Germany's flashmob neo-Nazis

[das_nut]

Most legislation (at least on the federal level) actually gets the job done that's intended to be done.

Federal law, if it does what is intended to do, seems to have some bad intentions.

Copyright laws have been used aggressively to limit the freedom of speech of those who criticize Scientology.

Federal patent law is used by large companies to extort small companies.

Disparities in drug laws has the effective result of punishing those who use crack (more commonly used by minorities) 18 times more severely than powder cocaine (more commonly used by whites).

What solutions do you think actually exist? I'm curious to see what you actually know about the judicial system in the U.S.

True solutions are going to stem from increased political awareness of the people. Until we reach that point (and it'll be difficult), I'm going to be hesitant to increase the amount of power the government has when it comes to infringing on individual rights.

 

[mlp]

Federal law, if it does what is intended to do, seems to have some bad intentions.

Copyright laws have been used aggressively to limit the freedom of speech of those who criticize Scientology.

Federal patent law is used by large companies to extort small companies.

Disparities in drug laws has the effective result of punishing those who use crack (more commonly used by minorities) 18 times more severely than powder cocaine (more commonly used by whites).

Copyright and patent laws are intended to and do protect property interests. Whether you agree those property interests should be protected is a matter of your opinion, but those laws operate as they were intended.

The same goes for the disparity in drug laws, which actually probably also pretty much reflect our general society's views - after all, our society as a whole is a lot more scared of black people and poor people on drugs than it is of yuppies on drugs.

True solutions are going to stem from increased political awareness of the people. Until we reach that point (and it'll be difficult), I'm going to be hesitant to increase the amount of power the government has when it comes to infringing on individual rights.

And yet, here you are, advocating giving government, in the form of judges, who are either political appointees for life or politicians running for judgeships on political platforms, much more discretion as to the extent to which they can exercise their individual biases in sentencing people, including life and death decisions.... Ah, the irony of your position.

 

[das_nut]

Copyright and patent laws are intended to and do protect property interests. Whether you agree those property interests should be protected is a matter of your opinion, but those laws operate as they were intended.

US Constitution states the following in regards to copyrights and patents: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

So how are we promoting that?

Well, for copyright, we have seen a massive extension in the length of copyright to protect such big companies as Disney from seeing some of their early work in the public domain. (The first copyright law was 28 yers, max. Now it's life of the author + 70 years, or 95 years for corporations.) Tell me, if I wrote a book in the 1970s, and the copyright law was changed to retroactively cover it decades later, how did that influence my decision to produce the book? It doesn't. The law is primarily designed to protect the large producers.

We're seeing works disappear because our laws aren't intended to promote the arts, but instead protect large producers. Sure, something like a Disney film will probably be around when the copyright expires (even the racist "Song of the South", which Disney has not republished). But for many other works by small companies and individuals, they won't be around when copyright law expires. We're starving the public domain, ironically to protect such companies who have benefited so much from the public domain (just look at how many Disney flicks are based on old stories).

But hey, at least Disney actually produces something. Not so for the so-called "patent trolls" - companies who amass intellectual portfolios through acquiring them from others, without engaging in their own research, nor intending to produce projects based on their intellectual property. Instead, their business plan is to make money by aggressively going after anyone they believe can be shown to be infringing those patents. Since the cost of defending oneself against a patent lawsuit is high (even if victorious), there is a strong incentive to settle out of court.

This is not promoting the progress of science. They are parasites which actually hinders progress.

The same goes for the disparity in drug laws, which actually probably also pretty much reflect our general society's views - after all, our society as a whole is a lot more scared of black people and poor people on drugs than it is of yuppies on drugs.

I entirely agree that society tends to be far more harsh on groups it does not like. Which seems to me to be an argument *for* protecting the rights of individuals, including free speech. That's why I'm against hate speech laws - they will only protect a few specific groups society decides to protect, or else be written so broadly that they can be used to attack unpopular groups.

