Slashdot Log In
Social Networking Sites Becoming Useful For Lawyers
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Jul 19, 2008 08:15 AM
from the to-be-expected dept.
from the to-be-expected dept.
chareverie writes "With how the internet has become, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have become a tool for crime solvers, employers, and now, lawyers. Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunk driving case, the college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner, with the words 'jail bird' on his costume. Not surprisingly, his prosecutor was able to obtain photos of him at the party that were posted on Facebook, and claimed he was an 'unrepentant partier who lived it up while his victim recovered in the hospital.' The photos were presented in a slideshow, with one of them showing Lipton holding a can of Red Bull in one hand, and an arm draped around a girl bearing sorority letters. The judge agreed with the prosecutor, and changed Lipton's sentence to two years in prison. The article also cites other instances of people getting harsher sentences from pictures of them posted online."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wrong title (Score:3, Insightful)
title should be "useful for prosecutors". while prosecutors are "lawyers", this article and topic is far more specific.
Re:Wrong title (Score:5, Insightful)
The methods this prosecutor used is a method any lawyer can use.
Its not too hard to picture a case where the defense uses a facebook profile that portrays their client in a good light, or the prosecution in a bad light.
So the title is suitable
Parent
Re:Wrong title (Score:5, Insightful)
Could have gone both ways, depending on the pictures.
If they were of him serving meals at the local homeless shelter or rescuing trapped animals during a flood, it would have worked for the defense instead.
So yes, the topic title is spot-on.
Parent
Re:Wrong title (Score:5, Funny)
The flood was going to kill the animals anyway, might as well feed them to the homeless instead.
Parent
Seems he was convicted... (Score:5, Funny)
... of douchebaggery.
This was just on the news in Philly (Score:5, Interesting)
Last week some 18 year-old punk was speeding and hit two women who were in town from St. Louis to see the Cardinals play the Phillies. One of them later died.
The cops found his MySpace page, and it's apparently full of pics of him drinking and smoking pot, and the article even says he used a mugshot from a prior arrest as his default photo. The cops got wind of it and snagged his computer and other stuff from his house with a search warrant, and they'll probably use it to stave off any attempt at the "but he's a good boy who just made a mistake" defense.
After reading the article [philly.com], I am completely disgusted... especially with his parents, under whose noses it seems much of his bad behavior has been going on. Call me old-fashioned, but I think parents should try to raise their kids to, you know, not be a colossal fuckup.
The best part, IMHO, is that for all his "I'm just Mr. Buster Badass" posturing on his MySpace page, he is apparently throwing up in jail because he's so scared (insert derisive Nelson Muntz laugh here).
~Philly
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking his PC i think was a bit overboard unless they had hard evidence that some crime was committed with the PC. The judge should never have permitted that warrant to go thru.
Collecting the public posts of images off myspace was more then justified however.
Parent
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:4, Informative)
Taking his PC i think was a bit overboard unless they had hard evidence that some crime was committed with the PC. The judge should never have permitted that warrant to go thru.
The PC can contain evidence, such as unpublished photos. Saying you can't grab a PC for evidence is just like saying you can't search the personal diary for evidence (which obviously isn't the case.)
In criminal court, search warrants can be issued as long as they can convince a judge that there's a good chance evidence can be improved or obtained. It's a tactic popular with child porn cases, but can be extended to other cases as well.
Parent
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:4, Informative)
He posted photos of himself smoking pot and drinking while underage on his social networking page. Those photos are evidence of a crime (namely, smoking pot and drinking while underage). That's sufficient PC to search his computer for additional photographs and other evidence of those crimes. Just because he's under arrest for vehicular homicide doesn't mean the police can't get a search warrant for evidence of other crimes.
Generally the prosecution cannot introduce character evidence against a defendant until a defendant raises his own character as an issue. Depending on what's recovered, it may be possible to introduce evidence against him under one of the exceptions to this rule (MIMIC - motive, intent, lack of mistake, identity, common plan).
Parent
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is, and this wonderful utopian society we are constructing for ourselves is great. Nobody is afflicted with any of that nasty personal responsibility for anything they unless it manages to run afowl of those last few vestiges of silly old sensibilites we have not yet shacken off.
The best part is why have Facebook and MySpace so even those of us without the brainpower to use even the simplest of markup can easily show off for the entire world what kinda of asshats we can be when we really try.
