3 ms·

Overzealous prosecution.

by underseacables 2y ago

azinman2 2y ago
How do you know that?
- busterarm 2y ago
  Because we know that trying to destroy Backpage was the personal crusade of Cindy McCain and it became very personal. This has long been written about.
  - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
    Any links? John bang a Backpage ho, or why the hate?
    - etc-hosts 2y ago
      there's tons in Arizona media. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larkin-cindy-john-mccain-backpage-new-times-10773866 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larki...
  - paganel 2y ago
    > She is the widow of U.S. Senator John McCain from Arizona, who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Nepo-wife. And they were saying the Soviets were a decrepit society at the top, the US from today is not much better.
    - busterarm 2y ago
      It's worse than that. She was a rich heiress that he left his first wife for because Cindy had the bankroll to fund his political aspirations. He was as much of a leech as she is.
- nullc 2y ago
  Among other reasons, because the DOJ accidentally leaked their internal communication about the case to the defense which turned out to be fairly exculpatory: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345276-Backpage-DOJ-2013-Memo.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345276-Backpage-DOJ... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345275-Backpage-DOJ-2012-Memo.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345275-Backpage-DOJ... The defendants are precluded from using or mentioning any of this information even though it shows that the case is being wrongfully prosecuted because it is the state's attorney client privileged material which was released by mistake.
  - reaperman 2y ago
    It's crazy to me that our judicial system would be happy to knowingly find innocent people guilty, just because they feel like it's more important to pretend that exculpatory evidence simply doesn't exist.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      I think its the lesser of two evils.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        The greater evil being what?
        Hendrikto 2y ago
        Not following due process.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        Nevermark 2y ago
        Due process should always fall on the side of protecting the innocent. That would have been a nice constitutional / Bill of Rights principle. Or a Supreme Court standard. Instead many ways in which clearly innocent (or very likely innocent) people have been convicted or had appeals denied have been upheld, at the alter of not just due process, but at having no principle or procedure of adjusting due process in these cases. In this case, how can there be information that was not submitted directly to the court given its relevance to the case? Who had that information and withheld it? That should itself be criminal. (Some information may be sensitive - but courts already deal with that in other circumstances.) Due process adjustments for an "innocence protection principle" would still be reviewed by higher courts, so this could be a standard but rare practice with its own due process, without being a Wild West. -- No system for any large organization should provide no process for exceptions to accepted practice at the ground level to be escalated. Corporations, governments, social media sites, banks, etc. all end up crushing powerless people when they provide no recourse for unanticipated or ignored harm by the organization's current rules. Individual humans do not have a legal pass to say, "well I have these rules for myself, and they don't include effective review or action on information about my unjustly harming you." If an individual is notified of harm, their culpability starts then. Courts would consider systematically ignoring such communication to imply a significant increase in culpability - for an individual. Throwing away such communication would be interpreted as a conscious intention to continue harming.
echelon 2y ago
[flagged]
- dgfitz 2y ago
  The state of Nevada (10 of 17 counties at least) would like to inform you that it has already happened.
- schoen 2y ago
  > All of this stems from religion, yet our system is supposed to have a separation of church and state. Restrictions on prostitution are pretty far downstream of core church-state separation territory. The original constitutional prohibition is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ("establishment clause") "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ("free exercise clause"). The core territory of the establishment clause is that there can't be an official state church or an officially designated state religion. Later court cases extended that by analogy to require fairly broad religious neutrality, as well as to avoid various forms of "entanglement" between church and state. But so far, there's no official interpretation of it that implies that laws that were originally motivated by religious sentiment or religious morality are invalid. (If I remember correctly, Scalia's dissent in Obergefell expressed concern that the majority was gesturing in that direction, although the majority definitely didn't phrase it that way.) Particularly, there's no clear constitutional law that all legislation always has to be justifiable in terms of addressing a harm (usually that only comes into play when another constitutional right is implicated). I agree with the idea of legalizing prostitution and I agree with the idea of separation of church and state, but I don't think you can directly get one from the other.
  - webspinner 2y ago
    You could in the 1930s, but I think we keep these laws on the books for cops. To give them something to do when they're on the job.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Prostitution is illegal in many different countries that subscribe to many different religious, including countries that lack what we would recognize as organized religion (China). That strongly suggests that it’s not really religious in origin.

