4 ms·

Even more chilling considering that thanks to the state of the law today we are all guilty of some "lesser offense" right now. It would be interesting to calcu

Even more chilling considering that thanks to the state of the law today we are all guilty of some "lesser offense" right now. It would be interesting to calculate the "default jail sentence" of the average citizen if an overzealous prosecutor decided to randomly harass them.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
This is a somewhat common sentiment, probably because it's cynical enough to conform with people's prior conceptions. But I doubt it is actually true. Consider, for example, the various congressional investigations of Hilary Clinton in 2014/2015. If everybody was guilty of some crime(s) punishable by jail time, it would follow that some of those overly brought criminal statues would have come up in those proceedings, considering there were any number of high-powered lawyers tasked with finding anything against her that would stick. (The Clinton example may be imperfect because of partisanship, but I can't currently think of any other widely-known case where prosecutors were trying to "throw the book" at someone. I'm specifically not focussing on the main issues of those investigations, because those could never apply to the average person, so resist the urge to argue e-mail servers.)
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Jaywalking appears to be a crime (misdemeanor) in some jurisdictions. If you pick someone from those jurisdictions... chances are good that they've jaywalked at some point. Doesn't mean a Congress investigating you would ever find evidence on it, or that it would care even if it did, but it does make it more likely that the statement that everyone commits a crime is true. Right?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    Quote: "some crime(s) punishable by jail time" The charge is that the definition of serious crime has expanded to make everyone liable to go to jail. Traffic infractions do not fit the charge, because while a large majority of people will at some point break those laws, very few people consider the rules of the road an oppressive plot to enslave the population.
- rhino369 7y ago
  Not to get too political, but the FBI actually revised their memo clearing her because they accidentally used language which would have established she met all the elements of a crime. I.e. they used the words "grossly negligent" but changed them to "extremely careless." So I'm sure you can say they were trying to make anything stick.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - reallydude 7y ago
    Careless or not, you would be charged as a military serviceman. The double-standards are obvious, but the wordplay makes good news fodder. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar380-5/vi.htm https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar380-5/vi.htm How the FBI classifies something, is wholly irrelevant.
- thephyber 7y ago
  I agree with gp's sentiment, but I think police and prosecutors don't currently have enough resources to prosecute every infraction. I fear, however, that this is largely a function of technological advancement. China is already charging drivers for their traffic infractions by withdrawing the fine from their digital (WeChat?) wallets before they finish their commute. I doubt there's a lawyer alive that has read all of the statutes that govern me in the jurisdictions I'm currently in (and all of the applicable caselaw that defines the jurisprudence and interpretation of those statutes). You seem to be arguing the ability and likelihood of a guilty plea/verdict against someone winning in court (and the risk of the prosecutor's reputation for spending). That's a high burden compared to simply being objectively guilty (from a "God's eye view"). The difference is the gray area of interpretation, the burden of proof (especially when it comes to motives and state-of-mind).
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Consider, for example, the various congressional investigations of Hilary Clinton in 2014/2015. If everybody was guilty of some crime(s) punishable by jail time, it would follow that some of those overly brought criminal statues would have come up in those proceedings, considering there were any number of high-powered lawyers tasked with finding anything against her that would stick. There are a lot of reasons to expect it not to be easy in that specific case. The first is that she's a career politician and a lawyer married to a lawyer. That removes most of the low hanging fruit. She would be more aware of more of the laws that are easy to avoid breaking if you know they exist but most people break all the time only because they don't. Then she's not going to let herself be questioned without consulting legal counsel, which makes it a lot less likely they can prove something by getting her to admit to it. On top of that, there are two kinds of laws that people break all the time, and neither of them are really suited for political cases like this. The first is the really obscure laws or unusual circumstances. You have a pocket knife, you walk under an overpass which is technically state owned property, there is a law in that state prohibiting possession of a weapon on state property, etc. Or you have an unusual fruit in your bag on when you cross a border. Everybody breaks laws like this unintentionally, but these are the ones where (absent a surveillance state) it's a lot easier to choose an overpass and find a person walking under it than to choose a person and try to find evidence of a violation like this, and charging a prominent politician with something like that would immediately lead to mockery and claims of a politically-motivated prosecution. The other is the ultra-broad laws they can charge anybody with (e.g. CFAA) because technically everyone violates them regularly. The problem there isn't finding violations, it's that the prosecutors won't want to risk using those laws in cases like that, because they find them too valuable in general and it's prominent cases like that which lead to them being narrowed by judges. The power of those laws for prosecutors is that you might be able to beat the charge, but only by spending millions on lawyers, which causes ordinary people to plead guilty. That doesn't work against someone like Hillary Clinton because she'll spend the millions on lawyers -- and potentially cost prosecutors future use of that law against the proles. > The Clinton example may be imperfect because of partisanship, but I can't currently think of any other widely-known case where prosecutors were trying to "throw the book" at someone. Think of cases where the accused isn't rich or politically connected, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning In particular, look at all the ancillary charges they tack on to make sure something sticks and consume defense resources. That's really common and is typically even worse in less high profile cases where there is less scrutiny of their absurdity.
travisjungroth 7y ago
In a three strikes state, the author of Three Felonies a Day would argue the default jail sentence is life. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438...

