.
Prat on a hot tin roof.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

[Killing me]

Byron, if you don't use "barefoot speed freak on hot sand" or "prat on a hot tin roof" as a custom title, you're a fool.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Whether he uses it or not, it's gotta be preserved. Quotes file!

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Saysay, thanks to the 60s civil rights revolution, and the spread of tech like dash cams and smartphones, I doubt LEO accountability's ever been better. The days of the drop gun and beat and release are long past.

The Wire is David Simon's impression of Baltimore, based on a year's ridealong in the early 90s. Good TV, but isn't close to definitive, anymore than Law & Order is. (L&O's early seasons in a rotting NYC are as bleak as anything over on HBO: you feel the ennui lift as Jack McCoy storms in, and it becomes a different show.)

LilBuddha, man, you're a poet. Which is fortunate, 'cause you wouldn't know reason if it came on you slow and easy. You don't show judicial bias by casting a dragnet over the entire system. But hey, if you're gonna deflect, keep using those pretty pretty words. [Cool]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Saysay, thanks to the 60s civil rights revolution, and the spread of tech like dash cams and smartphones, I doubt LEO accountability's ever been better. The days of the drop gun and beat and release are long past.

Are you serious?????

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are you serious?????

Totally.

The change is chronicled by none other than Simon in Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. He notes how, in the 70s, Baltimore PD went from murdering suspected cop killers with impunity to booking 'em, and how appalled the old guard were.

Cops are prosecuted for brutality and worse crimes. Civil suits can be filed. If a DA refuses to file charges, video evidence can be used in the media to pressure 'em. Since many prosecutors are decent people who don't want dirty cops lousing up their cases, oft times, this is unnecessary. If it gets really bad, the DoJ can be dragged in. A handful of states even allow private prosecutions, though I'm not aware of anyone trying it of late.

Flaws? Hell yeah, but not close to what there were.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

'Course, they're part of the change. Thanks to their work, a wave of exoneree compensation laws were passed in the 2000s. It's getting easier to vacate convictions: take this recent NY appellate ruling.

We need to worry when the system appears to be running smooth, 'cause then, you can guarantee it's anything but.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Exoneree!!! What a word!

Saysay the programme may be good television, it may have been written by someone with experience at one time with law enforcement in a city in the US. I don't see how you can extrapolate from that that it is applicable across the entire US. let alone other countries. More importantly, the programme you cite was written as entertainment, in the broadest sense, and I simply don't accept it as reliable.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

I'm inclined to agree with Spike that the judge possibly meant "you went to a good school - you should have known better".

Isn't it a bit ironic that someone convicted of growing his own cannabis is given a suspended sentence so that he can go to Horticultural College?

So that he can learn how to make sure it doesn't get greenfly ... [Killing me]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
I'm inclined to agree with Spike that the judge possibly meant "you went to a good school - you should have known better".

Isn't it a bit ironic that someone convicted of growing his own cannabis is given a suspended sentence so that he can go to Horticultural College?

So that he can learn how to make sure it doesn't get greenfly ...

And what happy greenfly they would be...

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The days of the drop gun and beat and release are long past.

Surely. You. Jest.

And those articles are all within the last 18 months. I can't speak for folks in other jurisdictions, but the MPD are well known for their creativity in law enforcement.

Here's another example from a few years ago...

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Jbohn, there's a world of difference between a culture of extrajudicial punishment, and individual officers going too far/abusing their power. Policing's an inherently violent business. Even with the best will in the world, things go wrong.

On the flipside, many felons aren't very nice people. False accusations against cops are routine. Even if the facts are accurate, interpretation varies. Perp shouts "He beat on me!" LEO replies, "I used an approved technique to hook you up."

Talking of false accusation, how many have considered that you've misinterpreted the judge's comment? The forum's for calling out assholes. Maybe the guy ain't?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

So, if unless every officer commits misconduct, it is only an indivual problem? You have been presented with proof that such problems are systemic and you ignore those.

As far as misinterpretation, Kelly addressed that and you went on a rant about legislating judges' statements.

