4 ms·

One thing worthy of notice are the "combo" nature of these penalties. For example, he says Computer Fraud is pretty much the same as Wire Fraud. Yet that's a se

One thing worthy of notice are the "combo" nature of these penalties. For example, he says Computer Fraud is pretty much the same as Wire Fraud. Yet that's a separate count, with more years/fines/numbers, which gives the prosecution a larger Sword of Damocles to hold over someone's head. Why have a separate crime if you are always going to charge both? Kerr is probably right on the narrow point that if you decided to throw the book at someone you'd hit them with a combo like this (and they later expanded it into a 13-hit combo), and might even be right that this combo is "nothing unusual". We should wait for part two, but the multiplication of an infinite number of federal statutes in combination with prosecutorial discretion looks like the real problem here. We need to trim the sails of these prosecutors in a big way, or at least provide an external check. For example: they're against jury trials? They want to deny people the right to a jury by depleting their cash? Well, what about a virtual jury? Have a site with all public court documents and filings, like the grand jury indictment. Look at how many years they are pursuing and include bios/faces of the accused, defense, and the prosecutors. Then have people vote up/down as to whether or not they think the punishment fits the crime. Completely non-binding of course, and conceptually separate from the question of innocence/guilt. Include lots of analytics/stats on past convictions and the like. Make money via Amazon affiliate links to books on crime, TV shows, etc. And do SEO so that people found innocent are very clearly marked as such in search result snippets. Many crimes are salacious so with reasonable graphic design you'd have no problem getting visitors (like the Smoking Gun). The resulting scrutiny of prosecutorial decisions by thousands of people would indeed change the profession, putting a second and more scalable check on them comparable to the press.

cones688 14y ago
Key point with regards to your opening paragraph is: " But the ordinary practice is to charge all the possible offenses committed in the indictment, even if they overlap, and then let the jury sort them out at trial." There is at least a passable amount of evidence for each of the charges, so naturally the prosecution will maximise the number of possible charges. This prevents the whole case falling through if of the one of the counts fails.
- jrs235 14y ago
  So force the prosecution to pick the appropriate charge? (Or are the prosecutors not versed well enough in the law to know which law/crime is the correct one that was violated?) What do you think about this: if the prosecutor thinks the big charge might not stick because the evidence is questionable then charge the lesser crime? Or perhaps (I know many don't like this, especially the government) a separate trial for each charge. Yes, the cost to prosecute goes up (if all charges are going to be charged) and that's why they combine multiple charges into one trial. But psychologically, if the jury see that a person has been charged with 13 crimes then he must be guilty of one or some of them right? If the state had to try each charge separately and the big one didn't stick, then if the state truly thought the next one would stick do that trial. Our legal/justice system has a flaw and that flaw was to let a few guilty men go free to safe guard and protect innocent men from going to prison.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    How is a separate trial for each charge different from double jeopardy? Part of the point of having the prosecutor bundle together all the possible charges is so there can be a single trial in which the truth comes out. How are you going to "lock in" the possible set of charges early on in such a way to prevent the prosecution from just digging up one more offense at the end of every trial ensuring the defendant never gets to go on with his/her life? This tragedy is really bringing out the propensity of us Americans to try and find someone to blame for every bad thing that happens so we can prevent bad things from happening again. Unfortunately, there's a certain level of tragedy in this world that is just random and unavoidable. The hang-wringing isn't doing Aaron or his causes any good, it's just creating new victims and wasting a lot of time.
    - talmand 14y ago
      If each charge is considered a different crime then double jeopardy wouldn't apply. Also, in the US at least, the justice system isn't about getting to the truth. It's about assigning blame for an act that is considered against the law. If you are charged with a crime then the prosecutor will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law and do their best to win by getting a conviction. The prosecutor will not necessarily go out of their way to prove your innocence by attempting to get to the truth. Both sides present their case and the jury, or maybe the judge, make a decision based on what they've been presented, regardless of what the truth might be.

cones688 14y ago

Key point with regards to your opening paragraph is: " But the ordinary practice is to charge all the possible offenses committed in the indictment, even if they overlap, and then let the jury sort them out at trial." There is at least a passable amount of evidence for each of the charges, so naturally the prosecution will maximise the number of possible charges. This prevents the whole case falling through if of the one of the counts fails.

jrs235 14y ago
So force the prosecution to pick the appropriate charge? (Or are the prosecutors not versed well enough in the law to know which law/crime is the correct one that was violated?) What do you think about this: if the prosecutor thinks the big charge might not stick because the evidence is questionable then charge the lesser crime? Or perhaps (I know many don't like this, especially the government) a separate trial for each charge. Yes, the cost to prosecute goes up (if all charges are going to be charged) and that's why they combine multiple charges into one trial. But psychologically, if the jury see that a person has been charged with 13 crimes then he must be guilty of one or some of them right? If the state had to try each charge separately and the big one didn't stick, then if the state truly thought the next one would stick do that trial. Our legal/justice system has a flaw and that flaw was to let a few guilty men go free to safe guard and protect innocent men from going to prison.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  How is a separate trial for each charge different from double jeopardy? Part of the point of having the prosecutor bundle together all the possible charges is so there can be a single trial in which the truth comes out. How are you going to "lock in" the possible set of charges early on in such a way to prevent the prosecution from just digging up one more offense at the end of every trial ensuring the defendant never gets to go on with his/her life? This tragedy is really bringing out the propensity of us Americans to try and find someone to blame for every bad thing that happens so we can prevent bad things from happening again. Unfortunately, there's a certain level of tragedy in this world that is just random and unavoidable. The hang-wringing isn't doing Aaron or his causes any good, it's just creating new victims and wasting a lot of time.
  - talmand 14y ago
    If each charge is considered a different crime then double jeopardy wouldn't apply. Also, in the US at least, the justice system isn't about getting to the truth. It's about assigning blame for an act that is considered against the law. If you are charged with a crime then the prosecutor will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law and do their best to win by getting a conviction. The prosecutor will not necessarily go out of their way to prove your innocence by attempting to get to the truth. Both sides present their case and the jury, or maybe the judge, make a decision based on what they've been presented, regardless of what the truth might be.