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

This is a somewhat common sentiment, probably because it's cynical enough to conform with people's prior conceptions. But I doubt it is actually true. Consider, for example, the various congressional investigations of Hilary Clinton in 2014/2015. If everybody was guilty of some crime(s) punishable by jail time, it would follow that some of those overly brought criminal statues would have come up in those proceedings, considering there were any number of high-powered lawyers tasked with finding anything against her that would stick. (The Clinton example may be imperfect because of partisanship, but I can't currently think of any other widely-known case where prosecutors were trying to "throw the book" at someone. I'm specifically not focussing on the main issues of those investigations, because those could never apply to the average person, so resist the urge to argue e-mail servers.)

mehrdadn 7y ago
Jaywalking appears to be a crime (misdemeanor) in some jurisdictions. If you pick someone from those jurisdictions... chances are good that they've jaywalked at some point. Doesn't mean a Congress investigating you would ever find evidence on it, or that it would care even if it did, but it does make it more likely that the statement that everyone commits a crime is true. Right?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  Quote: "some crime(s) punishable by jail time" The charge is that the definition of serious crime has expanded to make everyone liable to go to jail. Traffic infractions do not fit the charge, because while a large majority of people will at some point break those laws, very few people consider the rules of the road an oppressive plot to enslave the population.
rhino369 7y ago
Not to get too political, but the FBI actually revised their memo clearing her because they accidentally used language which would have established she met all the elements of a crime. I.e. they used the words "grossly negligent" but changed them to "extremely careless." So I'm sure you can say they were trying to make anything stick.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- reallydude 7y ago
  Careless or not, you would be charged as a military serviceman. The double-standards are obvious, but the wordplay makes good news fodder. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar380-5/vi.htm https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar380-5/vi.htm How the FBI classifies something, is wholly irrelevant.
thephyber 7y ago
I agree with gp's sentiment, but I think police and prosecutors don't currently have enough resources to prosecute every infraction. I fear, however, that this is largely a function of technological advancement. China is already charging drivers for their traffic infractions by withdrawing the fine from their digital (WeChat?) wallets before they finish their commute. I doubt there's a lawyer alive that has read all of the statutes that govern me in the jurisdictions I'm currently in (and all of the applicable caselaw that defines the jurisprudence and interpretation of those statutes). You seem to be arguing the ability and likelihood of a guilty plea/verdict against someone winning in court (and the risk of the prosecutor's reputation for spending). That's a high burden compared to simply being objectively guilty (from a "God's eye view"). The difference is the gray area of interpretation, the burden of proof (especially when it comes to motives and state-of-mind).
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Consider, for example, the various congressional investigations of Hilary Clinton in 2014/2015. If everybody was guilty of some crime(s) punishable by jail time, it would follow that some of those overly brought criminal statues would have come up in those proceedings, considering there were any number of high-powered lawyers tasked with finding anything against her that would stick. There are a lot of reasons to expect it not to be easy in that specific case. The first is that she's a career politician and a lawyer married to a lawyer. That removes most of the low hanging fruit. She would be more aware of more of the laws that are easy to avoid breaking if you know they exist but most people break all the time only because they don't. Then she's not going to let herself be questioned without consulting legal counsel, which makes it a lot less likely they can prove something by getting her to admit to it. On top of that, there are two kinds of laws that people break all the time, and neither of them are really suited for political cases like this. The first is the really obscure laws or unusual circumstances. You have a pocket knife, you walk under an overpass which is technically state owned property, there is a law in that state prohibiting possession of a weapon on state property, etc. Or you have an unusual fruit in your bag on when you cross a border. Everybody breaks laws like this unintentionally, but these are the ones where (absent a surveillance state) it's a lot easier to choose an overpass and find a person walking under it than to choose a person and try to find evidence of a violation like this, and charging a prominent politician with something like that would immediately lead to mockery and claims of a politically-motivated prosecution. The other is the ultra-broad laws they can charge anybody with (e.g. CFAA) because technically everyone violates them regularly. The problem there isn't finding violations, it's that the prosecutors won't want to risk using those laws in cases like that, because they find them too valuable in general and it's prominent cases like that which lead to them being narrowed by judges. The power of those laws for prosecutors is that you might be able to beat the charge, but only by spending millions on lawyers, which causes ordinary people to plead guilty. That doesn't work against someone like Hillary Clinton because she'll spend the millions on lawyers -- and potentially cost prosecutors future use of that law against the proles. > The Clinton example may be imperfect because of partisanship, but I can't currently think of any other widely-known case where prosecutors were trying to "throw the book" at someone. Think of cases where the accused isn't rich or politically connected, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning In particular, look at all the ancillary charges they tack on to make sure something sticks and consume defense resources. That's really common and is typically even worse in less high profile cases where there is less scrutiny of their absurdity.

travisjungroth 7y ago

In a three strikes state, the author of Three Felonies a Day would argue the default jail sentence is life. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438...