Alfred Anaya is yet another example of magical thinking about how the law works. Just avoiding certain words doesn't prevent rational people (in this case, a judge) from concluding that he did, in fact, know what he was doing when he built hidden compartments for drug dealers.
This isn't a guy who built one thing for the wrong person, but many over the course of multiple years. It blew up in his face, but that is the risk of working with very dangerous people at the edge of the law.
The bottom line is that what he did was not against the law. There are supposed to be laws written against activities that are prohibited, to prevent prosecutions based on the whims of prosecutors and other individuals, outside of the normal legislative process. If one wants to argue that this type of activity should be precluded by law, then that's a valid argument. That still doesn't put Anaya in jail however, because even if it were passed, ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
The bottom line is, Anaya didn't play ball with the DEA. They went after him to punish him for not cooperating, not because he broke any laws. It's a travesty and a scathing indictment of the current legal situation in the United States that he could even be charged with this crime at all in a state he'd never set foot in, much less to have a conviction against him.
This thread is a sad reminder of just how irrational HN has gotten when it comes to the government.
Yes, the war on drugs is probably unnecessary and ill-conceived. And no, it's not illegal to put a secret compartment in your car.
But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics. He quoted the capacity of his compartments in "kilos." He witnessed $800,000 in the compartment and subsequently increased his rates specifically because he knew it was a shady affair. Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage). In what world is someone who willfully helps drug dealers to conceal drugs not an accomplice?
Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
Also, the Wired editorializing is way off base. If you are truly operating in an information void from your clients (without suspecting them of being criminals), that's not illegal. (Toyota can't be prosecuted for drug trafficking just because some drug dealers use it for that.) But when you have a personal relationship with clients who make it pretty obvious that they're engaged in criminal activity, you absolutely have an obligation to stop assisting.
>But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.
Obvious to whom? Neither having nor seeing $800,000 in cash is a crime. While he may have had reason to be suspicious, that is not what the law requires. There must be actual knowledge of illegal use. Professional gamblers carry this kind of cash and more all the time. They could have been on their way to a poker game for all he knew.
>Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage)
You just indicted every criminal defense lawyer, and most accountants, in America. As officers of the court, lawyers are not supposed to knowingly make representations in court that they know not to be true. For precisely this reason, unlike in the movies, most lawyers will not sit down and ask a client to just tell them everything that happened; actual knowledge of certain facts could seriously damage their ability to defend their client. Instead they analyze the discovery given to them by the prosecution and ask the client questions as needed. Isolating yourself from information is certainly not a crime, and is necessary for many people in order to properly do their jobs.
> But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal
A criminal in what manner? What act did he commit that harmed another person or that was in some way or another unethical or immoral? Whom did he cheat?
He isn't a criminal in that sense at all. He's a criminal for breaking a vaguely worded and open-to-interpretation law that seems unconstitutional on its face.
When the government writes a bad law here and there, it's just the inevitable mistakes that we hope will be eventually corrected. But when the government writes one bad law after another, with never a good one in between, "criminal" ceases to mean anything.
> He witnessed $800,000
And? I find it hilarious how we've been taught and propagandized to think that money is, itself, horrible and incriminating. They have our bank tellers spying on us for the IRS, fuck, I don't even think you can buy a new car with cash without someone phoning it in to the feds. And whatever you do, don't dare drive out-of-state down a highway with money like that... cops are likely to steal it.
> Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
Apparently you're ready to indict the guy that sold him the car, and the gas station attendant that didn't call it in to the police when he saw them filling up the tank.
> But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.
Who's being irrational here? If a law is "unnecessary and ill-conceived," why is it irrational to complain about the law being enforced? I think that's very rational. I think he should be able to explicitly say, even advertise "I will create a secret compartment in your vehicle where you can put drugs," without risking any legal trouble. 24 years in prison is too harsh a sentence. Spending the night in jail would be too harsh a sentence. A $50 fine would be too harsh a sentence.
> Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
No, because laws prohibiting robbery and theft are reasonable laws.
They probally have enough information to convict him. But you know that Kilos is just how most of the world handles weight? If I wanted to put lets say a speaker or computer in there, id also be interested in what weight it can hold.
If they actually wanted to carry money, they would also need to know as money is pretty heavy.
> Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
I think this is more like putting the car salesman in jail for selling them the getaway car ... and that would be wrong.
> But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.
You can say the same about every bank in America, which facilitates the same. Oh and probably every electric utility for growing all that weed. Water utility too?
I mean, it's not like they ask each of their clients if they're drug dealers or growing dope. They don't exactly look for the criminals either.
But when you have a personal relationship with clients who make it pretty obvious that they're engaged in criminal activity, you absolutely have an obligation to stop assisting.
This needs a citation for your argument to hold water.
Edit for the down vote:
You made a statement of law on which your argument relied. The burden of proof is on the asserting party. It matters whether the law does actually exists. There is no point in debating the law if what we're talking about is not actually a law.
If Bruce Schneier became aware that a drug cartel was using one of his crypto algorithms, isn't he too an accomplice? In what world is someone who willfully helps the cartel conceal their activity not an accomplice?
Do you really think crypto authors should get off scot free when their software is at the crux of criminal communication? They know exactly what they are doing, don't they?
Something is mentioned there that either was not mentioned in the Wired article or I missed it: Anaya admits that he knew particular customers were buying compartments for illegal purposes. He just didn't know what particular illegal use they were going to be put to. He's basically arguing that to "knowingly" join a conspiracy, you have to know its objectives and scope, and he says he lacked that knowledge.
It's probably a bad idea to do business with people who want to use code words when they talk to you on the phone. The appeals court mentions an intercepted call where Anaya told the drug traders he could put "3 speakers" in a Camry for $2,500, where "3 speakers" meant a compartment to hold 3 kilos.
His sentence is way too long. He's not the lynchpin of the drug trade the prosecution made him out to be, but he does not appear to be quite the innocent bystander Wired makes him out to be either.
> His sentence is way too long. He's not the lynchpin of the drug trade
1. Drugs should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 and older.
2. His sentence isn't about trying to cripple the drug trade, but about punishing someone the government does not like.
3. The same motivation could someday be used to prosecute people who serve cheeseburgers to drug dealers at a restaurant under the theory that they were helping those drug dealers to deal drugs (you can't deal drugs if you're starving).
4. It won't be necessary to passed legislation so fucked up as that, existing legislation can easily be twisted to allow for such travesties, and judges rarely put a stop to it.
> ...he will likely spend the next two decades in prison for doing something that isn’t specifically forbidden by federal law.
He was prosecuted in a state he'd never set foot in, for doing something that wasn't against the law as contracted by people whose plans he did not know; and he was convicted, and sentenced to twice the term of the actual lawbreakers. That's not how the rule of law works.
First, there is nothing about the rule of law that says you can't be prosecuted in a state you've never been to. In this case, Anaya aided a criminal act that took place in Kansas. The fact that he's never personally been to Kansas is neither here nor there.
Second, the fact that a particular act might be legal does not mean that it is legal to do it in connection with a crime. There is nothing illegal about driving a car. There is something illegal about driving robbers in a car away from a crime scene.
Third, willful blindness is not a defense to any charge that requires showing knowledge. Anaya purposefully profited from criminal activity, and even if he didn't know the specifics of the plan, it's only because he purposefully tried to avoid learning of them. The law simply imposes a higher level of social responsibility than that.
Now, it's a fair criticism that drug enforcement is a waste of resources and drug sentences are too long. But that's quite a separate issue to the points you raise. Say that instead that Anaya was installing traps to help members of child prostitution rings convey cash around. The analysis of his involvement would be the same.
> He was prosecuted in a state he'd never set foot in
He was prosecuted for criminal conspiracy in an interstate crime. One end of that crime was Kansas. His physical location when he engaged in the conspiracy is immaterial.
> for doing something that wasn't against the law
criminal conspiracy is against the law. You can take almost any "legal" activity and make the doing of it an element of a crime. For example, saying "Yes" is not explicitly illegal. However, saying "yes" in answer to the question "Would you kill this guy for ten thousand dollars?" would be an element of the crime.
> as contracted by people whose plans he did not know
Except for the fact that he was selling them secret compartments, witnessed one stuffed full of almost a million dollars in cash, and continued doing business with them. Plus, "avoiding talk of illegality" indicates that he knew what service he was really providing.
