Jon Johansen To Be Retried On Piracy Charges 382
cecil36 writes "Yahoo has the scoop on 'DVD Jon's' latest trial regarding DeCSS being used as a piracy tool. The article claims that Hollywood is losing $3 billion a year due to piracy *yawn*, but Johansen's lawyer believes the acquittal from the previous trial may be enough for him to win the case. The case is set to go again on December 2nd this year. What are the prospects of Johansen winning a second time?"
Simple.... (Score:5, Funny)
Chances are good. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say it's almost certain. The previous aquittal was crystal clear. I think they're appealing mainly to build some strong case law.
Re:Chances are good. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are 3 levels of courts in Norway, plus the human-rights thingy in Haag, NL. Both sides may appeal a court's decision. When this is done, it is moved one level up in the "ladder" The courts then decided whether to take the case, or dismiss it, letting the old verdict stand. The supreme court very rarely takes on cases, so in effect you got max two trials. This is probably a much more fair system than the US
Better chances (Score:2)
Re:Better chances (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, IANAL. Everything I needed to know about the US Justice System, I learned from Judge Judy.
Re:Better chances (Score:5, Informative)
Add to that that considerable weight will be given by the court to the judgement from the lower court, and the party who lost in the lower court starts at a significant disadvantage in the appeal court.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet they loose a lot more from making bad movies.
Re:It's like (Score:2)
Yeah. Just in time for christmas. Aren't these fellas just nice?
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Go get em PATRIOT act, watching Men In Black II without paying for it or ever having intention of paying for it in the first place is a serious crime. (to yourself! ever SEEN that POS?)
wow...... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a great concept! The idea that he can use what he bought in a fair manner.... this is an interesting concept, one that we should try here in the US! Since he's using it in a manner that is fair to him, we should call it the fair use act! Imagine the possibilities!
this reminds me of a quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this reminds me of a quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
The real hackers did what real hackers do - go silent when the heat ramps up. A real hacker has no need (nor want) for fame.
Re:this reminds me of a quote... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, he got a job as a result of the fame so he quit school in an age of 16 (The earliest age where you can quit school legally i
Who next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who next? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, stupid indeed, but that has never stopped our lawsuit happy society. Don't you recall all the lawsuits against gun makers for similar reasons as your knife metaphor?
DeCSS doesn't kill people, pirates kill people!
Re:Who next? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not think your analogy holds. There are certain guns which are obivously offensive weapons or can be changed into offensive weapons with simple changes. Knives, in general, are used for cutting things. This is their general purpose in today's society. Banning knives will hurt the society. Banning the distribution of weapons that can kill tens of people in minutes or restricting the weapons that are used to shoot at objects at a distan
Re:Well then ban ALL utensils (Score:4, Insightful)
While I am of two minds on the gun-control debate, this snippet of text caught my eye. It's important to realize that our founders considered this one of the MOST BASIC rights that must be guaranteed.
Specifically, they wanted to ensure that the public had the means necessary to overthrow the government established by the Constitution, in the event that it didn't work out as they had hoped. If, for instance, the democratic process was subverted [blackboxvoting.com] in some way, We The People were expected to take up our arms and restore proper government.
The fact that such a provision is essentially meaningless in an era of billion dollar war machines is a topic for another debate. If only Ben Franklin were still around to help us out with thorny issues like this... *sigh*
Re:Well then ban ALL utensils (Score:3, Interesting)
He went on to say that this was why he opposed firearms registration, bullet fingerprinting, and the like. Namely that he didn't want the government to know what he had in his basement if it ever came to that.
I told him that when the UN storm troopers started going door to door rounding up the disenters they'd just call in surgical airstr
The articles ignore the core issue ... viewing (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue seems to be control over the choice of viewing platform.
Re:Who next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also applies to non-decss areas. When a ticket sale is made to an independent movie, they lose. When a grandmother watches a birthday video of her grandson instead of a video titled "Johnny's Birthday" by Disney, they lose. When you can watch amateur movies for free on the internet, they lose. When any startup company can easily create and distribute a movie without the help of the MPAA or member companies, they lose.
It is very much in their interest to stop free trade and new technology. If you really look at their behavior with DVD and the internet, this fight is not about copyrights at all.
Re:Who next? (Score:3, Informative)
Because piracy doesn't scare Hollywood/the record industry. Piracy is a known quantity, and is figured in as a business risk.
