[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Jim Bell Interviewed in Anarchapulco



On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:28:19 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  On Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 8:59:08 PM PDT, juan
> <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote: 
>  
>  On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:28:20 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> There is such a thing as "vindictive sentencing", which at least in
> >> theory shouldn't happen.  7.95 4. Vindictive Sentencing | Norton
> >> ToobyWhile that doesn't mean that it never does happen,
> 
>  > but isn't that pretty much the basis of the whole system? 
> 
> 
> PRECISELY!  But it's a very delicate system that only is able to
> "work" because prosecutors misuse the discretion that they really
> aren't given.

  Is that the case? Seems to me that prosecutors have the discretion to
  do whatever they want. Just like jefferson and washington founded a
  slave society. All 100& perfectly 'legal'. By definition. Their own
  definition, upheld by their guns.

  Also, I haven't researched it yet, but seems that this complete
  travesty of extorting confessions has been going on for a long time,
  if not since 1776 or before that?

  Anyway, I'd certainly call the process of extorting confessions 
  'vindictive sentencing' just like I call taxation theft, but I doubt
  the government would admit what they actually do.



> 
> 
>  > either confess to whatever they accuse you of, or they will add 5
> new charges? 
> 
> 
> Still, what about the trial?  Actually, "trials"?  If you merely
> assume that they will, eventually, get a trial, then you've skipped
> an important step.

  And that step is? 


> 
> 
> >  so you can confess to, say, smoking pot, and get two years, or you
>  > can go to trial for "smoking pot while being near a gun' and that
> will
> >  get you 20 years. You might win at the trial but the chances are
> >  (very) low and the stakes a lot higher. 
> 
> 
> Which trial?  If there are only 5,000 trials and 77,000 defendants,
> who doesn't get a trial?


  I'm not following. I was just describing how the system works in
  practice. Confess or go to trial for more fake charges you can't
  fight. I wasn't talking about what would happen under your system,
  but about what happens now. In order to highlight what the
  'incentives' for prisioners are. 


> 
> 
> >  I'd assume that's not "vindicative sentencing" because in the later
>   case they are charging you with 'real crimes' and you are getting a
>   'fair' trial. 
> 
> 
> The principle of "vindictive sentencing" is that they aren't supposed
> to be able to sentence more subsequent to an appeal.  (Which amounts
> to punishing people for exercising their Constitutional rights).
>  Demanding a trial is also exercising a Constitutional right.


  yeah but there's no appeal here? 

  Again, you are charged with A, confess, get a 'benign' sentence. 
  OR 
  You are charged with A, don't confess, get then charged with A + B +
  C, and then get your first (way longer) sentence. 

  That's how the USA 'justice' system works (at all levels if I
  understand correctly) so it must be 'legal'.



> 
> >   bottom line is, as far as I understand it, pleading not guilty is
> >a high risk gamble 
> 
> 
> The key word you use?   "Is".  Currently.  Now.  Under existing
> circumstances.  The way things are.  Today.   Currently, only about
> 2,500 trials occur each year.  We can assume this is not their limit,
> but I think their limit is under 5,000/year.  So, since there are
> only 2,500 trials, if a new defendant is considering demanding a
> trial, he knows virtually for certain that the government will be
> able to give him one. If, instead, the government is subjected to my
> project, and they are giving trials at what is virtually their limit
> (say, 5,000), and there are thousands of other defendants who are on
> the list demanding trials, "just one more person" asking for a trial
> is far less likely to actually get it.   So, at that point, I think
> that "pleading not guilty" is no longer going to be a "high risk
> gamble".  


	Yes I get that. I also mentioned there must be some critical
	mass for it to work. So far so good. 

	I'm also pointing out how things look from the perspective of
	ONE guy who doesn't know for sure if your system is going to
	work.
 
        So unless you've actually jammed the court system, pleading not
        guilty IS still a high risk gamble.


> 
> 
> > and it doesn't look as if getting $3000 or
> >   $30000 or even $300000 is a reasonale price for risking say 10
> >MORE years in jail. 
> 
> 
> The current average Federal sentence is about 2.8 years.  I would
> suggest that most defendants, even if they plead not guilty, cannot
> expect to be sentenced to much more than this.

  I  looked at a couple of articles. Here's a case

	"In 2004 Marnail Washington, a 22-year-old with no
	criminal history, was sentenced to 40 years after conviction of
	possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and two
	§924(c) counts based on possessing, but not using, guns in
	connection with his drug offenses. That is, 30 years of his
	40-year sentence were on gun counts. "

	those '924' charges were added AFTER he pleaded not guilty.

	https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/12/05/offer-you-cant-refuse/how-us-federal-prosecutors-force-drug-defendants-plead


> 
> 
>  >  so recapitulating : if a number of people agree to cooperate and
>  >  demand a trial (even with no money incentive) that can throw a
> wrench >  in the system BUT the coordination required to do that
> seems to be a >  literal case of the so called prisioner's dilemma. 

> Well, I'd say it's worth trying. Consider a specific example,   Kim
> Dotcom has recently won part of his case, and is unlikely to be
> extradited.  But if things had gone badly, and he had been extradited
> and brought to trial in America, he would be able to "purchase"
> perhaps 3-4,000 trials (for others) with only about 4% of his $200
> million (?) wealth.  

   so  200,000,000 times 0.04 = 8,000,000 
   8,000,000 / 4000 = that's 2000 per person. 

   Again, do you think 4000 people would risk way longer sentences
   for $2000....? Either I am missing something obvious or you are...


> He could clog up the system for a year.   I
> would say that his best tactic would be to do exactly that.

  ONLY if the people who plead not guilty are able to plead guilty
  later and avoid longer sentences. 


> 
>  >  then, on the other hand, the bureaucratic 'legal' procedure may
> play a crucial role here. If people can plead not guilty but then
> change their mind then it may be possible for them to see if they can
>   reach a big enouhg number to be effective?
> 
> 
> The operators of the system will be able to monitor the number of new
> defendants on a weekly or even daily basis.

   That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the
   details/timing  of the 'legal' procedure dictated by the state. 

> It will very soon be
> apparent how well the system is operating.  And, I believe that once
> the system is "working", and making publicity, there will be no lack
> of donations. Jim Bell
> 
>   
> 
>