Shocking news about UtterAccess owner (1 Viewer)

Isaac said:
I've sometimes wondered about that when I hear people being charged with something that's 100% digital evidence, it's concerning.
People are innocent until proven guilty. And unfortunately, I'm sure there is that 1% who are still innocent even after being convicted..

I also note that the term 'child' means vastly different things in different contexts and to different people.
Theoretically it would be possible to have the intention of downloading/watching pure porn, and not realize that underage's had gotten caught up in the mix of it. Thus the evidence would be very solid, except that little piece of evidence missing that you knew they were underage....
Especially relevant if/when the context is, i.e.,. 17 yr olds. I.E. some people call Epstein's saga a matter of "child porn", and still others call him (incorrectly) a pedophile, when that's not really what the word means. Personally I'd prefer the terms not be so malleable, because if someone really is into 5 year olds that's something I'd put in a whole different category than 16-17 yr olds, it's just an entirely different thing. They both may be wrong (the latter only in the last 1% of human history), but they are entirely different.
But I digress..
Click to expand...
US DOJ doesn't indict people unless they have compelling evidence to win convictions.
 
BlueSpruce said:
US DOJ doesn't indict people unless they have compelling evidence to win convictions.
Click to expand...

Oh, if only that were true. However, there is some suspicion - held by both sides of the aisle - that politics can blur the optics.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
Oh, if only that were true. However, there is some suspicion - held by both sides of the aisle - that politics can blur the optics.
Click to expand...
Yes, DOJ is more politicized, but overall they apply more neutrality with lower profile people.
 
BlueSpruce said:
US DOJ doesn't indict people unless they have compelling evidence to win convictions.
Click to expand...
Another way to say that is, people are scared and 95% of them plead out. Meaning nothing as to their culpability
 
Isaac said:
in the 2 or 3 % that don't plea bargain, yes
Click to expand...
Some prosecutors don't offer plea deals. For those that do, if defendants choose to fight charges, "we the people" will throw the book at them and sentence to many years. Like I said, government doesn't prosecute unless they're confident they can win the case.
 
Last edited:
Something's been bugging me for a while, so I have a quick question about justice system in US. (just asking. Not saying it's wrong)
I know different states have different law books and the same crime may have different consequences in different states.
I ASSUME that any crime has a min/max punishment and the judge gives the verdict between this min/max, based on a lot of factors.
At times, I've seen too much leniency in verdicts that brings the "Wow, is it what it should be?" doubt. But after all the judge has the last word.

My question is : In your justice system, are judges allowed to go below the min, or above the max allowed sentence?

At times, I've seen some unbelievable verdicts and wonder how it is possible at all.
Here's two of them for a comparison:

A teenager shots and kills his dad for taking his digital as a result of his low grades in school. At the court he said he's sorry, the mom told she forgives her son, the sister told that it's hard but she forgives her brother. The judge sent back him home on parole, with zero day prison time. And now they are living happily together. Link (chatgpt tells me the sentence for a juvenile on murder charge is 10 to 15 years)

A Taylor man was sentenced to 50 years in prison after being found guilty for possession of 10.89 grams of methamphetamine (while being on parole). They found two firearms and some stolen property during searching his home. Link

In both cases, don't you think the sentence is bellow and above what it should be?
 
Last edited:
KitaYama said:
Something's been bugging me for a while, so I have a quick question about justice system in US. (just asking. Not saying it's wrong)
I know different states have different law books and the same crime may have different consequences in different states.
I ASSUME that any crime has a min/max punishment and the judge gives the verdict between this min/max, based on a lot of factors.
At times, I've seen too much leniency in verdicts that brings the "Wow, is it what it should be?" doubt. But after all the judge has the last word.

My question is : In your justice system, are judges allowed to go below the min, or above the max allowed sentence?

At times, I've seen some unbelievable verdicts and wonder how it is possible at all.
Here's two of them for a comparison:

A teenager shots and kills his dad for taking his digital as a result of his low grades in school. At the court he said he's sorry, her mom told she forgives her son, her sister told that it's hard but she forgives her brother. The judge sent back him home on parole, with zero day prison time. And now they are living happily together. Link (chatgpt tells me the sentence for a juvenile on murder charge is 10 to 15 years)

A Taylor man was sentenced to 50 years in prison after being found guilty for possession of 10.89 grams of methamphetamine (while being on parole). They found two firearms and some stolen property during searching his home. Link

In both cases, don't you think the sentence is bellow and above what it should be?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the laws that govern judges discretion or lack of discretion are also a patchwork quilt, totally different in different situations. Some states will get all riled up or people will get all riled up about a certain issue and they will pass a law requiring minimum sentencing. The latest fad has to do with human trafficking everybody is all riled up about that currently, so they have minimum sentences for that in many states
 
There are, indeed, sentencing guidelines for each crime. However, like in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean, the pirate's code and those sentencing ranges are merely GUIDELINES.