> and he was convicted, and sentenced to twice the term of the actual lawbreakers
He engaged in a criminal conspiracy, so he was also an actual lawbreaker. His sentence was very harsh though, agreed, but he was knowingly engaging in a commercial enterprise that assisted criminals for a number of years.
> That's not how the rule of law works.
Yeah, actually it is. A judge and jury in this case looked at the overall pattern of facts and correctly determined that this guy was aiding people in breaking the law. That's how the law works.
Its unfortunate that a guy who clearly had developed some interesting skills and otherwise had a kind of messed-up life ended up where he got. But this is not the fault of the criminal justice system, or prosecutors gone wild. This is a guy who made some really stupid choices and got caught.
I disagree. I think he was trying to be too clever.
The law in California, according to what I read here, is simple: building these things for use in drug activity is against the law. The reasonable man test is essential to the integrity of our legal system. And if you have a couple street thugs with $800k stuffed in their hidden compartment, a reasonable man would know exactly what they were up to. But they offered him more business. He gambled, and he lost.
Though I do find the sentence far too harsh. Give the guy 5 years.
There is a joke among DAs "any one get a conviction for the guilty, but its takes a great lawyer to convict the innocent".
Its mind boggling how convictions are used as stepping stones for personal ambition and the Prosecutors are getting more ambitious when throwing the kitchen-sink at some of the cases and of course more often than not Judge and the Prosecutor on same party and the defendants are in a up-hill battle.
He was initially denied bail, in part because an illegal assault rifle and a bulletproof vest had been discovered in his house during a police search.
Lovely. This "illegal assault rifle" was likely only cosmetically different than a completely legal rifle. Hell, that rifle is probably legal in most of the other 50 states.
And who cares about a bullet proof vest? Or are those illegal in CA?
The guy certainly isn't a saint, but holy crap this is a great example of the gov't punishing someone using confusing laws against victimless crimes when they can't nail him for what he's actually doing because it's legal.
...when Anaya had glimpsed more than $800,000 in cash. The prosecutor contended that seeing such a large sum was tantamount to seeing drugs, since Anaya surely must have deduced the source of the money.
Wow! It just gets better!
What next? If a friend buys an expensive car when I know he has a low paying job, am I guilty of not turning in a "drug dealer"?
Even if you don't think drugs should be legal, it should be abundantly clear that the War on Drugs has resulted in a significant loss of individual rights.
Such is the nature of the war on drugs. It starts with outlawing drugs, and as the tentacles spread, you have laws on drug paraphernalia (basically, laws against whatever we deem illegal, subject to change without notice), millions of wiretaps and cases like United States versus a bucket load of cash. All in the name of the cause.
There will always be legal loopholes that allow federal prosecutors to try someone in a state in which they never set foot, and they'll always have the funds to put together a pro team that's smart enough to convince a jury that you're worse than Hitler because they're the friggin' federal gov't, and even if you aren't already bankrupt, they can freeze your accounts so you can't pay your own team.
The fundamental problem is their incentive for doing this, which is based entirely on convictions and time behind bars, and has nothing to do with fairness. I don't claim to know what the _right_ basis for prosecutor incentive is, but I do know that if it's throwing people in jail, we end up with a lot more people in jail (which has happened/is happening in the US).
It's a shame how much inconsistency there is in applying the letter of the law in different cases.
Did Anaya suspect illegal activity with his traps? Probably. But, perhaps he doesn't agree that drugs should be illegal and was intentionally trying to sidestep the law as written.
That happens all the time for a variety of different laws. Heck, it's the cornerstone of tax avoidance techniques used by the rich and connected.
When Illinois tried to ban payday loans by prohibiting loans less than 120-days in duration, did that get rid of payday loan companies? Nope. Payday loan companies simply offered loans up to 121-days in duration. Was that sidestepping the intent of the law? Yep. But, they got away with it because they're wealthy and connected companies.
We should always strive for consistency in justice. Either everyone should be able to "get off on a technicality" or no one should.
Personally, I'm in favor of restrictive justice where people can get off on technicalities. It's makes convictions harder, slanting the system towards "letting 100 criminals walk free to prevent convicting 1 innocent". It also leads to laws evolving via legislative deliberation, not arbitrary reinterpretation via case law.
