Social Networking Sites Becoming Useful For Lawyers 353
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."
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
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'.
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.
Re:This is Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.'
Re:This is Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Did it ever occur to you that there were circumstances, such as prior history, that could affect the sentence? The claim that blacks are being unfairly punished is a totally bogus one.
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:2, Insightful)
(Temporarily lost my password, so posting Anonymously, but am 'Wonderkid'.) Anyway, Philly, you are 100% spot on. There is a general decline in ethics both sides of the Atlantic. To understand why, read Lord of The Flies by William Golding, if you have not already. As soon as the immature are running the asylum, all hell will break out! (The immature are now running the asylum.)
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).
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.
Re:This is Stupid (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 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.
Re:anti-employer EULA (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 and good, but don't expect to display then choose how viewers can use what you put out there.
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)
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: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.
Re:lousy defence lawyer (Score:2, Insightful)
it's a picture of a man, laughing it up about his time in court, which was supposedly the solemn justice meted out for his terrible crime, which left a fellow man in crippled and maimed for life.
the alchohol is not the issue, and the judge's comments accurately reflect this.
Re:Idiotic argument (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:1, Insightful)
You shouldn't have to be on your best behavior when meeting anyone for the first time - a potential employer, a date, your girlfriend's parents, etc. People shouldn't make decisions about you based on superficial appearances and manners.
But they do. 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.
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.
Is it some sort of joke? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:lousy defence lawyer (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 minor consumption ticket, the consequences would have been jail time.
Apparently, the lawyer couldn't convince his client to lay low and pretend to be remorseful for just two frickin' weeks. It doesn't matter if Lipton was drunk in those pics or not. It showed he was out partying while the woman he nearly killed was still in the hospital.
Re:lousy defence lawyer (Score:1, Insightful)
It is not down to interpretation as it is down to the distorted presentation of reality by demagoguery loving lawyers.
The trial should be about the facts and about the crime of the accused, and not about the interpreted image a lawyer is giving to some photos of him.
Instead of reading this article as a warning against the dangers of publicizing your personal life on the internet (where the self righteous can interpret your personal life in a distorted way and use the distorted image against you in court), the slashdotters are reading it as a justified action by the police, lawyers and judge.
Two months ago, my Mom passed away. I'm sure that during the days of mourning, you could have taken a picture of me laughing and joking around. I'm also sure that a f%#&%^&ing lawyer, standing in front of a bunch of self righteous jury, could have presented such photos of me as evidence that I just didn't give a damn.
Something is very wrong in America, when even in Slashdot, people are not taking seriously the right of the police to invade your house and confiscate your personal belongings in order to prove something that can only be proved by reading you thoughts (your disposition towards the crime you are accused of). Why should the police be allowed access to your personal computer if it is irrelevant to the crime you committed (or accused of)?
Re:Uh? Hello? (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 harsh recompense.
put yourself in the victim's shoes- how would you feel if you knew that while you writhed in agony for months in a hospital bed, the jackass who put you there through no fault of your own is yukking it up and making fun of your suffering?
you'd probably want him dead, not just slammed up for 2 years.
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.
Re:Oh, Bravo! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Only problem is these photos were not used as evidence. The trial was already over. Only sentencing remained.
Those photos never could have been admitted as evidence at his trial unless you got the photographer to take the stand and say that he witnessed Lipton partying, took the pictures, and that the subject was Lipton, etc. After all, you can't cross-examine a photograph.
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.
Way to be logical... (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually read the article to see if it was as bad as it sounded... and yes it is.
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.
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!
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? AA doesn't teach you to act correctly when you drink, it tried to get you to stop drinking completely
And to say "she was doing nothing but having a good time" is insane. Obviously she's been going from party to party non-stop for the past X months. How do you know she WASN'T going to AA? Just because you have a picture of something less than appealing doesn't mean you have to whole story.
I have to imagine they'd have more than that for a Judge to up the sentence to two years. Not to say I don't think they deserved it but expecting people to become inhuman because of an accident is just plain stupid. 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? give me a break.
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.
Re:Idiotic argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that most criminals are stupid or have fundamental character flaws in the first place and are likely to be tripped up while pretending to be sorry. Is the system perfect? Hardly, but cookie cutter approaches are likely to be worse.
Re:Red Bull (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, a couple of weeks ago I ran down someone while I was in a drunken stupor.
Hey, want to go to a costume party and whoop it up this weekend? I'll wear my jailbird outfit.
Yeah, that really sends the right message about how seriously someone is taking the situation. Hell, it could have been *water* and it still sends the wrong message. The impression you get is "Oops, my bad, and, damn, I was caught. Two weeks aught to be enough repentance. Let the partying resume!"