Ignore...sidestep.... change direction...jump: And we're doing the Wind-Up Merchant Tango.

with apologies to Tom Lehrer

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

I'll skip the flyting to answer the point: there's different kinds of systemic problems. Extrajudical punishment is not the same as excessive force.

Do cops cover for each other? Of course they do, and all draw the line in different places. It's inevitable, and not always wrong. Do I honestly want an officer to lose their career if they smack a perp who just beat their partner into unconsciousness? No, I don't.

Read the headline of the first link: "Minneapolis police face lawsuits alleging misconduct." There's clearly police misconduct in Minneapolis. There's police misconduct everywhere. Its extent isn't proven in those links. Saying that isn't evading, it's refusing to prejudge the evidence.

You can fill the quotes file all day long, and it's entertaining, but alone, that's all it is.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Address Doc Tor's link. Easy enough to find the same info for America.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Since the judgement hasn't been reported in full, I'm a bit reluctant to form an opinion on the judge's comments. I'm not sure whether they ought to be read as "with your advantages you ought to have known better", or "you went to a good school you obviously have potential to turn yourself around".

Whatever.

The actual fact is that the sentence looks to be plumb in the middle of the normal range for offences in this situation, as I said in my earlier post.

Clearly either the judge spoke stupidly or was reported badly, but it is a bit difficult to read back from a sentence that is very comfortably in the normal range for an offence like this and draw any conclusion at all about which of those two options apply in this case.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Saysay, thanks to the 60s civil rights revolution, and the spread of tech like dash cams and smartphones, I doubt LEO accountability's ever been better. The days of the drop gun and beat and release are long past.

Read Radley Balko's The Warrior Cop.

Check out what's happening in Ferguson.

It's not easy to get people to believe you if you're not a rich white male.

(And how often does dash cam footage go missing?)

quote:
The Wire is David Simon's impression of Baltimore, based on a year's ridealong in the early 90s.

I thought it had more to do with his 13 years as a crime beat reporter; I'm pretty sure Homicide was his response to his year spent as a ridealong.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Saysay the programme may be good television, it may have been written by someone with experience at one time with law enforcement in a city in the US. I don't see how you can extrapolate from that that it is applicable across the entire US. let alone other countries.

Since I actually said the exact opposite - and specifically said that I wasn't talking about other countries - I don't see how you can possibly think I am extrapolating from a fictional program and deciding its realistic cultural depiction is applicable across the US let along other countries.

quote:
More importantly, the programme you cite was written as entertainment, in the broadest sense, and I simply don't accept it as reliable.

The last time I got into this sort of discussion on the Ship the host smacked me and threatened to delete my posts if I linked to a billion different sources again. So I won't do that again.

Point being that I am not basing my opinions on what happened on a television show. I'm basing them on the opinions of lots and lots of lawyers writing on lots and lots of blogs. And lots and lots of stories of prosecutors not obeying the laws that were put in place to try to protect innocent people from unfair accusations.

The system in the US is broken, possibly beyond repair.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

BroJames,

That the sentence was middle does not indicate there was no special consideration either.
Even should there be concrete proof this judge gave no special consideration in this instance, it misses the point that the conclusion was drawn because this is very often the case.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Byron:
(L&O's early seasons in a rotting NYC are as bleak as anything over on HBO: you feel the ennui lift as Jack McCoy storms in, and it becomes a different show.)

Michael Moriarty fan, are you?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Saysay, Your opinion may be correct. That's not my point. That point is that you have not yet given any evidence to show that it is correct locally let alone of wider application. The TV show is not evidence. Were it so, I could argue a general rule from Perry Mason that all a lawyer needs to be successful in defending criminal cases is a blond secretary.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--

IIRC, Della Street had dark hair.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Golden Key, you could well be right. My recollection is blond, and a quick Wikipedia check shows Barbara Hale, who played the role, as blond. Not sure if she was in role for the photograph.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Jbohn, there's a world of difference between a culture of extrajudicial punishment, and individual officers going too far/abusing their power.

Sure. However, nearly $14M in settlements over seven years (roughly $2M/year) sounds like more than an officer or two needing sensitivity training, doesn't it? At that level, it's a departmental culture that tolerates/encourages such behavior - see the second link. ("Minneapolis Cops Rarely Disciplined After Lawsuits")

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Read the headline of the first link: "Minneapolis police face lawsuits alleging misconduct

Or the sub-head - "Misconduct by officers is alleged in 61 lawsuits against department." (By comparison, the St. Paul PD right across the river had 19 at the same time.)