The prospect of legitimate users circumventing every new scheme for boosting revenue through restricted use of media is terrifying to these people! The idea that a new technology offers the chance to essentially print money, and then some f'r'ner comes by and makes
The walls will always be there (Score:2, Interesting)
Um.... (Score:2)
Or am I missing something?
Re:Um.... (Score:2)
You're missing something. Norwegian law allows re-trying a defendant.
But even if it were taking place in the United States, it would still be allowable, because this is a completely different set of criminal charges.
Schwab
You are missing (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, US law applies only within out borders.
Jon will win (Score:2)
Place your bets..... (Score:4, Funny)
From the article: There is no specific legislation in Norway that bars the digital duplication of copyrighted material
I'm going to go out on a limb and say pretty good.
Won't matter... (Score:2)
With any luck though, one day the arguments and lawsuits of those industries will collapse under the weight of their own absurdity.
How to Offer Input? (Score:2)
What's the Norwegian for, "Amicus Curiae?"
Schwab
Ex post facto? (Score:2, Informative)
Well, IANAL, (definitely IANANL), but IWLOF (I Watch Law and Order Frequently).
Copying (Score:5, Insightful)
All in all hes been proven innocent once and will be again
Rus
Re:Copying (Score:2)
I remember reading the transcript of a congressional hearing in the 80s where the MPAA accused the VCR guys of being the doom of the movie industry.
I would be very suprised if they hadn't tried to stop them with some lawsuits
Re:Copying (Score:2)
And yes, they did take it to court - and lost [museum.tv].
Re:Copying (Score:5, Insightful)
why just DeCSS? (Score:2)
This is something I have often wondered myself. The MPAA fights DeCSS so aggressively that they succeed in getting people shut down for putting the code on T-Shirts, yet nice and user friendly programs like DVD Decrypter [dvddecrypter.com] just seem to be left alone.
Can anyone explain this logic to me?
Analog Copying (Score:2)
Speaking of VCRs and such... What, if anything, in any of these copy-protection schemes prevents copying by digitizing the analog output?
"What stops analog copying?" (Score:3, Informative)
In theory, your DVD player adds MacroVision(tm) to the signal.
But MPAA really do not care about analog redistribution, per se, because it's not an issue for them: it doesn't scale to 10,000 copies very easily, like dumping a DeCSS'ed data stream onto Internet II.
What they are more worried about is digital duplication of perfect copies over communications networks, both todays, and those just over the horizon.
At some point, the DVD-R/DVD-RW technology will get to where it can
Re:"What stops analog copying?" (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, you could just send the raw DVD data over a network to a remote site *now*, and burn a copy, and to heck with the idea of CSS anyway: a bit-for-bit copy is identical: let your DVD player DeCSS the contents for you with legal chips.
Not with a "normal" DVD burner: they can't write the keys to the appropriate track, it seems. The CSS keys are stored in a special area, which cannot even be read with normal DVD drives directly: you have to go through a cryptographic dance with the hardware (css_auth) before you can read that track. Consumer-type DVD recorders cannot write to that track, and ISTR it's not writable on standard blanks either - you need a special "mastering" recorder and blank. Since those recorders are aimed at movie studios, and priced accordingly, with the blanks costing more than pre-recorded DVDs, that idea is pretty much a non-starter for piracy: it's cheaper to buy legit copies in a store!
Then ...the region codes supposedly stop that from happening, given that most of the large scale piracy actually occurs in China, and no one would ever think to bring a Region 1 or a region-free DVD player into China, and none of those DVD's could ever make it back to the U.S., right?
Region coding does strike me as pretty dumb. Apart from the extra costs - instead of making one "English" version, to sell in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK and Ireland, you have to make and distribute "North America - English" (US/Canada), "Europe - English" (UK/Ireland), "Asia/Pacific - English" (NZ/Australia)...
(Thanks to national censorship, you have to make separate UK versions anyway, with modified artwork to feature the government's censor-approval certificate, but hopefully that will die soon.)
*sissing inhale of breath between the teeth* (Score:2)
And even though I'm glad Jon did what he did and defends himself, I'd still not want to be in his shoes.
Re:*sissing inhale of breath between the teeth* (Score:2)
All the signs are they probably will join eventually, although I believe the last referendum in '94 voted not to (although that was pre-Euro, which may affect how people vote next time).
