5 ms·

The tech community's reaction to this is frankly laughable and embarrassing. The man has been accused of a crime. A grand jury has seen enough evidence to indic

The tech community's reaction to this is frankly laughable and embarrassing. The man has been accused of a crime. A grand jury has seen enough evidence to indict him. This is the United States of America, where as someone accused of a crime he will have more rights than he would in just about any other jurisdiction in the world.[1] Yet so many in this forum and elsewhere are spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories and accusing law enforcement of malfeasance, without any evidence whatsoever. [1] For example, the unqualified rights to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded, neither of which he would have in the UK.

teuobk 9y ago
Regarding grand jury indictments, it's very, very rare for a grand jury to refuse to indict somebody, so that isn't necessarily a good measure of the quality of the case against the accused. Of roughly 162,000 federal cases brought before grand juries in 2010, indictments were returned for all but 11 of them. https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-i...
- dijit 9y ago
  Devils Advocate here. Could that be that law enforcement do not bring cases to the grand jury unless there is significant evidence already? If they have clear requirements it could just be that they're being selective about what they submit.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    I would hope that were the case, but evidence, e.g. from convictions reversed on account of DNA evidence, show that it is not always so. While the grand jury system may appear to protect innocent defendants, I wonder if it does the opposite. A grand jury might have a disposition to allow a case to proceed when in doubt, on the grounds that the matter will be sorted out in a trial, while the fact that a grand jury has made a decision may bias the trial jury towards conviction. Another practice that has demonstrably been abused is the offer of something approaching immunity in exchange for testimony. We know there is a co-defendant, but nothing else so far in that regard. The swatting of as respected a character as Brian Krebs shows that law enforcement can be manipulated into a precipitate action, especially when there is a deadline, and in this case, Hutchins was about to leave their jurisdiction. I have no opinion as to whether Hutchins is guilty of anything, but I hope his case is dealt with quickly, and above all, justly.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Yeah, the joke is that you could indict a ham sandwich. But in seriousness, the bar is supposed to be low. The prosecutor needs to present enough evidence to convince the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a crime. You have to have some evidence of guilt. And like dijit says, prosecutors aren't in the business of prosecuting hopelessly unwinnable cases, which is what you would have if you can't even show probable cause.
dexterdog 9y ago
If anybody watched what they did to Russ Ulbrecht they have a reason to be skeptical. The funny part is that they clearly didn't get the concept of the Dread Pirate Roberts.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  There was a clear case against Ross Ulbricht.
  - dexterdog 9y ago
    If you believe in that sort of stuff, I suppose, but so much of the evidence was "found" on his laptop with forensic professionalism that would have made the OJ prosecution look competent.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >If anybody watched what they did to Russ Ulbrecht they have a reason to be skeptical You mean the guy who ran a massive illegal drug marketplace, and who tried to have people killed to protect it?
  - dexterdog 9y ago
    Allegedly.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ThinkBeat 9y ago
uh..... Except you know... torture, rendition, asset forfeiture, holding people for years without trial or even charges.
nvarsj 9y ago
The US is notoriously bad in dealing with tech cases. The punishment is usually extreme, way beyond the damage caused. Things like DCMA also punish things they shouldn't. US is hardly an example of a fair judicial system.
80211 9y ago
The Tech Community in the US generally only cares about "bikeshedding" issues that are easy to have strong opinions on and don't really matter. Like making sure your language is "inclusive", or things like the "Ada Initiative" so women can attend PyCons without hearing the word "dongle" being used in private conversations.
santoriv 9y ago
In Japan, for example, one is guilty until proven innocent. They have a 99% conviction rate. Over course, in America, where things are much better and one is innocent until proven guilty, they only have a 99.8% conviction rate in federal court. Yay America. http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190 http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  It's in the low 90% range recently, and hovered between 70% and 90% for the last half century. Federal prosecutors don't pursue every case that lands on their desk, and they direct law enforcement toward the most winnable cases too. If the conviction rate was a lot lower, I'd be more concerned that the government was bringing so many cases without sufficient evidence.
  - santoriv 9y ago
    My understanding is that the statistics you provided do not apply to federal court. As I understand it, this Marcus going to be tried in federal court. In any case, the United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera... Either the US has the second highest rate of criminal activity in the world or an unusually high rate of wrongful convictions. When Saddam Hussein won 99.96% percent of the vote in the 1995 election, we said "The fix is in" but when federal prosecutors get a 99.8% conviction rate, we say that they must be really great at their jobs! We have a moral obligation to subject the criminal justice to serious scrutiny since so many lives are at stake - not just repeat some platitudes about how the system is stacked in favor of the defendants (not saying you were doing that but the OP certainly was).
    - tarboreus 9y ago
      The incarceration rate is mostly due to our really, really long sentences. Not that that's great, either.
mc32 9y ago
If you want to see the community turn against him it seems all you have to do is accuse him of coincidentally agreeing with Trump on some issues --just notice how Assange's support in the community has withered since some of the things he says undermines the Russia allegations. Whereas most supported him when the same information undermined American credibility.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
opaque 9y ago
> He has the unqualified right to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded, neither of which he would have in the UK. Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... The US system also has flaws not present in our system (at least for now) e.g. Plea Bargains. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/27/traditional-trial-rights-renounced-as-countries-adopt-us-style-plea-bargaining https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/27/traditional-tria...
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. Despite your snarky tone, you are mistaken. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Honestly, the exclusionary principle seems to value the process of the trial over the actual pursuit of truth in the case. I'm fine with excluding evidence that is false or somehow contaminated, but it's hard for me to justify pretending a murder weapon wasn't found because of a procedural mistake. There are surely other ways to enforce the relevant rights and procedures.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      The idea of the exclusionary principle is that it's the only way to have the right incentives for the authorities to abide by constitutional restrictions on their power. If they don't follow the rules, then they can't use their evidence in court. As a result, their internal procedures are designed to prevent that outcome. Despite the high profile cases and media coverage that makes it seem otherwise, law enforcement procedures tend to be much more restrictive than the constitution demands, because they want to avoid any doubt that their actions are legal and that their evidence is admissible. They also want to avoid edge-cases that could lead to court rulings that add to their constitutional restrictions, which will tie their hands in future cases where they might have a pressing need to exercise the full scope of their powers. Without the exclusionary rule, you rely on the authorities following restrictions purely out of the goodness of their hearts, or only as much as the voters of the day demand. What incentive would the prosecutors and police have to limit their own authority? You can't have the fox guarding the hen house.
niujhyt 9y ago
Doesn't the US haven't the biggest prison population per head than any other country in the world? From what I know of the US criminal justice system it is one of the worse in any democratic country. Pretty sure that in the UK he would also have the right to remain silent, a fair trial, and also have illegally gathered evidence excluded. Quite the opposite of what happens a lot in the US.
LARGEGALAXY 9y ago
Please wait one second, they ARRESTED him for COMMITTING a crime? Those racist, fascist bigots. Donald Trump must be to blame for this.
scandox 9y ago
I'm sorry to have to tell you that American justice and law enforcement have a terrible reputation in Ireland and U.K. Whether that is justified I am not qualified to say. But at the very least you a huge PR problem. The idea that anybody here would be saying "well thank God it happened in the USA" is literally laughable.