Next you'll tell me guilt was never established, because the cases were settled before trial. Which is standard procedure - it avoids a public ruling that the PD were in the wrong.

Of course, this thread isn't about the MPD - but it's a fairly clear snapshot of a broken justice system. And this is in the "liberal" North...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Of course, this thread isn't about the MPD - but it's a fairly clear snapshot of a broken justice system. And this is in the "liberal" North...

There's a relatively simple give-and-take here. I sign over my rights to beat the crap out of weaselly drug dealers to the state. The state deals - impartially - with the weaselly drug dealers. If we, the public, believe that the state is not dealing impartially, in accordance to the laws that we've collectively agreed on, with said weasels, then the one right we haven't signed over is to hold the state to account.

It might be that the apparatus of the state comes after us for being uppity, but policing can only be carried out by the consent of the policed. There is always a break point. I'd rather keep the authorities in check before that point is reached, because after that, things get messy.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Golden Key, you could well be right. My recollection is blond, and a quick Wikipedia check shows Barbara Hale, who played the role, as blond. Not sure if she was in role for the photograph.

Check out the pics on this fan site. Della with dark hair. (There were some post-series movies in the '90s, IIRC. Don't remember if her hair was dark there.) There is a pic of a blonde receptionist, who I didn't remember. I suspect she was only in part of the series.

ETA: per the stats page on that site, the receptionist was in 16 episodes.

[ 18. November 2014, 17:56: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I suspect she was only in part of the series.

Hostly eyebrow raised

I suspect that discussing what colour Perry Mason's secretary's hair may or may not have been is a suitable subject for a thread in Heaven. But not here.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry Doc Tor, but to clear things up:

Della Street was in Perry Mason and on TV the actress had dark hair.

Eve Whitfield was in Ironside and the actress (Barbara Anderson) was blonde.

Ironside and Perry Mason were both played by Raymond Burr, hence the confusion??

As for some member of the judiciary using a 'good school' as justification for not imposing a custodial sentence: IMO the reverse should be true, since this chap obviously had all of the advantages and yet still chose to break the law.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Of course, this thread isn't about the MPD - but it's a fairly clear snapshot of a broken justice system. And this is in the "liberal" North...
There's a relatively simple give-and-take here. I sign over my rights to beat the crap out of weaselly drug dealers to the state. The state deals - impartially - with the weaselly drug dealers. If we, the public, believe that the state is not dealing impartially, in accordance to the laws that we've collectively agreed on, with said weasels, then the one right we haven't signed over is to hold the state to account.

It might be that the apparatus of the state comes after us for being uppity, but policing can only be carried out by the consent of the policed. There is always a break point. I'd rather keep the authorities in check before that point is reached, because after that, things get messy.

No argument with any of that. To borrow a phrase from Malcolm X, I much prefer the ballot box to the bullet box.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry Doc Tor, but to clear things up...

Hosting
Sorry, but "sorry, not sorry" doesn't fly here. You acknowledged an official hostpost, were told to drop the tangent or take it somewhere else, then, with the very next post, proceeded to flout it. What part of Commandment 6—respect the Crew—do you not understand?

—Ariston, Hellhost

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Address Doc Tor's link. Easy enough to find the same info for America.

Channel Duane Gish all ya like, Doc Tor needs to apply his damn link. How, specifically, does it relate to this sentence?

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[...] Read Radley Balko's The Warrior Cop.

Check out what's happening in Ferguson. [...]

A robbery suspect is killed, followed by peaceful protests, and not-so-peaceful arson, rioting and looting. A grand jury's empaneled, and Michigan's in a state of emergency awaiting its decision.

Grand jury's exactly the kind of impartial oversight you want. What else should be done?

quote:
[...]The system in the US is broken, possibly beyond repair.

OK, what changes, specifically, d'you want to be made? The great thing about, say, the Innocence Project is that they have clear objectives, and have got many of 'em implemented by lobbying state legislatures. What d'you want to happen, and what are you doing to bring it about?

