Can justice be served through injustice? (long)

[WildBill]

I'd like to think I have the moral fortitude to fight a false charge, no matter how minor, and no matter how easy it would be to just accept the punishment.

I agree with you. I was referrring to the word "stubborn." IMO it usually has a connotation meaning unreasonable rather than resolute. I don't think the man tbranch was referring to was unreasonable.

[tbranch]

I was referrring to the word "stubborn." IMO it usually has a connotation meaning unreasonable rather than resolute. I don't think the man tbranch was referring to was unreasonable.

Bill,

In hindisght, "stubborn" was the wrong word. Resolute, determined, etc. would have been better.

The gentleman I know told me he would have taken the deal (he was offered 3 years for a guilty plea) if he had known he was going to sit in prision for over a decade. He just could not bring himself to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit and didn't think a jury would find him guilty.

It just seems like once you get in the "cross hairs" you're in for a ride.

Tom

[NcongruNt]

Do you believe justice can be served through an injustice? Such as, convicting someone of a crime he didn't convict, to make up for getting away with a crime he did commit?

I think there are plenty of people who are fed up and would agree with that statement. However, each charge should be tried on it's own merit without regard to past history. While "making it right" seems fashionable, it makes the system worse.

I know of a gentleman who sat in Federal prison for 12 years because he was too stubborn to make a deal. He maintains he did not commit the crime and did not expect to be convicted. When he would not deal, the Feds added on a number of other charges and thanks to sentencing guidelines and enhancements, he received a 12-year sentence for some white-collar crime.

There are simply too many cases of bad convictions turning up these days.

Sounds similar to what happened to Kevin Mitnick. Even worse, he was held in federal prison for over 4 years without a trial (much of it in solitary confinement - without any real cause), and in reality, never committed a crime warranting federal imprisonment. He was simply a whipping boy to make an example of in a media frenzy of fear-mongering, and nearly all the charges against him were trumped-up fabrications that were never even brought to trial. He ended up making a plea bargain deal under duress, as he was told he would be extradited for charges on state levels and go through the same hell he had been put through on a federal level. The entire fiasco was a gross miscarriage of justice.

A similar situation happened to a guy named Bernie S, except that he had committed no real crime. He was also arrested and imprisoned on charges that didn't have any merit. He was put in prison for possession and distribution of radio crystals (he was a ham radio operator) under a new law that categorically made possession of a device that COULD interfere with regulated frequencies a crime. It's the equivalent to saying that the possession of a handgun could result in using it in a robbery, and should be illegal. He ended up in the prison system with extremely violent offenders, and was critically injured by a very large cokehead. He refused to sign the waiver they required for medical treatment. There was a loud outcry in the technology communities he was a part of, and a judge handling the issue saw the stupidity of the situation and found a technical reason to release him (I believe he called it a medical furlough).

[WildBill]

In hindisght, "stubborn" was the wrong word. Resolute, determined, etc. would have been better.
The gentleman I know told me he would have taken the deal (he was offered 3 years for a guilty plea) if he had known he was going to sit in prision for over a decade. He just could not bring himself to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit and didn't think a jury would find him guilty.
It just seems like once you get in the "cross hairs" you're in for a ride. Tom

I agree. What is really sad and makes my blood boil is when new evidence is discovered that exonerates a person, it still takes years before the courts will even look at it.

[Stupid]

you are kidding when you posted this question, right?

You worry about some small little guy got dealt a bad deal by our legal system, when you should be worried about something much bigger and having much more profound impact?

[WildBill]

you are kidding when you posted this question, right?

You worry about some small little guy got dealt a bad deal by our legal system, when you should be worried about something much bigger and having much more profound impact?

You might feel differently if you were the "small little guy."

[KBCraig]

you are kidding when you posted this question, right?

To whom are you replying?

You worry about some small little guy got dealt a bad deal by our legal system, when you should be worried about something much bigger and having much more profound impact?

What is that "something" of which you speak?

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

[Stupid]

Replying to you.

you are kidding again. you really don't know what i am talking about?

To whom are you replying?

What is that "something" of which you speak?

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

[KBCraig]

Replying to you.

you are kidding again. you really don't know what i am talking about?

You have to be more specific than this:

You worry about some small little guy got dealt a bad deal by our legal system, when you should be worried about something much bigger and having much more profound impact?

What "bigger and having more profound impact" are you talking about?

There are many things bigger and having more profound impact to me, and to the world, than whether some "small little guy got dealt a bad deal by our legal system" -- but not to the guy who got dealt with badly.

Is Mitchell Johnson someone who deserves to be a free man? No. But neither does he deserve 10 years in federal prison for simple possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

[yerasimos]

I share the original poster's deep concern about people trying to game the criminal justice system to stick flimsy charges upon criminals (reprehensible as their prior crimes may be) who have cleared that system as written. If these prosecutors, judges, etc can collude like this, then they can likewise collude to create problems for a regular person/non-player they do not like who gets snared by a legal technicality that came about because some legislators never bothered to read and fully consider what they voted upon.

That said, I believe that murderers (ie, they deliberately killed people for no justifiable reason--I did not bother to look at the TPC definition) such as Craig Price and Mitchell Johnston should not be alive right now. They should have been cut down by their victims. In other words, their victims were unable &/or unwilling to contest the evil that immediately confronted them, with immediate negative consequences.

