3 ms·

I'm not saying Anaya wasn't an idiot — even willfully so — or that he shouldn't have been charged under California statute on traps and their being used to tran

by rosser 14y ago

I'm not saying Anaya wasn't an idiot — even willfully so — or that he shouldn't have been charged under California statute on traps and their being used to transport narcotics. The issue in his case isn't that he wasn't guilty of a crime; it's that he wasn't guilty of a Federal crime — both because there is no such Federal crime, and because he could perfectly well have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced under perfectly applicable State law. Contrariwise, do you seriously believe that he deserves more than twice the sentence that the people who actually trafficked the drugs got? Do you actually think that your notional door-blocking person should have his case usurped by the Feds and get a stiffer sentence than the bank robber he aided and abetted? (Edited)

rayiner 14y ago
Building hidden compartments for people in SoCal is stupid. Building them after you see 800k stuffed in a car is not just the sign of an idiot, it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It's also the case that sentences are handed down not just based on what the defendant did, but what the prosecutor could prove, and its quite possible that it Anaya left more evidence that could be used against him than a seasoned criminal.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  >it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It is now a matter of public record that HSBC, Wachovia, JP Morgan, and others have laundered huge sums of 'drug money' in operations ongoing for many years. So, for those individuals and companies who continue to do business with the banks involved, are they "consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity"? Can a businessman refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity? Does a businessman have a duty to refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity?
- rosser 14y ago
  Holy hand-wavy, HN. Yes or no: do you think the Feds' actions in this case were kosher? Do you think the Feds pulling shit like that is kosher in general?

by rosser 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

Building hidden compartments for people in SoCal is stupid. Building them after you see 800k stuffed in a car is not just the sign of an idiot, it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It's also the case that sentences are handed down not just based on what the defendant did, but what the prosecutor could prove, and its quite possible that it Anaya left more evidence that could be used against him than a seasoned criminal.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
>it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It is now a matter of public record that HSBC, Wachovia, JP Morgan, and others have laundered huge sums of 'drug money' in operations ongoing for many years. So, for those individuals and companies who continue to do business with the banks involved, are they "consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity"? Can a businessman refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity? Does a businessman have a duty to refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity?
rosser 14y ago
Holy hand-wavy, HN. Yes or no: do you think the Feds' actions in this case were kosher? Do you think the Feds pulling shit like that is kosher in general?