Of course, I can also live with the "intent of the law" crowd. But, please, can we consistency apply that to all cases?
I think it's worth highlighting that, even if you think you are doing something entirely legal, when a customer mentions your product or service in the context of their illegal operation, you need to politely ask them to leave and sever the relationship, as a matter of self defense.
Legal and interesting, but when a "customer" shows up and says "wow, this will really help me beat my government polygraph test", you're apparently supposed to know that that they're talking about an illegal act and that you're being set up. It sucks, but there it is.
Paranoia might lose you some business, but there are worse things.
I run a reasonably successful service buying and selling Bitcoins for cash, an act which is completely legal where I live. I have absolutely no idea where my clients get their Bitcoins or what they use them for and there no way I could find out. It isn't inconceivable that some of these people are using the coins I sell to commit crimes or that the ones I buy are the proceeds of crime. I always fear I could be a victim of this kind of overzealous prosecution for running a legitimate business and it causes a chilling effect in my industry
[+] [-] blatherard|11 years ago|reply
This isn't a guy who built one thing for the wrong person, but many over the course of multiple years. It blew up in his face, but that is the risk of working with very dangerous people at the edge of the law.
[+] [-] grej|11 years ago|reply
The bottom line is, Anaya didn't play ball with the DEA. They went after him to punish him for not cooperating, not because he broke any laws. It's a travesty and a scathing indictment of the current legal situation in the United States that he could even be charged with this crime at all in a state he'd never set foot in, much less to have a conviction against him.
[+] [-] morgante|11 years ago|reply
Yes, the war on drugs is probably unnecessary and ill-conceived. And no, it's not illegal to put a secret compartment in your car.
But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics. He quoted the capacity of his compartments in "kilos." He witnessed $800,000 in the compartment and subsequently increased his rates specifically because he knew it was a shady affair. Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage). In what world is someone who willfully helps drug dealers to conceal drugs not an accomplice?
Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
Also, the Wired editorializing is way off base. If you are truly operating in an information void from your clients (without suspecting them of being criminals), that's not illegal. (Toyota can't be prosecuted for drug trafficking just because some drug dealers use it for that.) But when you have a personal relationship with clients who make it pretty obvious that they're engaged in criminal activity, you absolutely have an obligation to stop assisting.
[+] [-] downandout|11 years ago|reply
Obvious to whom? Neither having nor seeing $800,000 in cash is a crime. While he may have had reason to be suspicious, that is not what the law requires. There must be actual knowledge of illegal use. Professional gamblers carry this kind of cash and more all the time. They could have been on their way to a poker game for all he knew.
>Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage)
You just indicted every criminal defense lawyer, and most accountants, in America. As officers of the court, lawyers are not supposed to knowingly make representations in court that they know not to be true. For precisely this reason, unlike in the movies, most lawyers will not sit down and ask a client to just tell them everything that happened; actual knowledge of certain facts could seriously damage their ability to defend their client. Instead they analyze the discovery given to them by the prosecution and ask the client questions as needed. Isolating yourself from information is certainly not a crime, and is necessary for many people in order to properly do their jobs.
[+] [-] NoMoreNicksLeft|11 years ago|reply
A criminal in what manner? What act did he commit that harmed another person or that was in some way or another unethical or immoral? Whom did he cheat?
He isn't a criminal in that sense at all. He's a criminal for breaking a vaguely worded and open-to-interpretation law that seems unconstitutional on its face.
When the government writes a bad law here and there, it's just the inevitable mistakes that we hope will be eventually corrected. But when the government writes one bad law after another, with never a good one in between, "criminal" ceases to mean anything.
> He witnessed $800,000
And? I find it hilarious how we've been taught and propagandized to think that money is, itself, horrible and incriminating. They have our bank tellers spying on us for the IRS, fuck, I don't even think you can buy a new car with cash without someone phoning it in to the feds. And whatever you do, don't dare drive out-of-state down a highway with money like that... cops are likely to steal it.
> Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
Apparently you're ready to indict the guy that sold him the car, and the gas station attendant that didn't call it in to the police when he saw them filling up the tank.
