18 ms·
Something like this should result in the defendant being automatically found not guilty, and the agent sent to jail for the maximum sentence the defendant was f
by thomascgalvin 4y ago
Something like this should result in the defendant being automatically found not guilty, and the agent sent to jail for the maximum sentence the defendant was facing. This is a complete and unacceptable breach of the public trust, and of civil liberties.
- sneak 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO You're treating the symptoms, the leaf nodes. The FBI is a criminal organization with a long history, that should be abolished outright.
- tasubotadas 4y agoSounds like something that a russian/chinesse bot-troll would say.
- jvanderbot 4y agoI'll sure illegal activities would stop completely, and I'm sure the legitimate caseload the FBI handles would be resolved miraculously. /s
- mythrwy 4y agoProbably not, but "something" needs to be done obviously. Maybe they can be reformed in place, but sometimes burn it down and start over is the right answer.
- superkuh 4y agohttps://www.wsj.com/articles/two-countries-dismantled-their-police-to-start-fresh-it-workedup-to-a-point-11592040601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-countries-dismantled-their-... It would be logistically and all around easier to replace the corrupt FBI and it's culture than these two attempts by entire nations at replacing their corrupt police forces. It is needed. Not because of anything that's happened the last couple years, but because the FBI has been run and staffed by criminals for decades.
- encryptluks2 4y agoI know why Trump fans want to get rid of the FBI, because then they have a much easier time bribing local officials than a larger bureaucratic organization. I have no doubt that corruption exists within the FBI but if anything we've seen corruption exist much more in smaller groups within law enforcement.
- mythrwy 4y agoI don't necessarily want it "got rid of" but it does need massive reforming. This was true from it's earliest days when it was pulling dirty tricks on civil rights and anti war protestors. Thinking this kind of things is cool when it's used against your political opponents is incredibly short sighted.
- acdha 4y agoNobody is saying it’s cool - only that the timing is suspicious when all of the Trumpists abruptly pivoted to “defund the police” when their guys turned out not to be above the law. Most people who aren’t that partisan want the FBI to be fairer to everyone, not disbanded so they can’t prosecute corrupt Republicans.
- tinalumfoil 4y agoYou’re looking at it in reverse. People, not organizations, commit crimes. If you just look at the organization you absolve the people of the crimes.
- hooverd 4y agoOrganizations can create an environment which leads to people overlooking or even committing those crimes. It's self-sustaining after a while. It sounds crazy but the FBI practically gives weapons to wannabe domestic terrorists and goes "c'mon do a crime" so they can nab them.
- zdragnar 4y agoThere will always be a need for some organization with the FBI's responsibilities, in some form or fashion. We must assume that people are fallible, corruption is possible, and that we therefore need a means of redress when such corruption occurs.
- LinuxBender 4y agoIf they were disbanded what would fill the void and how would we prevent the replacement from being corrupted assuming they were not corrupted already?
- mythrwy 4y agoTo start with, maybe not have J Edgar Hoover set it up? Strong public accountability and transparency. Actual "rule of law" without social or political bias as the first tenant. The FBI really does have a very sordid history. Perhaps they can be reformed though, not sure.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Bud 4y agoAnother really creative and novel idea might be, perhaps we could try having a liberal Democrat run the FBI occasionally, or maybe even just once in its entire history. Check the facts: there has never once been a Democrat in charge of the FBI. Not once. Not even the ones appointed by Democratic presidents; they have also all been Republicans. Almost a century, and zero Democrats have ever run the FBI. Yet if you look at the popular vote, the public has voted for Democrats to run the federal government continuously since the 1980s with only one exception (2004). I believe this has some relevance to our situation.
- soared 4y agoThis user has been a member of HN since 2010 and post s a lot so isn’t a bot farm, but his website is in his profile and gives context on this type of opinion.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mcv 4y agoNo, that is treating the symptoms. The FBI is hardly the only law enforcement or other government organisation breaking the law or trampling people's rights. Banning one organisation isn't going to fix the underlying problem, unless you plan to ban absolutely everything, which would be terrible. The right solution is transparency and accountability. Make sure power abuse gets punished, no matter how powerful the abuser.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> this should result in the defendant being automatically found not guilty These knee-jerk reactions sound good in passing, and sometimes pass into law. In reality, you created a get out of jail card for the powerful. Plenty of people in law enforcement would wipe a drive if their family and debts were taken care of, even in face of prison.
