4 ms·

Any writer who tries to support their argument by calling the opposing position a 'conspiracy theory' is best ignored: > "The bottom line is that this result m

Any writer who tries to support their argument by calling the opposing position a 'conspiracy theory' is best ignored: > "The bottom line is that this result may shock people, but it is consistent with federal bail law. That’s likely why the government agreed and not — as conspiracy theorists are already shouting — because of some political pressure in his favor." The obvious counterpoint is that 'consistent with federal bail law' is not much of an argument, as there appears to be a great deal of discretionary privilege, aka 'choice', on the part of judge / prosecution - i.e. not granting bail would also be 'consistent with federal bail law' so that doesn't explain much at all. Incidentally, judges granting special treatment to members of the privileged Stanford community in criminal cases is not a very good look. Just ask ex-judge Aaron Persky.

twblalock 4y ago
> not granting bail would also be 'consistent with federal bail law' so that doesn't explain much at all. The article covers this. Federal bail law has a presumption that defendants will get bail unless there is a good reason to believe they are a flight risk or might re-offend before the trial starts.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  I think there are a great many prominent counterexamples of bail being denied for people who pretty clearly fit that bill. Chelsea Manning comes to mind, being neither a flight risk nor potential re-offender. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/chelsea-manning-federal-appeals-court-rejects-release-bail https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/chelsea-mann...
  - phire 4y ago
    Chelsea Manning didn't go though the federal court system. As an enlisted member of the military, she went though a court-martial under Uniform Code of Military Justice, which are a different set of laws that don't even have the concept of bail. So different rules apply. But still, they do have roughly equivalent rules around pretrial restraint and needing to prove that confinement is actually necessary (especially since the military can eliminate flight risk by simply confining them to base). Even at the time there was much (justified) criticism that her treatment was a "degrading and inhumane pretrial punishment"
    - photochemsyn 4y ago
      If you read the linked article for the details of the case, this was related to a federal case involving Julian Assange: > "A federal appeals court on Monday denied a request by the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to be released from jail on bail..."
      - phire 4y ago
        Oh... That's a different matter again. Civil contempt of court is handled under yet another set of laws. And those laws don't appear to have the same presumption of bail that the laws dealing with criminal pre-trial detention. Which kind of makes sense, it's not the same thing; Criminal trials have bail because it might take months or years of delays for the prosecution and defence to build a case. Here, the court has ordered you directly to jail as a punishment for not following their order; You can leave at any time by complying with the court order.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> Any writer who tries to support their argument by calling the opposing position a 'conspiracy theory' is best ignored That's a gross mischaracterization of what the author said. The author is pretty clearly arguing (a) that this is just how the federal bail system works, but also (b) it's a good question whether this system, which treats white collar criminals much better in general, is fair. The part I'm particularly enraged about is the (b), but I also think it is a bullshit conspiracy theory that SBF somehow got off easier because a parent once worked in the same department as someone who now is at the SEC.
FatActor 4y ago
Not sure what country you are posting from, but here in the US about 40% of one of our two political parties thinks the other is a bunch of satanic baby-blood drinking pedos. Dismissing someone for talking bout conspiracy theories is overlooking the state of the world. FFS Qanon has chapters in Europe!

twblalock 4y ago

> not granting bail would also be 'consistent with federal bail law' so that doesn't explain much at all. The article covers this. Federal bail law has a presumption that defendants will get bail unless there is a good reason to believe they are a flight risk or might re-offend before the trial starts.

photochemsyn 4y ago
I think there are a great many prominent counterexamples of bail being denied for people who pretty clearly fit that bill. Chelsea Manning comes to mind, being neither a flight risk nor potential re-offender. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/chelsea-manning-federal-appeals-court-rejects-release-bail https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/chelsea-mann...
- phire 4y ago
  Chelsea Manning didn't go though the federal court system. As an enlisted member of the military, she went though a court-martial under Uniform Code of Military Justice, which are a different set of laws that don't even have the concept of bail. So different rules apply. But still, they do have roughly equivalent rules around pretrial restraint and needing to prove that confinement is actually necessary (especially since the military can eliminate flight risk by simply confining them to base). Even at the time there was much (justified) criticism that her treatment was a "degrading and inhumane pretrial punishment"
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    If you read the linked article for the details of the case, this was related to a federal case involving Julian Assange: > "A federal appeals court on Monday denied a request by the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to be released from jail on bail..."
    - phire 4y ago
      Oh... That's a different matter again. Civil contempt of court is handled under yet another set of laws. And those laws don't appear to have the same presumption of bail that the laws dealing with criminal pre-trial detention. Which kind of makes sense, it's not the same thing; Criminal trials have bail because it might take months or years of delays for the prosecution and defence to build a case. Here, the court has ordered you directly to jail as a punishment for not following their order; You can leave at any time by complying with the court order.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> Any writer who tries to support their argument by calling the opposing position a 'conspiracy theory' is best ignored That's a gross mischaracterization of what the author said. The author is pretty clearly arguing (a) that this is just how the federal bail system works, but also (b) it's a good question whether this system, which treats white collar criminals much better in general, is fair. The part I'm particularly enraged about is the (b), but I also think it is a bullshit conspiracy theory that SBF somehow got off easier because a parent once worked in the same department as someone who now is at the SEC.

FatActor 4y ago

Not sure what country you are posting from, but here in the US about 40% of one of our two political parties thinks the other is a bunch of satanic baby-blood drinking pedos. Dismissing someone for talking bout conspiracy theories is overlooking the state of the world. FFS Qanon has chapters in Europe!