7 ms·

I'm not a fan of freezing the assets of someone and then overwhelming their legal defense, but this puts the formerly privileged in the same situation that the

I'm not a fan of freezing the assets of someone and then overwhelming their legal defense, but this puts the formerly privileged in the same situation that the poor have -- if you think this is unjust because it deprives people of adequate legal council then you should also believe it is injust that the accused poor also have a lack of adequate representation, but you'll never see that presented in Forbes.

leephillips 14y ago
Good points, but I think the issue here is that the government takes steps for the specific purpose of denying a defendant the right to hire counsel of his choosing.
thebmax 14y ago
I agree with you that the poor get hit by this just as hard. A person who is facing a drug charge who has a few priors will be given the choice of pleading guilt and serving a few years in jail or going to trial and risking 20 years or some such nonsense. But why should making everyone suffer from an unjust legal system better than the alternative. This is like the socialists who believe everyone being poor is better than some people being rich. "The equal sharing of misery" as Churchill put it, is not a good outcome.
- wpietri 14y ago
  The reason that we should end the "one law for the rich, another for the poor" system we have now is that the system will never get more just unless the people with power have an incentive to make it so. I'm pretty skeptical that Black was ill-used by the prosecutors. But even if he were, then as long as he was no more ill-treated than the average drug defendant, then I don't think we should worry about him more than the average drug defendant. And possibly less; Black still has incredible advantages over most of humanity.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >The reason that we should end the "one law for the rich, another for the poor" system we have now is that the system will never get more just unless the people with power have an incentive to make it so. That only works if the injustice affects sufficiently many affluent people that they act to change it -- and that they act to do more than just solve it solely for the rich. Which is highly unlikely, because those who can't buy their way out of a prosecution with lawyers can buy their way out of it with campaign contributions or outright bribes (but I repeat myself) or calling in favors from politically connected friends, etc. And even if that wasn't the case, most rich people will never be prosecuted anyway (which is the same reason that most blue collar voters don't vote in anyone who will fix it for their brethren). But the main reason is that solving it for working class people is hard, because good criminal defense is extraordinarily expensive and indigent defendants themselves can't afford it, but there are so many such defendants that governments can't afford to pay for it on their behalf either. Meanwhile solving it for the rich is easy, because they each have their own money so they just open their wallets and obtain the best justice money can buy. This is always the problem with the "we'll make the problem worse and then they'll have to fix it" logic. When the problem is extremely hard, making it worse doesn't cause an easy solution to magically appear, it just makes it worse.
bcoates 14y ago
Poor people are rarely accused of incredibly complex financial crimes or decades of being a Mob boss, nor do they usually have ungodly amounts of government resources targeted personally at them. Apparently the message the Feds are trying to send is "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down"
- bilbo0s 14y ago
  Should preface this by saying that I am trying to gain a more full understanding of your logic. I wonder if you could elaborate on what your point is a bit? I'm not following how being "... accused of incredibly complex financial crimes..." makes it more unjust to be deprived of adequate legal counsel than being accused of possessing marijuana, or selling marijuana for instance. Maybe I'm just parsing your comment incorrectly?
  - bcoates 14y ago
    I think jessriedel above made my point a bit more clearly--the amount of resources available to the defendant ought to be roughly comparable to the amount of resources spent by the government on prosecution. For a routine pot charge, a properly funded public defender's office would be adequate. For the Conrad Black charges, it wouldn't be, but the only reason the Feds brought a case as complex and questionable against Conrad Black in the first place was because of the large amounts of money involved and Black's personal wealth. Allowing him to use that wealth in his defense restores some balance.
    - jzwinck 14y ago
      Would it not be preferable if both the prosecution and the defense had fairly limited resources? It doesn't seem better to me for both sides to be armed to the teeth...though I'm sure it's good business for the lawyers. In other words, I agree that balance is required, but disagree that using more wealth to achieve it is the best way forward. Not only does it destroy value in the economy, it begs the questions seen here about the defense of poor people.
rayiner 14y ago
Believe it or not life involves trade-offs... The power to freeze assets helps keeps organized crime from using its vast resources to drown the feds in litigation. The flip side is that it can keep rich individuals from hiring high-priced lawyers to defend against the feds (extremely capable and qualified, if overworked) prosecutors.
- bcoates 14y ago
  > The power to freeze assets helps keeps organized crime from using its vast resources to drown the feds in litigation Is this a real thing that happens? It sounds like a movie plot.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    It happens all the time, in nearly every case involving wealthy defendants (and especially in cases between or involving corporations). It's the SOP for large-scale litigation firms; indeed, most litigation firms don't know how to practice law any other way.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You have to understand the context a bit. The world in 2012 is a very different place than it was in 1970-1990. There wsa a huge crackdown on organized crime and gangs during this period, which leveraged tools like asset freezes and RICO. These tools have always skirted the boundaries of fairness, but were nonetheless instrumental in the massive decline in the power of organized crime in the U.S. over the last several decades.
- angersock 14y ago
  Yes, yes--they must instead resort to the time-honored tradition of campaign contributions etc. One must, after all, observe proper channels.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Oh yes, pesky litigation. That certainly should be avoided shouldn't it.
jessriedel 14y ago
I think the idea is that it's very rare for the indigent to be plausibly charged with an exceedingly complicated crime which is expensive to defend against. Joe-the-common-pickpocket is not at risk of being convicted of a massively technical financial fraud scheme. Public defenders are arguably sufficient to defend against what he might plausibly be charged with: burglary, assault, etc.
- fatbird 14y ago