Many people are lazy and inattentive and do not bother to even carry a small folding pocketknife or pepper spray. On occasion these people get badly surprised by the likes of Price and Johnson and needlessly pay with their lives. The rest of us, whether hoplophilic or hoplophobic, must put up with the continued presence of these murderers roaming around until they get caught, and then have to pay the costs associated with running them through the police/courts/prison complex. In prison, these killers are fed, clothed and sheltered at taxpayer expense while they hone their lethal skills and nurse their homicidal impulses in the company of similar sociopaths. Unless they are routed into the death penalty or otherwise do not survive this earthly Gehenna, the government may eventually tire of spending money on their "rehab", and these sociopaths are released into the midst of productive people.

I am not one to propose forcing all to be armed at all times; I am not interested in forcing others how to live. Besides, I do not think that the typical, over-hedonistic consumer-voters in our post-modern culture would tolerate being required to carry a 1911 or Glock and two spare magazines at all times; non-compliance would be rampant. But as described above, people as a whole would be served well if individuals took an immediate and decisive stand against obvious evildoers such as Price and Johnson, jihadis, etc. Had their victims or people nearby been armed, they may have been able to slay these attackers in the commission of the murders, and these sociopaths would never get the chance to spread their baby-batter, cause further death and destruction or present legal-ethical quagmires regarding what to do with someone who should have been already cut down.

The person being victimized with deadly force is in the best position to decide (and has the most at stake) whether his attacker should be only seriously injured or slain outright. A judge, jury, sentencing officials, etc can only judge after the fact, and are somewhat insulated/detached from the results of their decisions--for better and for worse. Furthermore, the HPD crime lab scandals, "testilying", the use/abuse of informants, and the work of the Innocence Project, etc, makes me think the death penalty system and the rest of the criminal justice system have serious flaws. Despite these flaws, I still believe that jury service, voting, etc, are civic duties that must be taken seriously, in part to blunt such flaws.

[Stupid]

I thought you also supported Ron Paul.

You have to be more specific than this

[KBCraig]

I thought you also supported Ron Paul.

I do, but I still can't connect the dots you've scattered about.

[dukalmighty]

[quote][But then, they called in the feds again. Johnson was charged for being in possession of a firearm "while addicted to, or an unlawful user of, marijuana." (Never mind that marijuana is not addictive.)/quote]Apparently you have very little knowledge about addiction,Marijuana is addictive ,I know addicts that all they ever did was marijuana and couldn't stop using.

[lawrnk]

I hesitate to reply as you and I have disagreed on this topic before, particularly the chinese.

I recall an episode of the shield where there was a really bad guy, a murderer or something who they could not get convicted. He was guilty without a doubt. They took him, 1,000 bucks, and a pistol to the mexican border and paid a mexican cop to get this guy thrown in prison for a few decades. I felt great about that for a long time.

[lawrnk]

Do you believe justice can be served through an injustice? Such as, convicting someone of a crime he didn't convict, to make up for getting away with a crime he did commit?

I think there are plenty of people who are fed up and would agree with that statement. However, each charge should be tried on it's own merit without regard to past history. While "making it right" seems fashionable, it makes the system worse.

I know of a gentleman who sat in Federal prison for 12 years because he was too stubborn to make a deal. He maintains he did not commit the crime and did not expect to be convicted. When he would not deal, the Feds added on a number of other charges and thanks to sentencing guidelines and enhancements, he received a 12-year sentence for some white-collar crime.

There are simply too many cases of bad convictions turning up these days.

Sounds similar to what happened to Kevin Mitnick. Even worse, he was held in federal prison for over 4 years without a trial (much of it in solitary confinement - without any real cause), and in reality, never committed a crime warranting federal imprisonment. He was simply a whipping boy to make an example of in a media frenzy of fear-mongering, and nearly all the charges against him were trumped-up fabrications that were never even brought to trial. He ended up making a plea bargain deal under duress, as he was told he would be extradited for charges on state levels and go through the same heck he had been put through on a federal level. The entire fiasco was a gross miscarriage of justice.

A similar situation happened to a guy named Bernie S, except that he had committed no real crime. He was also arrested and imprisoned on charges that didn't have any merit. He was put in prison for possession and distribution of radio crystals (he was a ham radio operator) under a new law that categorically made possession of a device that COULD interfere with regulated frequencies a crime. It's the equivalent to saying that the possession of a handgun could result in using it in a robbery, and should be illegal. He ended up in the prison system with extremely violent offenders, and was critically injured by a very large cokehead. He refused to sign the waiver they required for medical treatment. There was a loud outcry in the technology communities he was a part of, and a judge handling the issue saw the stupidity of the situation and found a technical reason to release him (I believe he called it a medical furlough).

As a long time listener to 2600 and subscriber, I will grant you that Bernie S. was taken for a ride. I cannot agree on Mitnick.
Takedown was a good, but skewed book as you surely know. Mitnick was ESN scanning even at the time of his arrest if I am not mistaken. Bernie S WAS shafted by his long imprisonment, but you and I both know a red box is highly illegal.
He was arrested in 95, and I do not believe the red box law came into effect right before that. Offhand, I recall that crystal being 6.5536. They were available at radio shack for a few bucks. You mention he was a ham, but this crystal was put in a dialer for one reason only. Of course, they couldn't really ban the cracker jack whistle that blew a perfect 2600, but don't go blowing one in a phone. Either way, you cannot blue box or red box anymore anyways as the technology was changed. The last time I "recall" seeing someone sucessfully red box was 97 or so.