Re:I am a law student... (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws are meant to protect society. If this guy, with his cavalier attitude toward hurting people, goes out and does it again...then what? Will you be ready to "fudge up his life" then?
Re:lousy defence lawyer (Score:3, Insightful)
Ain't cryin' for him or anyone else (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Red Bull (Score:3, Insightful)
What should (and did) have a bearing on the case is him wearing his arrest like some sort of merit badge instead of treating it as an emberassing fuckup that he isn't proud of. That and his seemingly blatant disregard for the people he injured in the process.
Re:Red Bull(shit) (Score:2, Insightful)
Using a party as a "coping strategy" is simply denying introspection or responsibility - thus, the non-reduced sentence is entirely appropriate.
Re:This is Stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch?
Fail.
Like I said: produce some real data, not from a Leftist "thinktank", and I'll consider it.
As for the Prof's blog, a quick scan revealed:
Now, two new reports, by The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch
It's a friggin' self-referencing circle. Much like the On Killing farce.
I may actually check out both "reports", but I suspect my bias will be confirmed.
If there actually is a widespread problem with sentencing, you're not going to win any converts to the cause by indirectly attacking a third/half of the population (eg: implying that only Leftists care about fair sentencing) or by only citing studies from Leftwing "thinktanks". A systemic problem, if that is the case here, can only by solved in a constructive, bipartisan way.
Save the Kool-Aid for the orgy, because I ain't drinking any.
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:2, Insightful)
The PC can contain evidence, such as unpublished photos.
Unless those photos were of the crime scene, I agree with the GP. It's the state's job to prove that a crime was committed and that he was responsible. While attacking his character may be successful in getting him a harsher sentence, or maybe getting him convicted in the first place by manipulating the jury, it strikes me as a pretty unethical thing to do.
If there's reasonable suspicion that the computer contained something related to the crime, yeah the cops should go search it. If the best reason they can come up with is, "we'd like to make him look like a douchebag," that isn't good enough. That judge was an idiot for going along with it.
Re:This is Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really accurate. What you are in fact saying, is someone foolish enough to allow photos of them to be published on the internet which could possibly be interpreted as them being unrepentant, rather than perhaps being severely depressed and attempting to deal with that depression by the foolish consumption of alcohol which would alter their behaviour by affecting inhibitions.
On the other hand of course are people who were careful enough and had better friends and hence no pictures were published of their activities, when attempting to deal with the guilt, shock and of course trying to bury the fear of upcoming penalties for their poor behaviour.
After all isn't it extremely rare for people to deal with stress by drinking alcohol, or when dealing with depression, or when attempting to assuage a guilty conscience. Either the judges should wake up to themselves or everybody should be treated the same under law, that after all is one of the most important principles of justice that all should be treated equally.
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.
Re:Red Bull(shit) (Score:2, Insightful)
morale of the story.. don't put your private life on public display.. because sooner or later someone will use it to their advantage
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.
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.
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!"
Re:Red Bull(shit) (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, what is the coping strategy of the guy in a wheelchair for the rest of his life?
What is the coping strategy of the parents of the kid he kills while driving drunk?
What is the coping strategy... Oh wait, nevermind. You have the same mindset he does. Fuck everyone else, you will be assimilated, and I can do whatever I want. Fuck your laws, rules, guidelines, etc. I CAN DO WHAT I WANT.
Entitled punk. Welcome to the real world. The world where you actually have REPURCUSSIONS for your actions. Where when you FUCK up, it can come back to HAUNT you.
That's the problem. His own actions / photos PROVED he was a "3 strikes" kind of kid. Bottom line. Had he had a little bit of intelligence (beyond how to pour a whore into bed), he would have realized that his popularity show (myspace page) COULD have fucked him in the future.
But, then again, he would probably have signed up for an ARM mortgage, drove an Escalade EXT, complained the entire time about how much it costs to drive it, etc. all the time wondering why he has no money living above his means.
Intelligence at it's finest.
--Toll_Free
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.
Re:Been this way a long time, and should be (Score:1, Insightful)
Thank you! Apparently the GP has been getting his idea of how our legal system is supposed to work from that old, eye-roll stupid episode of South Park, where we learn that hate crime laws are bad because everyone should be punished exactly the same if they've committed a superficially identical act! HURP DURP.
Out in the real world, some teenagers who got drunk and thought it'd be funny to beat up some random old guy will be less likely to repeat their crime after they've served their sentence than a gang of neo-nazis who specifically targeted an elderly Jewish man to try to drive the Jewish people out of their community. Motive counts, dammit.
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. Wow that is a stretch. I guess you could create a trojan that searches for your pictures, uploads them to a server where a team of Photoshop experts doctor them and then upload them and change the date stamps...