  Any felony is expensive to defend against for the poor. If you're under the poverty line, $50k for a lawyer is just as out of reach as $5 million. And if death is involved, as it often is in the case of poverty crimes, then you're definitely talking an expensive trial where the defense is easily overwhelmed by the greater resources of the prosecution.
  - checker 14y ago
    $50k for a laywer is out of reach for plenty of people above the poverty line.
    - lilsunnybee 14y ago
      Even if they mortgage / sell their property, their vehicles. Use all family resources? You gotta do what you gotta do if you're facing felony charges.
- shardling 14y ago
  I like how your example leads by assuming that Joe is a criminal. Nice touch. In reality innocent people get charged with crimes that carry the death penalty, and suffer because they lack proper representation.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    It doesn't matter if Joe did it or not. What matters is if Joe is charged and prosecuted for it.
talmand 14y ago
Ah yes, the old "Person A has it bad so let's level the field by making it bad for Person B" idea. I believe there's a significant difference between you not having the resources to mount a proper defense versus the prosecution removing your resources to prevent you from mounting a proper defense. Why not go the other way? Assign the prosecution a budget in line with the defendant's ability to defend themselves.
- sixothree 14y ago
  Or better yet the other other way. Assign the public defense a budget in line with the prosecution's budget. I was a juror on a murder trial and the thing that was most striking was the huge disparity between the prosecution's team size and resources and the defense's complete lack of any meaningful resource whatsoever. It was a very sad week of my life. edit missing word
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The criminal justice system for blue collar crime is very sad. It's the result of decades of "tough on crime" and the voters have nobody but themselves to blame for it.
rgbrenner 14y ago
they froze the assets that he was accused of stealing. I see nothing wrong with the assets that were in dispute being frozen until it could be determined (by the court) who was the rightful owner of those funds. In other words, the question is: should a person be permitted to use funds possibly acquired through illegal activity to defend themselves from a prosecution regarding that same activity? If I break into your home and steal $10K from your safe, should I be permitted to use that $10K on my defense? Keeping in mind, that if I do so, the $10K will no longer be there... so if I lose, your $10K will be gone.
- rgbrenner 14y ago
  It should also be noted in Black's case, much of his assets were frozen by other (non-US) governments. Here's a Canadian court freezing his worldwide assets, at the request of Hollinger Inc (the company he once controlled): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm
- rgbrenner 14y ago
  One other thing (yes, I realize I'm replying to myself): In non-monetary crimes.. burglary, for example.. the accused does not get to hold onto the property they are accused of stealing. It sits in an evidence locker until the trial is over, and then it's returned to either the accused or the victim (or auctioned off). In a way, the freezing of the funds in a white-collar crime is very similar.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  There is an easy way out of this. If the government seizes any of your assets prior to finding you guilty, they should have to lend you the market value of the assets at no interest solely for the purposes of putting on your defense. If you then lose, you never get the stolen assets back (which go back to the owner) and you continue to owe the government whatever money you borrowed, which they collect as though it were unpaid taxes. This will understandably result in many defendants borrowing money which they will never be able to repay because they are then sentenced prison, but that's the cost of doing business. Call it de facto adequate funding of the public defender's office.
pc86 14y ago
Do you seriously not see the difference between John having $500 in the bank account and not being able to retain a private attorney and Jack having $500MM in the bank, but it gets frozen by the FBI, removing his ability to retain the attorney he's used for the past 20 years, just to have the FBI possibly give the money back after the case is over (without interest and after Jack's lost his house, mind you). Edit: I'd love for you to explain your rationale rather than just downvoting me.
- lacksconfidence 14y ago
  The downvotes, imo, are most likely not for the concept of your post but for your tone.
  - pc86 14y ago
    Fair point. If I could still edit I'd soften it up a bit (and delete the edit since it's above 0 again).
  - paulhauggis 14y ago
    Why can't we be honest on HN? If the tone isn't flowery and sweet, it gets downvotes (and responses like yours). Unless of course it involves: drug legalization, religion, or Republicans. Then anger, hatred, and aggressive posts are up voted. This is just an excuse. You don't want to see your opinions in a negative light. It's a form of censorship.
    - lacksconfidence 14y ago
      Shrug, i didn't downvote the OP, just provided insight (as requested) into why the post has been downvoted. The tone doesnt have to be flowery and sweet. But the tone should never sound like a personal attack. "Do you seriously not see" implys that the person being replied to is too stupid, or at least incompetent, to see what has been pointed out.
alan_cx 14y ago
Em, surely the idea would be to get poor people to have a defence as good as rich people, not dragging rich people down. And, its says nothing good that its clear that there is a difference in out come depending on wealth. If some one is innocent, then that should be the out come regardless of money. Further, defendants are going up against the might of the state, US or other wise. Surely all defendants should have a defence equal of the state, other wise, well, you don't have any justice to speak of at all. I cant understand why this is not making people want to argue for non rich people to have a decent defence in court.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >I cant understand why this is not making people want to argue for non rich people to have a decent defence in court. It's because that would break the system. There are over two million inmates in the United States. There is no known or obvious way to provide a reasonable defense for that many defendants in any cost effective manner. A single good lawyer gets paid six figures. A criminal trial lasts several years through all the appeals. There are millions of accused. Do the math. It's just not happening. The only way to fix it is to drastically reduce the number of accused so that each can be allocated more resources. So either we need to develop some magic to drastically reduce the number of crimes people commit, or we need to prosecute drastically fewer criminals, or we need to drastically reduce the number of things common people can be prosecuted for. Make your choice.
  - Encosia 14y ago
    I agree with your overall point, but public defenders get paid low to mid five figures. In fact, many lawyers do not make six figures. The median attorney salary in most areas is much lower than you'd think.

leephillips 14y ago

Good points, but I think the issue here is that the government takes steps for the specific purpose of denying a defendant the right to hire counsel of his choosing.

thebmax 14y ago

I agree with you that the poor get hit by this just as hard. A person who is facing a drug charge who has a few priors will be given the choice of pleading guilt and serving a few years in jail or going to trial and risking 20 years or some such nonsense. But why should making everyone suffer from an unjust legal system better than the alternative. This is like the socialists who believe everyone being poor is better than some people being rich. "The equal sharing of misery" as Churchill put it, is not a good outcome.

wpietri 14y ago
The reason that we should end the "one law for the rich, another for the poor" system we have now is that the system will never get more just unless the people with power have an incentive to make it so. I'm pretty skeptical that Black was ill-used by the prosecutors. But even if he were, then as long as he was no more ill-treated than the average drug defendant, then I don't think we should worry about him more than the average drug defendant. And possibly less; Black still has incredible advantages over most of humanity.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >The reason that we should end the "one law for the rich, another for the poor" system we have now is that the system will never get more just unless the people with power have an incentive to make it so. That only works if the injustice affects sufficiently many affluent people that they act to change it -- and that they act to do more than just solve it solely for the rich. Which is highly unlikely, because those who can't buy their way out of a prosecution with lawyers can buy their way out of it with campaign contributions or outright bribes (but I repeat myself) or calling in favors from politically connected friends, etc. And even if that wasn't the case, most rich people will never be prosecuted anyway (which is the same reason that most blue collar voters don't vote in anyone who will fix it for their brethren). But the main reason is that solving it for working class people is hard, because good criminal defense is extraordinarily expensive and indigent defendants themselves can't afford it, but there are so many such defendants that governments can't afford to pay for it on their behalf either. Meanwhile solving it for the rich is easy, because they each have their own money so they just open their wallets and obtain the best justice money can buy. This is always the problem with the "we'll make the problem worse and then they'll have to fix it" logic. When the problem is extremely hard, making it worse doesn't cause an easy solution to magically appear, it just makes it worse.

