Social Networking Sites Becoming Useful For Lawyers

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."

Seems he was convicted...

... of douchebaggery.

This was just on the news in Philly

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

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.

Good?

I don't understand the problem here either. This is two "OMG Privacy" stories that have come up in the last few days. This isn't "OMG Privacy". This is quit being a fucking moron and advertising your private life to 3rd parties or the world. In each of the three cases I am fucking glad they found those pictures. Those pieces of shit deserve to be rotting in prison instead of out partying after that crap. In case you skip the article it talkes about 3 cases of DUI, in 2 of which people died and the third almost died. Then these pieces of human filth went out partying and posted pictures showing exactly how seriously they took the fact that they went out driving drunk and murdered someone. I am personally very happy these fuckwits posted these pictures and the prosecution found them. In at least two of the cases mentioned here the bastard was probably going to get probation.

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.

lousy defence lawyer

> Lipton holding a can of Red Bull in one hand,

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.

We warn kids about this all the time...

I work as an Orientation Leader at my college; familiarizing incoming freshman with the campus and what it's like to be a college student, etc. One of the things we warn them about is to not put anything on facebook that they wouldn't want their family to see. Of course, they don't listen and we've had RAs write kids up for things they've done just because the RA saw pictures of it posted on facebook.

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.

Re:Wrong title

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:Wrong title

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:Wrong title

I see what you mean.

The flood was going to kill the animals anyway, might as well feed them to the homeless instead.

Re:This is Stupid

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

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

Re:This is Stupid

... 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:This is Stupid

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:

In 82 percent of the studies, race of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

...

The race of victim influence was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process, although there were variations among studies as to whether there was a race of victim influence at specific stages. The evidence for the race of victim influence was stronger for the earlier stages of the judicial process (e.g. prosecutorial decision to charge defendant with a capital offense, decision to proceed to trial rather than plea bargain) than in later stages.

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]

Re:This is Stupid

If he were black?

The same would have happened of course. He'd still have a rich and influential father.

Re:This is Stupid

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???

Stupid is as stupid does (Was: Re:This is Stupid)

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:This is Stupid

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:Idiotic argument

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)

Re:Idiotic argument

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.

Re:Uh? Hello?

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:Uh? Hello?

No, I think you have it wrong. 4 DUI cases. 2 resulting in fatalities, 2 with serious injuries. In every case presented, the evidence was revealed after conviction, before sentencing. There was evidence that the convicted were engaging in partying behavior after their crashes. Under the circumstances presented, yes, I think the partying was grounds for a harsher verdict. If the photos were all from pre crime partying, and it isn't directly relevant to the actual crime, then no, it shouldn't be grounds for a harsher verdict. It appears that in all these cases, the victims weren't acting remorseful enough to satisfy the judge. He has great latitude in sentencing. What else do you use as a metric to met out sentences? Socioeconomic status? Skin color? General looks? The range of sentencing is there for a reason.

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.

Been this way a long time, and should be

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:Uh? Hello?

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)

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:Way to be logical...

"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?