5 ms·

We've seen it before: expect to see more of it as Britain tries to keep its US ties strong in the wake of 'Brexit'

fixxer 10y ago
Well, that and also that he was one (of many) doing something that adversely impacted the markets. As a former trader, I think it is bullshit and he is a scapegoat, but I think he'll get due process.
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  He won't get due process. He's being charged with offences that carry sentences totaling up to 380 years. He'll plead out to ten years in jail.
  - ghurtado 10y ago
    A plea bargain is still part of due process.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Much of HN would disagree. Search HN's history for arguments.
      - ghurtado 10y ago
        It would seem so from the downvotes. I think it would be much more fruitful to explain those arguments, even if briefly. I'm certainly interested in hearing them. Unfortunately, the search you suggested yielded no obvious results.
        bryondowd 10y ago
        I've seen it argued mostly in relation to drug charges. Essentially, when faced with charges with a potential penalty in the decades and offered the option to plea guilty for a sentence orders of magnitude more lenient, nearly everyone will plea rather than fight their case, even if they have a strong case. Unless they know with absolute certainty that they will win, it makes more sense to take a slap on the wrist than to risk losing your life as you know it. Then there's the information asymmetry, where you don't have enough information to know if you have a guaranteed case, and aren't given the opportunity to find out before the plea bargain is taken away. So, essentially, instead of a court determining your guilt based on evidence, you have a game theory scenario what forces you into a guilty plea with no regard for the evidence. I would expect that a savvy financial type who can afford to pay a competent lawyer would be significantly less impacted by this phenomenon (if at all) than the typical person charged with a drug possession offense represented by a public defender who has too many clients to properly serve each one. Really, it seems to me that the issue isn't necessarily with plea bargains in general so much as with plea bargains with massive differentials to the original charges.
        ghurtado 10y ago
        Thank you for explaining that. > Really, it seems to me that the issue isn't necessarily with plea bargains in general so much as with plea bargains with massive differentials to the original charges. I agree with you. I think the root cause is completely unreasonable penalties for certain charges (which is especially true of drug charges). With a smaller differential, the bargaining power of the prosecution is drastically reduced (as it should be).
        EdHominem 10y ago
        Well, the root problem is prosecutorial misconduct which is how they get their success rate so high that you're forced to plea-bargain. As proof of misconduct, note that when evidence is proved systematically unreliable, prosecutors argue that the rulings should remain. (eg, hair testing, etc) There's no desire to get the right answer, just to get the most convictions.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      The main argument to why plea bargains arent due process is that they usually are prosecutors charging people with inappropriately serious crimes and offering to settle on reasonable charges if the person pleads guilty, coercing them because they either get improperly charged (violation of due process) or waive their right to trial (violation of due process if coerced). It's a prosecutor willingly not performing their duties (charging people with appropriate crimes for their actions), because it makes their tracked stats look better (conviction rate). Im of the camp that believes plea bargains should only be allowed to negotiate sentences on the charge, not involve prosecutors charging a different set of crimes.
blibble 10y ago
why do you think the judiciary cares? note that the UK does not elect its judges

Well, that and also that he was one (of many) doing something that adversely impacted the markets. As a former trader, I think it is bullshit and he is a scapegoat, but I think he'll get due process.

soVeryTired 10y ago
He won't get due process. He's being charged with offences that carry sentences totaling up to 380 years. He'll plead out to ten years in jail.
- ghurtado 10y ago
  A plea bargain is still part of due process.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Much of HN would disagree. Search HN's history for arguments.
    - ghurtado 10y ago
      It would seem so from the downvotes. I think it would be much more fruitful to explain those arguments, even if briefly. I'm certainly interested in hearing them. Unfortunately, the search you suggested yielded no obvious results.
      - bryondowd 10y ago
        I've seen it argued mostly in relation to drug charges. Essentially, when faced with charges with a potential penalty in the decades and offered the option to plea guilty for a sentence orders of magnitude more lenient, nearly everyone will plea rather than fight their case, even if they have a strong case. Unless they know with absolute certainty that they will win, it makes more sense to take a slap on the wrist than to risk losing your life as you know it. Then there's the information asymmetry, where you don't have enough information to know if you have a guaranteed case, and aren't given the opportunity to find out before the plea bargain is taken away. So, essentially, instead of a court determining your guilt based on evidence, you have a game theory scenario what forces you into a guilty plea with no regard for the evidence. I would expect that a savvy financial type who can afford to pay a competent lawyer would be significantly less impacted by this phenomenon (if at all) than the typical person charged with a drug possession offense represented by a public defender who has too many clients to properly serve each one. Really, it seems to me that the issue isn't necessarily with plea bargains in general so much as with plea bargains with massive differentials to the original charges.
        ghurtado 10y ago
        Thank you for explaining that. > Really, it seems to me that the issue isn't necessarily with plea bargains in general so much as with plea bargains with massive differentials to the original charges. I agree with you. I think the root cause is completely unreasonable penalties for certain charges (which is especially true of drug charges). With a smaller differential, the bargaining power of the prosecution is drastically reduced (as it should be).
        EdHominem 10y ago
        Well, the root problem is prosecutorial misconduct which is how they get their success rate so high that you're forced to plea-bargain. As proof of misconduct, note that when evidence is proved systematically unreliable, prosecutors argue that the rulings should remain. (eg, hair testing, etc) There's no desire to get the right answer, just to get the most convictions.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    The main argument to why plea bargains arent due process is that they usually are prosecutors charging people with inappropriately serious crimes and offering to settle on reasonable charges if the person pleads guilty, coercing them because they either get improperly charged (violation of due process) or waive their right to trial (violation of due process if coerced). It's a prosecutor willingly not performing their duties (charging people with appropriate crimes for their actions), because it makes their tracked stats look better (conviction rate). Im of the camp that believes plea bargains should only be allowed to negotiate sentences on the charge, not involve prosecutors charging a different set of crimes.

blibble 10y ago

why do you think the judiciary cares? note that the UK does not elect its judges