And yet, here you are, advocating giving government, in the form of judges, who are either political appointees for life or politicians running for judgeships on political platforms, much more discretion as to the extent to which they can exercise their individual biases in sentencing people, including life and death decisions.... Ah, the irony of your position.

Not irony. Just that the fix is going to require more than one step. After all, if you have a car with weak brakes that barely runs, you'll want to make the car run better. You'll just also want to fix the brakes at the same time.

 

[FortyTwo]

Copyright laws have been used aggressively to limit the freedom of speech of those who criticize Scientology.

You're just saying that because you're jealous of the Galactic Lord Xenu.

 

[mlp]

US Constitution states the following in regards to copyrights and patents: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

So how are we promoting that?

Well, for copyright, we have seen a massive extension in the length of copyright to protect such big companies as Disney from seeing some of their early work in the public domain. (The first copyright law was 28 yers, max. Now it's life of the author + 70 years, or 95 years for corporations.) Tell me, if I wrote a book in the 1970s, and the copyright law was changed to retroactively cover it decades later, how did that influence my decision to produce the book? It doesn't. The law is primarily designed to protect the large producers.

We're seeing works disappear because our laws aren't intended to promote the arts, but instead protect large producers. Sure, something like a Disney film will probably be around when the copyright expires (even the racist "Song of the South", which Disney has not republished). But for many other works by small companies and individuals, they won't be around when copyright law expires. We're starving the public domain, ironically to protect such companies who have benefited so much from the public domain (just look at how many Disney flicks are based on old stories).

But hey, at least Disney actually produces something. Not so for the so-called "patent trolls" - companies who amass intellectual portfolios through acquiring them from others, without engaging in their own research, nor intending to produce projects based on their intellectual property. Instead, their business plan is to make money by aggressively going after anyone they believe can be shown to be infringing those patents. Since the cost of defending oneself against a patent lawsuit is high (even if victorious), there is a strong incentive to settle out of court.

This is not promoting the progress of science. They are parasites which actually hinders progress.



I entirely agree that society tends to be far more harsh on groups it does not like. Which seems to me to be an argument *for* protecting the rights of individuals, including free speech. That's why I'm against hate speech laws - they will only protect a few specific groups society decides to protect, or else be written so broadly that they can be used to attack unpopular groups.

Again, I didn't say all laws are good; I disagree with quite a few myself. What I did say is that most laws, at least on the federal level, do pretty much exactly what they were intended to do when enacted. Your example of the extension of the period of copyright protection is a prime example of that.

Not irony. Just that the fix is going to require more than one step. After all, if you have a car with weak brakes that barely runs, you'll want to make the car run better. You'll just also want to fix the brakes at the same time.

You yourself admitted just a few posts ago that the problem with bad judges who use unbridled discretion to further their own biases in sentencing isn't going to be corrected until such time as the American populace gets educated and motivated enough to overhaul the system in its entirety (but you didn't address how the system could actually be overhauled to address such issues). In the meatime (generations? thousands of years? longer?) you prefer these self same judges to have discretion in sentencing and be able to impose their biases in such sentencing. Sort of like those AR types who oppose any AW laws, because they see the issue as an all or nothing game, and to hell with the millions who suffer until the human species becomes ethical enough to embrace AR in its purest form.

 

[das_nut]

Again, I didn't say all laws are good; I disagree with quite a few myself. What I did say is that most laws, at least on the federal level, do pretty much exactly what they were intended to do when enacted. Your example of the extension of the period of copyright protection is a prime example of that.

Well, I do agree that most federal laws are designed to help get a politician re-elected, either through pandering to the voters or through pandering to those who fund their re-elections (read big organizations, including big corporations).

I'm not sure why, when we understand that politicians have that intent, we want to give them the power to attack unpopular speech.

