Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 11 2017, @10:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the things-are-not-always-as-they-appear dept.

[IANAL]

In the US, courts assess guilt or innocence before a conviction, then after that the appellate courts focus solely on fairness. The Atlantic has an exposé on some people who are wrongly convicted are pressured to accept Alford Plea Deals in lieu of exonerations — that more or less means to plead guilty for a verbal guarantee from the courts to both speed things up and give a much lighter or minimal sentence. But how many do this is not known: this situation is not tracked there are no formal statistics. However, in Baltimore City and County alone, there were at least 10 cases in the last 19 years in which defendants with viable innocence claims ended up signing Alford pleas. These can translate to the occasional innocent person being stigmatized, unable to sue the state, and that no one re-investigates the crime meaning that the real perpetrator is never brought to justice.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by ledow on Monday September 11 2017, @02:02PM (5 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Monday September 11 2017, @02:02PM (#566220) Homepage

    A cheque (check!) drawn on an account without funds (no matter the order, size or whatever - if you're unsure, don't issue it) is prima facie evidence of guilt.

    Sure, don't just cave, but fact is the existence of the cheque and your admission of writing it is the overwhelming evidence required.

    That you argue over some administrative ordering of the cheque presentation is neither here nor there, really. The people given your promissory aren't to know that it's only unbankable in a certain order, and the bank are not legally in a position to deny cheques selectively based on their assessment of them (the £1 cheque might be more critical than the £1000 one). Either you have the funds to fulfill them all, whenever they may be presented and in whatever order, or you don't. If you don't you have committed a crime by writing them.

    The judge was trying to clear up the matter as quickly as possible, you refused, now the court has to go check up on you and potentially re-summon you if you don't pay. All that costs.

    Sure, from one point of view, you "won", but really all you did was get what you were entitled to and didn't exercise an easy option given. Especially given that you were guilty by your own admission. The judge could just as easily have convicted you there and then AND made you pay back. But, you know what? That's actually MORE expensive and more time-consuming.

    Certainly, I would not waive a right, either. But that's not the point. The point is that you wrote out more cheques promising money than you had money. That you "got away with it" is only due to legal leniency, because by your own admission you were guilty. The leniency shown was to offer two ways out that were quicker and cheaper than the legally required response if you didn't take them. Because you were already guilty beyond reasonable doubt before you even walked into the courtroom.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 11 2017, @03:21PM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 11 2017, @03:21PM (#566238) Journal

    The fact that you wrote a check that isn't covered is proof that you did SOMETHING wrong. The question is, intent. You can "cheat" someone out of something, with intent, or without intent. There are extenuating and mitigating circumstances to consider. An individual who writes dozens of checks, on accounts that don't even exist, with full intent to defraud business owners out of large sums of money isn't in the same class as some dumbass who failed to balance his checkbook properly.

    That is why I told the DA that he would have to get his conviction in front of a jury. There are no "prima facie" convictions, especially whan the defense can farm potential jurors just as easily as the prosecution can.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday September 11 2017, @06:34PM (1 child)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday September 11 2017, @06:34PM (#566312) Homepage Journal

      While I'm loathe to say it, Runaway makes an important point.

      There's a difference (in US state and federal criminal law at least) between laws that contain a strict liability [wikipedia.org] standard and those that do not. Laws that do not have strict liability clauses are adjudged based upon Mens Rea (Latin for "guilty mind") [wikipedia.org].

      From the Wikipedia "Strict Liability" page:

      In the United States strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability.

      The difference is striking: with strict liability, it is irrelevant whether or not the person charged intended to commit a crime or not. Proving that the defendant committed the act itself is enough for conviction. On the other hand, if the particular law uses Mens Rea as a standard, it is not enough just to show that the act was committed, there must also have been intent to commit a crime.

      I'm not sure what jurisdiction (or what specific law) under which Runaway was charged, but very few laws (in US Federal and state legal codes)have a strict liability standard. I'd be quite surprised if "check fraud" or whatever law was cited has a strict liability standard. As such, it's unlikely (assuming it was, in fact, an error in judgement or an honest mistake, rather than an attempt to defraud) that a prosecutor could muster the requisite Mens Rea for a conviction.

      That doesn't mean it's a good idea to bounce checks, but as with most laws (in the US at least), doing so without the requisite intent is not a crime.

      It may well be a Civil Tort [wikipedia.org] and, as such, Runaway could be sued by those who suffered for his bad behavior.

      N.B.: IANAL

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:28AM

        by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:28AM (#566544) Journal

        Of course check fraud isn't strict liability! Strict liability is only for very petty offenses, like traffic tickets and ... uh ... statutory rape ...

        Yeah okay we need some legal reform to make it so strict liability is actually only for very petty offenses, like it's supposed to be, but it's not so bad it's gotten to check fraud yet.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @03:23PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @03:23PM (#566241)

    What kinda asshole buys things he can't afford?
    Fuck this criminal he could have had a credit card but instead he wanted to hold up the whole fucking line at the grocery store... wasting everyone's time so he could commit crimes.

    Fucking drain on society

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Monday September 11 2017, @08:48PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:48PM (#566378) Homepage Journal

      Credit can be great. For those who can get it, it can be a great, great thing. And one kind of credit is the overdraft. From which the banks make a lot, a lot of money. I hate to say it, but maybe the overdraft would be a good idea for this guy. Maybe a good idea. If he loses track of his checks, if he doesn't have an accountant to keep track of his checks. The overdraft isn't great, honestly, it's terrible. But it isn't the worst. 🇺🇸