7 ms·

See No Evil: The Case of Alfred Anaya

91 points by jayzee 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mercurial 14y ago
> The judge agreed with McCracken’s harsh assessment. He sentenced Anaya to 292 months in federal prison—more than 24 years—with no possibility of parole. Curtis Crow and Cesar Bonilla Montiel, the men at the top of the organization, received sentences half that length. I guess justice is served and we call sleep better at night? Is "war on drugs" a magic formula which can be used to justify anything, just like "war on terror" and "think of the children"?
- ledge 14y ago
  Apparently he was also charged with two counts of intimidating a witness, which the Wired article does not mention, so maybe there is more to this story. Either way, it saddens me to know that the instigators, aggressors, and profiteers of this "war" will never spend a day in prison.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    It's a compelling story but I agree that leaving out details like that is a failure of journalistic ethics.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    It does mention that someone signed an affidavit then recanted it and claimed intimidation, but not where the second one comes from.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
joshmlewis 14y ago
On one hand, I feel bad for the guy. I mean it seems like unless you're wealthy or have a really good case in these situations hiring a lawyer is too pricey for most people and so when the district attorney is coming at you with all they got and they shove you in with the other "drug" criminals and all you have is your appointed court defender, you're going to have a bad time. It's almost like he didn't have a "fair" shot just because the weight of accusations against him and the power behind it versus what he had was just outweighed. On the other hand, he had to of known what was going on. You start down the path of shady, it's just going to get darker. I can't say I blame him or I wouldn't do the same if I had a passion for such things, but still he had to of known the risk. I don't believe in his sentence however and it really sucks the guys at the top only got half the length he did. There might have been other things involved sure, but stil a sentence like that is pretty staggering and life changing.
- rosser 14y ago
  It's "had to have known", not "had to of known". For the love of all that is good and right in the world, please, "had to have known".
  - joshmlewis 14y ago
    What the hell? This isn't grammar school. I was commenting in a hurry on a news site. Calm yourself.
- ledge 14y ago
  By the same token though, the Tor developers had to have known that Tor would be used for distribution of child pornography, and gun manufacturers surely know that their guns will be used to kill innocent people.
  - MaysonL 14y ago
    Not to speak of tobacco...
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
angersock 14y ago
This is troubling, right? There's sort of three options about tech facilitating <bad thing>: you hold the people behind the tech responsible, you hold the people behind the tech blameless, or you cherry-pick when they're at fault. I'd argue that cherry-picking is what we currently do, and that it is troublesome in its inherent double-standards: if I show teenagers how to make pipebombs and they hurt someone, that's on me, but if I write tech manuals for special forces on the same subject, that's okay. If I write software that helps ensure messages are private, that's okay, but if the same software is used to carry child porn, that's awful. If I write software for recording customer information, that's okay, but if I provide it to the government, that's not okay. Cherry-picking is rubbish in this way, because the same tech--particularly for tools and services!--can be used for both good and harm. It may be difficult to argue for peaceful uses of stealth fighters, but barring a few cases it would seem that all tech is dual-use. We can acknowledge this fact, and pick one extreme or the other. If we take the view that all tech providers are culpable for the use of their tech, we stifle innovation and retard the pace of development--if the morass of patent claims is bad, consider what happens if every product has to go through a strict liability filter to make sure it can't hurt anyone. We don't even stop the bad uses of tech--we can still be saddened to find that someone has found an illegal use for our tools that simply had never occurred to us. If we go the other way, and hold tech providers blameless, we don't slow innovation. We simplify the cases against people who do commit crimes, and streamline the justice process. We give up the ability to try and stop the spread of things like traps and weapons and whatnot, and can focus on actually going after the people that use them for ill, or deciding not to waste resources on things that become impractical to enforce. None of this matters a hill of beans, though, because we seem to be hellbent on a justice system which doesn't even bother to make clear the inscrutable laws with which it will nail you to the wall. Brilliant.
- tempestn 14y ago
  While I agree that the result in this case was extreme, it seems that the article does point out the distinction, which is whether the person behind the tech is directly aware that it will be used for <bad thing>. In this particular case, I could see how there's a strong argument that he was. I mean, when he saw the $800k, honestly, he _did_ know it was related to drugs. He made the choice to continue. Should he have been charged as a conspirator and ultimately sentenced to 24 years? Not in my opinion! But he wasn't completely blameless either.
SagelyGuru 14y ago
Some people here rightly question why he got twice as long sentence as the top guys. This is the key to understanding what really happened in this case (see below). What case? Pure hearsay by real but <cooperating> drug traffickers, woven into a skillful tale of bespoke swimming pools, deliberately painting him as a drug dealer in the jury's minds. The intimidation charge, btw., is explained: it was needed to discredit the traffickers' initial account of him not being involved. Of course, the true reason for changing their story, i.e. successfully reducing their own sentences, would not have played so well for the prosecutor. The only remotely substantiated 'evidence' against him was that he saw some cash. By that count most bankers ought to be in jail with him. So we come to the explanation of the glaring discrepancy in the sentencing: 1) His skills were making life difficult for the police, so he had to be <dealt with>, regardless of justice or law. This is why the prosecutor offered to cut sentencing deals with the real traffickers, just to get him. 2) Being innocent and <not cooperating> are the worst crimes in the US of today. The same principle as in Aaron Schwarz case. Regardless of the details of this case, don't you think that it is just plain wrong that prosecutors can order any 'witness account' they want from most people in their clutches? Years in jail at their discretion is a very powerful inducement, one that must be distorting justice (read framing innocent people) on daily basis.
yardie 14y ago
First, he was too cooperative. As soon as they brought him in for questioning he should have retained a lawyer. 15 compartments? For who? Do you know what they use them for? The answer to all those questions is "Let me ask my lawyer, first". People watch to much TV. They think the justice system is fair based on the fact that Law and Order wraps up the case in 45 minutes and the perp always confesses. It doesn't work like that. Even from the article the DA takes great joy in sending people to prison. If you are in front of him your innocence is not taken into account. He's trying to send you to prison for as long as possible.
SagelyGuru 14y ago
The moral aspect of this story is interesting. Had he taken up the offer of a luxury bugged storefront with all the equipment he wanted, he would now be a respectable, financially secure citizen instead of languishing for over 24 years in jail. What do such extremely diverse outcomes for the same past activities say about the validity of the law and its implementation process? The only hitch is that his innocent clients who have every right to hide their jewelery and other valuables in their own car would all have their security knowingly compromised by him. What does that tell us about the authorities, their attitude towards our privacy rights, and the moral values they expect and enforce?
venomsnake 14y ago
The whole justice system is badly in need of reform. Monstrosities like the ones signed into law for the war on terror, war on drugs and war on sex offenders need to be scaled back. Also discretion must be removed from the prosecutors. And why not instead of minimal sentence guidance, create a maximum for combined sentence where no bodily harm was inflicted. Like - 3 years. This will infuse some sanity.