Retrial points (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a damn shame that there isn't a practical way to force the hand of the prosecution. Between his age at the time he wrote DeCSS, the fact that he's already been acquited once, and the fact that this is a completely nonviolent offense that he has been accused of, I'd imagine that Norway's court would have a lot more important, and more success-likely cases to prosecute. Cases like murder, rape, even theft that are pushed back because of the state appeal of a case they already lost against a minor who simply wanted to use his computer as the new-age equivalent of a VCR, and enable others to do the same.
Bad example ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that Hollywood and the movie studios care so much about the outcome of the trial as long as the process is scaring the shit out of other potential code writers.
The goal of the process is not "justice" (Whatever that word means in the US of A) but to make an example out of John. "Hey, if you mess with us we will keep you tied up in legal problems for 10 years, guilty or not!"
The whole thing isn't exactly giving a good image of the USA as the "land of the free and brave" but rather something like the "rich and blinded by power".
Re:Bad example ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, I thought he was being tried in Norway...
Re:Bad example ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tsk, you can't let little details like that get in the way of a good US bashing rant.
USA ! USA ! (Score:2)
2) Start war with Iraq
3) Profit [nytimes.com]!
Re:Bad example ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the idea of the USA as the "land of the free and brave" hasn't existed in most of Europe for a long tiem now. They mayt be brave, but in terms of restrictions on people and loss of civil rights, America seems more and more like some third world dictatorship every year...!
That'll teach him! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That'll teach him! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That'll teach him! (Score:2)
No. It shouldn't be pronounced that way either.
There are deeper implications... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Smith&Wesson, Colt, Heckler&Koch all have products that enable, for example, car-jacking, armed robbery and murder.
2) GM, Ford have products that enable many people to commit actual crimes and subsequently escape into other jurisdictions.
3) Numerous beer, wine and liquor manufacturers have products that cause many deaths, often when combined with items 1 & 2 listed above.
Call it flamebait, or troll if you like, I don't care. No, the above don't relate to the DMCA - so what? They're just as ridiculous as retrying someone who was acquitted, and that's all my examples are intended to show.
Jon was acquitted - what on earth could the MPAA produce as evidence that wasn't produced last time around? Not much, I suspect. If a firearms manufacturer can say "we just produce guns, we don't kill people with them" and get away with it, why can't Jon say "I'm legally watching DVDs I already own" and be safe from this modern Inquisition? I sincerely hope that the Norwegian courts are able to hand off Jon's defence expenses to the MPAA. If not, he should be considering suing the MPAA for libel, slander, defamation of character, loss of earnings, etc.
This post is a comment on the stupidity of the DMCA and the MPAA and has nothing to do the Gulf War or gun control. (In case you're interested, I firmly believe that gun control means hitting your intended target first time, not squeezing off a few rounds and calling whatever you hit the target...)
Re:There are deeper implications... (Score:4, Informative)
(Then again, on the earlier example -- while it's true that guns don't kill people, trigger fingers don't fire bullets...)
Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
so its not a matter of the MPAA wanting to present new evidence, it's a matter of the prosecution ebing mad they lost, and wan
The problem with hollywood's numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's gonna bet against this (Score:3, Informative)
Trademark (Score:2, Insightful)
What's their beef? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they object to the law, shouldn't that be debated by government reps? I don't think a judge has the authority to ignore the law.
Objection of evidence presentation should have been done at the time the evidence was introduced, shouldn't it? Just because your legal team didn't think of a 'snappy comeback' at the appropriate time isn't a reason for a 'do-over' (IMHO).
Re:What's their beef? (Score:2)
Prosecutors in January lodged an appeal, objecting to the application of the law and the presentation of evidence. '
If they object to the law, shouldn't that be debated by government reps? I don't think a judge has the authority to ignore the law
Read your own quote. They arn't objecting to the law, which would make it a case for the 'wegian parliment, but they are objecting to the application of it. And as norwegian judges are tasked with applying the law, not interprenting it (well, there is a subtl
Malicous prosicution? (Score:2)
I know this isn't the United States and I'm not famlure with the legal system where he is.
But here if you can show the suing party is pushing this for non-legal issues you can sue back.
It's such a flimsy thing here so I'm not even sure it's done elsewhere.
Re:Malicous prosicution? (Score:3, Informative)
As for retriution, he can sue for money lost due to the case and a small ammount of money for damages. As a rule, in the courts of No
Not Double Jeopardy (Score:3, Informative)
First, even IF he gets convicted, the case will have absolutely no bearing on any federal or state law in the United States. No court in this country will recognize Norwegian law.