Overzealous prosecution.

azinman2 2y ago

How do you know that?

busterarm 2y ago
Because we know that trying to destroy Backpage was the personal crusade of Cindy McCain and it became very personal. This has long been written about.
- beaeglebeachh 2y ago
  Any links? John bang a Backpage ho, or why the hate?
  - etc-hosts 2y ago
    there's tons in Arizona media. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larkin-cindy-john-mccain-backpage-new-times-10773866 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larki...
- paganel 2y ago
  > She is the widow of U.S. Senator John McCain from Arizona, who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Nepo-wife. And they were saying the Soviets were a decrepit society at the top, the US from today is not much better.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    It's worse than that. She was a rich heiress that he left his first wife for because Cindy had the bankroll to fund his political aspirations. He was as much of a leech as she is.
nullc 2y ago
Among other reasons, because the DOJ accidentally leaked their internal communication about the case to the defense which turned out to be fairly exculpatory: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345276-Backpage-DOJ-2013-Memo.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345276-Backpage-DOJ... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345275-Backpage-DOJ-2012-Memo.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6345275-Backpage-DOJ... The defendants are precluded from using or mentioning any of this information even though it shows that the case is being wrongfully prosecuted because it is the state's attorney client privileged material which was released by mistake.
- reaperman 2y ago
  It's crazy to me that our judicial system would be happy to knowingly find innocent people guilty, just because they feel like it's more important to pretend that exculpatory evidence simply doesn't exist.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    I think its the lesser of two evils.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      The greater evil being what?
      - Hendrikto 2y ago
        Not following due process.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        Nevermark 2y ago
        Due process should always fall on the side of protecting the innocent. That would have been a nice constitutional / Bill of Rights principle. Or a Supreme Court standard. Instead many ways in which clearly innocent (or very likely innocent) people have been convicted or had appeals denied have been upheld, at the alter of not just due process, but at having no principle or procedure of adjusting due process in these cases. In this case, how can there be information that was not submitted directly to the court given its relevance to the case? Who had that information and withheld it? That should itself be criminal. (Some information may be sensitive - but courts already deal with that in other circumstances.) Due process adjustments for an "innocence protection principle" would still be reviewed by higher courts, so this could be a standard but rare practice with its own due process, without being a Wild West. -- No system for any large organization should provide no process for exceptions to accepted practice at the ground level to be escalated. Corporations, governments, social media sites, banks, etc. all end up crushing powerless people when they provide no recourse for unanticipated or ignored harm by the organization's current rules. Individual humans do not have a legal pass to say, "well I have these rules for myself, and they don't include effective review or action on information about my unjustly harming you." If an individual is notified of harm, their culpability starts then. Courts would consider systematically ignoring such communication to imply a significant increase in culpability - for an individual. Throwing away such communication would be interpreted as a conscious intention to continue harming.

echelon 2y ago

[flagged]

dgfitz 2y ago
The state of Nevada (10 of 17 counties at least) would like to inform you that it has already happened.
schoen 2y ago
> All of this stems from religion, yet our system is supposed to have a separation of church and state. Restrictions on prostitution are pretty far downstream of core church-state separation territory. The original constitutional prohibition is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ("establishment clause") "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ("free exercise clause"). The core territory of the establishment clause is that there can't be an official state church or an officially designated state religion. Later court cases extended that by analogy to require fairly broad religious neutrality, as well as to avoid various forms of "entanglement" between church and state. But so far, there's no official interpretation of it that implies that laws that were originally motivated by religious sentiment or religious morality are invalid. (If I remember correctly, Scalia's dissent in Obergefell expressed concern that the majority was gesturing in that direction, although the majority definitely didn't phrase it that way.) Particularly, there's no clear constitutional law that all legislation always has to be justifiable in terms of addressing a harm (usually that only comes into play when another constitutional right is implicated). I agree with the idea of legalizing prostitution and I agree with the idea of separation of church and state, but I don't think you can directly get one from the other.
- webspinner 2y ago
  You could in the 1930s, but I think we keep these laws on the books for cops. To give them something to do when they're on the job.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Prostitution is illegal in many different countries that subscribe to many different religious, including countries that lack what we would recognize as organized religion (China). That strongly suggests that it’s not really religious in origin.