You yourself admitted just a few posts ago that the problem with bad judges who use unbridled discretion to further their own biases in sentencing isn't going to be corrected until such time as the American populace gets educated and motivated enough to overhaul the system in its entirety (but you didn't address how the system could actually be overhauled to address such issues). In the meatime (generations? thousands of years? longer?) you prefer these self same judges to have discretion in sentencing and be able to impose their biases in such sentencing. Sort of like those AR types who oppose any AW laws, because they see the issue as an all or nothing game, and to hell with the millions who suffer until the human species becomes ethical enough to embrace AR in its purest form.

Yes, the solution isn't perfect. But right now, our prisons are overloaded. Remove mandatory minimum sentencing would be a help. It's not a complete fix, but it is a step.

What I believe you are overlooking is that the discretion isn't up to the judge under the current system. Prosecutors can and do have wide leeway when it comes to charging individuals with a crime. But with mandatory minimum sentencing, once that person is charged with a crime (and convicted) the judge doesn't have the same leeway.

 

[mlp]

Yes, but prosecutors, unlike judges, have an incentive to not charge too wildly - if the charge for a crime more serious than actually committed, it is more likely that a jury will find the defendant not guilty, which = a whole lot of thge prosecutor's time lost plus consequences with respect to job retention. Prosecutors have an incentive to maintain a high win ratio, which they endanger by charging a defendant with a higher category of crime.

ETA: Still wondering how you think the judicial system should be overhauled to get rid of the problem of bigoted and/or incompetent judges being arbitray about sentencing if they didn't have guidelines they have to follow.

 

[das_nut]

Yes, but prosecutors, unlike judges, have an incentive to not charge too wildly - if the charge for a crime more serious than actually committed, it is more likely that a jury will find the defendant not guilty, which = a whole lot of thge prosecutor's time lost plus consequences with respect to job retention. Prosecutors have an incentive to maintain a high win ratio, which they endanger by charging a defendant with a higher category of crime.

Prosecutors can and do not charge too wildly when it comes to harsh charges. But when it comes to undercharging someone for a crime, a bias has been shown. (A similar bias exists with the police.)

Those who are unpopular or unpowerful (poor minorities, for example) will often face harsher chargers than someone who is a member of a popular group (especially if that person is powerful).

ETA: Still wondering how you think the judicial system should be overhauled to get rid of the problem of bigoted and/or incompetent judges being arbitray about sentencing if they didn't have guidelines they have to follow.

Remove the judges themselves. I am not arguing to remove maximum sentencing limits - which will limit those bigoted and incompetent judges. But I am arguing to remove minimum sentencing guidelines - which will result in a situation that will err on the side of caution when it comes to sentencing individuals, since mandatory minimum sentencing will no longer apply. But we'll have to have an effective method in place to remove bad judges, because regardless of the system, bad judges can limit evidence and influence the jury.

The only perfect solution to bad judges is to remove them completely and replace them with a hypothetical judging computer. Which probably is (1) beyond our means and (2) a cure worse than the disease. But we can have measures in place to reduce the number of bad judges.

 

[mlp]

Remove the judges themselves. I am not arguing to remove maximum sentencing limits - which will limit those bigoted and incompetent judges. But I am arguing to remove minimum sentencing guidelines - which will result in a situation that will err on the side of caution when it comes to sentencing individuals, since mandatory minimum sentencing will no longer apply. But we'll have to have an effective method in place to remove bad judges, because regardless of the system, bad judges can limit evidence and influence the jury.

The only perfect solution to bad judges is to remove them completely and replace them with a hypothetical judging computer. Which probably is (1) beyond our means and (2) a cure worse than the disease. But we can have measures in place to reduce the number of bad judges.

Who gets to decide to remove bad judges? Because removal mechanisms (in addition to impeachment) for state trial court judges are already in place (almost everywhere, or perhaps everywhere in the U.S. - I can't say everywhere, because I'm not familiar with every county and municipality). Basically, there are two mechanisms for the selection of state trial court judges - they are either appointed through the executive branch of local government, or they run for office on a party ticket. If they are elected, they have to run for election periodically, just like any other elected official. In the case of appointed state court trial judges, the question as to whether they should be retained in office is regularly on the ballot. (In many jurisdictions, the question whether individual appellate and/or supreme court judges should be retained is also on the ballot.)

