3 ms·

My gut tells me so much money went into this multi-national synchronized operation that no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go. at least they will h

My gut tells me so much money went into this multi-national synchronized operation that no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go. at least they will have to break even.

ovi256 15y ago
So as long as enough money is spent, it doesn't matter if it's wrong ? Yay.
- phillmv 15y ago
  Not really, the same with any organization - if the people who made the decisions lose face, they will double down before sunk costs. The comparison in this case might have the prosecutor go after some lesser charge just to stick anything in order to justify the huge operation in the first place.
  - dodedo 15y ago
    This is precisely why there is a separation between the executive and judicial branches of government. Unfortunately I do agree they're not as separate as we might wish.
jordan0day 15y ago
I don't know, I think there have been some high-profile cases where a lot of time and money was spent by the government, but the result was either no conviction, or a conviction of a much lesser charge. Now, since as you say, this was a large multi-national operation, I don't know if all those charged will be extradited to the USA, or if they'll be tried in other countries. I really have no idea about laws & procedures around the globe, but if they are extradited to the USA, I wouldn't count the MegaUpload folks out just yet. It's probably very dependent on how much of their assets are frozen, which will affect how much of their money they can spend on legal representation. (I say unfortunately, because it seems to me that in an ideal justice system, everyone should have the same level [high!] of representation, rather than some being able to "buy" better lawyers).
- bostonpete 15y ago
  So capitalism is good except when it comes to lawyers...?
  - saucetenuto 15y ago
    Yeah, pretty much. One of the essential principles of Western democracy is that everyone should be equal under the law, that what is a crime for a peasant should also be a crime for a noble. If you can use money to purchase better legal outcomes (through e.g. better legal representation), that principle is undermined.
  - jordan0day 15y ago
    Basically what saucetenuto said. In the USA at least, much of our government could function nearly the same regardless of if our market system is completely laissez-faire capitalism, or hardcore communist. In fact, you could argue that government and its' systems, like the judicial system should be completely devoid of any possibility for profit motives. Since, as saucetenuto states, those undermine the system. Now, I don't want to get into an argument about whether good lawyers deserve to get paid better than bad lawyers, etc. But I don't think I'd want to meet the person who sees the justice inequality between rich and poor defendants and thinks "All is as it should be."
scott_s 15y ago
What do you mean by "no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go"? Do you mean that no judge would dismiss the charges before trial? I agree that is unlikely, but it's a rare thing for a judge to do that. But outside of that, it's not up to the judge. It's a criminal case, and they will be tried by a jury. If they're convicted, the judge will determine their sentence. But it's not up to the judge to determine their guilt. (Unless the defendants forgo a jury trial and elect for a trial by judge, but I doubt they will.)

My gut tells me so much money went into this multi-national synchronized operation that no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go. at least they will have to break even.

ovi256 15y ago

So as long as enough money is spent, it doesn't matter if it's wrong ? Yay.

phillmv 15y ago
Not really, the same with any organization - if the people who made the decisions lose face, they will double down before sunk costs. The comparison in this case might have the prosecutor go after some lesser charge just to stick anything in order to justify the huge operation in the first place.
- dodedo 15y ago
  This is precisely why there is a separation between the executive and judicial branches of government. Unfortunately I do agree they're not as separate as we might wish.

jordan0day 15y ago

I don't know, I think there have been some high-profile cases where a lot of time and money was spent by the government, but the result was either no conviction, or a conviction of a much lesser charge. Now, since as you say, this was a large multi-national operation, I don't know if all those charged will be extradited to the USA, or if they'll be tried in other countries. I really have no idea about laws & procedures around the globe, but if they are extradited to the USA, I wouldn't count the MegaUpload folks out just yet. It's probably very dependent on how much of their assets are frozen, which will affect how much of their money they can spend on legal representation. (I say unfortunately, because it seems to me that in an ideal justice system, everyone should have the same level [high!] of representation, rather than some being able to "buy" better lawyers).

bostonpete 15y ago
So capitalism is good except when it comes to lawyers...?
- saucetenuto 15y ago
  Yeah, pretty much. One of the essential principles of Western democracy is that everyone should be equal under the law, that what is a crime for a peasant should also be a crime for a noble. If you can use money to purchase better legal outcomes (through e.g. better legal representation), that principle is undermined.
- jordan0day 15y ago
  Basically what saucetenuto said. In the USA at least, much of our government could function nearly the same regardless of if our market system is completely laissez-faire capitalism, or hardcore communist. In fact, you could argue that government and its' systems, like the judicial system should be completely devoid of any possibility for profit motives. Since, as saucetenuto states, those undermine the system. Now, I don't want to get into an argument about whether good lawyers deserve to get paid better than bad lawyers, etc. But I don't think I'd want to meet the person who sees the justice inequality between rich and poor defendants and thinks "All is as it should be."

scott_s 15y ago

What do you mean by "no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go"? Do you mean that no judge would dismiss the charges before trial? I agree that is unlikely, but it's a rare thing for a judge to do that. But outside of that, it's not up to the judge. It's a criminal case, and they will be tried by a jury. If they're convicted, the judge will determine their sentence. But it's not up to the judge to determine their guilt. (Unless the defendants forgo a jury trial and elect for a trial by judge, but I doubt they will.)