SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Glenn "Cannon Balls" Hughes, a mail carrier that took it upon himself to fly a gyrocopter into restricted space in Washington, D.C. to deliver messages to Congress, is now facing more charges and possible prison time, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
Shortly after being arrested, he was charged with crimes that could have put him behind bars for up to five years. Now additional charges have been added to raise that to a possible nine-and-a-half years, almost double the time he faced at first.
Amid the debate, lawmakers have suggested that the laws under which Hughes faced charges should be updated with tougher penalties.
When Hughes was first charged in April, he faced fewer counts and a possible sentence of fewer than five years in prison.
The list of charges seems a bit over the top, but that level of vindictiveness from our government seems the norm these days, OMO.
"I am more convinced than ever that I did the right thing," Hughes said in a Wednesday evening interview.
The charges include two felonies: one count each of operating as an airman without an airman's certificate and violating registration requirements involving aircraft. In addition, he was indicted on four misdemeanor counts: three counts of violation of national defense airspace, and one of operating a vehicle falsely labeled as a postal carrier.
If Hughes is convicted of either of the two felonies, he will be required to forfeit his gyrocopter to the federal government.
Hughes called his potential sentence "excessive" because of the nature of his action: an act of civil disobedience where no one was hurt, and no property was damaged.
"How is that worth 9½ years?" he said. "I think the prosecutor has an uphill battle."
Hughes said he is not certain what will happen at Thursday's arraignment. But he said he is open to the idea of a plea bargain, if it means no jail time. But he also is prepared for the possibility that his case could go in front of a jury.
I'm not certain I would have his optimism about the prosecution having an uphill battle, but I do hope he is right about that.
Disclaimer: I take full blame for the 'Cannon Balls' moniker in the title summary. It was meant to be a statement and show of my admiration for G. Hughes, who I see as worthy of respect, whether you agree with his cause, or not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday May 22 2015, @07:49AM
The way the prosecutors pile on charges is just embarrassing. Really, shouldn't they just have to "pick one"? It's all meant to force someone to plea bargain, so that the government doesn't actually have to prove its case.
I hope he gets piles of pro bono help, and forces this to trial. Of course, he is technically guilty, but if there was ever a case for jury nullification, this is it.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by pTamok on Friday May 22 2015, @08:28AM
I think it is useful that the prosecution itemise all the charges so ordinary folk can see just how many over-reaching laws there are.
He is technically guilty on many counts, and this is a problem with 'strict liability' laws - it captures the inadvertantly guilty as well as those where a 'mens rea' is in place. It indicates laziness on the part of the law-makers, because in any reasonable jurisdiction, there is room to accommodate acts which are strictly illegal but made with good intentions. I do not consider the USA a set of reasonable jurisdictions.
I would also say that there is another questions: where is the harm? While he is surely technically guilty of many offences, the main question that really should be decided by a jury of his peers is whether he did any harm, and the punishment should be commensurate with the harm caused. As you say, the only weapon left here is jury nullification, and that is a pretty sorry state of affairs.
There used to be very many hanging offences in the UK, and it was eventually realised that over-strict punishments did not act as deterrents. If anything, they encouraged law-breakers to maximise their 'take' and so increase the harm to society - "might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb".
In my view, the question that should be put before a jury is not 'did he break the law', but 'did he do any harm'; and the punishment be commensurate wih the degree of harm as determined by the jury, and downgraded (if necessary) by the judge, but never upgraded. However, that is not how the legal system operates: it is interested in whether you broke the law, or not, and the judge determines sentencing. Wishing for a different legal system isn't going to get me very far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @07:19PM
>Wishing for a different legal system isn't going to get me very far.
Killing for one might though. It is, infact, the one and only way. There is no substitute, and nothing else works. Nothing else at all.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @08:31AM
Clearly you have never witnessed jury selection. Any potential juror who is even capable of pronouncing the word "nullification" will be rejected. Juries don't just magically happen, you know. There's a whole process to make sure the jury is biased.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:50AM
Now, add in -where- the trial will be held.
The area around DC is full of locked-step types.
These folks have to pass security screenings to get the gov't|gov't contractor jobs they hold.
You don't get clearance with activism on your record.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday May 22 2015, @09:54AM
Think of all the people who would have to be called for jury duty, all the labor and time of vetting and seating a single jury.. The prosecutors try to cut a deal because if they had to take every case to court it would overload the courts to the point of effective stand still. And then the defendants could sue because their Constitutional right to a speedy trial was being violated.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @10:03AM
Sure OK. Good luck convincing people to demand trial by jury.
Hey guess what. If everyone stopped voting for Democrats and Republicans, the two party system would suddenly collapse. Just because it's true doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 22 2015, @03:05PM
Judges can block the use of the nullification defense, preventing you from even mentioning it during the trial.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:00PM
Last time this story went around I looked up the regulations on this type of small craft (too lazy to do it right this instant) per the FAA, and there are NO licensing or certification requirements. So that much at least is bogus. But (last I paid attention) it looked like prosecutors might be trying to go around that by reclassifying his aircraft after the fact.
Jury nullification, and a judge capable of reading FAA regs, both would be good here...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.