Frankly, the average voter knows jack sh*t about the quality of the judges they're voting on. In one county where I practiced, the probate court judge was such an incompetent nincompoop that year after year, the local bar association voted that he should not be retained because he was so miserably unqualified. Year after year, these results were published in the local papers, and year after year, the voters voted to retain him. He served for decades; as far as I know, he is still serving. As for judges who have to run for election - the voters pay attention to whether they're Republicans or Democrats, not to their intelligence, reasoning ability, knowledge of the law, or any other criteria that are actually relevant to the job.

Frankly, good lawyers are much better off staying in private practice than running for a seat on the bench - they can make a lot more money as a lawyer than as a judge. As a result, the pool that most judges are drawn from is a pool of the mediocre or less than mediocre. Federal judgeships and some state appellate and/or supreme court seats carry enough glamor with them to attract some competent people, but they are still individuals who spend a lot of time currying political favor - if they didn't, they never would be appointed.

 

[das_nut]

Who gets to decide to remove bad judges?

Voter involvement is one of the solutions we should be advocating. Of course, such a plan is long-term and may be unduly optimistic considering the current culture.

Yet regardless, unless you believe there are more bad judges than good judges, minimum sentencing guidelines are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[mlp]

Well, it seems as though you don't really have a solution to offer, which is what I expected. It's easy to think of oneself as an expert based on superficial knowledge and no practical experience in a field.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, sentencing guidelines have their own sets of problems. But they have evened out the playing field among various groups of defendants at least a little - a poor and/or minority defendant will receive a sentence that is at least somewhat in the same ballpark as a wealthy white defendant if found guilty of the same crime.

"Good" judges versus "bad" judges? That depends on the criteria you use to evaluate. I will say that very few trial judges are as competent as the average lawyer who appears before them, and that is a pretty low standard in and of itself.

 

[das_nut]

Well, it seems as though you don't really have a solution to offer, which is what I expected.

How does the phrase "Voter involvement is one of the solutions" not indicate a solution?

It's easy to think of oneself as an expert based on superficial knowledge and no practical experience in a field.

Are you claiming yourself is an expert in regards to mandatory minimum sentencing?

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, sentencing guidelines have their own sets of problems. But they have evened out the playing field among various groups of defendants at least a little - a poor and/or minority defendant will receive a sentence that is at least somewhat in the same ballpark as a wealthy white defendant if found guilty of the same crime.

But mandatory minimum sentencing does not address the issue of rich suspects having more opportunity not to be charged with a crime in the first place. Nor does it factor into play when it comes to finding the guilt of a defendant - and I think it's obvious to almost everyone that a public defender provides a far worse defense than a high-priced lawyer. Considering the racial disparity when it comes to being charged and convicted of crimes, it's obvious that mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects some minorities. Also, considering that mandatory minimum sentencing raises the minimum punishment, it provides an incentive for those with a poor legal defense to plead to a lesser charge - regardless of guilt or innocence.

We are also ignoring the large issue that mandatory sentencing laws are a large problem when it comes to prison overcrowding. This is a problem that has even been addressed by SCOTUS. In addition, the evidence for longer sentences being more effective is mixed. It does seem that most of the evidence points towards recidivism rates being lower for older criminals. But the effect of longer prison sentences may detrimental to society. The US has the highest per capita prison population, yet appears to have also quite a high recidivism rate compared to other countries. How much of that is due to sentencing, and how much of that is due to other factors is up for debate. But it is easy to conclude that our approach to preventing crime is not working. For example, Norway has 1/10th of the US's per capita prison population, yet has a much lower recidivism rate (roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd, depending on what statistics you're using).

 

[mlp]

How does the phrase "Voter involvement is one of the solutions" not indicate a solution?

Well, we've had voter involvement pretty much as long as this country and its judicial system have existed, and yet here we are.... Most voters can't tell you who their senators and representatives are, so how are you going to get them to inform themselves about the judges in their jurisdiction? That's what I meant by saying you hadn't offered a solution.

