4 ms·

For non-high profile investigations (investigations that were not in the media before charges), announcing charges typically has a large body of evidence and a

For non-high profile investigations (investigations that were not in the media before charges), announcing charges typically has a large body of evidence and a lot of confidence in the accusation. Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. High profile cases with public pressure change the equation a bit and can cause charges to be brought on people who normally would not. I suspect this is a way to pass the buck to the courts when the person eventually gets off due to lack of evidence.

nobody9999 5y ago
>Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. It's a bit of a nitpick, but the Justice Department (DoJ) hasn't proven anything. The defendants in question have been charged (and arrested?), but no trial (or plea bargain) has been held. As such, presumably the DoJ has what they believe is sufficient evidence to convict the defendants on the charges brought against them. However, until a trial (or a plea agreement) is concluded, the DoJ hasn't "proven" anything. Rather, they brought charges against some folks. That's not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," that's making accusations and bringing the case into the court system. What the DoJ believes (and/or believes it can prove) is not proof in and of itself.
- parineum 5y ago
  I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    > I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense. A fair point. And it's likely you're correct. Although using the term 'prove' has specific legal meaning that many (myself included) folks would associate with the use of that term. As I said, there's what you believe and what you can prove. Believing you can prove something may be well founded, but at least in the US nothing is actually "proven" until it has been adjudicated -- and even then contrary decisions (e.g., in an appeal) can "un-prove" stuff.
    - parineum 5y ago
      The whole quote from me was, "...they believe they've proven". Perhaps a better phrasing would be "believe they can prove".
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. No, if following general DoJ policy, they believe that the evidence is sufficient that they will be able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's not the same as them already having proven that. > High profile cases with public pressure change the equation a bit and can cause charges to be brought on people who normally would not. Usually, I think the opposite is the case: generally, the DoJ is more careful in high-profile cases, not more cavalier.
- parineum 5y ago
  > Usually, I think the opposite is the case: generally, the DoJ is more careful in high-profile cases, not more cavalier. I'm not sure Rittenhouse would have been charged at all and, based on how the trial went and how weak the evidence was, he should have, at best, been charged with something much more minor. But that's just one example. I somewhat agree with you, they are more careful but I think they are more careful in their own process. To make sure their ducks are all in a row. But, when it comes to actually pressing charges or agreeing to plea deals, I think they are much more likely to overcharge or not negotiate so that the case is no longer on their desk and they can say "I did my part". To use the Rittenhouse example, I think the public expectations of charges impacted the charges because the ones bringing charges are often elected officials (or appointed by them) so there's an incentive to not look at what can be proven with the evidence and instead charge with what the public thinks is "right". The incentive for an elected official is to appease the public with charges, convictions be damned because that's someone else's problem. That's how Rittenhouse's case played out too. Outside of conservative media, there was a lot of attention paid to the judge and the lawyers not being able to prove their case rather than floating the idea that maybe a lesser charge and a conviction was the right thing to do. On the other hand, I think you saw the same course of events with the George Floyd case but with a different result. The investigation was drawn out and meticulous and charges were brought. That resulted in a conviction but the implication I'm making is that those charges would have been brought regardless of evidence because of the public nature of the case.

nobody9999 5y ago

>Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. It's a bit of a nitpick, but the Justice Department (DoJ) hasn't proven anything. The defendants in question have been charged (and arrested?), but no trial (or plea bargain) has been held. As such, presumably the DoJ has what they believe is sufficient evidence to convict the defendants on the charges brought against them. However, until a trial (or a plea agreement) is concluded, the DoJ hasn't "proven" anything. Rather, they brought charges against some folks. That's not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," that's making accusations and bringing the case into the court system. What the DoJ believes (and/or believes it can prove) is not proof in and of itself.

parineum 5y ago
I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  > I mean that they have proven it to themselves, I don't mean it in a legal sense. A fair point. And it's likely you're correct. Although using the term 'prove' has specific legal meaning that many (myself included) folks would associate with the use of that term. As I said, there's what you believe and what you can prove. Believing you can prove something may be well founded, but at least in the US nothing is actually "proven" until it has been adjudicated -- and even then contrary decisions (e.g., in an appeal) can "un-prove" stuff.
  - parineum 5y ago
    The whole quote from me was, "...they believe they've proven". Perhaps a better phrasing would be "believe they can prove".

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Of course innocent until proven guilty applies but the justice department knows that and still brought charges. At the very least, they believe they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. No, if following general DoJ policy, they believe that the evidence is sufficient that they will be able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's not the same as them already having proven that. > High profile cases with public pressure change the equation a bit and can cause charges to be brought on people who normally would not. Usually, I think the opposite is the case: generally, the DoJ is more careful in high-profile cases, not more cavalier.

parineum 5y ago
> Usually, I think the opposite is the case: generally, the DoJ is more careful in high-profile cases, not more cavalier. I'm not sure Rittenhouse would have been charged at all and, based on how the trial went and how weak the evidence was, he should have, at best, been charged with something much more minor. But that's just one example. I somewhat agree with you, they are more careful but I think they are more careful in their own process. To make sure their ducks are all in a row. But, when it comes to actually pressing charges or agreeing to plea deals, I think they are much more likely to overcharge or not negotiate so that the case is no longer on their desk and they can say "I did my part". To use the Rittenhouse example, I think the public expectations of charges impacted the charges because the ones bringing charges are often elected officials (or appointed by them) so there's an incentive to not look at what can be proven with the evidence and instead charge with what the public thinks is "right". The incentive for an elected official is to appease the public with charges, convictions be damned because that's someone else's problem. That's how Rittenhouse's case played out too. Outside of conservative media, there was a lot of attention paid to the judge and the lawyers not being able to prove their case rather than floating the idea that maybe a lesser charge and a conviction was the right thing to do. On the other hand, I think you saw the same course of events with the George Floyd case but with a different result. The investigation was drawn out and meticulous and charges were brought. That resulted in a conviction but the implication I'm making is that those charges would have been brought regardless of evidence because of the public nature of the case.