teuobk 9y ago

Regarding grand jury indictments, it's very, very rare for a grand jury to refuse to indict somebody, so that isn't necessarily a good measure of the quality of the case against the accused. Of roughly 162,000 federal cases brought before grand juries in 2010, indictments were returned for all but 11 of them. https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-i...

dijit 9y ago
Devils Advocate here. Could that be that law enforcement do not bring cases to the grand jury unless there is significant evidence already? If they have clear requirements it could just be that they're being selective about what they submit.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  I would hope that were the case, but evidence, e.g. from convictions reversed on account of DNA evidence, show that it is not always so. While the grand jury system may appear to protect innocent defendants, I wonder if it does the opposite. A grand jury might have a disposition to allow a case to proceed when in doubt, on the grounds that the matter will be sorted out in a trial, while the fact that a grand jury has made a decision may bias the trial jury towards conviction. Another practice that has demonstrably been abused is the offer of something approaching immunity in exchange for testimony. We know there is a co-defendant, but nothing else so far in that regard. The swatting of as respected a character as Brian Krebs shows that law enforcement can be manipulated into a precipitate action, especially when there is a deadline, and in this case, Hutchins was about to leave their jurisdiction. I have no opinion as to whether Hutchins is guilty of anything, but I hope his case is dealt with quickly, and above all, justly.
marcoperaza 9y ago
Yeah, the joke is that you could indict a ham sandwich. But in seriousness, the bar is supposed to be low. The prosecutor needs to present enough evidence to convince the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a crime. You have to have some evidence of guilt. And like dijit says, prosecutors aren't in the business of prosecuting hopelessly unwinnable cases, which is what you would have if you can't even show probable cause.

dexterdog 9y ago

If anybody watched what they did to Russ Ulbrecht they have a reason to be skeptical. The funny part is that they clearly didn't get the concept of the Dread Pirate Roberts.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
There was a clear case against Ross Ulbricht.
- dexterdog 9y ago
  If you believe in that sort of stuff, I suppose, but so much of the evidence was "found" on his laptop with forensic professionalism that would have made the OJ prosecution look competent.
marcoperaza 9y ago
>If anybody watched what they did to Russ Ulbrecht they have a reason to be skeptical You mean the guy who ran a massive illegal drug marketplace, and who tried to have people killed to protect it?
- dexterdog 9y ago
  Allegedly.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ThinkBeat 9y ago

uh..... Except you know... torture, rendition, asset forfeiture, holding people for years without trial or even charges.

nvarsj 9y ago

The US is notoriously bad in dealing with tech cases. The punishment is usually extreme, way beyond the damage caused. Things like DCMA also punish things they shouldn't. US is hardly an example of a fair judicial system.

