3 ms·

The truth is somewhere in the middle. There was a similar case in Massachusetts many years back. It never went to trial, and legal analysis could go both ways.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. There was a similar case in Massachusetts many years back. It never went to trial, and legal analysis could go both ways. The bargain struct was it would go into secretive judicial oversight channels. There is a strong case to be made for obstruction of justice, and an equally strong case to be made about her making an error in her professional capacity as a judge and a government employee (which grants a level of immunity). Police officers, judges, soldiers, etc. make mistakes, but they generally don't go to jail for them because (even corruption aside) everyone makes mistakes. In some jobs, mistakes can and do have severe consequences up to and including people dying. If that led to prison, no one sane would take those jobs. In any sane universe, it'd be fair to say she screwed up, and then the FBI also screwed up arresting her. I think the FBI screwed up more, since their mistake was premeditated, whereas she was put on the spot. I do agree with your fundamental point of fatigue. This is not something anyone has a moral high ground to hang their flag on without looking bad.

s1artibartfast 1y ago
What was the honest mistake the judge made?
- frognumber 1y ago
  I usually read coverage from different sides. If you don't realize where she screwed up, look at Fox News. If you don't realize where the FBI screwed up, look at NY Times. Fox News perspective is that she broke court procedures in order to obstruct federal agents. Prior cases seem to support that: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-officer-charged-obstructing-ice-arrest https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-... Case concluded with some kind of judicial reprimand (not criminal, but administrative). This one is further over the line. Neutral description to LLM also supports that the judge acted improperly (but LLM didn't think this would lead to a conviction). LLMs aren't great at legal analysis, but are actually pretty good at pattern-matching cases. One thing helpful to have is a lawful plan. The courthouse might have handled ICE without breaking protocols by having protocols. Protocols should be prima facie neutral, but it's reasonable to expect people in courts, schools, and other places we actually want them to show up to feel safe there. That shouldn't involve sneaking people through back doors or hiding them in jury areas.
  - xracy 1y ago
    Why would I trust that an "entertainment" network like fox news would provide a good legal analysis of how a judge messed up the law? LLMs are worse than this. ICE has been regularly overstepping its bounds and going after people in ways that impact our legal system's ability to function. This is a terrible precedent to set for no other reason than it impacts the rule of law. If people who are accused of crimes can be disappeared without a trial, just for showing up to court, what incentive is there for anyone to go to court? They are literally ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" that is critical to the rule of law. If you take away people's ability to get justice within the system, you are making it inevitable that they will go outside the system to get justice.
    - frognumber 1y ago
      Ergo, I posted a link to an analogous legal situation in Massachusetts. We can agree with what the judge did, but it doesn't make it legal. We can also agree that ICE is breaking laws, but it also doesn't make what the judge did legal. It does help a bit -- in another comment I explained why -- but not enough to change the legal analysis. As a footnote, modern LLMs aren't worse than Fox News. They have a lot of case law in their training set. They make mistakes so shouldn't yet be used for anything critical, but the legal analysis from Claude or GPT4.1 is a lot better than e.g. 95% of forum posts here.
      - xracy 1y ago
        I don't know that I have the brainpower to analyze 95% of the forum posts on here. And less to determine what I think is "better", so I guess I'll drop the point.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Does screw up as you use it mean knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, or mean it was accidental and unintentional? It might be a mistake to beat someone bloody, but it isn't an accident.
    - 1y ago
- ruraljuror 1y ago
  Judge thinks ICE is illegally abducting people. The ideas are laid out pretty clearly in the grandparent comment. It’s not clear what is right and wrong because ICE is skipping due process and rendering people to foreign prisons.

s1artibartfast 1y ago

What was the honest mistake the judge made?

frognumber 1y ago
I usually read coverage from different sides. If you don't realize where she screwed up, look at Fox News. If you don't realize where the FBI screwed up, look at NY Times. Fox News perspective is that she broke court procedures in order to obstruct federal agents. Prior cases seem to support that: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-officer-charged-obstructing-ice-arrest https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-... Case concluded with some kind of judicial reprimand (not criminal, but administrative). This one is further over the line. Neutral description to LLM also supports that the judge acted improperly (but LLM didn't think this would lead to a conviction). LLMs aren't great at legal analysis, but are actually pretty good at pattern-matching cases. One thing helpful to have is a lawful plan. The courthouse might have handled ICE without breaking protocols by having protocols. Protocols should be prima facie neutral, but it's reasonable to expect people in courts, schools, and other places we actually want them to show up to feel safe there. That shouldn't involve sneaking people through back doors or hiding them in jury areas.
- xracy 1y ago
  Why would I trust that an "entertainment" network like fox news would provide a good legal analysis of how a judge messed up the law? LLMs are worse than this. ICE has been regularly overstepping its bounds and going after people in ways that impact our legal system's ability to function. This is a terrible precedent to set for no other reason than it impacts the rule of law. If people who are accused of crimes can be disappeared without a trial, just for showing up to court, what incentive is there for anyone to go to court? They are literally ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" that is critical to the rule of law. If you take away people's ability to get justice within the system, you are making it inevitable that they will go outside the system to get justice.
  - frognumber 1y ago
    Ergo, I posted a link to an analogous legal situation in Massachusetts. We can agree with what the judge did, but it doesn't make it legal. We can also agree that ICE is breaking laws, but it also doesn't make what the judge did legal. It does help a bit -- in another comment I explained why -- but not enough to change the legal analysis. As a footnote, modern LLMs aren't worse than Fox News. They have a lot of case law in their training set. They make mistakes so shouldn't yet be used for anything critical, but the legal analysis from Claude or GPT4.1 is a lot better than e.g. 95% of forum posts here.
    - xracy 1y ago
      I don't know that I have the brainpower to analyze 95% of the forum posts on here. And less to determine what I think is "better", so I guess I'll drop the point.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  Does screw up as you use it mean knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, or mean it was accidental and unintentional? It might be a mistake to beat someone bloody, but it isn't an accident.
  - 1y ago
ruraljuror 1y ago
Judge thinks ICE is illegally abducting people. The ideas are laid out pretty clearly in the grandparent comment. It’s not clear what is right and wrong because ICE is skipping due process and rendering people to foreign prisons.