11 ms·

That's how the "justice" system works in America. Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine. Bag of wee

by kevmo 9y ago

That's how the "justice" system works in America. Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine. Bag of weed? You're going to jail, buddy!

rayiner 9y ago
The difference is that in drug cases, there is almost always overwhelming proof that someone committed a crime. Nobody has a kilo of cocaine shoved down their waistband and doesn't know about it. In a case like this, maybe it's a "giant crime," or maybe it's just a customs violation. Unless you have proof of the entity's state of mind, it's impossible to tell the difference.
- blackguardx 9y ago
  "Intent to distribute" charges get slapped on people an awful lot without much hard proof.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    because the law has defined "intent to distribute" purely by the amount of drugs you have. They don't have to actually prove intention to distribution. Really it should just be called "possession of a lot of drugs." The reason the laws were changed was that it was tough to convict someone if you had to actually show they intended to sell.
- petraeus 9y ago
  If you think officers need a shred of proof to arrest somebody and judges need a shred of proof to convict, i've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ... the us criminal system is a machine run for profit, not for justice, simply because SOME of the convicts are murderers is simply correlation
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I have a lot of criticism for the U.S. criminal justice system, but I've also got first-hand experience with it and I think your assertion is inaccurate. As a judge's clerk I saw the files of numerous criminal convictions on appeal. I can't think of a single one where there wasn't overwhelming evidence to support the conviction. The felon caught with a gun in his car, or the drug dealer who tried to sell drugs to an undercover cop, or the guy who was arrested after beating his wife bloody. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. You can argue that two of those three things shouldn't be crimes (and I agree--but at least half the country doesn't) but the idea that people are routinely convicted without evidence is a myth.
- Floegipoky 9y ago
  The overwhelming majority of cases never go to trial. Too often the accused can't afford to make bail, can't afford to be stuck in jail for potentially years while they wait for trial, can't afford competent legal counsel, and end up pleading guilty to whatever crime they're accused of whether they're guilty or not. The types of appeals that you mention in your other comment are not representative of the bread and butter of the US criminal legal system, which is plea bargains.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    You can't just accept a plea deal where the prosecution has no evidence. Plea deals must be approved by judges, and involve a colloquy with the defendant and a showing by the prosecutor of the evidence that the government would be prepared to put forward to establish guilt at trial. And plea cases come up on appeal all the time (and in fact are probably the typical criminal appeal). A plea bargain agreement generally precludes appeal of the conviction, but does not preclude appeal of the sentence (because the judge, not the prosecutor, decides the sentence). I have lots of friends who are public defenders. Almost everyone they work with is guilty (much of the work is hammering out plea deals that ensure that they're convicted of the correct things). Same thing for people who work with Innocence Projects, where filtering out all the requests for aid from guilty people is a big part of the work. If the issue were just not sending large numbers of innocent people to prison we would have fixed it. What makes criminal justice so challenging is the constant fight to protect the rights of the innocent within a system where the overwhelming majority of the accused are not just guilty, but obviously so.
TheGirondin 9y ago
So when someone from HL inevitably is jailed over this, will you admit that you and your outlook are wrong?
- kevmo 9y ago
  "inevitably"? Is there a criminal case pending? I can't find any reference to one. And my outlook is not wrong. There are two justice systems in America - one for the fairly-to-very wealthy and one for everyone else. I used to be a law clerk to a federal judge (no longer a lawyer). My outlook is unfortunately accurate.
- epistasis 9y ago
  I'm not OP, but I do share OPs views the about disparity in laws themselves for white-collar crimes on the order of $3M and drug possession of $ values 100,000 less. If there is a criminal prosecution, that would certainly affect my outlook for the better, and I would gladly admit that I was wrong to the degree that I was! I really hope that you're correct on the "inevitably," but I'm also extremely doubtful. That said, I'm not sure that we have the full picture here. With somebody as political as Hobby Lobby's management, and as politically viewed as they are, there's probably an entirely different side to the story that never makes it out.