We might not quite be able to get away with running some people down while drunk driving and then parting a few days later like nothing happen but I am confident we will get there, given trends. Somebody somewhere will find a way to make it forgiviable or at least excuseable. That seems to be where all our famous American enginuity is being placed these days. Why I can see future where we are free to rape each other and fling poo, just over the horizon... Dream with me people...
Parent
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Oh, Bravo! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is correct use of technology- hands down, a winning proposition.
Now, it may not be so when prosecutors dredge up photos unrelated to, older, than, or from a different person with the same name, so this only argues for more transparent ways for hosts, services, and users to find unshakeable ways to authenticate what happens under their aegis. opt-in automatic encrypted transmission watermarks, anyone?
responsibility, what a concept!
(or learn 2 anon, use 7 proxies, etc)
Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
So...let me put it this way. If you are a worthless dumbass criminal making life worse for other people PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post pictures of yourself doing illegal things online. Record yourself talking about the crime and make it an mp3. Take videos of you beating hobos or other nonsense and put them on youtube. I would much rather a society where the criminals effectively go to the authority and say "Hi, I'm a fucking moron criminal asshole, please arrest me!" than the world where the cops have to wiretap, and search, and investigate. So, please, in the interest of keeping our society free, go post your stupidity online, make it easy to find, that way the authority can leave the rest of us the fuck alone since we aren't doing anything wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't about privacy. There was no attempt at privacy here.
Anyone feeling threatened by this should up their agoraphobia medicine. Either that, or you should educate yourself in the difference between public and private. Just because you had the false impression that your myspace page was private doesn't make it so.
Newsflash, the exterior of your home is also publicly visible. Hanging a billboard sized child pron poster on it will get you landed in j
Re:Good? (Score:4, Insightful)
The notion that right to privacy has anything to do with protecting you from your own stupidity in public is unnerving. In fact it only serves to fuel the government/business desire to destroy real privacy. When people hold up stupid crap like this as an example of privacy violations the government gets to hold it up and say "See how bad these privacy advocate people are, don't listen to them". I am horrified what our government has done to our privacy lately. I am even more horrified what our populace has done to throw their privacy away (handing out personal information to every marketer and social website they can find for free handouts). Yet, the most frightening thing is how people seem to be rushing to idiots like this to defend them by redefining privacy with "You got caught being a total douche in public, that is a violation of your privacy!"
Parent
lousy defence lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
So what we have is a guy who was known for drinking alcoholic beverages, now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead. Any lawyer worth his or her fee, would've pointed out this evidenced change in behaviour as a sign that the subject no longer drank, and therefore should have a reduced sentence.
It's all down to the interpretation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what we have is a guy who was known for drinking alcoholic beverages, now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead.
It was only 2 weeks after he nearly killed someone because of his partying antics. His lawyer is lousy, all right, but only because he should have made sure lipton:
1. Did not go out partying at all.
2. Enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous and started attending meetings.
3. Enrolled in any other local alcohol treatment programs might be useful.
4. Sure as shit stayed away from alcohol. We don't know he was drinking at that Halloween party, but I'm just saying, he was 20 years old. If he would have gotten a m
Re:lousy defence lawyer (Score:4, Interesting)
"now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead."
In a picture that he himself posted with "Remorseful?" as a caption. This was while awaiting sentencing, during which the court would like to know how much remorse he has. It's not so much that he was drinking Red Bull, but that he did so in a party, in a mock prison jumpsuit, with his free arm around sorority tail, consciously and deliberately yukking it up over the fact that he'd be facing his sentencing for his DUI conviction soon and that he wasn't half as remorseful as he was going to be telling the court.
It's not "ZOMG, he's got a canned beverage!" it's "ZOMG, his lawyer told him that he'll probably get away with probation and a slap on the wrist if he just shows up wearing a tie and says 'your honor' a lot!"
Parent
This will continue to occur (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh? Hello? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did I get that right? He went to court, got away with a rather mild verdict, then the prosecutor showed that he is "partying" and this is grounds for a more serious conviction?
Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?
This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
making fun of the legal system and the fact that he maimed another human being by his terrible, irresponsible behavior before he was finished with trial seems like an excellent reason to punish him more harshly. what's the problem?
and yes, he should be solemn, mournful, unhappy, grevious, penitent. he should not be "partying". he is a bad person, and shameful person, any expression of mirth or glee from him before his due punishment is inappropriate, hurtful, demonstrative of low character, and deserving of
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:4, Interesting)
We're judging people now because of character instead of actions? If so, some politicians should be shitting their pants right now.