91 points by jayzee 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

> The judge agreed with McCracken’s harsh assessment. He sentenced Anaya to 292 months in federal prison—more than 24 years—with no possibility of parole. Curtis Crow and Cesar Bonilla Montiel, the men at the top of the organization, received sentences half that length. I guess justice is served and we call sleep better at night? Is "war on drugs" a magic formula which can be used to justify anything, just like "war on terror" and "think of the children"?

ledge 14y ago
Apparently he was also charged with two counts of intimidating a witness, which the Wired article does not mention, so maybe there is more to this story. Either way, it saddens me to know that the instigators, aggressors, and profiteers of this "war" will never spend a day in prison.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  It's a compelling story but I agree that leaving out details like that is a failure of journalistic ethics.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  It does mention that someone signed an affidavit then recanted it and claimed intimidation, but not where the second one comes from.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

joshmlewis 14y ago

On one hand, I feel bad for the guy. I mean it seems like unless you're wealthy or have a really good case in these situations hiring a lawyer is too pricey for most people and so when the district attorney is coming at you with all they got and they shove you in with the other "drug" criminals and all you have is your appointed court defender, you're going to have a bad time. It's almost like he didn't have a "fair" shot just because the weight of accusations against him and the power behind it versus what he had was just outweighed. On the other hand, he had to of known what was going on. You start down the path of shady, it's just going to get darker. I can't say I blame him or I wouldn't do the same if I had a passion for such things, but still he had to of known the risk. I don't believe in his sentence however and it really sucks the guys at the top only got half the length he did. There might have been other things involved sure, but stil a sentence like that is pretty staggering and life changing.

