Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)

[Chris Rehm <javadisciple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 28 September 2001 10:33 am, jt wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Excellent points.
>
> However, the courts absolutely DO move in directions, which is primarily
> determined by who is appointed to be judges.  That's what it was
> UNCONSCIABLE the way the prior Republican Congress dragged their feet on
> Clinton appointments (I presume in order to wait until they could get a
> Republican administration).  There wasn't a lot of news about this, so don't
> know for sure how many appointments they never filled (if any).

I would have to ask: What does "the prior Republican Congress" have to do
with "the courts" and their "directions?"

> The easiest way to see how courts move in a direction is to view the
> contradictory Opinions from the Supreme Court over the last 200 years.
> Since the Courts function to interpret the Laws and the Constiution, and
> there sure is a lot of gray area to move around in, their interpretation
> does, in fact, provide direction for the whole country.

While the Supreme Court may indeed set some definite boundaries for lower
courts, this may or may not be what would be "directions."

The Supreme Court, depending on appointements, wavers between interpreting
the Constitution literally and interpreting the spirit of the Constitution.
As they are lifetime appointments, though, the position of the court doesn't
shift rapidly.

Sometimes the court may appear to reverse its position because it was asked
to revue the same matter on different groungs. For instance, here in
California there are thousands of cases where people have been sentenced to
life in prison for minor offenses (petty theft, bad checks, etc.). If the
defendant's attorneys have grounds to appeal to the Supreme Court based on
errors made by lower courts, the Supreme Court may still uphold the sentence.
But later, the defense attorneys can appeal (and perhaps win) based on "Cruel
and Unusual Punishment." In fact a year or so ago after hearing a case (where
the defendant was sentenced to life for stealing some food for a homeless
shelter that he normally ate at but got to after it had closed) the court
stated that the grounds on which the defense attorneys appealed (that the
crime had been treated as burglary instead of petty theft) were not valid but
they were open to a "Cruel and Unusual" appeal.

Of course, there will be times when interpreting the Constitution literally
will be at odds with interpreting it "in spirit" so there will be actual
reversals. Interpreting "in spirit" seems to me to be more open to problems.

I think what was being discussed was the sentencing (as "the direction of the
courts"). Sometimes there are flaws in perception. Unfortunately, I think you
will find that in this country each person gets whatever justice they can
buy. The lower the court a person is sentenced in (generally), the longer the
sentence they will receive.

There are various reasons for this. One is the particular judges. I once
watched a judge do things in a courtroom that I would have never believed
anyone associated with "justice" would do. Complete betrayals of defendants
rights. Later, I discussed this with an attorney who had been in the
courtroom and he pointed out a few things. One, the judge had only been on
the bench for six months. Prior to that he had been an assistant district
attorney in the same county (thus, the ADAs he was ruling on were his
friends). Second, none of the defendants had their own attorney. They were
all defended by Public Defenders and thus he knew they did not have the money
to appeal his decisions. He could do whatever he wanted.

It was then that I started to suspect that the number of people convicted of
crimes they did not really commit was higher than most people thought. It
also occured to me that every time someone goes to prison for a crime they
didn't commit, someone who committed a crime goes free.

Anyway, high profile cases often get better attorneys and thus lower
sentences than the average guy would for the same crime.

Look, I'll shut up here. It just happens to be a big subject with me.

>
> I just took two paragraphs explaining why I disagree with the first sentence
> of the second paragraph.  I could easily take reams explaining how I firmly
> believe in every other word you wrote, however, I'm on a short break.
>
> I'll just say thanks, and hope that suffices...:=)
>
> James Jay Toran  (jjt)

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31