bcoates 14y ago

Poor people are rarely accused of incredibly complex financial crimes or decades of being a Mob boss, nor do they usually have ungodly amounts of government resources targeted personally at them. Apparently the message the Feds are trying to send is "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down"

bilbo0s 14y ago
Should preface this by saying that I am trying to gain a more full understanding of your logic. I wonder if you could elaborate on what your point is a bit? I'm not following how being "... accused of incredibly complex financial crimes..." makes it more unjust to be deprived of adequate legal counsel than being accused of possessing marijuana, or selling marijuana for instance. Maybe I'm just parsing your comment incorrectly?
- bcoates 14y ago
  I think jessriedel above made my point a bit more clearly--the amount of resources available to the defendant ought to be roughly comparable to the amount of resources spent by the government on prosecution. For a routine pot charge, a properly funded public defender's office would be adequate. For the Conrad Black charges, it wouldn't be, but the only reason the Feds brought a case as complex and questionable against Conrad Black in the first place was because of the large amounts of money involved and Black's personal wealth. Allowing him to use that wealth in his defense restores some balance.
  - jzwinck 14y ago
    Would it not be preferable if both the prosecution and the defense had fairly limited resources? It doesn't seem better to me for both sides to be armed to the teeth...though I'm sure it's good business for the lawyers. In other words, I agree that balance is required, but disagree that using more wealth to achieve it is the best way forward. Not only does it destroy value in the economy, it begs the questions seen here about the defense of poor people.

rayiner 14y ago

Believe it or not life involves trade-offs... The power to freeze assets helps keeps organized crime from using its vast resources to drown the feds in litigation. The flip side is that it can keep rich individuals from hiring high-priced lawyers to defend against the feds (extremely capable and qualified, if overworked) prosecutors.

bcoates 14y ago
> The power to freeze assets helps keeps organized crime from using its vast resources to drown the feds in litigation Is this a real thing that happens? It sounds like a movie plot.
- rprasad 14y ago
  It happens all the time, in nearly every case involving wealthy defendants (and especially in cases between or involving corporations). It's the SOP for large-scale litigation firms; indeed, most litigation firms don't know how to practice law any other way.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You have to understand the context a bit. The world in 2012 is a very different place than it was in 1970-1990. There wsa a huge crackdown on organized crime and gangs during this period, which leveraged tools like asset freezes and RICO. These tools have always skirted the boundaries of fairness, but were nonetheless instrumental in the massive decline in the power of organized crime in the U.S. over the last several decades.
angersock 14y ago
Yes, yes--they must instead resort to the time-honored tradition of campaign contributions etc. One must, after all, observe proper channels.
jlgreco 14y ago
Oh yes, pesky litigation. That certainly should be avoided shouldn't it.

jessriedel 14y ago

I think the idea is that it's very rare for the indigent to be plausibly charged with an exceedingly complicated crime which is expensive to defend against. Joe-the-common-pickpocket is not at risk of being convicted of a massively technical financial fraud scheme. Public defenders are arguably sufficient to defend against what he might plausibly be charged with: burglary, assault, etc.

fatbird 14y ago
Any felony is expensive to defend against for the poor. If you're under the poverty line, $50k for a lawyer is just as out of reach as $5 million. And if death is involved, as it often is in the case of poverty crimes, then you're definitely talking an expensive trial where the defense is easily overwhelmed by the greater resources of the prosecution.
- checker 14y ago
  $50k for a laywer is out of reach for plenty of people above the poverty line.
  - lilsunnybee 14y ago
    Even if they mortgage / sell their property, their vehicles. Use all family resources? You gotta do what you gotta do if you're facing felony charges.
shardling 14y ago
I like how your example leads by assuming that Joe is a criminal. Nice touch. In reality innocent people get charged with crimes that carry the death penalty, and suffer because they lack proper representation.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  It doesn't matter if Joe did it or not. What matters is if Joe is charged and prosecuted for it.

talmand 14y ago

Ah yes, the old "Person A has it bad so let's level the field by making it bad for Person B" idea. I believe there's a significant difference between you not having the resources to mount a proper defense versus the prosecution removing your resources to prevent you from mounting a proper defense. Why not go the other way? Assign the prosecution a budget in line with the defendant's ability to defend themselves.