To my understanding, which is not based on first-hand knowledge, judges have the ability to consider extenuating or aggravating circumstances in any criminal case. In Louisiana, I believe that a judge applying either class of circumstance during sentencing is generally required to at least mention his/her reasons for straying outside the guidelines - but the guidelines are not firm. In fact, the mere presence of a range of years for each specific charge builds in room for the "intangibles" that judges hope to see - or hope to NOT see - in each convicted person.

This style of sentencing is actually common among the various states. The differences represent a poorly understood fact about the USA - that each state is actually a sovereign state that has agreed to participate in the federal processes of the USA. After the original 13 colonies, all other states had to apply for statehood including that the population had to vote on becoming a state.

Before Texas applied, they were the Republic of Texas. When Louisiana joined, it was after subdivision of the Louisiana Purchase lands. Several of the states in the USA southwest were originally territories of Mexico. Every one of them joined voluntarily to submit to federal jurisdiction but they also retained that individual sovereignty to manage their own internal affairs. And the federal requirements for courts shaped the similarities of each state's courts, but their individuality is still expressed in the unique parts of their court system.
 
Well that's all true, but states have a patchwork of different laws attacking certain crimes with certain sentencing guidelines too. Arizona just unfortunately passed a referendum by voters that anyone who is convicted of any kind of trafficking is sentenced to automatic life in prison. I feel like it's a bad idea because too many people get caught up in those charges
 
"Any kind of trafficking" can't be the full text description. After all, I could be trafficking in knock-off copies of Chinese fortune cookies whereas someone else was trafficking humans across state lines for illicit purposes. Or they could be raiding aquariums in order to fulfill a request made by collectors of infant aquatic mammals in a desert state - trafficking minors across state lines for illegal porpoises. Only one of those should get life in prison. The punishment for the others should be less. So what did you leave out?
 
Moke, you and I both know that the correct response should have been "<groan>" because of my bad pun. Can't help it, I have a congenital predilection for bad jokes.
 
moke123 said:
Why are the dolphins illegal and what are they going to do with the minors? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Doc was probably using voice recognition to dictate his reply 😁

There are times when I intentionally misspell words so it doesn't look like I used AI to redact my content.
 
Isaac said:
Well that's all true, but states have a patchwork of different laws attacking certain crimes with certain sentencing guidelines too. Arizona just unfortunately passed a referendum by voters that anyone who is convicted of any kind of trafficking is sentenced to automatic life in prison. I feel like it's a bad idea because too many people get caught up in those charges
Click to expand...
The problem with that law is that many, if not most, trafficking arrest are the result of LE stings. There is no "Victim" per se. Just responding or agreeing to a meet is sufficient for arrest, even if there was no actual intent to meet.
 
moke123 said:
The problem with that law is that many, if not most, trafficking arrest are the result of LE stings. There is no "Victim" per se. Just responding or agreeing to a meet is sufficient for arrest, even if there was no actual intent to meet.
Click to expand...
My problem with the law is well not only what you said, but there are many gangs druggie prostitute type groups where there is a woman or two involved and then men who are protectors and collect the money. There is no coercion involved in any direction of any kind, but when they all get arrested the women claim to be victims and the men look like traffickers. And people immediately assume that they are and there you go life in prison for something that was nothing more than solicitation
 
The_Doc_Man said:
"Any kind of trafficking" can't be the full text description. After all, I could be trafficking in knock-off copies of Chinese fortune cookies whereas someone else was trafficking humans across state lines for illicit purposes. Or they could be raiding aquariums in order to fulfill a request made by collectors of infant aquatic mammals in a desert state - trafficking minors across state lines for illegal porpoises. Only one of those should get life in prison. The punishment for the others should be less. So what did you leave out?
Click to expand...
Child trafficking.
So use the example I gave in my last post, but assume the girls involved are 17. Same analogy applies and same conclusion applies in my opinion
 
moke123 said:
The problem with that law is that many, if not most, trafficking arrest are the result of LE stings. There is no "Victim" per se. Just responding or agreeing to a meet is sufficient for arrest, even if there was no actual intent to meet.
Click to expand...
Entrapment is how our system deals with perpetrators who evade justice because of insufficient or inadmissible evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom