5 ms·

He’s going to go through a trial by his peers, he’s not likely going to receive the max sentence, and even then he likely wouldn’t serve the max sentence for a

He’s going to go through a trial by his peers, he’s not likely going to receive the max sentence, and even then he likely wouldn’t serve the max sentence for a nonviolent crime (he’d be paroled). Compare that to being convicted without a fair trial, being sent to a labor camp, and running the risk of being sent home in a body bag. I understand hyperbole but let’s not kid ourselves, NK is one of the worst places in the world to draw government ire.

syshum 9y ago
>>He’s going to go through a trial by his peers No if he goes to trial it will be a trial with humans on the jury but that will be as close to his "peer" group as it will be 1. They will not be from his nation, but will be Americans 2. Most of them will likely be Computer illiterate, as the prosecution will excuse anyone that even owns a computer 3. They will like be older and outside of age peer group No it will not be a jury of his peers, unless simply being of the same species is all you consider to be a "peer" >>he’s not likely going to receive the max sentence, and even then he likely wouldn’t serve the max sentence for a nonviolent crime (he’d be paroled). The max sentence will be used to extort a guilty plea, happen every day to innocent people Parole is still considered in service to your sentence, you have massively diminished rights and you are not considered a "free person" while on parole, you simply are serving your time outside the confines of a cage. Given this is a non-US citizen that complicates parole as he would unlikely be allowed to leave the US while on Parole. On this being a nonviolent crime, nonviolent crimes in the US Legal system are often punish more harshly then violent crimes, Many nonviolent crimes have mandatory minimums, where as almost no violent crimes do. Saying this is a nonviolent crime so it will be "easy" or the punishment will be lessened is factually incorrect when talking about the American Legal system
- dogma1138 9y ago
  This is a silly argument. It's like saying that drug dealers should be judged by a jury made up of drug dealers and users. I don't think you understand what a "peer" means in this context. Trial by jury of your peers was implemented to prevent the church and royalty from judging the commons. Or to be more exact it's one of the first marks of separation of power; people who make up the law aren't the ones who also judge you.
  - syshum 9y ago
    Well I would say drug dealing and using should not be a crime in the first place but that is off topic. >Trial by jury of your peers was implemented to prevent the church and royalty from judging the commons. I understand the purpose and you seem to have taken my comment to mean something it does not. It is also ironic that you mention the church because given the geographic location where this trial will likely take place Ultra Religious people will likely be involved. Further while I do not believe the jury should be made up solely of computer experts, I also do not believe computer experts should be excluded simply because they are experts in the subject matter of the trial which is what happens. My biggest problem is around the process of jury selection.
    - sanderjd 9y ago
      What, specifically, is your problem with jury selection? Prosecutors don't get to pick the jury they want, they have a limited number of vetos, just like the defense. How would you like it to work?
      - kwhitefoot 9y ago
        The limited number should be much smaller for one thing. In fact I don't see why they should get to object to a jury member at all. If a juror is unfit it should be up to an impartial organ to determine that not the opposing sides in the fight.
        dogma1138 9y ago
        And what that impartial organization would look like? The Jury selection process is more important for the defense than for the prosecution.
- awinder 9y ago
  So what’s the explanation for getting shipped home in a body bag, id love to push this ridiculous mental exercise to its inevitable absurd conclusion as fast as possible.

syshum 9y ago

>>He’s going to go through a trial by his peers No if he goes to trial it will be a trial with humans on the jury but that will be as close to his "peer" group as it will be 1. They will not be from his nation, but will be Americans 2. Most of them will likely be Computer illiterate, as the prosecution will excuse anyone that even owns a computer 3. They will like be older and outside of age peer group No it will not be a jury of his peers, unless simply being of the same species is all you consider to be a "peer" >>he’s not likely going to receive the max sentence, and even then he likely wouldn’t serve the max sentence for a nonviolent crime (he’d be paroled). The max sentence will be used to extort a guilty plea, happen every day to innocent people Parole is still considered in service to your sentence, you have massively diminished rights and you are not considered a "free person" while on parole, you simply are serving your time outside the confines of a cage. Given this is a non-US citizen that complicates parole as he would unlikely be allowed to leave the US while on Parole. On this being a nonviolent crime, nonviolent crimes in the US Legal system are often punish more harshly then violent crimes, Many nonviolent crimes have mandatory minimums, where as almost no violent crimes do. Saying this is a nonviolent crime so it will be "easy" or the punishment will be lessened is factually incorrect when talking about the American Legal system

dogma1138 9y ago
This is a silly argument. It's like saying that drug dealers should be judged by a jury made up of drug dealers and users. I don't think you understand what a "peer" means in this context. Trial by jury of your peers was implemented to prevent the church and royalty from judging the commons. Or to be more exact it's one of the first marks of separation of power; people who make up the law aren't the ones who also judge you.
- syshum 9y ago
  Well I would say drug dealing and using should not be a crime in the first place but that is off topic. >Trial by jury of your peers was implemented to prevent the church and royalty from judging the commons. I understand the purpose and you seem to have taken my comment to mean something it does not. It is also ironic that you mention the church because given the geographic location where this trial will likely take place Ultra Religious people will likely be involved. Further while I do not believe the jury should be made up solely of computer experts, I also do not believe computer experts should be excluded simply because they are experts in the subject matter of the trial which is what happens. My biggest problem is around the process of jury selection.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    What, specifically, is your problem with jury selection? Prosecutors don't get to pick the jury they want, they have a limited number of vetos, just like the defense. How would you like it to work?
    - kwhitefoot 9y ago
      The limited number should be much smaller for one thing. In fact I don't see why they should get to object to a jury member at all. If a juror is unfit it should be up to an impartial organ to determine that not the opposing sides in the fight.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        And what that impartial organization would look like? The Jury selection process is more important for the defense than for the prosecution.
awinder 9y ago
So what’s the explanation for getting shipped home in a body bag, id love to push this ridiculous mental exercise to its inevitable absurd conclusion as fast as possible.