4 ms·

Laws aren't meant to be weapons to be used against those we hate. If he committed a crime, then let his actual crime be the crime we charge him with. Laws again

Laws aren't meant to be weapons to be used against those we hate. If he committed a crime, then let his actual crime be the crime we charge him with. Laws against wire fraud protect people from a certain kind of malicious behavior which wasn't exhibited here. Going down the route of "find crimes to charge him with" is a bad idea for many reasons, one being: if it becomes commonplace to bend the spirit of laws just to send a message, then that will make the already-too-powerful courts even moreso.

CharlieA 13y ago
I agree with your premise that the spirit of a law shouldn't be violated to send a message but I don't see that it applies here. For me this doesn't pass the sense test: should a person be able to knowingly, intentionally fake the results of a scientific experiment in order to secure a grant of taxpayer money? No. No more than you should be able to fake the 'results' of your yearly income, say, for the purpose of receiving welfare.
- talmand 13y ago
  I don't believe the comment was to not charge the guy with anything, it was not to charge him with more than necessary to punish him for the crime he actually did commit.
JackFr 13y ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that wire fraud is specifically used to give federal prosecutors standing in a case they might not otherwise have jurisdiction to prosecute. That is is a fraud took place entirely within one state, it would be a state affair, and there would be no federal crime -- unless they used either the mail or a national telecommunications network to facilitate the fraud. However, in this case since the target was a federal agency, presumably it is a federal crime already. More interesting I would think is that even if the US attorney doesn't want to press charges, I'm sure the AG of Iowa (and possibly Maryland) could.

4 ms·

Laws aren't meant to be weapons to be used against those we hate. If he committed a crime, then let his actual crime be the crime we charge him with. Laws again

by sillysaurus2 13y ago

CharlieA 13y ago
I agree with your premise that the spirit of a law shouldn't be violated to send a message but I don't see that it applies here. For me this doesn't pass the sense test: should a person be able to knowingly, intentionally fake the results of a scientific experiment in order to secure a grant of taxpayer money? No. No more than you should be able to fake the 'results' of your yearly income, say, for the purpose of receiving welfare.
- talmand 13y ago
  I don't believe the comment was to not charge the guy with anything, it was not to charge him with more than necessary to punish him for the crime he actually did commit.
JackFr 13y ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that wire fraud is specifically used to give federal prosecutors standing in a case they might not otherwise have jurisdiction to prosecute. That is is a fraud took place entirely within one state, it would be a state affair, and there would be no federal crime -- unless they used either the mail or a national telecommunications network to facilitate the fraud. However, in this case since the target was a federal agency, presumably it is a federal crime already. More interesting I would think is that even if the US attorney doesn't want to press charges, I'm sure the AG of Iowa (and possibly Maryland) could.