Who gets to define "moral" behaviour? You? Me? Some thinkofthechildren goon in Washington? Personally, I'd be shitting my pants now if it was the latter.
What I want him to be, or what I want him to suffer like, is not important. That's what sets a legal system apart from mob rule. There is a very good reason that not the person who was wronged gets to decide on the punishment but why we have a legal code defining that.
Does it change the state his victim is in when he mourns and cries? No. Does his victim gain anything out of him avoiding parties? No. So what is this about? Revenge? He must not enjoy his life because he made someone miserable?
By that logic, some company execs should never party again. Ever.
Parent
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?
The verdict never changed. It was the sentencing.
Lipton nearly killed someone, and was given an appropriate sentence. A lot of times, if a convict shows serious remorse, enrolls in alcohol treatment programs, etc., a judge will reduce the sentence because the convicted has already had some personal justice. Nothing new here.
In this case, Lipton showed no remorse, so the judge simply gave an appropriate sentence for his crime, rather than a reduced sentence.
The only "news" here is the fact that the prosecutor used Lipton's facebook profile to document Lipton's lack of remorse. The same thing would have happened had he prosecutor brought in witnesses who attended the party, or if Lipton got a minor consumption ticket (he is only 20, so he shouldn't have been drinking at all), etc.
Parent
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do something stupid, kill someone in the process, and then can't keep your fucking head down for a period afterward, you deserve a harsher sentence. It isn't that hard to stay out of dumb situations. Don't let your "friends" photograph you with a obvious drink in you hand (ok, one guy had a Redbull, he allegedly joked about his case, poor behavior IMHO). This isn't just about them, this is also about society sending you a message. The judge is representative of the people.
Parent
Been this way a long time, and should be (Score:5, Insightful)
This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.
Ummm, you realize that this isn't a new thing, right? The facebook part might be, but many lawyers have often pushed for lenience in cases where clients have shown true remorse for their actions, and vise-versa for the prosecutors against those who don't.
Feeling sad for your actions and being willing to change is part of the reformation process, which is part of what the justice system is about. A kid that's partying it up 2 weeks after killing somebody isn't feeling remorse, and isn't so likely to reform after a slap-on-the-wrist or token sentencing.
Parent
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I get that right? He went to court, got away with a rather mild verdict, then the prosecutor showed that he is "partying" and this is grounds for a more serious conviction?
Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?
This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.
Nope, you did not get it right.
He did not get "a more serious conviction". He did not initially "get away with a rather mild verdict".
After you are convicted, there will be a sentencing trial where the judge decides your sentence. In the trial, the prosecutors will generally argue to give you a harsh sentence while your lawyer will argue why you deserve less than that, and depending on the facts available to the judge, he will make his decision.
RTFA. In this case, the prosecutors were initially going to recommend only a probation for this criminal, but when discovering the photos, they recommended the harsher sentence and the judge concurred.
I would have concurred too, and I think it's justice well served. If this bastard had gotten away with only a probation I would have been pretty pissed off with these prosecutors.
Parent
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:4, Informative)
> And if it was someone in your family lying painfully in the hospital, the photo of the defendant carrying on in a jailbird costume two weeks after the accident would likely fill you with rage. You'd want justice.
You misspelled 'revenge'. And that's not what the law is for.
Parent
We warn kids about this all the time... (Score:5, Interesting)
When kids get their room assignments, they instantly check their roommates out on facebook. Every now and then we hear stories that even before they've met the roommate, parents ask for a new one because the roommate's facebook page makes them worry the kid might be gay.
Red Bull (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked, Red Bull was NOT an alcoholic beverage. Had he been photographed drinking alcohol I could understand the increased sentence.
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws should be defined more explicitly, so that the same punishment for the same crime can be applied.
Leave it up to the judge and jury. They will have intimate knowledge of the case, a legislature hundreds of miles away won't.
People with certain personalities
Personalities? What in the hell? Is "dumb" a personality? Read the article, man. People like this deserve to go to prison.
and as we know certain races,
No, I don't know.
get effected disproportionally because the law gives too much flexibility in determining the severity of the punishment.
Wait, what?
too much flexibility
All right. How about this: mandatory death sentence - Texas style, not California - for anyone convicted of drunk driving.
Happy, now?
Any fucktard that drives drunk deserves - at the very least - a serious asskickin'.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
... but on the "races" bit, yes, for the same offense, blacks more often get jail time while whites walk. Justice might be blind, but it ain't colour-blind when it comes to sentencing.
