Peace on you.
Juries get it right far more often than they get it wrong.
I hate it when you pretend that you think I"m stupid.
[Chanelling John Cleese as barrister] I put it to you, sir, that juries are prone to accept the testimony of a police officer unquestioningly, and this acceptance is a contributing factor in the dreadful misfortune of an undeserved conviction. I remind the Counselor that how rare or common this misfortune may be is not the issue. [/JC, and off to buy some chessy combestibles…]
Your clarification makes more sense, as far as the law goes, but I don’t think anybody is arguing that they didn’t violate the law. The concern is that the way the Justice Department went about enforcing the law was weasely and designed not for the protection of the public but for publicity and career advancement on what amounts to a cheap shot?
If you were to argue that it is impractical and unnecessary to restrict law enforcement to only prosecuting crimes observed, I don’t see a handy way out of that. But where do we draw the line? Isn’t there a threshold beyond which you would not consider enticement to commit a crime fair game if it affected you or yours? And what flaws on the part of a citizen are fair to exploit? Venality, sure. Indifference to the welfare of a minor? Absolutely. Being too high to vigilantly obey an easy-to-follow rule? Eh. Or don’t you think it’s possible that the police can wrongfully pick on people because they’re easy targets?
If we consider this simple answer sufficient, doesn’t that diminish the moral value of nailing Tommy Chong for supposedly enticing people to drug use through his own actions? All those people, presuming anyone could be proven to have gotten into drugs because of him, could have said “I don’t do that.”
what else was the kid arrested for? when? was he convicted? you brought his record up to cast doubt on his credibility. certainly, you wouldn’t have done so without knowing the answer to these questions, so please share.
If you’re innocent, why, the odds might be 2-1, or even 3-1, that you don’t go to prison!
Not everyone is as perfect as you.
I’m an old curmudgeon of 58, and it’s been a long time since a woman could get me to violate my own inner code, even in fairly minor ways, by getting me all hot for her. But I remember what it was like to be 18. I wouldn’t have hurt a soul, but I had no solid core inside. Despite my being no threat to society in general, or to anyone in particular, it’s quite possible that at that age, a pretty girl, if she was as persistent as that cop apparently was, could have enticed me into committing some minor but victimless crime, like buying some dope, or placing a bet with a bookie.
Damned if I know what good would have been accomplished by that, how society would have been better off.
Same with this kid. What threat did he represent? He was just someone who could, through a combination of enticement and badgering, be induced to commit a pretty minor crime, one with no victim. We have no evidence that this crime would have been committed, absent the cop’s intervention in his life.
And the reality is that, at that age, a lot of kids are still figuring themselves out, are still the sort who could get conned in this sort of game, despite representing no threat to anyone.
Are you saying that: (a) we should throw those millions of kids in prison?
Or (b) that we should seek out some random sample of them, and throw them in prison?
I can’t decide which is more morally repugnant, so neither answer will cause me to think worse of you.
And I’m still trying to figure out any state interest, compelling or otherwise, in gotcha’ing some poor dumb kid like this. At least in the other ‘crime’ in the OP, one can see a pretty compelling state interest in snagging terrorists before they blow shit up, even if they may have all but created the threat they blocked in that particular instance.
But if they wait until after the kid actually buys dope on his own, without any police instigation, before busting him, how are we more at risk?
IIRC, you’re a Christian, of the Catholic persuasion.
Bricker, God. God, Bricker.
[QUOTE=Yahweh]
And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?
[/QUOTE]
God helps those who help themselves (by hiring an expensive attorney).
Actually, yes, how rare this phenomenon is is PRECISELY the question. Police officers that lie on the stand are a rare commodity to begin with. In addition to that, it was my experience that of those few, most very shortly became anathema even if they were never caught. By this I mean that under normal circumstances, a partner or other officer present would almost always back up whatever testimony was given; when one of these officers was involved, admittedly other officers wouldn’t call him out on the lie directly, but they would suddenly become too far away to have heard what happened, or unable to observe what happened. And prosecutors knew those signs, just like we did. Judges did too. Thin suppression motions would suddenly get granted, and bench trials would come out your way. I don’t say it was perfect, but the simple truth was that juries who credit the police officer’s testimony are right far more often than they’re wrong.
Since this discussion is about who to believe, why isn’t that fact relevant?
So far, none of the charges – including the one at issue here – have come to trial. His other charges include possession of drug paraphenalia and failure to appear.
Do you have redtail23 on ignore?
How is that NOT an argument that they didn’t violate the law?
Yes. Well, that’s why we should raise the age of majority, I guess.
I can’t figure out what else you’re suggesting. At what age do we hold a person to responsibility for conforming his conduct to the law? 18 is still too young – 21? 25?
Let’s trash the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, too, because I don’t see why we should permit these mush-headed, no-solid-core feebs to vote.
God judges, and Good extends mercy, as he did with Ninevah. The appropriate analogy here would be to show leniency in sentencing, where all these factors like mush-headedness are properly considered. I wouldn’t cavil one bit if such a person were given suspended sentences, or even probation in lieu of judgement, where he has to keep his nose clean for a year and all the charges are dismissed.
