5 ms·

Cynicism aside, I genuinely don't understand how the legal system works where an action may be found illegal - with no actual penalties despite organizations an

Cynicism aside, I genuinely don't understand how the legal system works where an action may be found illegal - with no actual penalties despite organizations and persons having committed that action.

dleslie 6y ago
Finding a wrongdoing and finding a wrongdoer are two very different problems. I can observe that something has been stolen and still not know who stole it. This is made much more difficult with the creation of legal entities designed with the explicit purpose of shielding wrongdoers from accountability; like corporations. The idea, as we're told, is that society benefits by shielding risk-takers from accountability; and so we balance this by making it incredibly difficult to hold organizations and the individuals within accountable for their collective wrongs. No, it's not equitably balanced.
rtx 6y ago
Sometimes we have to pretend things. This helps keep the natural order.
Zak 6y ago
There are usually no legal penalties for acts by government agencies found to be illegal, but done in good faith.
cortesoft 6y ago
Part of the issue is that, until a court case like this, it isn't certain whether something is illegal or not. It took a lot of back and forth in court to determine that this was illegal. Now, if someone does it again...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alfiedotwtf 6y ago
  It will happen under a different technicality and under the table that it will be another 30 years before it’s brought to light and again nobody will be prosecuted
salawat 6y ago
In part, it's because an action of the government has a binary state (lawful/unlawful) distinct from the person having facilitated/executed it. Then there is the issue of having had a crime committed. A charge must be clearly defined, proved by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of the accused's peers, tried in a court with appropriate jurisdiction, and the sentence must not be deemed either cruel or unusual in nature, and they must be brought by a someone with standing. Usually an Attorney General or prosecutor, who themselves wield the power of prosecutorial nullification, or as they prefer to call it so as not to night it's sister phenomena, jury nullification, prosecutorial discretion. The official in that position iseitherelected or a political appointee, so has every reason to be highly selective in the cases that deserve their time, effort, and publicity. Make no mistake, the halls of justice that are the courts are not by any means apolitical. To give credit where it's due, of all the branches, they are the most noteworthy for illustrating active attempts to be apolitical, but there is still much indirect political taint to be found.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Law is what should happen, politics is what does happen. A superficial look at how crimes are processed should make it obvious that people are in no sense "equal before the law." Someone poor and black is going to have a much harder time of it than someone rich, white, and politically orthodox. Even more so if they're working for one of the TLAs. The reality is the latter groups get the benefit of a literal stay-out-of-jail card labelled "national interest", while the former are seen as a threat to it.

Cynicism aside, I genuinely don't understand how the legal system works where an action may be found illegal - with no actual penalties despite organizations and persons having committed that action.

dleslie 6y ago

Finding a wrongdoing and finding a wrongdoer are two very different problems. I can observe that something has been stolen and still not know who stole it. This is made much more difficult with the creation of legal entities designed with the explicit purpose of shielding wrongdoers from accountability; like corporations. The idea, as we're told, is that society benefits by shielding risk-takers from accountability; and so we balance this by making it incredibly difficult to hold organizations and the individuals within accountable for their collective wrongs. No, it's not equitably balanced.

rtx 6y ago

Sometimes we have to pretend things. This helps keep the natural order.

Zak 6y ago

There are usually no legal penalties for acts by government agencies found to be illegal, but done in good faith.

cortesoft 6y ago

Part of the issue is that, until a court case like this, it isn't certain whether something is illegal or not. It took a lot of back and forth in court to determine that this was illegal. Now, if someone does it again...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alfiedotwtf 6y ago
It will happen under a different technicality and under the table that it will be another 30 years before it’s brought to light and again nobody will be prosecuted

salawat 6y ago

In part, it's because an action of the government has a binary state (lawful/unlawful) distinct from the person having facilitated/executed it. Then there is the issue of having had a crime committed. A charge must be clearly defined, proved by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of the accused's peers, tried in a court with appropriate jurisdiction, and the sentence must not be deemed either cruel or unusual in nature, and they must be brought by a someone with standing. Usually an Attorney General or prosecutor, who themselves wield the power of prosecutorial nullification, or as they prefer to call it so as not to night it's sister phenomena, jury nullification, prosecutorial discretion. The official in that position iseitherelected or a political appointee, so has every reason to be highly selective in the cases that deserve their time, effort, and publicity. Make no mistake, the halls of justice that are the courts are not by any means apolitical. To give credit where it's due, of all the branches, they are the most noteworthy for illustrating active attempts to be apolitical, but there is still much indirect political taint to be found.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Law is what should happen, politics is what does happen. A superficial look at how crimes are processed should make it obvious that people are in no sense "equal before the law." Someone poor and black is going to have a much harder time of it than someone rich, white, and politically orthodox. Even more so if they're working for one of the TLAs. The reality is the latter groups get the benefit of a literal stay-out-of-jail card labelled "national interest", while the former are seen as a threat to it.