[+] [-] baddox|11 years ago|reply
Who's being irrational here? If a law is "unnecessary and ill-conceived," why is it irrational to complain about the law being enforced? I think that's very rational. I think he should be able to explicitly say, even advertise "I will create a secret compartment in your vehicle where you can put drugs," without risking any legal trouble. 24 years in prison is too harsh a sentence. Spending the night in jail would be too harsh a sentence. A $50 fine would be too harsh a sentence.
> Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
No, because laws prohibiting robbery and theft are reasonable laws.
[+] [-] merrua|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maratd|11 years ago|reply
I think this is more like putting the car salesman in jail for selling them the getaway car ... and that would be wrong.
> But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.
You can say the same about every bank in America, which facilitates the same. Oh and probably every electric utility for growing all that weed. Water utility too?
I mean, it's not like they ask each of their clients if they're drug dealers or growing dope. They don't exactly look for the criminals either.
Probably because it's not their job.
[+] [-] valar_m|11 years ago|reply
This needs a citation for your argument to hold water.
Edit for the down vote:
You made a statement of law on which your argument relied. The burden of proof is on the asserting party. It matters whether the law does actually exists. There is no point in debating the law if what we're talking about is not actually a law.
[+] [-] arh68|11 years ago|reply
Do you really think crypto authors should get off scot free when their software is at the crux of criminal communication? They know exactly what they are doing, don't they?
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tzs|11 years ago|reply
Something is mentioned there that either was not mentioned in the Wired article or I missed it: Anaya admits that he knew particular customers were buying compartments for illegal purposes. He just didn't know what particular illegal use they were going to be put to. He's basically arguing that to "knowingly" join a conspiracy, you have to know its objectives and scope, and he says he lacked that knowledge.
It's probably a bad idea to do business with people who want to use code words when they talk to you on the phone. The appeals court mentions an intercepted call where Anaya told the drug traders he could put "3 speakers" in a Camry for $2,500, where "3 speakers" meant a compartment to hold 3 kilos.
His sentence is way too long. He's not the lynchpin of the drug trade the prosecution made him out to be, but he does not appear to be quite the innocent bystander Wired makes him out to be either.
[+] [-] NoMoreNicksLeft|11 years ago|reply
1. Drugs should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 and older.
2. His sentence isn't about trying to cripple the drug trade, but about punishing someone the government does not like.
3. The same motivation could someday be used to prosecute people who serve cheeseburgers to drug dealers at a restaurant under the theory that they were helping those drug dealers to deal drugs (you can't deal drugs if you're starving).
4. It won't be necessary to passed legislation so fucked up as that, existing legislation can easily be twisted to allow for such travesties, and judges rarely put a stop to it.
[+] [-] blahedo|11 years ago|reply
> ...he will likely spend the next two decades in prison for doing something that isn’t specifically forbidden by federal law.
He was prosecuted in a state he'd never set foot in, for doing something that wasn't against the law as contracted by people whose plans he did not know; and he was convicted, and sentenced to twice the term of the actual lawbreakers. That's not how the rule of law works.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
Second, the fact that a particular act might be legal does not mean that it is legal to do it in connection with a crime. There is nothing illegal about driving a car. There is something illegal about driving robbers in a car away from a crime scene.
Third, willful blindness is not a defense to any charge that requires showing knowledge. Anaya purposefully profited from criminal activity, and even if he didn't know the specifics of the plan, it's only because he purposefully tried to avoid learning of them. The law simply imposes a higher level of social responsibility than that.
Now, it's a fair criticism that drug enforcement is a waste of resources and drug sentences are too long. But that's quite a separate issue to the points you raise. Say that instead that Anaya was installing traps to help members of child prostitution rings convey cash around. The analysis of his involvement would be the same.
[+] [-] blatherard|11 years ago|reply
He was prosecuted for criminal conspiracy in an interstate crime. One end of that crime was Kansas. His physical location when he engaged in the conspiracy is immaterial.
> for doing something that wasn't against the law
criminal conspiracy is against the law. You can take almost any "legal" activity and make the doing of it an element of a crime. For example, saying "Yes" is not explicitly illegal. However, saying "yes" in answer to the question "Would you kill this guy for ten thousand dollars?" would be an element of the crime.
