10 ms·

But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers? I remember reading somewhere recently abo

But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers? I remember reading somewhere recently about the standard M.O for federal cases. They take a long time in order to build an extremely solid case. That's why federal conviction rates are so high. Intuitively it makes sense. If you're gonna go after some naughty people for doing naughty things, you really don't want to rush the investigation and have the findings fall apart at trial.

duxup 8y ago
Indeed, Federal prosecutors tend to be pretty effective, and the amount of data in these corporate cases that needs to be reviewed is enormous.
ramblerouser 8y ago
This is totally incorrect. The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law. Many federal crimes are unconstitutional and deliberately vague, like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" and "mail fraud" which is just a way to charge you in federal court where the odds are stacked against you. The US federal judicialry is a kangaroo court. 99% of federal crimes should be repealed and maximum sentences reduced to be in line with state laws. Federal jury selection is also suspect, especially in cases involving "national security".
- Angostura 8y ago
  Ah, a sovereign citizen?
- chrisbennet 8y ago
  I assume whomever downvoted You has forgotten what happened to Aaron Schwartz.
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    Or maybe puts on tin foil hat they know exactly what happened to him.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    ... or they know about the time a woman in Pennsylvania was able to seek justice by getting her murder-attempting neighbor on mail fraud when the local cops wouldn't do anything. http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/21/us.scotus.toxic.love/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/21/us.scotus.toxic.love/ind...
  - dasil003 8y ago
    Swartz
  - tzs 8y ago
    He's probably being down-voted for saying erroneous things like > The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law. That's erroneous because very few federal defendants actually face such long sentences, so those that do so pleading guilty is not a plausible explanation for high conviction rates. Federal sentences for a particular instance of a crime are based on the class of the crime and on the details of the particular instance. The class sets an upper limit, which often is long, up to 20 years, but it is the details that determine how much you can actually get. To actually get anywhere near that 20 years you have to have a lot of the details against you. Typically this means you caused a lot of damages or harm, had multiple prior convictions for similar crimes, where doing it as part of organized crime, and similar things. Swartz is a good example. A lot of reporting said he faced 30 years or 50 years or similar big numbers. Actually, he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors. The DOJ bears a lot of the blame for that bad reporting. They make no attempt in the press releases announcing indictments to actually compute the maximum sentence for the particular instance of the crime. They just give the maximum that it is possible for the worst possible instance of that crime committed by the worst possible defendant. Here's a good article on federal sentence length [1]. [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
- gizmo385 8y ago
  > like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" This is literally the purpose of the 5th amendment. If you get asked a question where the answer would incriminate you, you are well within your rights to refuse to answer the question. Taking the path of deliberately attempt to mislead investigators is most certainly a crime and it should be.
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    In principle I agree with you. In practice however, the FBI just uses this to harrass people. Look at what happened to Marth Stewart. She was totally innocent, did not say anything factually incorrect, but the feds thought she exagerated in some of her answers. That level of subjectivity shouldn't be involved in determining a criminal offense.
Aeolun 8y ago
You also don’t want them to continue fucking you over for years making billions, then get a solid settlement of a few million.
nothrabannosir 8y ago
The quote formatted for mobile: > But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers?

duxup 8y ago

Indeed, Federal prosecutors tend to be pretty effective, and the amount of data in these corporate cases that needs to be reviewed is enormous.

ramblerouser 8y ago

This is totally incorrect. The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law. Many federal crimes are unconstitutional and deliberately vague, like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" and "mail fraud" which is just a way to charge you in federal court where the odds are stacked against you. The US federal judicialry is a kangaroo court. 99% of federal crimes should be repealed and maximum sentences reduced to be in line with state laws. Federal jury selection is also suspect, especially in cases involving "national security".

Angostura 8y ago
Ah, a sovereign citizen?
chrisbennet 8y ago
I assume whomever downvoted You has forgotten what happened to Aaron Schwartz.
- ramblerouser 8y ago
  Or maybe puts on tin foil hat they know exactly what happened to him.
- fixermark 8y ago
  ... or they know about the time a woman in Pennsylvania was able to seek justice by getting her murder-attempting neighbor on mail fraud when the local cops wouldn't do anything. http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/21/us.scotus.toxic.love/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/21/us.scotus.toxic.love/ind...
- dasil003 8y ago
  Swartz
- tzs 8y ago
  He's probably being down-voted for saying erroneous things like > The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law. That's erroneous because very few federal defendants actually face such long sentences, so those that do so pleading guilty is not a plausible explanation for high conviction rates. Federal sentences for a particular instance of a crime are based on the class of the crime and on the details of the particular instance. The class sets an upper limit, which often is long, up to 20 years, but it is the details that determine how much you can actually get. To actually get anywhere near that 20 years you have to have a lot of the details against you. Typically this means you caused a lot of damages or harm, had multiple prior convictions for similar crimes, where doing it as part of organized crime, and similar things. Swartz is a good example. A lot of reporting said he faced 30 years or 50 years or similar big numbers. Actually, he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors. The DOJ bears a lot of the blame for that bad reporting. They make no attempt in the press releases announcing indictments to actually compute the maximum sentence for the particular instance of the crime. They just give the maximum that it is possible for the worst possible instance of that crime committed by the worst possible defendant. Here's a good article on federal sentence length [1]. [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
gizmo385 8y ago
> like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" This is literally the purpose of the 5th amendment. If you get asked a question where the answer would incriminate you, you are well within your rights to refuse to answer the question. Taking the path of deliberately attempt to mislead investigators is most certainly a crime and it should be.
- ramblerouser 8y ago
  In principle I agree with you. In practice however, the FBI just uses this to harrass people. Look at what happened to Marth Stewart. She was totally innocent, did not say anything factually incorrect, but the feds thought she exagerated in some of her answers. That level of subjectivity shouldn't be involved in determining a criminal offense.

Aeolun 8y ago

You also don’t want them to continue fucking you over for years making billions, then get a solid settlement of a few million.

nothrabannosir 8y ago

The quote formatted for mobile: > But I wonder: if there was a way to reduce the duration of the cases, would that reduce the impact on whistleblowers?