4 ms·

I wonder how often such motions pass. It's obvious CoinDesk wants it so they can plaster the names on their website for views, so how does this weigh against a

by madrox 4y ago

I wonder how often such motions pass. It's obvious CoinDesk wants it so they can plaster the names on their website for views, so how does this weigh against a reasonable measure of privacy? These people haven't done anything illegal by signing sureties.

edgyquant 4y ago
Not everything bad is illegal. This guy screwed a lot of people over, bailing him out (especially considering the price tag) was bullshit and the public deserves to know who thinks he should be out living a normal live and is willing to fork over the cash for it.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Pre-trial detainment is definitionally not intended to be a punishment, but rather a means of ensuring a party is present at trial.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    Nah they place all sorts of restrictions that have nothing to do with helping show up at trial. For instance they may require you not use weed or an occasional glass of wine even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      >Even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up. Disagree. There are plenty of correlations between intoxication and appearing at a certain place at a certain time in a condition of sound mind.
      - notch656c 4y ago
        The order is rarely against intoxication but rather consumption. Consuming a glass of wine and not getting intoxicated would violate many of these orders.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        tedunangst 4y ago
        Are those restrictions common in cases that don't allegedly involve intoxication? For the most part, the federal restrictions I've seen usually have a purported connection to the criminal activity.
        edgyquant 4y ago
        This is pedanticism. When people don’t drink wine they never get drunk. Period.
        notch656c 4y ago
        That's a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome
        RC_ITR 4y ago
        How can alcohol consumption not lead to intoxication? Society has decided that for most people, low-level intoxication is no big deal, but I’d argue it is for people accused of crimes. Even one beer could make fleeing just appealing enough.
  - yongjik 4y ago
    And also ensuring that the party does not collude with accomplices to hide money and/or evidences. I'm not totally confident the bail's terms would keep SBF from doing that.
    - madrox 4y ago
      That's a good point, but if that were a concern the judge should've denied bail
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    This is a non-sequitur. The definition of what bail is and why does not address any point in my comment. It’s just a condescension allowing you to pretend you’re right about something without pushing back against my point. The guy had a huge bail and it was paid by third parties. People have a right to know who.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      I am saying he’s not guilty of any crimes yet (though he likely will be soon). Beyond reasonable restrictions to his behavior (monitoring to make sure he isn’t actively committing further crimes), he does have the right to live a normal life. That’s why we have trials and sentence people after the conviction (in other words, the punishment doesn’t even start until we decide it’s fair, that’s a cornerstone of our system). You are implying that he is avoiding a punishment, which he is not. You can argue in general cash bail creates bad incentives and is inherently unfair (I agree), but that’s a separate argument and is best discussed relative to all cases not just this one.
      - 411111111111111 4y ago
        I think you're not addressing the original point again, at least as I understood it. What you're saying is spot on of course, but they're not asking for the people in question to be put on trial. They just want the names of the people to be unsealed.
        madrox 4y ago
        To what end? Put on trial in the court of public opinion? Likely be harassed? Receive death threats? The only end this would serve is to give people a circus while they wait for the trial.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

by madrox 4y ago

edgyquant 4y ago

Not everything bad is illegal. This guy screwed a lot of people over, bailing him out (especially considering the price tag) was bullshit and the public deserves to know who thinks he should be out living a normal live and is willing to fork over the cash for it.

RC_ITR 4y ago
Pre-trial detainment is definitionally not intended to be a punishment, but rather a means of ensuring a party is present at trial.
- notch656c 4y ago
  Nah they place all sorts of restrictions that have nothing to do with helping show up at trial. For instance they may require you not use weed or an occasional glass of wine even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    >Even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up. Disagree. There are plenty of correlations between intoxication and appearing at a certain place at a certain time in a condition of sound mind.
    - notch656c 4y ago
      The order is rarely against intoxication but rather consumption. Consuming a glass of wine and not getting intoxicated would violate many of these orders.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - tedunangst 4y ago
        Are those restrictions common in cases that don't allegedly involve intoxication? For the most part, the federal restrictions I've seen usually have a purported connection to the criminal activity.
      - edgyquant 4y ago
        This is pedanticism. When people don’t drink wine they never get drunk. Period.
        notch656c 4y ago
        That's a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome
      - RC_ITR 4y ago
        How can alcohol consumption not lead to intoxication? Society has decided that for most people, low-level intoxication is no big deal, but I’d argue it is for people accused of crimes. Even one beer could make fleeing just appealing enough.
- yongjik 4y ago
  And also ensuring that the party does not collude with accomplices to hide money and/or evidences. I'm not totally confident the bail's terms would keep SBF from doing that.
  - madrox 4y ago
    That's a good point, but if that were a concern the judge should've denied bail
- edgyquant 4y ago
  This is a non-sequitur. The definition of what bail is and why does not address any point in my comment. It’s just a condescension allowing you to pretend you’re right about something without pushing back against my point. The guy had a huge bail and it was paid by third parties. People have a right to know who.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    I am saying he’s not guilty of any crimes yet (though he likely will be soon). Beyond reasonable restrictions to his behavior (monitoring to make sure he isn’t actively committing further crimes), he does have the right to live a normal life. That’s why we have trials and sentence people after the conviction (in other words, the punishment doesn’t even start until we decide it’s fair, that’s a cornerstone of our system). You are implying that he is avoiding a punishment, which he is not. You can argue in general cash bail creates bad incentives and is inherently unfair (I agree), but that’s a separate argument and is best discussed relative to all cases not just this one.
    - 411111111111111 4y ago
      I think you're not addressing the original point again, at least as I understood it. What you're saying is spot on of course, but they're not asking for the people in question to be put on trial. They just want the names of the people to be unsealed.
      - madrox 4y ago
        To what end? Put on trial in the court of public opinion? Likely be harassed? Receive death threats? The only end this would serve is to give people a circus while they wait for the trial.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]