I've heard that, but I'd need to see some actual data. Not a press release from a Leftist "thinktank".
I suspect the gap would magically disappear if you took the socioeconomic levels into account. I'm sure a poor white kid (with a public defender) would get a worse sentence than a black kid from a rich family (with a family-hired lawyer).
Parent
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Most things I hear or read deal with sentencing disparities based on the race of the victim. Here's a GAO report (PDF) from 1990 submitted by what appears to be the Senate judiciary committee. Strom Thurmond is listed among the submitters. He's hardly leftist.
From the findings:
The findings section does discuss some reasons their results are not the last word on this subject.
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/140845.pdf [gao.gov]
Parent
Re:This is Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it isn't. See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/04/civil.rights/index.html [cnn.com] and http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/01/should_criminal.html [typepad.com] for starters.
Parent
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
If he were black?
The same would have happened of course. He'd still have a rich and influential father.
Parent
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama admitted to doing drugs, and he's not going to jail.
Yet, once he's president, he'll have the official capacity to pardon all non-violent drug offenders... think he'll do it???
Parent
Re:This is Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
He'll only have the capacity to pardon offenders of federal drug laws, not state.
Parent
Stupid is as stupid does (Was: Re:This is Stupid) (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I'd rather elect someone who openly admits to behavior that may be in violation of law than someone who obsessively hides from the reality of his or her past. Both Nixon and GW Bush come to mind here.
And I wonder about Senator McCain with respect to admissions. Of course he did admit to wrongdoing with respect to the Savings and Loan scandals as well as other issues of favoritism. I have met Senator McCain and think he's a good man. Haven't met Senator Obama but I have read the thoughts of his he put into his books. Seems like an upstanding American patriot who would strive to do the right thing for America.
But what I cannot believe is that Senator McCain, after all he went through, did not do drugs and did not drink to excess. I lived across the street from a Vietnam veteran who was not imprisoned by the NVA and there were not enough drugs and there was not enough alcohol in the world for him after what he experienced as a draftee. I lived up the street from another who came back a paraplegic, and he regularly drank to excess.
Fact is, what you put on the Internet about yourself is public. So if you don't want someone to take advantage of you or to disparage your character, don't post anything that might be taken wrong. This lawyer was doing what all lawyers do in a very creative (for lawyers) way: He was raising questions as to the man's character before a jury so that the jury would disregard any testimony from him or from anyone who said he had a good character.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All right. How about this: mandatory death sentence - Texas style, not California - for anyone convicted of drunk driving.
DUI level drunk driving or .15 swerve all over the road drunk driving?
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
I can tell you here in the south that if a black and a white both get busted for drugs,the white will get rehab and the black will get the pen. I have also been slammed up against the police car and had the cop tell me to my face " I don't know which makes me more sick: a long haired freak like you or the nigger you're riding with". So yeah,I hate to break the news to you,but the clean cut white boy walks while the black rots in jail. Is it fair,hell no. But that is the way it is. Unless you increase police pay by a hell of a lot more than it is now you are going to always have bullies taking the job for the power.
I have also sat in court waiting to buy my way out of a pot bust(I know,a long haired white boy that smoked pot:shocking) and watched as black kids that had less than I did get sent up for anywhere from 6 months to as high as 3 to 5. Meanwhile I paid $800 and got told after my lawyer had a nice little behind the scenes talk with the judge to "have a nice day". Is it fair? Again,not so much. But as the old saying goes "money talks". I was just surprised how little money it took to walk away. But don't ever doubt for a second that your race, appearance and financial status affects how you are treated by the law. And as always this is my 02c based on my experiences with the system,YMMV
Parent
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Any fucktard that drives drunk deserves - at the very least - a serious asskickin'.
Set the BAC limit at a reasonable level and I'd agree with you. MADD, really a neoprohibitionist group, has been pressuring states to constantly lower the BAC to a point where it's really meaningless. .08 BAC, most drunk driving accidents are caused by recidivist alcoholics with a much higher BAC. If you really want to save people from drunk drivers, focus on them.
While there is measurable impairment at a
Parent
Re:This is Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with this. The kid obviously did not take the weight of the crime he committed seriously - he acted with contempt and callousness. Someone who acts like this, versus someone who does something bad but admits he was wrong and regrets it, should, as far as I am concerned, receive more punishment.
As far as you claims about race is concerned, that is totally bogus.
Parent
Idiotic argument (Score:4, Insightful)
The amount of true remorse that a defendant feels and expresses can and should be used when determining sentencing. It's called a 'mitigating circumstance.'