Second, though I know little about the Norwegian court system, an appeal usually focuses primarily on whether or not the law was correctly applied in the previous case. If that's how things work over there, there's a good chance the ruling will uphold the judgment of the lower court.
Third, if my experiences in US Courts are any guide, foreign companies/corporations/groups tend not to fare so well against a local defendant.
I might be totally wrong about those last two points, but I hope everyone in the US doesn't freak out too much. It's not going to have any bearing on what happens here. And beside the point, the genie (DeCSS) is already out of the bottle. They're just trying to frighten people out of using it.
DVD Playback on Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
What deems DeCSS illegal (in terms of the MPAA)? If I were to (for example) compile Xine , Mplayer or Ogle with DeCSS support compiled into the programs by means of a static version of the library, the program will still play DVDs as normal, but the DeCSS code could not be used for anything else on the system because the library does not have to exist on the computer, besides inside the player itself. In doing this, am I breaking the law, or at risk of having the MPAA onto me?
A quick recap of the matters (Score:5, Insightful)
In current Norwegian copyright law, you are entitled to make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use (Åndsverkloven 12, 1st section. This does not apply to computer programs or databases.). Jons program does not facilitate the copying of the DVD, just the reading the contents. He also argued that DeCSS could be used for making backups of the DVD.
Jon argues that he made DeCSS to view the contents of the DVD on this Linux computer. The prosecution argues that he mocks Linux and was a BSD-guy at the time of DeCSS. Anyway, the DeCSS program first appeared on Windows.
The prosecution wanted to nail Jon on the paragraph 145 of the Norwegian penal code. It says that (summary) "anyone gaining illegal access to locked data, also computer data can be punished with jail for a maximum of six months". Note the "illegal" part here. The judge ruled that Jon had only gained access with DeCSS to data HE had bought. It was his copy of the work in question so he had a right to access it. He did not distribute any illegal copies, and he did not gain unlawful access to the DVD although his program might be used for that.
Disclaimer: IAANLS (I am a Norwegian law student)
My "short" expirence with DVDs (Score:3, Interesting)
So I installed the DVD player software that came with the drive. I had 2 DVD movies that came bundled with different stuff, not movies I wanted to watch but good enough for testing.
First problem, they were different regions so I had to search the internet for a Firmware to the drive that wouldn't increment the region change counter. It works I think, but the DVD player program still counts down.
Next problem, the DVD player program won't let me play the movie because it is copy protected and I have TV-OUT enabled. WTF, Now I do not have it enabled but my plan was to use it and watch the DVDs on my TV. So I am forced to watch them on the PC or buy some software on the internet that can bypass this.
After spending a couple of hours, I decided that DVD's were not worth the hassle for me anyway, I don't need a standalone player for the one movie I want to see every month and playing it on the PC is too much of a problem.
I am left with the feeling that they really don't want me to play their DVD's and their copyprotection attemps only works on those, like me, who are not really into it, and don't care enough about it to spend days to gain knowledge on the subject. But putting these roadblocks in the way to cripple the technology has just killed my interest in the media.
Chances he'll win (and be appealed again) is high (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I'm certain the prosecution will appeal to the Supreme Court, because of the principal nature of the case. This court is deciding what the correct interpretation of the law is, which is ultimately what is in question here.
Personally, I think it works out pretty good. In the US the prosecution could make ten DMCA charges, and even if they'd get thrown out in the first court, but you'd still tie them up in court and there'd be no precedent set. Not appealing in a Norwegian court would basicly be admitting to having no case. And if they do appeal, they risk getting a precedent against them. Personally I think that's fine. The first meritful case goes up to the Supreme Court, not some posterchild case for either side.
I hope for the Supreme Court to reject the prosecutions appeal (on the ruling in this trial, which I assume DVD-Jon will win). That's about as much egg-on-face factor as you can get. And they deserve it. It's coming from the same group of geniuses that wanted to ban anonymous email.
Kjella
Winning a Second Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Winning a Second Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to OJ Simpson.
For those who have forgotten, or wern't around, he was found legally innocent, in criminal court, of the murder of his wife. He was then found guilty, or responsible, I believe the word was used, in *civil* court.
If they want you badly enough, they'll get you. Ask Kevin Mitnick; nice end run around due process there, eh?
I Wonder How Much Hollywood is Losing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hero (Score:3, Insightful)
This poor kid is being hassled, harrassed, and treated like a criminal for wanting to watch dvds he owned on a computer he owned. By writing a few lines of code (which should be protected as free speech) he brought the wrath of the entire film industry down on his head. Poor guy. Hopefully this trial is quick and painless.