- mdavis6890 4y agoThanks for the level head and second-order thinking. Still outrageous - but beware the knee-jerk reaction as you said.
- rhino369 4y agoObviously there should be an exception to the exception that says that says the auto-exoneration doesn't happen if the accused conspired to destroy the evidence.
- TechTeam12 4y agoI think it's a great idea not to do the first thing you think of, and instead to think of alternatives before committing to a solution. But I'm scratching my head here trying to think, what are good alternatives? Are you suggesting we send their family to jail too? I mean honestly, what do we do here? Let them keep their job, pensions, and what ever hush money their received? If this isn't a crime that sends you to jail, then I'm a little at a loss here.
- thfuran 4y agoNo, the issue is with guaranteed exculpation.
- GTP 4y agoI understand, but doesn't a wiped drive create reasonable doubt? Maybe there isn't even the need for a special law about this, just use reasonable doubt. I also have the feeling that there already are laws/case law about what to do in case of illegally destroyed (potential) evidence, we just don't know about it because we're not lawyers.
- duxup 4y agoIsn't that just a recipe for a defendant to get someone to dork something up and go free? Let's say someone kills a relative of mine, the FBI dorks something up ... they should go free by default even if otherwise can be proven guilty? I don't think that makes sense / that's not justice.
- jaywalk 4y agoDepending on what and how the FBI screwed up, it's actually possible today. It's innocent until proven guilty, and if they screwed up in obtaining a key piece of evidence, then it and anything stemming from it will be inadmissible in court. If they can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without that evidence, then the defendant will be found not guilty.
- duxup 4y agoAnything is possible, but that doesn't mean it should be automatic as proposed.
- salawat 4y agoYes it does. Especially when the nature of the evidence is exculpatory, and was in the State's custody at time of the proceeding, and maliciously destroyed by a State actor. Adverse inference is a two way street. If you want to use it as justification to help the Prosecution when a Defendant destroys evidence, it must work the other way around as well. Due Process was thwarted.
- duxup 4y ago>evidence is exculpatory So now you potentially go to trial with that evidence.
- thalassophobia 4y agoHow exactly is that possible if said evidence has been destroyed by a state actor?
- aqme28 4y ago> Cessario could possibly face 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, forfeiture of property involved in the criminal offense, and supervision upon release. If he actually has to serve that kind of sentence, that really doesn't sound too lenient.
- everforward 4y agoIt is, relatively speaking. Those are the exact same maximum penalties for a single count of wire fraud. It's more lenient than the penalty for growing 50-99 marijuana plants (same jail time, fines go up to $1M) or selling 50-99kg of marijuana (same penalty as the cultivation). On the high end of the scale, sale or cultivation of marijuana includes life in prison. Relative to other less serious crimes (in my opinion), this does seem fairly lenient. There aren't even mandatory minimums on it, unlike drug charges.
- javajosh 4y ago>This is a complete and unacceptable breach of the public trust, and of civil liberties. I agree, and I hope the agent is sentenced harshly. However, given that this was a plea deal, I would expect him to get only a few years in jail. Although usually this is at the discretion of the judge. But yes I think any LEOs should consider it not just a moral, ethical and legal violation of trust to do things like this, but to actively fear the consequences if they give in to the urge to cheat. In other words, a rational selfish person would NOT cheat because the EV is far too low.
- AtNightWeCode 4y agoPeople into conspiracies always comes with these kinds of slippery slope arguments. If this is wrong, then what more is wrong? It is an incorrect way of thinking. Evidence needs to be evaluated separately. Just because A is wrong does not prove anything about B.
- O__________O 4y agoNot the OP, understand and largely agree with your reasoning, though assuming there was a preponderance of evidence, why would someone only destroy a fraction of it knowing that doing so would be irrelevant, their efforts if discovered would be counter to their goals, and they would face significant penalties for doing so?
- dylan604 4y agoIn this case though, the evidence wasn't proof of a crime. This was exculpatory evidence, the exact opposite. This seems just a bit more heinous than planting evidence for a conviction.