80211 9y ago

The Tech Community in the US generally only cares about "bikeshedding" issues that are easy to have strong opinions on and don't really matter. Like making sure your language is "inclusive", or things like the "Ada Initiative" so women can attend PyCons without hearing the word "dongle" being used in private conversations.

santoriv 9y ago

In Japan, for example, one is guilty until proven innocent. They have a 99% conviction rate. Over course, in America, where things are much better and one is innocent until proven guilty, they only have a 99.8% conviction rate in federal court. Yay America. http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190 http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190

marcoperaza 9y ago
It's in the low 90% range recently, and hovered between 70% and 90% for the last half century. Federal prosecutors don't pursue every case that lands on their desk, and they direct law enforcement toward the most winnable cases too. If the conviction rate was a lot lower, I'd be more concerned that the government was bringing so many cases without sufficient evidence.
- santoriv 9y ago
  My understanding is that the statistics you provided do not apply to federal court. As I understand it, this Marcus going to be tried in federal court. In any case, the United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera... Either the US has the second highest rate of criminal activity in the world or an unusually high rate of wrongful convictions. When Saddam Hussein won 99.96% percent of the vote in the 1995 election, we said "The fix is in" but when federal prosecutors get a 99.8% conviction rate, we say that they must be really great at their jobs! We have a moral obligation to subject the criminal justice to serious scrutiny since so many lives are at stake - not just repeat some platitudes about how the system is stacked in favor of the defendants (not saying you were doing that but the OP certainly was).
  - tarboreus 9y ago
    The incarceration rate is mostly due to our really, really long sentences. Not that that's great, either.

mc32 9y ago

If you want to see the community turn against him it seems all you have to do is accuse him of coincidentally agreeing with Trump on some issues --just notice how Assange's support in the community has withered since some of the things he says undermines the Russia allegations. Whereas most supported him when the same information undermined American credibility.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

opaque 9y ago

> He has the unqualified right to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded, neither of which he would have in the UK. Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... The US system also has flaws not present in our system (at least for now) e.g. Plea Bargains. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/27/traditional-trial-rights-renounced-as-countries-adopt-us-style-plea-bargaining https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/27/traditional-tria...

marcoperaza 9y ago
>Er... go easy on the patriotism, mate. We have those. Despite your snarky tone, you are mistaken. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14935867
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Honestly, the exclusionary principle seems to value the process of the trial over the actual pursuit of truth in the case. I'm fine with excluding evidence that is false or somehow contaminated, but it's hard for me to justify pretending a murder weapon wasn't found because of a procedural mistake. There are surely other ways to enforce the relevant rights and procedures.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    The idea of the exclusionary principle is that it's the only way to have the right incentives for the authorities to abide by constitutional restrictions on their power. If they don't follow the rules, then they can't use their evidence in court. As a result, their internal procedures are designed to prevent that outcome. Despite the high profile cases and media coverage that makes it seem otherwise, law enforcement procedures tend to be much more restrictive than the constitution demands, because they want to avoid any doubt that their actions are legal and that their evidence is admissible. They also want to avoid edge-cases that could lead to court rulings that add to their constitutional restrictions, which will tie their hands in future cases where they might have a pressing need to exercise the full scope of their powers. Without the exclusionary rule, you rely on the authorities following restrictions purely out of the goodness of their hearts, or only as much as the voters of the day demand. What incentive would the prosecutors and police have to limit their own authority? You can't have the fox guarding the hen house.

niujhyt 9y ago

Doesn't the US haven't the biggest prison population per head than any other country in the world? From what I know of the US criminal justice system it is one of the worse in any democratic country. Pretty sure that in the UK he would also have the right to remain silent, a fair trial, and also have illegally gathered evidence excluded. Quite the opposite of what happens a lot in the US.

LARGEGALAXY 9y ago

Please wait one second, they ARRESTED him for COMMITTING a crime? Those racist, fascist bigots. Donald Trump must be to blame for this.

scandox 9y ago

I'm sorry to have to tell you that American justice and law enforcement have a terrible reputation in Ireland and U.K. Whether that is justified I am not qualified to say. But at the very least you a huge PR problem. The idea that anybody here would be saying "well thank God it happened in the USA" is literally laughable.