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Michael Moriarty fan, are you?

Ben Stone fan, a part Moriarty owned before Janet Reno sent him off the reservation. Nailed an old school East Coast liberal worn down by a world that trampled on his ideals. Sam Waterston's great fun, just that Jack McCoy lacked the pathos of his predecessor.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
[...] Next you'll tell me guilt was never established, because the cases were settled before trial. Which is standard procedure - it avoids a public ruling that the PD were in the wrong. [...]

Yup, that's exactly what I'll say, and for good reason. If parties settle out of court, then both think their case is risky. Civil suits are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, after all. If the PD think a jury can be swayed, they'll settle, regardless of the merits.

Personally I'd ban non-liability as a condition of settlement, and leave the amount up to a judge. Tort reform is, I suspect, way beyond the even scope of this meandering thread.

Oh, and Doc Tor, I took another look at your link: did you notice this bit?

quote:
One cultural difference ... is a "greater propensity for black young people not to plead guilty than white young people". Black youths consequently received longer sentences because credit is given for early guilty pleas.

The only way to correct this would be to make the system explicitly racist. Which, I take it, you don't want. Not so simple fixing things, is it?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Saysay, Your opinion may be correct. That's not my point. That point is that you have not yet given any evidence to show that it is correct locally let alone of wider application. The TV show is not evidence. Were it so, I could argue a general rule from Perry Mason that all a lawyer needs to be successful in defending criminal cases is a blond secretary.

Really? The fact that Martha Coakley is still the Attorney General and was able to run for a Senate seat isn't evidence? A blog written by a public defender in CT (who, IIRC , has given up being a public defender because it's impossible to fight the good fight within the system) isn't evidence?

My local news tend to be full of stories like this.

And I'll take pity on the hosts and not link to a bunch of legal blogs because I'm not sure there's much point in trying to convince someone from another country about what the US is really like.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

saysay--

Re trying to convince someone from outside the US what it's like: Yeah, it often doesn't work, IME. Some people have such a strong image of what they want the US to be that they can't/won't hear anything else.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you Saysay. That's a start but has there been any proper study to support the sort of comments you are making?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Address Doc Tor's link. Easy enough to find the same info for America.
Channel Duane Gish all ya like, Doc Tor needs to apply his damn link. How, specifically, does it relate to this sentence?

I'm doing the Gish Gallop? Sweetie, your minder needs to better monitor your computer time.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--

Re trying to convince someone from outside the US what it's like: Yeah, it often doesn't work, IME. Some people have such a strong image of what they want the US to be that they can't/won't hear anything else.

Not trying to start a fight or a Pond War, but that works in both directions. Actually, any direction one wishes to point. Hell, that is often as much an intramural sport as an international one.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--

Re trying to convince someone from outside the US what it's like: Yeah, it often doesn't work, IME. Some people have such a strong image of what they want the US to be that they can't/won't hear anything else.
Not trying to start a fight or a Pond War, but that works in both directions. Actually, any direction one wishes to point. Hell, that is often as much an intramural sport as an international one.

Yes, focused on the US because that was the question, and because I still have scars from such encounters. (Debate over the Republican attempt to shut down the gov't comes to mind.)

From my observation, though, Shipmates are more inclined to have...staunch?...expectations of the US than of other countries. Probably because of the empire thing (and I wish we weren't one). And maybe some just like what the US is *supposed* to be about, and don't want to see some of the problems.

YMMV.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm doing the Gish Gallop? Sweetie, your minder needs to better monitor your computer time.

Ableist cracks? Jeez, you've slipped man. Guess I hit a nerve there. [Killing me]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
One cultural difference ... is a "greater propensity for black young people not to plead guilty than white young people". Black youths consequently received longer sentences because credit is given for early guilty pleas.

So having trawled the report for the one bit of evidence that would support your batshit crazy assertion that all is well in the land of law enforcement and not at all racist is to highlight that black kids get longer sentences than white kids... [Killing me]

Don't call us, we'll call you.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm doing the Gish Gallop? Sweetie, your minder needs to better monitor your computer time.
Ableist cracks? Jeez, you've slipped man. Guess I hit a nerve there.

