3 ms·

But are you suggesting the laws that penalise stealing classified information are unfair and should be abolished (like slavery laws in the past)? I think these

by cm2187 7y ago

But are you suggesting the laws that penalise stealing classified information are unfair and should be abolished (like slavery laws in the past)? I think these laws must exist. If I was a jury (but keeping in mind I am not even a US national), a fair sentencing would be to recognise him as guilty but to sentence him to a short term / time served. There were many ways in which he could have blown a whistle without releasing wholesale everything he could find on the internal network to some foreign newspapers.

hollerith 7y ago
>If I was a jury (but keeping in mind I am not even a US national), a fair sentencing would be to recognise him as guilty but to sentence him to a short term / time served. In the US, the judge decides the sentence and cannot sentence him to less than a minimum. For example, if convicted (by the jury) of treason, the law states that he "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000", and the judge cannot impose a sentence less than that.
Voloskaya 7y ago
> "But are you suggesting the laws that penalise stealing classified information are unfair and should be abolished (like slavery laws in the past)? I think these laws must exist." Where did OP suggest that? Jury nullification is specifically a case by case judgement, not a broad statement.
- cm2187 7y ago
  I am referring to the wikipedia definition (I had to look it up, I had not heard the term before) [1] Jury nullification (US) or a perverse verdict (UK) generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit him anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust,that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. I don't think the law is unjust or misapplied, just that the sentence should give him credit for the public interest aspect of the revelations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

by cm2187 7y ago

hollerith 7y ago

>If I was a jury (but keeping in mind I am not even a US national), a fair sentencing would be to recognise him as guilty but to sentence him to a short term / time served. In the US, the judge decides the sentence and cannot sentence him to less than a minimum. For example, if convicted (by the jury) of treason, the law states that he "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000", and the judge cannot impose a sentence less than that.

Voloskaya 7y ago

> "But are you suggesting the laws that penalise stealing classified information are unfair and should be abolished (like slavery laws in the past)? I think these laws must exist." Where did OP suggest that? Jury nullification is specifically a case by case judgement, not a broad statement.

cm2187 7y ago
I am referring to the wikipedia definition (I had to look it up, I had not heard the term before) [1] Jury nullification (US) or a perverse verdict (UK) generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit him anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust,that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. I don't think the law is unjust or misapplied, just that the sentence should give him credit for the public interest aspect of the revelations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification