9 ms·

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

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 The US federal judicialry is a kangaroo court. 99% of federal crimes should be repealed and maximum sentences reduced to be in line with state laws.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...
  - towelr34dy 8y ago
    When you say "he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors" Do you know this for a fact? Because the way I understand it is, he was facing multiple decades in prison IF all charges stuck. And once you got to trial, all charges can stick. It has happened. So he was facing 35 years. So saying he wasn't is just wrong. Your 6-7 years is 'probably'. I think what your saying is: The federal government doesn't threaten you with 35 years, they threaten you with 10x3.5 years, and since it is possible that not all 10 will stick... it's not really a 35 year threat? I mean, if I threaten to punch you 10 times but I might stop at 1,2,3 or any number and I probably won't get to 10, but we can negotiate before I start, is it not a 10 punch threat? To me it seems like you are splitting hairs in order to defend the indefensible. The practice of tacking on as many charges to get people to plea bargain is unethical and fascist.
- michaelbuckbee 8y ago
  Or Wen Ho Lee - charged with 59 counts of espionage (stealing nuclear secrets). Eventually was convicted/plead to one count of mishandling data and went on to get a $1mil settlement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee
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.

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...
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  When you say "he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors" Do you know this for a fact? Because the way I understand it is, he was facing multiple decades in prison IF all charges stuck. And once you got to trial, all charges can stick. It has happened. So he was facing 35 years. So saying he wasn't is just wrong. Your 6-7 years is 'probably'. I think what your saying is: The federal government doesn't threaten you with 35 years, they threaten you with 10x3.5 years, and since it is possible that not all 10 will stick... it's not really a 35 year threat? I mean, if I threaten to punch you 10 times but I might stop at 1,2,3 or any number and I probably won't get to 10, but we can negotiate before I start, is it not a 10 punch threat? To me it seems like you are splitting hairs in order to defend the indefensible. The practice of tacking on as many charges to get people to plea bargain is unethical and fascist.
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
Or Wen Ho Lee - charged with 59 counts of espionage (stealing nuclear secrets). Eventually was convicted/plead to one count of mishandling data and went on to get a $1mil settlement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee

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.