Seems a bit of a reach for me.
Now pirated movies and or music maybe.
Re:You're not considering the money factor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lousy defence lawyer (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't mean God, it means any power higher than yourself - that could be God, it could be your uncle, it could be fate, it could be Gaia, it could be karma, or whatever. That step refers to acknowledging that there is something above, more important, and more powerful than yourself - i.e. you are not the centre of the world, and you have to look outside yourself to fix yourself.
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
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in other words, if I start spewing on some online diary service how sorry I am and how bad I feel for it, I should get a minor slap on the wrist instead of some harsh verdict?
Ok, I'll remember that in case I ever need it. I'll feel very sorry for anything I do from now on. Hey, I can do that, I'm good at fake excuses!
Re:This is Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
So the college kid who hasn't lived long enough to be a "recidivist alcoholic" but who still has a .15 on the road gets... what? And the high school girl who "just had one beer" but weighs 90 pounds? How about all the other multitude of situations where people are unable to drive? I agree that BAC is a bogus measure, but, well, impaired is impaired. For that matter, why do drunks get jail when an old lady who plows into a crowd of pedestrians gets her license suspended for a month? It's an imperfect system, that's why. Run for town council if you want to change things.
If you can't drive after even one drink, you should be arrested no matter your BAC. Learn to drink at home, or at a bar that calls taxis for you, or, for cripes sake, with a designated driver. People stupid enough to take/post pictures of themselves like the people in the article (yeah, I read it) deserve the harsher sentence as they are showing that they are not remorseful and that they can't plan ahead ("gee, no one will ever see this if I post in on the intertubes!")
Re:You're not considering the money factor (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't that it "black culture", you did. I go to But the gangsta culture, is primarily made up of African-Americans. So when a very large percentage of gangsta culture goes to jail for the crimes that are bragged about on the radio, everyone says it's discrimination against African-Americans. Of course the black folks you know don't act like that, you met them in church, which if you had read the link to Bill Cosby's speech you would have seen that not going to church is one of reasons for the cultural failing of poor urban culture. My church here in NYC is about 25% Black, 40% Latino, 35% White. We don't have any gangs, we don't have any shootings, most everyone there is a very decent person (except me I'm a bigoted asshole). But when I come home from work on the subway and over hear a group of teenage boys bragging and laughing about jumping some kid, six to one: "Ha ha ha, I kicked him in the head BAM. Gotta respect me son." Can you guess what kind of music was playing from the crappy speaker in one of their cell phones? I'll give you a clue, the music strongly advocated that the way to get bitches was to earn money and respect by shooting people for failing to give you money and respect. I see something similar close to one a week. Now, this was at at 11pm on a week day, during the school year. Where the kids you knew growing up allowed at age 15 or so to be out at 11pm miles from home on a school night? Since I work evenings, I also get to see the kids hanging out during the day while school is in session. Guess what most of the teenage kids I see skipping school have in common? A culture that places very little value on education or authority. Now perhaps it is just chance that the majority of those kids have the same skin color, but it's not chance that those kids, embracing that culture, end up being crime statistics. Modern poor urban culture is a recipe for disaster. Until the people that propagate that culture face up to that, the situation will only get worse. Not everyone who is black is a proponent of that culture, but most of the people that propagate the culture are black. The culture is the problem, but the skin color is what is reported in the statistics that seem to point to racism.
Re:This was just on the news in Philly (Score:1, Insightful)
Uhh, if he has evidence of criminal behavior posted to facebook, then there's probable cause for a search warrant to collect the evidence on his PC. The search warrant is to collect evidence, not just tools used in crime.
Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:3, Insightful)
The American legal system has always emphasized intent over action, and character dovetails into intent. Pretend I hit a pedestrian with my car. If I intended to hit and kill him because I hated him, I would be charged with murder. If my vehicle malfunctioned due to no fault of my own, I will not be charged with a crime. If I intentionally swerved into the pedestrian to avoid three kids who ran into the street, I would not be convicted of murder. In all three cases, the pedestrian is dead but my punishment differs based on my intent.
When determining intent, character is often used as a proxy because you cannot measure intent directly. So if I hit someone with a car, and then go to a party wearing a jailbird shirt and laughs about it, one can infer that the defendant just didn't care so much. His intent was probably one of indifference to human life if he gets into a drunk driving accident and laughs about it at a party where alcohol was concerned.
Additionally, character (remorsefulness) is considered a metric for recidivism. If the defendant is sincerely remorseful he may be less likely to re-offend, whereas a guy who is callous enough to party while his victim's family was mourning would be considered "cold-hearted" and likely to do it again.