- mikeyouse 4y agoBecause people are generally impulsive and irrational? The FBI agent in question sent some of the files, not all of them and then got called out by the judge, so he panicked and deleted the laptop. The prosecution didn't use any of the recordings at all, and proved their case with the existing evidence so it didn't really impact the case.
- salawat 4y agoIt's exculpatory evidence. I.e. if the Court was made aware of it, it would have undone their case. This is exactly why adverse inference is a thing, and needs to be enforced to the hilt to exonerate, because otherwise, it doesn't disincent the State from doing the same thing in the future where they trade one of their own to really make a case stick. The Court must symmetrically apply it's measures in disincenting pathologic behavior.
- dingosity 4y agoHa! The defendant was provided due process. There's a reason the personification of justice is depicted as being blind.
- Bud 4y agoNo, he was not. You don't seem to fundamentally understand what "due process" means. At all. Look it up: "Due process is a requirement that legal matters be resolved according to established rules and principles, and that individuals be treated fairly." The "established rules and principles" clearly and obviously were not followed, here. Therefore, by definition, and there can be no debate on this, there was no "due process", here.
- dingosity 4y agoIt turns out that the interpretation of "due process" is left to the judiciary, and not the hacker news comments section.
- Bud 4y agoI'm sure you think you're being very clever, but actually, you're not. It's really quite clear here whether there was due process. Which is why a judge already ruled. Probably took about five seconds to figure this case out.
- dingosity 4y agoWithout knowing if there was other evidence offered during the trial, it's unclear that the interests of justice are served by exonerating all defendants in cases where evidence is other than pristine.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- AlbertCory 4y agoRight. Many of the Weathermen, who were clearly guilty, got off because the government didn't want to explain how they got their evidence: https://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/16/archives/us-forgoes-trial-of-weathermen.html https://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/16/archives/us-forgoes-trial... I don't think this is even a hard case, legally. The government had relevant evidence & destroyed it deliberately. Not guilty.
- aftbit 4y agoInteresting, I had never heard of the Weathermen before today. Thanks!
- AlbertCory 4y agoThere's a movie about them. I'm not sure if I saw it on Prime or Kanopy.
- Gibbon1 4y agoThere is a thing in civil cases where if the plaintiff destroys evidence the jury is instructed to assume the worst.
- bee_rider 4y agoThe idea of transferring the sentence is funny, but probably not actually a good plan. The agent should be charged with whatever, tampering with evidence or something like that, which does have a pretty heavy punishment. The defendant should get a retrial at least. The punishment for tampering with evidence should be strict no matter what the case was about. Whether the crime they are framing somebody for is murder or petty shoplifting, the main problem is the abuse of the public trust.
- puffoflogic 4y ago> The defendant should get a retrial at least. You do not seem to grasp the implications of exculpatory evidence being destroyed. A retrial would be a vindication of the corrupt prosecution - er, I mean, the corrupt law enforcement who was totally not an agent of the prosecution.
- rayiner 4y agoSure--that's why the former FBI agent faces 20 years in prison. But why should that automatically lead to a finding of not guilty, ignoring the rest of the evidence?
- salawat 4y agoAdverse inference. https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adverse-inference/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adverse-inference/ Given the evidence was exculpatory in nature, the court must assume the worst of it's impact on the State's case.
- rayiner 4y agoAn adverse inference doesn’t mean that the court ignores the nature of the documents (what could they be) or the other evidence in the case.
- everforward 4y agoI think there's a fair argument that the destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence creates per se reasonable doubt. I.e. there is no incriminating evidence that can remove any reasonable doubt that the exculpatory evidence may have proved their innocence. Another issue is that due process has been broken in a way that can never be restored. I'm a little leery of continuing prosecution under those conditions, given that due process is the underpinning of a just legal system.
- vkou 4y agoSo, having one fall guy who deliberately sabotages your case should be a get-out-of-jail free card for a powerful executive, or legislator. I see.
- LorenPechtel 4y agoI'll partially agree with you. I have long said that attempting to frame someone should bring the same punishment the person would have faced if convicted. However, it shouldn't be automatic exoneration for the person who would have benefited. In this case it seems the attempt to destroy the data failed, the data was obtained and deemed insufficient to exonerate him. Handle it as we do in civil trials--missing evidence is presumed favorable to the other side. Now, usually that would result in an exoneration but it shouldn't be automatic--especially in cases like this where the attempt failed.