San Francisco Protest Brings Debate on Wages of Din

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


My guess is that this would violate due process as it would serve as a deterrant to innocent people asserting their innocence at trial.

And the risk of conviction at trial for a more serious charge than offered in a plea bargain is less of a "deterrent" than the prospect of paying the actual costs of the trial and prosecution? What do you think plea bargains are?

BTW, Liability for costs of trial is not "punishment"

Every last one of those 100 would move to sever. That's hundreds of motions to sort through, and many will have merits by which to do so. Besides, this will have to go to real court, with juries. And all it takes is one juror to recognize this as nonsense and vote for mistrial. Moreover, as this is the bay area, most will go free - after expensive criminal court resources are expended.

That's nice - and the courts already have the ability to sanction for frivolous motions. The judge would just deny any pretrial motions, and see if the defendant and their lawyer want to take it up on appeal, and get a quick dismissal.

This may be the bay area, home of frootloops like Boxer, but the judicial system there is unlikely to be much in favor of an organized effort to paralyze the judicial system so that a group of defendants can break the law with impunity.

But hey, if you think I'm wrong, go run for DA and take you platform the the voters.

I'd hate to take a 50-80% pay cut (don't know what SF DA salary is off the top of my head, but I do know SD county), but generally voters like DA's that don't take **** from criminals, not ones that coddle them.

You know, for being so anti-communist you sure sound like Stalin.

Why not the obligatory Hitler comparison?

If I was Stalin, these whiny protestors would be gone, and their families would be counting trees for ten years for Anti-Soviet Agitation, because the family members surely knew of the treasonous, counterrevolutionary activities of the bandits, and failed to turn them in anyway.

Gee, for being Mr. hard-core lefty, you sound awfully whiny at the prospect of being held accountable for your actions. Maybe they should protest within their legal rights next time?

[Velociryx]

Nahhh....nothing should happen to them at all. Let 'em go.

Let's just see what Templar's take is on it if they cost HIM some sales....

-=Vel=-
(it's easy to opt for lenience when you have nothing at stake...but hey....we don't really need the law anyway, do we?)

[Dis]

Mike, the protestors were right, the war was wrong. our country was hijacked.

now if the protestors were wrong, I could see them being fined.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dissident
Mike, the protestors were right,

What does that have to do with anything?

[Ben Kenobi]

now if the protestors were wrong, I could see them being fined.

Not the way it works. The protesters have legal limits for protest where they can express their ideas. These protesters blot the reputations of the other anti-war activists by breaking and smashing things.

BTW, why does it make sense to be against violence, yet have to express your message through violence?

[Dis]

being right should net you a get out of jail free card

[Dis]

there was no violence by the protestors!

only a few anarchists made some trouble.

yes the peaceniks should know better than to associate with anarchists. gives them a bad image.

[DinoDoc]

Stop trolling Diss.

[Dis]

okay

[Dinner]

Send them all up on the maximium possible and demand that every last one of them post bond/bail while they litigate their cases. That way the state can grow fat off of the interest while these 3k cases slowly work there way through the system. The individuals would have to come up with thousands of dollars which wouldn't be returned to them until their case is complete; the only way to expidiate the case (and get their money back) would be to make a plea bargin which would help to lessen the court backlog.

If I ever got elected to office I could come up with a million little tricks like this.

[St Leo]

"It would be unethical to pay," said one of the protesters, Fran Peavey, 62, who was in court today. A writer from San Francisco, Ms. Peavey was arrested in her wheelchair for blocking Bush Street, her 18th protest-related arrest since 1965, she said.

Bush Street?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nahhh....nothing should happen to them at all. Let 'em go.

Let's just see what Templar's take is on it if they cost HIM some sales....

-=Vel=-

I don't have sales - I serve the public interest.

And MtG,

(1) I don't due Hitler comparisons as a rule - that guy was in a league of his own.

(2) Paying for trial costs and due process. Courts tend to frown on things that incentivize (even theoretically) innocent people to plead guilty. Courts tolerate plea bargaining on strictly pragmatic grounds. Since most people are unable to afford to repay trial costs you're just talking about adding more proceedings if you are serious about collecting.

(3) A motion to sever would not be frivolous in this case. A peaceful protestor will argue that being tried with people who were violent or en masse (like a mob) are unduly prejudiced. And the motion will be granted - or the convictions will be throw out on appeal. These procedural tactics are pretty standard in cases like this.

(4) Who said anything about not holding people accountable? People who destroyed things or attacked others should be held responsible. Most of these arrests, however, are bull**** "disturbing the peace" type charges used in general to deter legitimate political speech. How do I know? My collegues in the National Lawyers Guild (who monitor protests for police abuse) SF chapter have it all on tape.

(5) What? You're not patriotic enough to suck up the pay cut and do your duty for the republic? Why do you hate America so much?

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Reform the "court costs" language in California law to make those found guilty at trial who do not accept plea bargains for lesser offenses liable for the full cost of the prosecution.

As Templar said, this would induce more plea bargains from the innocent. And it would undoubtedly violate the prohibition on ex post facto legislation since the reform would follow the infractions.

And the risk of conviction at trial for a more serious charge than offered in a plea bargain is less of a "deterrent" than the prospect of paying the actual costs of the trial and prosecution? What do you think plea bargains are?

I'd hope they are used rarely to get information from a guilty party about his accomplices. And even then, it wouldn't really be a plea bargain, but a reduction in their sentence after they've been convicted. When we start telling innocent people they might get life if they want a trial and only a few years if they plead guilty, we can induce admissions of guilt from the innocent.

BTW, Liability for costs of trial is not "punishment"

Tell that to an innocent person bankrupted by false charges and a trial regardless of the verdict.

[Berzerker]

(1) I don't due Hitler comparisons as a rule - that guy was in a league of his own.

Ahem...Stalin and Mao?

[David Floyd]

Not my mess. Besides, the people complaining are mostly cranky commutors and buisnesses. Ooooh, poor baby! Did Starbucks lose some business because protestors exercised their rights.

I'm about as Libertarian as they come, but you have no right to get in my way and prevent me from going about me business. If you and a hundred of your buddies are blocking traffic, then they are coercing thousands of people and violating their rights, not to mention blocking much of the access to many businesses.

Case in point. On the first day of the war, here at UT there was a massive protest that spilled into the streets and pretty much clogged up traffic on Guadalupe, a major road by campus - the road had to be closed. Now, I had stuff to do along that road, but these protestors made it practically impossible.

Protest all you want, but stay out of my way - stay on the damn sidewalk or the nice large UT campus.

And by the way, I was extremely anti-war, as anyone here can tell you.