If at first you don't succeed..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:5, Insightful)
Norway is a far cry from the USA, but like EU, we're eagerly learning.
Sadly enough, USA have a big karmic responsibility to the world of being a role-model, and is failing horribly.
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:3)
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:2)
The possibility of an appeal (retrial somehow implicates that the government can keep going and going which is wrong) by the prosecutor is offset by the fact that the losing party has to pay the costs
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:3, Insightful)
Except, in this case, the MPAA could pay for 50 trials in a row and never miss the money. I don't know the specifics of Jon's finances, but I doubt he could pay for even one or two trials before bankruptcy.
"The losing party pays the costs" sounds like a good idea, but in the days when lawsuits are often be
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:3, Informative)
2) Repeat after me: THERE IS NO RETRIAL POSSIBILITY IN NORWAY. You CAN'T be trialed twice or more for the same crime + charges. Yes, the people can appeal but so can the defendant.
3) Laywer expenses in a Norwegian penal case IS PAID BY THE STATE. That means that you can get the most l33t lawyer in all of Norway working for you. Usually, these lawyers only take the high-pro
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several logical extensions to this statement, which explain why the American legal system is (theoretically) so protective of the defendant.
First of all, the desire to see justice done often leads people to treat the law as an agent of retribution rather than of justice. Whenever a suspected murderer is acquitted, the news story includes an obligatory statement from the family saying how disappointed they are. In some cases the defendant really is quite innocent, or prosecutorial abuse of the legal system was far out of bounds.
This means that when popular attention fixes on one suspect any concept of legal "fairness" goes out the window. The need for someone to blame and punish leads to lynching by jury. Typically the poor (and/or minorities, uneducated, etc.) get hit hardest by this. They're the easiest to pick on, and the easiest to abuse in court or interrogation. By the way, 38 black residents of Tulia, TX were just freed on the basis that the entire case against them was almost certainly fabricated.
Some people would take this to extremes and seriously argue that the application of the death penalty to innocents is worth having it as a deterrent. (I'm not joking - a National Review columnist once said this, and I've heard it elsewhere.)
You have to understand that the enemy isn't necessarily the government - it's the people. Read up on the history of lynching in the South. I think the problems we're seeing with crime enforcement in general and the death penalty in particular stem from similar factors - not necessarily racism per se, but scapegoating and the violent expression of popular anger. No one cares if some poor, retarded man fries, and doesn't even bother to think about his innocence, because they're convinced (reasonably so) that it'll never happen to them.
America's system clearly isn't perfect; the legal protections defendants enjoy have not prevented many people being railroaded into long prison sentences or execution. I'd argue that we should abolish the death penalty entirely, for that matter. However, I have no respect for any legal system that places defendants at the mercy of overzealous prosecutors driven by either corporate cartels or popular sentiment. I have no opinion on Norway's society or government in general, but I can still say their legal rules suck fat cock.
Does your respect for the diversity of legal systems extend to the sharia court in Nigeria that's planning to stone a woman for adultery?
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:5, Informative)
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I'll bring out again that Norway does have something similar to US double jeopardy protection, however the protection is against retrial, not appeal. This is what is normal in legal systems not based on English common law. Appeals in Norway always happen to a higher court, and there are only three levels in the court system. The Supreme Court refuses most request for appeals, and the next level down usually only hear complaints about procedure or application of law and usually put substantial weight on the evidence and findings of the lower court.
As such, the burden of an appeals case is significantly lower than it would have been in a retrial. It's certainly not non-existant, but it's still lower.
Generally, though, looking at prison population in percentage of population compared to reported crime, it would seem that the Norwegian legal system is far less likely to convict you of anything. Add to that that Norwegian law imposes a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison followed by up to 10 years of regular check ins with the police, a sentence which is usually only used for multiple homicide cases or similar extensive violent crimes. And most crimes have legal maximum sentences that are much, much lower.
What you're left with is a legal system that I'd argue places lower burdens on a defendant overall: You may find that an aquittal get appealed, but you risk less (a significantly lower sentence, and significantly better conditions in prison), and it will likely take more to get a conviction even in the lower court.
Our right wing parties always complain about this, and want our legal system to become more like the US legal system in order to put more people behind bars... In Norway wanting to be "tough on crime" translates directly into wanting to copy the US.