> as contracted by people whose plans he did not know
Except for the fact that he was selling them secret compartments, witnessed one stuffed full of almost a million dollars in cash, and continued doing business with them. Plus, "avoiding talk of illegality" indicates that he knew what service he was really providing.
> and he was convicted, and sentenced to twice the term of the actual lawbreakers
He engaged in a criminal conspiracy, so he was also an actual lawbreaker. His sentence was very harsh though, agreed, but he was knowingly engaging in a commercial enterprise that assisted criminals for a number of years.
> That's not how the rule of law works.
Yeah, actually it is. A judge and jury in this case looked at the overall pattern of facts and correctly determined that this guy was aiding people in breaking the law. That's how the law works.
Its unfortunate that a guy who clearly had developed some interesting skills and otherwise had a kind of messed-up life ended up where he got. But this is not the fault of the criminal justice system, or prosecutors gone wild. This is a guy who made some really stupid choices and got caught.
[+] [-] encoderer|11 years ago|reply
The law in California, according to what I read here, is simple: building these things for use in drug activity is against the law. The reasonable man test is essential to the integrity of our legal system. And if you have a couple street thugs with $800k stuffed in their hidden compartment, a reasonable man would know exactly what they were up to. But they offered him more business. He gambled, and he lost.
Though I do find the sentence far too harsh. Give the guy 5 years.
[+] [-] sremani|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rodgerd|11 years ago|reply
>> ...he will likely spend the next two decades in prison for doing something that isn’t specifically forbidden by federal law.
Do you feel, then, that it's a victory that investment bankers have never served a day in the wake of the GFC?
[+] [-] refurb|11 years ago|reply
Lovely. This "illegal assault rifle" was likely only cosmetically different than a completely legal rifle. Hell, that rifle is probably legal in most of the other 50 states.
And who cares about a bullet proof vest? Or are those illegal in CA?
The guy certainly isn't a saint, but holy crap this is a great example of the gov't punishing someone using confusing laws against victimless crimes when they can't nail him for what he's actually doing because it's legal.
[+] [-] refurb|11 years ago|reply
Wow! It just gets better!
What next? If a friend buys an expensive car when I know he has a low paying job, am I guilty of not turning in a "drug dealer"?
Even if you don't think drugs should be legal, it should be abundantly clear that the War on Drugs has resulted in a significant loss of individual rights.
This article really ruined by evening...
[+] [-] revelation|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abstrakraft|11 years ago|reply
The fundamental problem is their incentive for doing this, which is based entirely on convictions and time behind bars, and has nothing to do with fairness. I don't claim to know what the _right_ basis for prosecutor incentive is, but I do know that if it's throwing people in jail, we end up with a lot more people in jail (which has happened/is happening in the US).
[+] [-] jtuple|11 years ago|reply
Did Anaya suspect illegal activity with his traps? Probably. But, perhaps he doesn't agree that drugs should be illegal and was intentionally trying to sidestep the law as written.
That happens all the time for a variety of different laws. Heck, it's the cornerstone of tax avoidance techniques used by the rich and connected.
When Illinois tried to ban payday loans by prohibiting loans less than 120-days in duration, did that get rid of payday loan companies? Nope. Payday loan companies simply offered loans up to 121-days in duration. Was that sidestepping the intent of the law? Yep. But, they got away with it because they're wealthy and connected companies.
We should always strive for consistency in justice. Either everyone should be able to "get off on a technicality" or no one should.
Personally, I'm in favor of restrictive justice where people can get off on technicalities. It's makes convictions harder, slanting the system towards "letting 100 criminals walk free to prevent convicting 1 innocent". It also leads to laws evolving via legislative deliberation, not arbitrary reinterpretation via case law.
Of course, I can also live with the "intent of the law" crowd. But, please, can we consistency apply that to all cases?
[+] [-] maaku|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ipsin|11 years ago|reply
Take, as a cautionary tale, the case of people teaching other people to beat polygraph tests. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-...
Legal and interesting, but when a "customer" shows up and says "wow, this will really help me beat my government polygraph test", you're apparently supposed to know that that they're talking about an illegal act and that you're being set up. It sucks, but there it is.
Paranoia might lose you some business, but there are worse things.
[+] [-] destructaball|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isavix|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discardorama|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sitkack|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scintill76|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]