rosser 14y ago
It's "had to have known", not "had to of known". For the love of all that is good and right in the world, please, "had to have known".
- joshmlewis 14y ago
  What the hell? This isn't grammar school. I was commenting in a hurry on a news site. Calm yourself.
ledge 14y ago
By the same token though, the Tor developers had to have known that Tor would be used for distribution of child pornography, and gun manufacturers surely know that their guns will be used to kill innocent people.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  Not to speak of tobacco...
- jiggy2011 14y ago

angersock 14y ago

This is troubling, right? There's sort of three options about tech facilitating <bad thing>: you hold the people behind the tech responsible, you hold the people behind the tech blameless, or you cherry-pick when they're at fault. I'd argue that cherry-picking is what we currently do, and that it is troublesome in its inherent double-standards: if I show teenagers how to make pipebombs and they hurt someone, that's on me, but if I write tech manuals for special forces on the same subject, that's okay. If I write software that helps ensure messages are private, that's okay, but if the same software is used to carry child porn, that's awful. If I write software for recording customer information, that's okay, but if I provide it to the government, that's not okay. Cherry-picking is rubbish in this way, because the same tech--particularly for tools and services!--can be used for both good and harm. It may be difficult to argue for peaceful uses of stealth fighters, but barring a few cases it would seem that all tech is dual-use. We can acknowledge this fact, and pick one extreme or the other. If we take the view that all tech providers are culpable for the use of their tech, we stifle innovation and retard the pace of development--if the morass of patent claims is bad, consider what happens if every product has to go through a strict liability filter to make sure it can't hurt anyone. We don't even stop the bad uses of tech--we can still be saddened to find that someone has found an illegal use for our tools that simply had never occurred to us. If we go the other way, and hold tech providers blameless, we don't slow innovation. We simplify the cases against people who do commit crimes, and streamline the justice process. We give up the ability to try and stop the spread of things like traps and weapons and whatnot, and can focus on actually going after the people that use them for ill, or deciding not to waste resources on things that become impractical to enforce. None of this matters a hill of beans, though, because we seem to be hellbent on a justice system which doesn't even bother to make clear the inscrutable laws with which it will nail you to the wall. Brilliant.

tempestn 14y ago
While I agree that the result in this case was extreme, it seems that the article does point out the distinction, which is whether the person behind the tech is directly aware that it will be used for <bad thing>. In this particular case, I could see how there's a strong argument that he was. I mean, when he saw the $800k, honestly, he _did_ know it was related to drugs. He made the choice to continue. Should he have been charged as a conspirator and ultimately sentenced to 24 years? Not in my opinion! But he wasn't completely blameless either.

SagelyGuru 14y ago

Some people here rightly question why he got twice as long sentence as the top guys. This is the key to understanding what really happened in this case (see below). What case? Pure hearsay by real but <cooperating> drug traffickers, woven into a skillful tale of bespoke swimming pools, deliberately painting him as a drug dealer in the jury's minds. The intimidation charge, btw., is explained: it was needed to discredit the traffickers' initial account of him not being involved. Of course, the true reason for changing their story, i.e. successfully reducing their own sentences, would not have played so well for the prosecutor. The only remotely substantiated 'evidence' against him was that he saw some cash. By that count most bankers ought to be in jail with him. So we come to the explanation of the glaring discrepancy in the sentencing: 1) His skills were making life difficult for the police, so he had to be <dealt with>, regardless of justice or law. This is why the prosecutor offered to cut sentencing deals with the real traffickers, just to get him. 2) Being innocent and <not cooperating> are the worst crimes in the US of today. The same principle as in Aaron Schwarz case. Regardless of the details of this case, don't you think that it is just plain wrong that prosecutors can order any 'witness account' they want from most people in their clutches? Years in jail at their discretion is a very powerful inducement, one that must be distorting justice (read framing innocent people) on daily basis.

yardie 14y ago

First, he was too cooperative. As soon as they brought him in for questioning he should have retained a lawyer. 15 compartments? For who? Do you know what they use them for? The answer to all those questions is "Let me ask my lawyer, first". People watch to much TV. They think the justice system is fair based on the fact that Law and Order wraps up the case in 45 minutes and the perp always confesses. It doesn't work like that. Even from the article the DA takes great joy in sending people to prison. If you are in front of him your innocence is not taken into account. He's trying to send you to prison for as long as possible.

SagelyGuru 14y ago

The moral aspect of this story is interesting. Had he taken up the offer of a luxury bugged storefront with all the equipment he wanted, he would now be a respectable, financially secure citizen instead of languishing for over 24 years in jail. What do such extremely diverse outcomes for the same past activities say about the validity of the law and its implementation process? The only hitch is that his innocent clients who have every right to hide their jewelery and other valuables in their own car would all have their security knowingly compromised by him. What does that tell us about the authorities, their attitude towards our privacy rights, and the moral values they expect and enforce?

venomsnake 14y ago

The whole justice system is badly in need of reform. Monstrosities like the ones signed into law for the war on terror, war on drugs and war on sex offenders need to be scaled back. Also discretion must be removed from the prosecutors. And why not instead of minimal sentence guidance, create a maximum for combined sentence where no bodily harm was inflicted. Like - 3 years. This will infuse some sanity.