4 ms·

That is appalling. Effectively, by simply charging someone with a crime, the government is actually immediately convicting them of a crime with a de facto puni

That is appalling. Effectively, by simply charging someone with a crime, the government is actually immediately convicting them of a crime with a de facto punishment of a $1.5 million fine. Forcing someone to pay $1.5 million to defend themselves, is, in and of itself, depriving that person of property without due process of law, and therefore a violation of the fifth amendment.

carbocation 14y ago
Quite frequently, you will be blocked from using your assets to defend from such suits (your assets will be frozen), so good luck attempting to spend your $1.5 million anyway. The book Three Felonies a Day talks about this (the main focus is how the government's tactics for working its way up the food chain to the apex criminal, which is not related to Aaron's story, but the author's exposition of costs and property restrictions are relevant). http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
anoncow 14y ago
Why is anybody not fixing it? Nobody even talks about it. A large majority of the tech world supported Obama. But the issue of piracy, prosecution and law never ever came up. Why is nobody bothered? When will this shit end?
- droithomme 14y ago
  What advantage to those in power is there from "fixing" this? To them it is not broken, it is working as designed and intended. Things didn't get this way by accident.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  > A large majority of the tech world supported Obama. I didn't. Fuck Obama. He had voted to give retroactive immunity to telecom companies for spying on American citizens when he was a senator. That showed his true character. Everything else was just marketing. He even got awarded the "Marketer Of The Year" award from AdAge. Beating Nike, Coke, and Apple. Since then I feel largely my hunch has turned out to be true. We are still at war, we are still engaged in extra-judicial rendition, we spend our tax money trying to show 25 year old programmers in jail for 30+ year for downloading scientific papers, the list goes fuck.
rdtsc 14y ago
They are also known to seize assets so even if someone has money saved for defense, those can easily disappear.
tedunangst 14y ago
Your argument holds true for any dollar amount above zero, and it's hard to imagine how we could get the average cost to zero. If you want to keep the average low, you will need to find some way to prevent a mafia boss from spending millions of dollars. Make every defendant use only a state provided attorney?
- bokonist 14y ago
  The state could provide every defendant a line of credit with a limit roughly equivalent to the amount the state prosecution is spending. If the defendant wins, the balance is paid by the state. If the defendant loses, then the balance must be paid back by the defendant.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Sounds fair, but also kinda like the system we have. For one thing, all the evidence the prosecution pays for is supposed to be provided to the defense. Perhaps not the evidence the defense would like, but ideally the facts are all there and the court case is about telling a story that fits. I don't want to take the number at face value because it includes the amount spent by guilty people trying to avoid jail at any cost. Kenneth Lay no doubt spent a pretty penny on his defense.
    - bokonist 14y ago
      In the case of USA vs. A Swartz, there were already over a 100 filings and the case had not even gone to trial yet ( http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137971/gov.uscourts.mad.137971.docket.html http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137... ). All that back and forth requires billable hours from a very pricey attorney, the money adds up very quickly. I do not know enough about the legal system to determine how the discovery/pre-trial motion process could be made more efficient and cheaper for the defendant.

carbocation 14y ago

Quite frequently, you will be blocked from using your assets to defend from such suits (your assets will be frozen), so good luck attempting to spend your $1.5 million anyway. The book Three Felonies a Day talks about this (the main focus is how the government's tactics for working its way up the food chain to the apex criminal, which is not related to Aaron's story, but the author's exposition of costs and property restrictions are relevant). http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

anoncow 14y ago

Why is anybody not fixing it? Nobody even talks about it. A large majority of the tech world supported Obama. But the issue of piracy, prosecution and law never ever came up. Why is nobody bothered? When will this shit end?

droithomme 14y ago
What advantage to those in power is there from "fixing" this? To them it is not broken, it is working as designed and intended. Things didn't get this way by accident.
rdtsc 14y ago
> A large majority of the tech world supported Obama. I didn't. Fuck Obama. He had voted to give retroactive immunity to telecom companies for spying on American citizens when he was a senator. That showed his true character. Everything else was just marketing. He even got awarded the "Marketer Of The Year" award from AdAge. Beating Nike, Coke, and Apple. Since then I feel largely my hunch has turned out to be true. We are still at war, we are still engaged in extra-judicial rendition, we spend our tax money trying to show 25 year old programmers in jail for 30+ year for downloading scientific papers, the list goes fuck.

rdtsc 14y ago

They are also known to seize assets so even if someone has money saved for defense, those can easily disappear.

tedunangst 14y ago

Your argument holds true for any dollar amount above zero, and it's hard to imagine how we could get the average cost to zero. If you want to keep the average low, you will need to find some way to prevent a mafia boss from spending millions of dollars. Make every defendant use only a state provided attorney?

bokonist 14y ago
The state could provide every defendant a line of credit with a limit roughly equivalent to the amount the state prosecution is spending. If the defendant wins, the balance is paid by the state. If the defendant loses, then the balance must be paid back by the defendant.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Sounds fair, but also kinda like the system we have. For one thing, all the evidence the prosecution pays for is supposed to be provided to the defense. Perhaps not the evidence the defense would like, but ideally the facts are all there and the court case is about telling a story that fits. I don't want to take the number at face value because it includes the amount spent by guilty people trying to avoid jail at any cost. Kenneth Lay no doubt spent a pretty penny on his defense.
  - bokonist 14y ago
    In the case of USA vs. A Swartz, there were already over a 100 filings and the case had not even gone to trial yet ( http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137971/gov.uscourts.mad.137971.docket.html http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137... ). All that back and forth requires billable hours from a very pricey attorney, the money adds up very quickly. I do not know enough about the legal system to determine how the discovery/pre-trial motion process could be made more efficient and cheaper for the defendant.