Yes. Most people have a finely tuned sensibility that makes them call rank hypocrisy when they see it.

As a host, it's not one of our functions to rule on the quality of an argument. As a shipmate, it's pretty much obligatory to point out when it's piss-poor. Yours is piss-poor.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So having trawled the report for the one bit of evidence that would support your batshit crazy assertion that all is well in the land of law enforcement and not at all racist ...

Yeah, I'll leave it to you to know how "at first sight, [the studies] strongly suggest racial bias ..." translates into the above!

quote:
... is to highlight that black kids get longer sentences than white kids...

Don't call us, we'll call you.

With the answer, I hope.

You skip the little matter of why they get longer sentences. To keep the dockets manageable, in sentencing, anyone who goes to trial is penalized if found guilty. Called the trial penalty. If black kids choose to go to trial more than white kids, how, exactly, d'you want the law to fix it?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
To keep the dockets manageable, in sentencing, anyone who goes to trial is penalized if found guilty. Called the trial penalty.

Bzzt. Not how it works over here. Try harder.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
To keep the dockets manageable, in sentencing, anyone who goes to trial is penalized if found guilty. Called the trial penalty.
Bzzt. Not how it works over here. Try harder.

Nor quite how it works here. Essentially, there are 2 different discounts which may be made from the sentence which otherwise might be imposed. The first is for the utilitarian value of the plea. There will be a saving in court time, and in the costs of arranging witnesses and so forth. Depending upon how early there is an indication of a plea of guilty, the discount is between 10 and 25%. Then a plea of guilty might also indicate remorse. A very remorseful offender needs less personal deterrence, and the remorse can also indicate the commencement of rehabilitation. On the other hand, a plea of guilty can simply indicate an appreciation of a strong prosecution case. As they say, each case depends on its own facts.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
To keep the dockets manageable, in sentencing, anyone who goes to trial is penalized if found guilty. Called the trial penalty.
Bzzt. Not how it works over here. Try harder.

Eh? Your own link, which I quoted, says that's exactly how it works! As does England's prosecution service:-

quote:
As a general principle (rather than a matter of law) an offender who pleads guilty may expect some credit in the form of a discount in sentence. ...
one-third discount for a guilty plea at the first opportunity
one-quarter discount for a guilty plea after the trial date is set
one-tenth discount for a guilty plea at the door of court /after trial begun.

So as I asked, how d'you want this to be fixed? Abolish the trial penalty, and accept the skyrocketing demand in cash and resources? Or something else?

You flagged the problem. What d'you want to change?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
To keep the dockets manageable, in sentencing, anyone who goes to trial is penalized if found guilty. Called the trial penalty.
Bzzt. Not how it works over here. Try harder.
Eh? Your own link, which I quoted, says that's exactly how it works! As does England's prosecution service:-

quote:
As a general principle (rather than a matter of law) an offender who pleads guilty may expect some credit in the form of a discount in sentence. ...
one-third discount for a guilty plea at the first opportunity
one-quarter discount for a guilty plea after the trial date is set
one-tenth discount for a guilty plea at the door of court /after trial begun.
So as I asked, how d'you want this to be fixed? Abolish the trial penalty, and accept the skyrocketing demand in cash and resources? Or something else?

You flagged the problem. What d'you want to change?

Bzzt. There is no trail "penalty". The idea is preposterous and so firmly against justice that any sane jurisdiction rejects it utterly.

Prosecutors in England are independent of the police. They do not "over-egg" charges. They do not plea bargain (plead now, it's a misdemeanour: go to trial and face 20 to life). They are not elected.

There is a discount (not automatic, not fixed) that a judge or magistrate may apply, along with mitigating and aggravating factors, in their sentencing.

This has nothing to do with a judge making allowances for someone's fee-paying school background. Do try and stay on the point.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Doc Tor, nowhere is it officially called a "trial penalty," that's just the reality. The issue with minority defendants choosing to suffer it remains. How d'you want it to be changed so they don't?