Parent
Re:Idiotic argument (Score:5, Insightful)
But what is the purpose of our legal system? If it is vengeance, then you're correct: remorse doesn't matter.
If, on the other hand, it is to reform perpetrators, make them ready to live in society, and try to ensure they don't lapse into recidivism, then remorse matters quite a great deal.
(Hint: In theory, if not so much in practice, the correct answer is the second paragraph)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiotic argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are forgetting something important about our legal system. Punishment is not about retribution or its not supposed to be any way. Its to rehabilitate or to incapacitate the offender. I agree with your position where the point is to incapacitate. There are certain types of criminals like sex offenders for instance that we know usually can't be rehabilitated, there are people like murderers that are so dangerous we can't take the chance letting lose. Finally there are repeate offenders who demonstrait they will not change their behavior. In all of those cases you are right there should be a simple lookup table.
A sentence should come down to well you were convicted of X for the Yth time that will 10 years and $20,000 of your assets.
In cases like DUI maybe somebody really was just not thinking or was unable to grasp the posibile consequences of their actions. A FIRST TIME offender might be a fine candidate for rehabilitation. They need to be punished, and it has to hurt. How much it needs to hurt though is variable. If somebody is remorseful( yes it can be hard to tell ) then it may be that they learned the lesson and will never make that mistake again. Nobody has anything to gain by completely destroying their lives. It won't help the victim any that is for sure.
When you have someone like in this case though, its another story. This guy hurt people DUI and then not long after is doing the same bad behavior drinking to excess around others. He does not have remorse he will hurt someone again if some external force is not used to inflict pain on him since his conscience is apparently not doing it. He needs the book thrown at him. He needs to be made to suffer and greatly so he learns not but others in danger so he can party. This is why we need some flexibility in sentencing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't know about preventing prosecutors from using photos. However . . . to deter employers from viewing and abusing social networking pages, employees might post legal terms of service [blogspot.com] under which employers agree to scram."
I'd just look at the pages anyway then use the information as I see fit. I have no obligation to hire someone I don't like, and any insights into how that person will work on my team matter to me.
The whole purpose of social networking is vanity and self-display. Fine an
Re:Red Bull(shit) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's shit like this that makes me want to become a defense lawyer. Fuck this prosecutor. The case needs to stand on what happened, not on the defendant's sense of humor.
The case did stand on what happened. This was sentencing, which does take into account the defendant's likelihood of recidivism, repentance, social utility, etc. And the defense uses mitigating factors (first offense, volunteers at a homeless shelter, joined AA, etc.) just as much as the prosecution does, if not more.
Maybe you should become a defense lawyer - a few years of law school would let you give an informed opinion on this instead of talking out of your ass.
Parent
Re:Way to be logical... (Score:5, Interesting)
"First of all, he was drinking Red Bull, which is non-alcoholic, and while he was at a party I'd be thinking he'd be excited to be alive. Just me though."
First off, it was after he was already convicted, he was simply awaiting sentencing. So basically he was making light of his potential fate, one he probably doubted he'd get.
Second, according to TFA, Douchebag captioned said photo "Remorseful?" So, again, making light of his conviction and his pending probation (or so he thought).
"The other cases in the article are just as bad. A lady at a party drinking wine after a car accident? Wine just screams alcoholic!"
A car accident in which she was the driver and she killed her passenger. Drinking and joking about it while awaiting sentencing for drunk driving, after having killed somebody, suggests someone that hasn't quite grasped the gravity of brutally killing someone sitting not two feet away from you.
"The prosecution is saying she should be in AA? They know that she's an Alcoholic and didn't just make a bad choice? She's no longer aloud to drink anymore because of a bad choice?"
One in which she killed somebody.
"AA doesn't teach you to act correctly when you drink, it tried to get you to stop drinking completely"
Not that bad of an idea considering the fact that she killed someone and still saw to make light of it.
"Not to say I don't think they deserved it but expecting people to become inhuman because of an accident is just plain stupid."
How about ceasing the activity that previously lead to someone's death? Is that too much to expect? At least during the sentencing phase?
"A guy drinking red bull is a good example of just how RANDOM these pictures can be and yet they are grounds for upping a sentence?"
In a picture that the guy himself captioned as "Remorseful?" He was busily, actively, and consciously flaunting the fact that he wasn't remorseful, one of the conditions he would have needed to satisfy if he were going to to get away with probation.
Seriously, did you read the same linked article as I did?
Parent