3 ms·

> Third, the inflated penalty also changes the perception of the judge and the jury Yeah, if the real "deserved penalty" is 6 months probation, starting at 13

> Third, the inflated penalty also changes the perception of the judge and the jury Yeah, if the real "deserved penalty" is 6 months probation, starting at 13 years anchors that number in people's heads, and the sympathetic jury will feel great for only giving him 1 year in prison, when that is a sentence double in length and immeasurably worse in magnitude compared to the deserved penalty.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Juries don't issue sentences except in death penalty cases. I swear, I have never seen so many legal misconceptions in any other online community as I have in HN.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  Most people on HN are not lawyers. If you see a mistake you can point it out without the snark, especially when you're just being pedantic. How does the decision being made by a judge change the problem that outrageous maximums frame the expected range for the decision maker and cause excessive penalties to seem reasonable when compared with extraordinarily excessive penalties?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You don't need to be a lawyer to have basic familiarity with the legal process. Knowing that juries issue verdicts and judges issue sentence is something people should have realized by the time they made it out of school. You know what else people should learn in school? how to recognize a bullshit news article on a site that traffics in conspiracy theories.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >You know what else people should learn in school? how to recognize a bullshit news article on a site that traffics in conspiracy theories. Judge the article by itself, not by what else the site that has it might show. Not to mention the obvious fact that you can find independent confirmations of the same story elsewhere. Except if you believe the story in the article is a conspiracy theory itself. Like, you know, the "conspiracy theory" about Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide after facing a disgusting case of "prosecutorial discretion"? Or tons of people who were "made an example" or used as a stepping ladder for a political career by some prosecutor?
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        Judge the article by itself, not by what else the site that has it might show The quality of stories on the site are a very good indicator of the low editorial standards there. Not to mention the obvious fact that you can find independent confirmations of the same story elsewhere. No, it's all just reprints of the same RT article (and RT is well known for poor journalism). This is called churnalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism The story itself is flawed because it misleads its readers. It doesn't include any fact-checking on California law, any link to the case, or any kind of meaningful context, like why the judge would have (correctly and appropriately) told Olson's attorney not to bring up the first amendment to the jury - because trial juries are finders of fact, not arbiters of law, and the first amendment does not confer a right to damage or destruction of other people's property, so it wasn't a valid defense. We have a common law legal system in America. Legal questions are decided by judges (whose decisions can be appealed) and factual questions are decided by juries. A responsibly reported article would have explained why Olson's attorney had no business trying to make a first amendment argument to a jury: the law in America does not work that way, it has never worked that way, and Olson's lawyer could never have passed the bar if he actually thought it worked that way. Like, you know, the "conspiracy theory" about Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide after facing a disgusting case of "prosecutorial discretion"? Bullshit. He was facing a 6 month sentence, a very light penalty for actions that were obviously illegal and which he knew to be illegal. I don't know why Swartz killed himself and neither do you. You want to a story about bad prosecutors and injustice? Try this one: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-571.ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-571.ZO.html
- coldtea 13y ago
  Which is beside the point. First, who excluded death penalty cases from this discussion? Second, the jury still determines if the accused is guilty or not. A prosecutor asking for a huge penalty can (and will tend to) sway them to think the accused as "more guilty". After all, "he wouldn't ask for such a high penalty if the guy was all innocent", they'd think (that they could be advised not to judge by that is BS too). What you did here, is you've taken several pedantic technicalities on this thread and run with them as far as you can. This technique, and such contempt to the actual spirit of the law and justice (the issues under discussion), makes one assume that you are a lawyer or something close.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Juries don't issue sentences except in death penalty cases. I swear, I have never seen so many legal misconceptions in any other online community as I have in HN.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
Most people on HN are not lawyers. If you see a mistake you can point it out without the snark, especially when you're just being pedantic. How does the decision being made by a judge change the problem that outrageous maximums frame the expected range for the decision maker and cause excessive penalties to seem reasonable when compared with extraordinarily excessive penalties?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  You don't need to be a lawyer to have basic familiarity with the legal process. Knowing that juries issue verdicts and judges issue sentence is something people should have realized by the time they made it out of school. You know what else people should learn in school? how to recognize a bullshit news article on a site that traffics in conspiracy theories.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >You know what else people should learn in school? how to recognize a bullshit news article on a site that traffics in conspiracy theories. Judge the article by itself, not by what else the site that has it might show. Not to mention the obvious fact that you can find independent confirmations of the same story elsewhere. Except if you believe the story in the article is a conspiracy theory itself. Like, you know, the "conspiracy theory" about Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide after facing a disgusting case of "prosecutorial discretion"? Or tons of people who were "made an example" or used as a stepping ladder for a political career by some prosecutor?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Judge the article by itself, not by what else the site that has it might show The quality of stories on the site are a very good indicator of the low editorial standards there. Not to mention the obvious fact that you can find independent confirmations of the same story elsewhere. No, it's all just reprints of the same RT article (and RT is well known for poor journalism). This is called churnalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism The story itself is flawed because it misleads its readers. It doesn't include any fact-checking on California law, any link to the case, or any kind of meaningful context, like why the judge would have (correctly and appropriately) told Olson's attorney not to bring up the first amendment to the jury - because trial juries are finders of fact, not arbiters of law, and the first amendment does not confer a right to damage or destruction of other people's property, so it wasn't a valid defense. We have a common law legal system in America. Legal questions are decided by judges (whose decisions can be appealed) and factual questions are decided by juries. A responsibly reported article would have explained why Olson's attorney had no business trying to make a first amendment argument to a jury: the law in America does not work that way, it has never worked that way, and Olson's lawyer could never have passed the bar if he actually thought it worked that way. Like, you know, the "conspiracy theory" about Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide after facing a disgusting case of "prosecutorial discretion"? Bullshit. He was facing a 6 month sentence, a very light penalty for actions that were obviously illegal and which he knew to be illegal. I don't know why Swartz killed himself and neither do you. You want to a story about bad prosecutors and injustice? Try this one: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-571.ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-571.ZO.html
coldtea 13y ago
Which is beside the point. First, who excluded death penalty cases from this discussion? Second, the jury still determines if the accused is guilty or not. A prosecutor asking for a huge penalty can (and will tend to) sway them to think the accused as "more guilty". After all, "he wouldn't ask for such a high penalty if the guy was all innocent", they'd think (that they could be advised not to judge by that is BS too). What you did here, is you've taken several pedantic technicalities on this thread and run with them as far as you can. This technique, and such contempt to the actual spirit of the law and justice (the issues under discussion), makes one assume that you are a lawyer or something close.