sixothree 14y ago
Or better yet the other other way. Assign the public defense a budget in line with the prosecution's budget. I was a juror on a murder trial and the thing that was most striking was the huge disparity between the prosecution's team size and resources and the defense's complete lack of any meaningful resource whatsoever. It was a very sad week of my life. edit missing word
- rayiner 14y ago
  The criminal justice system for blue collar crime is very sad. It's the result of decades of "tough on crime" and the voters have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

rgbrenner 14y ago

they froze the assets that he was accused of stealing. I see nothing wrong with the assets that were in dispute being frozen until it could be determined (by the court) who was the rightful owner of those funds. In other words, the question is: should a person be permitted to use funds possibly acquired through illegal activity to defend themselves from a prosecution regarding that same activity? If I break into your home and steal $10K from your safe, should I be permitted to use that $10K on my defense? Keeping in mind, that if I do so, the $10K will no longer be there... so if I lose, your $10K will be gone.

rgbrenner 14y ago
It should also be noted in Black's case, much of his assets were frozen by other (non-US) governments. Here's a Canadian court freezing his worldwide assets, at the request of Hollinger Inc (the company he once controlled): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302140.stm
rgbrenner 14y ago
One other thing (yes, I realize I'm replying to myself): In non-monetary crimes.. burglary, for example.. the accused does not get to hold onto the property they are accused of stealing. It sits in an evidence locker until the trial is over, and then it's returned to either the accused or the victim (or auctioned off). In a way, the freezing of the funds in a white-collar crime is very similar.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
There is an easy way out of this. If the government seizes any of your assets prior to finding you guilty, they should have to lend you the market value of the assets at no interest solely for the purposes of putting on your defense. If you then lose, you never get the stolen assets back (which go back to the owner) and you continue to owe the government whatever money you borrowed, which they collect as though it were unpaid taxes. This will understandably result in many defendants borrowing money which they will never be able to repay because they are then sentenced prison, but that's the cost of doing business. Call it de facto adequate funding of the public defender's office.

pc86 14y ago

Do you seriously not see the difference between John having $500 in the bank account and not being able to retain a private attorney and Jack having $500MM in the bank, but it gets frozen by the FBI, removing his ability to retain the attorney he's used for the past 20 years, just to have the FBI possibly give the money back after the case is over (without interest and after Jack's lost his house, mind you). Edit: I'd love for you to explain your rationale rather than just downvoting me.

lacksconfidence 14y ago
The downvotes, imo, are most likely not for the concept of your post but for your tone.
- pc86 14y ago
  Fair point. If I could still edit I'd soften it up a bit (and delete the edit since it's above 0 again).
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  Why can't we be honest on HN? If the tone isn't flowery and sweet, it gets downvotes (and responses like yours). Unless of course it involves: drug legalization, religion, or Republicans. Then anger, hatred, and aggressive posts are up voted. This is just an excuse. You don't want to see your opinions in a negative light. It's a form of censorship.
  - lacksconfidence 14y ago
    Shrug, i didn't downvote the OP, just provided insight (as requested) into why the post has been downvoted. The tone doesnt have to be flowery and sweet. But the tone should never sound like a personal attack. "Do you seriously not see" implys that the person being replied to is too stupid, or at least incompetent, to see what has been pointed out.

alan_cx 14y ago

Em, surely the idea would be to get poor people to have a defence as good as rich people, not dragging rich people down. And, its says nothing good that its clear that there is a difference in out come depending on wealth. If some one is innocent, then that should be the out come regardless of money. Further, defendants are going up against the might of the state, US or other wise. Surely all defendants should have a defence equal of the state, other wise, well, you don't have any justice to speak of at all. I cant understand why this is not making people want to argue for non rich people to have a decent defence in court.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>I cant understand why this is not making people want to argue for non rich people to have a decent defence in court. It's because that would break the system. There are over two million inmates in the United States. There is no known or obvious way to provide a reasonable defense for that many defendants in any cost effective manner. A single good lawyer gets paid six figures. A criminal trial lasts several years through all the appeals. There are millions of accused. Do the math. It's just not happening. The only way to fix it is to drastically reduce the number of accused so that each can be allocated more resources. So either we need to develop some magic to drastically reduce the number of crimes people commit, or we need to prosecute drastically fewer criminals, or we need to drastically reduce the number of things common people can be prosecuted for. Make your choice.
- Encosia 14y ago
  I agree with your overall point, but public defenders get paid low to mid five figures. In fact, many lawyers do not make six figures. The median attorney salary in most areas is much lower than you'd think.