Plea bargains are, likewise, officially a discount. A defendant "deserves" those 20 years, but to keep the courts running, prosecutors drop down the charges. As for England, it undoubtedly goes on, but folk don't like to talk about it. [Paranoid]

No one's shown that the judge "made allowances" for his parents' choice of school. The sentence was well within the normal range. No one's even been able to tell me what they want changed. Without so much as an idea of how to fix things, what on earth is the point of all this sound and fury?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you Saysay. That's a start but has there been any proper study to support the sort of comments you are making?

We've tried launching them. But privacy concerns mean that we can't get our hands on any real data. The anecdata is pretty scary, though.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Doc Tor, nowhere is it officially called a "trial penalty," that's just the reality. The issue with minority defendants choosing to suffer it remains. How d'you want it to be changed so they don't?

Plea bargains are, likewise, officially a discount. A defendant "deserves" those 20 years, but to keep the courts running, prosecutors drop down the charges. As for England, it undoubtedly goes on, but folk don't like to talk about it.

No one who is innocent should ever feel pressure to plead guilty, just so they don't unduly suffer at the hands of an unjust, corrupt legal system.

English prosecutors tend to accept lesser charges for more serious offences (as per your link), as opposed to threatening higher charges to extract a guilty plea, which is pretty much the US system.

quote:
No one's shown that the judge "made allowances" for his parents' choice of school. The sentence was well within the normal range. No one's even been able to tell me what they want changed. Without so much as an idea of how to fix things, what on earth is the point of all this sound and fury?

No one's shown - but the suspicion is there. I've already argued that the sentence is light. I've already suggested that the Crown should appeal the sentence.

If the judge had said, "I see that your skin is white" or "I see that your father is a freemason", and then passed sentence, no one could prove what followed was biased. But we'd have every right to suspect that. Likewise here. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Ariston
Humblest apologies:
I'm afraid my pathetic band speed meant that your 'keep-off' post didn't appear until after I'd hit the post button.
And haven't been onboard since to spot or make amends.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If parties settle out of court, then both think their case is risky. Civil suits are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, after all. If the PD think a jury can be swayed, they'll settle, regardless of the merits.

There's a dynamic at work here you're missing or avoiding, namely, money/power. The majority of people filing complaints are minorities in lower-income groups. If you offer a relatively large financial settlement to a guy making minimum wage and trying to support a family, he's likely to take it, regardless of the strength of his case - he needs the money now, not years from now when the system gets around to resolving the issue.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Personally I'd ban non-liability as a condition of settlement, and leave the amount up to a judge. Tort reform is, I suspect, way beyond the even scope of this meandering thread.

I tend to agree on the non-liablilty ban, FWIW.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If parties settle out of court, then both think their case is risky. Civil suits are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, after all. If the PD think a jury can be swayed, they'll settle, regardless of the merits.
There's a dynamic at work here you're missing or avoiding, namely, money/power. The majority of people filing complaints are minorities in lower-income groups. If you offer a relatively large financial settlement to a guy making minimum wage and trying to support a family, he's likely to take it, regardless of the strength of his case - he needs the money now, not years from now when the system gets around to resolving the issue.

This is very true. Except you need not limit it to very low income groups. A middle class family, comfortable but not rich, is going to avoid going to court, or staying in the court system, one minute longer than it needs to, simply because of the cost of lawyers. You can easily bankrupt a family like mine by bringing a civil suit against us (we can't afford a lawyer, and we don't qualify for legal aid, as only the poorest of the poor get that). Criminal charges would also likely bankrupt us, and nearly did several years ago, when an asshole police chief who'd tried to pin a hit-and-run case on Mr. Lamb discovered that his prey could prove he was interpreting for a court 30 miles away when the incident happened. Angry that the car insurance co. didn't just pay off his sister-in-law (whose car got hit--God knows who decided to pin the blame on a blameless Asian passing through town), he then threatened us with criminal charges and a total loss of license, which would have destroyed Mr. Lamb's ministry and his work. (Public transport is shit here)

By the mercy of God, we only had to spend five thousand dollars combatting this vindictive shit before he gave up and went away (having no evidence, because of course it never happened). But Mr. Lamb did have to go through some sort of public scolding from a judge-like official in order to prevent the whole thing getting heaved into criminal court on the mere say-so of the police chief. Mr Lamb was mad as fire, but we had to just suck it up because we didn't have the further 30 to 40K $ it would have cost us to fight the frivolous charge at that level. I suppose we could have sold the house...