Your point about Nigeria is good, but I'd like to point out there that the Sharia courts point to significant ethnic problems in Nigeria, which is divided pretty evenly between christians and muslims. Sharia courts in the muslim north only apply to muslims. Even so, the federal legal system has made it clear that it considers much of Sharia law to violate federal law, and the federal government has made it clear that anyone sentenced under Sharia law to a punishment not supported by the federal legal system can appeal and expect their sentences to be overturned more or less automatically in the higher court.
The problem faced by Obasanjo (the Nigerian president), though, is that Nigeria is just a few years away from it last period of military dictatorship, ethnic problems have caused significant clashes in the north (between christians and muslims), and ethnic unrest in the south west has placed a large part of Nigeria's oil production in jeopardy, while corruption is still widespread. In a situation like that, he hardly have the power base to address the problem of the Sharia courts - in the last election, the muslim north was an important area for him (despite being christian himself).
Obviously none of that diminish the problem of the sharia courts, but it should give some insight in why they're tolerated - the federal government is still way to weak to take the chance of another uprising or military coup.
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:3, Informative)
In this particular case the proceedings of the lower court (the Tingrett) were audiotaped - I don't know whether the video feed into the press room was also taped.
The verdict [lovdata.no] (in Norwegian) says quite
clearly that Johansen had done almost exactly what the prosecution claimed he ha
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:3, Informative)
Please do some more reading: In all criminal cases in Norway, the government has to pick up the defendant's legal costs, irrespective of which lawyer he chooses to represent himself.
This means that even in an obviously lopsid
This is not double jeopardy (Score:5, Insightful)
You may not like it, but this is the way the Norwegian systems works, and has worked for a long time.
Re:This is not double jeopardy (Score:2)
Re:This is not double jeopardy (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a retrial, it's an appeal. It does make it suck considerably less than if it had been a retrial.
Re:This is not double jeopardy (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also an excuse for lazy prosecutors to bring badly framed cases before courts on the basis of finding where the arguments are weak then trying to bolster them for an appeal. And the threat of repeated appeals can be used to frighten an inno
Re:This is not double jeopardy (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, it is not an excuse to bring badly framed cases, as if you do that, the appeals court will look at your evidence and arguments from the lower court and you risk losing in the higher
Re:This is not double jeopardy (Score:2)
Re:This is not double jeopardy (Score:2, Insightful)
Just 'cause it "works" doesn't mean it ain't broken.
For your education, the justice system in the United States allows appeal up to higher court, however there is a very explicit reason it's restricted to the defend
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, if someone is accused of a "hate" crime at the state level and then acquitted, the government will then find some loosey goosey Federal charge which covers the same ground as the state trial. This allows them to try someone twice for the same crime under a deceptive ruse.
The root of this problem is that the 10th Amendment is not enforced. The 10th Amendment essentially
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:5, Informative)
Social control - yes
Right-wing politics - hell no! Socialist influences more like.
Repression of dissident groups - no again
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with you to a certain extent, I got a new look at Norwegian society when I was bumbling around Oslo around 2:30am one day, after missing my bus back to Stockholm. YES, it's true that Scandinavian countries have a heavy Socialist bent, YES, the government will provide just about anything for anybody ... but I think a certain amount of that is only on the surface. Case in point, the security guy I saw kicking -
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not double jeopardy because double jeopardy is getting re-prosecuted for the same crime after being prosecuted/convicted.
If you watched the movie Double Jeopardy, you would know that the heroine (played by Ashley Judd) could not be retried and convicted for the murder of her husband (who was actually still alive) because she was already convicted (wrongly) and did the time for it. This allowed her to go after him, with lethal force and without fear of repercussions, in the movie. Thi
Re:Erosion of double jeopardy (Score:2)
So no, they can't retry you as many times as they please. They can appeal, usually no more than twi
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:5, Informative)
And no, the goverment cant go on re-trialing someone until they are convicted. Google for details, but both parts ina trial may appeal to a higher court, until they reach the High Court, which either does the final ruling, throws it back to the next higher court or says that the last verdict is the right one.
And, just to poke you in the eye, as long as you can be tried under both state and federal laws for the same crime; that is most definatly double jeopardy.
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:2)
Not sure you knew, so just FYI.
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:2)
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:2)
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:3, Insightful)
You think so. You could be tried for violating the DMCA, then if acquitted, the MPAA could bury you under a civil suit that will make you wish you'd simply been sent to jail.
Re:Only $3 Billion? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ne bis in idem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Double Jeopardy (Score:3, Interesting)
Selective enforcement of too many c