by kevmo 9y ago

That's how the "justice" system works in America. Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine. Bag of weed? You're going to jail, buddy!

rayiner 9y ago

The difference is that in drug cases, there is almost always overwhelming proof that someone committed a crime. Nobody has a kilo of cocaine shoved down their waistband and doesn't know about it. In a case like this, maybe it's a "giant crime," or maybe it's just a customs violation. Unless you have proof of the entity's state of mind, it's impossible to tell the difference.

blackguardx 9y ago
"Intent to distribute" charges get slapped on people an awful lot without much hard proof.
- rhino369 9y ago
  because the law has defined "intent to distribute" purely by the amount of drugs you have. They don't have to actually prove intention to distribution. Really it should just be called "possession of a lot of drugs." The reason the laws were changed was that it was tough to convict someone if you had to actually show they intended to sell.
petraeus 9y ago
If you think officers need a shred of proof to arrest somebody and judges need a shred of proof to convict, i've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ... the us criminal system is a machine run for profit, not for justice, simply because SOME of the convicts are murderers is simply correlation
- rayiner 9y ago
  I have a lot of criticism for the U.S. criminal justice system, but I've also got first-hand experience with it and I think your assertion is inaccurate. As a judge's clerk I saw the files of numerous criminal convictions on appeal. I can't think of a single one where there wasn't overwhelming evidence to support the conviction. The felon caught with a gun in his car, or the drug dealer who tried to sell drugs to an undercover cop, or the guy who was arrested after beating his wife bloody. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. You can argue that two of those three things shouldn't be crimes (and I agree--but at least half the country doesn't) but the idea that people are routinely convicted without evidence is a myth.
Floegipoky 9y ago
The overwhelming majority of cases never go to trial. Too often the accused can't afford to make bail, can't afford to be stuck in jail for potentially years while they wait for trial, can't afford competent legal counsel, and end up pleading guilty to whatever crime they're accused of whether they're guilty or not. The types of appeals that you mention in your other comment are not representative of the bread and butter of the US criminal legal system, which is plea bargains.
- rayiner 9y ago
  You can't just accept a plea deal where the prosecution has no evidence. Plea deals must be approved by judges, and involve a colloquy with the defendant and a showing by the prosecutor of the evidence that the government would be prepared to put forward to establish guilt at trial. And plea cases come up on appeal all the time (and in fact are probably the typical criminal appeal). A plea bargain agreement generally precludes appeal of the conviction, but does not preclude appeal of the sentence (because the judge, not the prosecutor, decides the sentence). I have lots of friends who are public defenders. Almost everyone they work with is guilty (much of the work is hammering out plea deals that ensure that they're convicted of the correct things). Same thing for people who work with Innocence Projects, where filtering out all the requests for aid from guilty people is a big part of the work. If the issue were just not sending large numbers of innocent people to prison we would have fixed it. What makes criminal justice so challenging is the constant fight to protect the rights of the innocent within a system where the overwhelming majority of the accused are not just guilty, but obviously so.

TheGirondin 9y ago

So when someone from HL inevitably is jailed over this, will you admit that you and your outlook are wrong?

kevmo 9y ago
"inevitably"? Is there a criminal case pending? I can't find any reference to one. And my outlook is not wrong. There are two justice systems in America - one for the fairly-to-very wealthy and one for everyone else. I used to be a law clerk to a federal judge (no longer a lawyer). My outlook is unfortunately accurate.
epistasis 9y ago
I'm not OP, but I do share OPs views the about disparity in laws themselves for white-collar crimes on the order of $3M and drug possession of $ values 100,000 less. If there is a criminal prosecution, that would certainly affect my outlook for the better, and I would gladly admit that I was wrong to the degree that I was! I really hope that you're correct on the "inevitably," but I'm also extremely doubtful. That said, I'm not sure that we have the full picture here. With somebody as political as Hobby Lobby's management, and as politically viewed as they are, there's probably an entirely different side to the story that never makes it out.