Are you claiming yourself is an expert in regards to mandatory minimum sentencing?

No, but I've actually graduated from law school and practiced law for several decades, so I would hazard a guess that I might know just a wee bit more about our judicial system than you do. Not discounting your expertise in so many wide ranging fields, of course, which always impresses the sh*t out of me.

But mandatory minimum sentencing does not address the issue of rich suspects having more opportunity not to be charged with a crime in the first place. Nor does it factor into play when it comes to finding the guilt of a defendant - and I think it's obvious to almost everyone that a public defender provides a far worse defense than a high-priced lawyer. Considering the racial disparity when it comes to being charged and convicted of crimes, it's obvious that mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects some minorities. Also, considering that mandatory minimum sentencing raises the minimum punishment, it provides an incentive for those with a poor legal defense to plead to a lesser charge - regardless of guilt or innocence.

We are also ignoring the large issue that mandatory sentencing laws are a large problem when it comes to prison overcrowding. This is a problem that has even been addressed by SCOTUS. In addition, the evidence for longer sentences being more effective is mixed. It does seem that most of the evidence points towards recidivism rates being lower for older criminals. But the effect of longer prison sentences may detrimental to society. The US has the highest per capita prison population, yet appears to have also quite a high recidivism rate compared to other countries. How much of that is due to sentencing, and how much of that is due to other factors is up for debate. But it is easy to conclude that our approach to preventing crime is not working. For example, Norway has 1/10th of the US's per capita prison population, yet has a much lower recidivism rate (roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd, depending on what statistics you're using).

If you'll recall, I have repeatedly said that sentencing guidelines have their own sets of issues. However, many/most/all of the issues you bring up in these paragraphs predate sentencing guidelines.

 

[das_nut]

Well, we've had voter involvement pretty much as long as this country and its judicial system have existed, and yet here we are.... Most voters can't tell you who their senators and representatives are, so how are you going to get them to inform themselves about the judges in their jurisdiction? That's what I meant by saying you hadn't offered a solution.

If our government is running around unchecked by the voters (and it may be), I think we have a bigger problem, and that the judicial system is only a subset of the issue. Kind of like if the house is burning down, the temperature in the fridge might be a tad too warm. Solution isn't to fix the fridge, but to fix the state of the house (preferably transitioning it to a non-burning state).

No, but I've actually graduated from law school and practiced law for several decades, so I would hazard a guess that I might know just a wee bit more about our judicial system than you do. Not discounting your expertise in so many wide ranging fields, of course, which always impresses the sh*t out of me.

That's pretty cool.

If you'll recall, I have repeatedly said that sentencing guidelines have their own sets of issues. However, many/most/all of the issues you bring up in these paragraphs predate sentencing guidelines.

They predate sentencing guidelines, but when a chance of being charged or found guilty is partially dependent on race and wealth, minimum sentencing guidelines do not improve the situation.

 

[Marie]

Who gets to decide to remove bad judges?

Robots.

 

[mlp]

If our government is running around unchecked by the voters (and it may be), I think we have a bigger problem, and that the judicial system is only a subset of the issue. Kind of like if the house is burning down, the temperature in the fridge might be a tad too warm. Solution isn't to fix the fridge, but to fix the state of the house (preferably transitioning it to a non-burning state).




They predate sentencing guidelines, but when a chance of being charged or found guilty is partially dsependent on race and wealth, minimum sentencing guidelines do not improve the situation.

Sentencing guidelines reduce the potential for abuse in one aspect of the process. Again, you're looking at it the way certain AR types look at animal issues - it has to be the whole thing, or nothing at all. In the real world, improvements are often only possible in painfully small increments.

Robots.

 

[das_nut]

Sentencing guidelines reduce the potential for abuse in one aspect of the process.

But aren't sentencing guidelines, especially minimum sentencing guidelines, prone to abuse by politicians showing how they are "tough on crime"?

For example, three strikes laws.