|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
There is a very strong sense of justice in the US.
Not necessarily justice in absolute terms but justice in a moral sense.
Practically all Hollywood protagonists meet their end in a way reflecting their
(bad) deeds. It always ends badly for bad people.
An overreaching prosecutor in bad public standing could raise herself up on
bringing an enemy of public order to the stake.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 07 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
It's important, precisely because the media gets
things wrong, to keep an open mind. It'll take
a long time for everything to come out, but in
the end, it will.
Be patient. Don't assume the very worst. This
isn't like Aaron Swartz, where the alleged crime
was a victimless affair, and where he may even
have believed what he was doing was legal.
This is way more serious. People died. Others
lost limbs and their lives are impacted forever.
It's not the same. When people are murdered,
it is the job of the prosecutors to go after
the murderers. Hopefully, they go after the
right people. But it's not prosecutorial
overzealousness to go after them and make sure
they pay. Part of the job is making sure others
know what will happen to them if they come up
with a cruel plot like this one appears to be.
And prosecutors don't think like most of the
rest of us. They see awful things, awful
people, awful events all the time, and they
usually choose that line of work because they
feel protective of victims. I've known some
prosecutors, and they were decent, real people.
But they are a cynical bunch, waiting for
a clue that you are not what you present yourself
to be, and there are so many laws now, if
they want to be bad, they can do it and you
are sunk. That's a problem, but it's the
system. If you read Simple Justice blog,
you'll get a picture of just how little
criminal law has to do with justice. It's
why I don't cover it normally. I can't bear
it.
The problem in the Swartz affair was a culture
clash. The CFAA is a bad law, but prosecutors
don't get to decide that. They enforce what
the law is, and so they view any infraction as
a crime. It's the mind set. They aren't
thinking, "How great if everyone in the world,
rich or poor, could have access to knowledge."
They are thinking, "He broke that law."
The corruption that we witness, sadly, also
appears real. So the picture is complex, but
it's good to remember that in complex pictures,
there are shades of gray, and so we should
watch closely but without prejudging. When
prosecutors prejudge, you hate it, so why
do it ourselves? One nice thing about the
law is, everything comes out in the end, because
trials are (usually) public.
And think about this too. Some are critical that
no one interviewed Tamerlan when he returned from
Russia. That criticism is fueling extra carefulness
and thoroughness now, I've no doubt. Personally, I
think it's because America isn't by nature the kind
of place where our values condone stalking each and
every person too closely, but that seems to be
changing too. But personally, I think it's a good
thing when aberrant things that couldn't be
predicted without a total surveillance state are
able to happen, because it's reassuring to know
that we are not being surveilled every second of
every day.
Here's the problem the prosecutors face: they want to
be sure there are no others planning future attacks,
and they want to be sure that they've got all those
responsible. That is why they are watching the
wife closely, and I'd do that myself if I were
the prosecutor, because they found jihadi literature
on her computer. Most likely, they think, the
husband did it when she wasn't around, but they
have to keep an open mind and make sure.
http://longisland.news12.com/multimedia/fbi-continues-
investigating-widow-of-tamerlan-tsarnaev-1.5206814?qr=1
And one more thing: the three boys who talked to the
FBI without lawyers no doubt regret it now, because
it's possible the charges are exaggerated, but then
again the prosecution agreed with the defense and
let one of the boys go home on bail. So we are
not seeing a totally unreasonable position here.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