There's no reimbursement, either, when you finally win your case against a lying asshole. You win it, sure--and you've lost your house. Too bad, so sad. You could of course launch a countersuit to recover the money--if you have another $20,000 or so to burn on lawyers--and actually believe that the corrupt department is going to meekly turn over their incriminating records to you...

Seriously, this is why I've told Mr. Lamb to wear a dress and an orange wig whenever he drives through Illinois. No more driving while Asian. Another one of these legal victories and we'll be bankrupt.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one who is innocent should ever feel pressure to plead guilty, just so they don't unduly suffer at the hands of an unjust, corrupt legal system.

What about pressure on the guilty?

Remove the trial penalty, and virtually all cases go to a jury. The resources expended -- millions spent, hundreds of thousands extra jurors -- would be staggering. Worse would be the burden on victims forced to confront their attackers in court. It'd hurt people of all ethnicities.

quote:
English prosecutors tend to accept lesser charges for more serious offences (as per your link), as opposed to threatening higher charges to extract a guilty plea, which is pretty much the US system.

Exactly the same principle applies in the various American systems. All charges must be supported by the evidence.

quote:
No one's shown - but the suspicion is there. I've already argued that the sentence is light. I've already suggested that the Crown should appeal the sentence.

If the judge had said, "I see that your skin is white" or "I see that your father is a freemason", and then passed sentence, no one could prove what followed was biased. But we'd have every right to suspect that. Likewise here. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

What evidence is there that it's "light"? From the info posted, if falls right in the normal range.

Would you ordinarily want someone jailed for a pissant marijuana charge? If not, why would you wish it on this young man? Even if it is favoritism, the right thing was done by the wrong means.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
There's a dynamic at work here you're missing or avoiding, namely, money/power. The majority of people filing complaints are minorities in lower-income groups. If you offer a relatively large financial settlement to a guy making minimum wage and trying to support a family, he's likely to take it, regardless of the strength of his case - he needs the money now, not years from now when the system gets around to resolving the issue.[...]

So why don't the PD just string the plaintiffs out until they fold? Perhaps because juries can and do award punitive damages in the millions.

Police depts. don't enjoy unlimited resources. Just the opposite.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Would you ordinarily want someone jailed for a pissant marijuana charge?

If you want to call it pissant in order to further your argument, knock yourself out, but this isn't that. He was dealing. Growing, and supplying through the post, and not just leaves, but resin, but other Class B drugs too.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Ther could be an argument for an alumnus of a public or private boarding school having a longer sentence, since he would have received immunisation against the effects of a stay in such a place - didn't the POWs of the Germans make such a point?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Penny S

I posted up-thread

quote:
...some member of the judiciary using a 'good school' as justification for not imposing a custodial sentence: IMO the reverse should be true, since this chap obviously had all of the advantages and yet still chose to break the law.

Plus your point as well (wasn't it John McCarthy who said that being held hostage in Lebanon was more bearable having been to a British boarding school?)

Great minds, eh!

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is very true. Except you need not limit it to very low income groups. A middle class family, comfortable but not rich, is going to avoid going to court, or staying in the court system, one minute longer than it needs to, simply because of the cost of lawyers. You can easily bankrupt a family like mine by bringing a civil suit against us (we can't afford a lawyer, and we don't qualify for legal aid, as only the poorest of the poor get that). Criminal charges would also likely bankrupt us, and nearly did several years ago, when an asshole police chief who'd tried to pin a hit-and-run case on Mr. Lamb discovered that his prey could prove he was interpreting for a court 30 miles away when the incident happened.

Preach it, sister.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

(wasn't it John McCarthy who said that being held hostage in Lebanon was more bearable having been to a British boarding school?)

Great minds, eh!

CS Lewis said that he was less miserable in a trench in WW1 than he was at boarding school. Because in the Somme at least you didn't have to pretend to be having a good time.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

And Lewis had had a really foul time at school, hadn't he? Rather like Kipling.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0