But you’re suggesting he can’t even be accused, can’t be so much as charged with a crime. That’s absurd.
Practically none. I toured a newly built jailhouse once. That’s about it. However, I have watched several episodes of CSI and MANY episodes of “World’s Dumbest Criminals.” So, yeah … I know the system.
Conceded. But I didn’t argue that the law wasn’t broken, though your response to me was a response to such an argument. Anyway, what about the rest of it? Is the legal definition of entrapment the only criterion to guide us morally? That would be queer. It’s hard to have a democracy without respecting the rule of law, but it’s also hard to have a democracy if citizens aren’t considered to have a legitimate beef when the methods and outcomes of law enforcement cause outrage. When I describe the prosecution as ‘chickenshit’ I don’t mean just the pettiness and even pusillanimity of the investigation and prosecution, though the word could be used to carry only that freight. ‘Chickenshit’ has a special technical sense of pettiness and pusillanimity carried out through legalisms and bureaucracy. ‘Chickenshit’ is bullshit filed in triplicate and initialed on each page.
On a separate point, I disagree with redtail23 that you can plausibly deny what a ‘water pipe’ is made for. But isn’t there a guiding of principle in law, actual if not official, of allowing implausible deniability? I am told that the inaccuracy of the .38 Special makes it unsuitable for most of the applications for which gun enthusiasts rationalize their position, but is nicely suited to various sorts of crimes. Likewise, many businesses implausibly deny knowing that their profits are driven by uses that they can’t officially avow – whippets, full-auto conversion kits, alcohol (which gets into the wrong hands and is used in many contra-indicated ways). The decision to prosecute or not often comes down to an unstated principle of permitting implausible denials. Of course, if someone is daffy enough to open state something, that’s another whole mess.
There is no legal doctrine of plausible deniability. Whether a particular defendant’s denial is plausible is a matter of evidence.
As it happens, there is a “shock the conscience” rule for entrapment, but the conduct here falls far short of that standard.
Unless you mean that your personal standard of outrage should be the one that guides us all?
Because the vast majority of your fellow citizens are NOT outraged by this conduct on the part of the government.
You’ve been told wrongly. Unless you’re confusing the term “Saturday Night Special,” a generic term for a cheaply made handgun, with “.38 Special,” a particular bullet and casing diameter and gunpowder grain weight. (Or in the alternative, the band which charted in 1981 with “Hold On Loosely”).
In general, a finder of fact can rely on his common sense, and infer that an accused intends the ordinary and reasonable results of his actions.
Yeah, well, the vast majority of my fellow citizens are OK with torturing prisoners, and a lot of them think prison rape is just ducky, too, but that does not make them right, nor does it mean I should passively accept their “wisdom.”
OK. Thanks for sharing.
Who said anything about lying? You are buttressing your argument by rebutting a point not made.
Further support is offered, albeit with caveats. “Why, yes, of course, they often shade their testimony, but we have mechanisms in place to counter such as this.” Cold comfort.
No, it isn’t. As I’m sure you are aware, witnesses are frequently utterly certain that they are telling the truth when they are not, they think they saw X but X never happened. It is not at all unlikely that two people can offer two entirely contradictory perceptions of an event, and both are “telling the truth”. To the best of their ability.
Further, nobody is asked to volunteer information, the prosecutor does not ask “Did you witness anything in the course of your investigation that might cast doubt on the presumed guilt of the accused? Feel free to conjecture.”
Reliable witness A may offer testimony at odds with the testimony of Officer B. The jury is more likely to accept as fact the testimony of Officer B. This is known to us. So, no, despite your best efforts, this discussion is not about “who to believe”.
My questions are more about why this thing was done in the first place, who authorized the expenditure, how do the results justify the allocation of resources away from serious crime and towards a piddling matter of pot smoking.
No, that’s why, in general, we shouldn’t investigate people absent evidence that they have either (a) already committed a crime, or (b) are planning a crime of some consequence.
See the above. Or to quote my previous post:
No, let’s just concede that people can be conned into doing some not-so-good things, including possibly some things that are illegal. People with less life experience are, of course, more easily susceptible to such cons. But that, by and large, doesn’t make them a threat to society.
My first question to you is, what state interest is served by running such cons on people?
We, as a society, have an interest in prosecuting people who commit crimes, even minor ones such as drug possession. But as a rule, we wait until they actually commit crimes, then charge and try them. We don’t continually test the potential or propensity of each member of the citizenry to commit crimes, because the number of persons who can probably be pressured, suckered, or conned into doing something illegal under various unusual circumstances is undoubtedly far larger than the number who will actually commit those crimes, left to their own devices.
My second question for you is, if we’re going to test some citizens for such propensity, why not all of them? If so, why do we want to have a much larger proportion of our population in prison than at present? And if not, what’s the point of seeking out some citizens at random for this testing of what would otherwise merely be their latent propensities to potentially commit crimes, and busting just some handful of citizens for their susceptibility?
I disagree - not enticing someone into a crime in the first place is an appropriate point at which to allow for human weakness and insufficiency.
You are welcome to dismiss my opinion as just that, but you might want to listen to this guy:
[QUOTE=Jesus of Nazareth, Mark 9:42]
And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
[/QUOTE]