US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1277

On September 09 2014 01:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Rich guy Bernie Madoff got 150 years in jail for financial fraud. Real estate agent Yevgenity Charikov got zero time for mortgage fraud (source). Sometimes regular people get a better deal than the rich. That's just how these things go - every case is different.

On September 09 2014 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


Sometimes all sorts of things happen that don't at all reflect the common reality ... 'Sometimes' doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.

On September 09 2014 02:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Yeah, no shit. That's my point...

On September 09 2014 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah but the inequity in legislation/enforcement/adjudications isn't a sometimes issue. But you already know that, so I don't get why (or what , for that matter) you are arguing?

On September 09 2014 02:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I can't get any simpler than this:

Different crimes have different punishments.
Breaking the law should result in punishment.
You can't extrapolate patterns from anecdotal evidence.

On September 09 2014 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:

You don't have to use anecdotal evidence. The patterns are clear as day.

On September 09 2014 03:16 Simberto wrote:
Is it not pretty much a known fact that the results of court cases in the US are highly dependent on how much money you can afford to spend on a lawyer? At least i thought that was the case and barely disputed by anyone, and it is pretty much the only way to explain the difference in costs of a better lawyer compared to a mediocre one. Because why would anyone pay for the better one if it only wins marginally more cases?

Who’s better at defending criminals? Does type of defense attorney matter in terms of producing favorable case outcomes

By Thomas H. Cohen

The role of defense counsel in criminal cases constitutes a topic of substantial importance for judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, scholars, and policymakers. What types of defense counsel (e.g., public defenders, privately retained attorneys, or assigned counsel) represent defendants in criminal cases and how do these defense counsel types perform in terms of securing favorable outcomes for their clients? These and other issues are addressed in this article analyzing felony case processing data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Specifically, this paper examines whether there are differences between defense counsel type and the adjudication and sentencing phases of criminal case processing. Results show that private attorneys and public defenders secure similar adjudication and sentencing outcomes for their clients. Defendants with assigned counsel, however, receive less favorable outcomes compared to their counterparts with public defenders. This article concludes by discussing the policy implications of these findings and possible avenues for future research.

If you're a politician, science is a bitch; it resists spin. And a new set of studies—about, of all things, a simple molecule known as CH4—show that President Obama's climate change strategy is starting to unravel even as it's being knit. To be specific: Most of the administration's theoretical gains in the fight against global warming have come from substituting natural gas for coal. But it looks now as if that doesn't really help.

In a very real sense it's not entirely the president's fault. When Obama took office in 2008 he decided to deal with health care before climate change, in essence tackling the biggest remaining problem of the 20th century before teeing up the biggest challenge of the 21st. His team told environmentalists that they wouldn't be talking about global warming, focusing instead on "green jobs." Obama did seize the opportunity offered by the auto industry bailout to demand higher mileage standards—a useful move, but one that will pay off slowly over the decades. Other than that, faced with a hostile Congress, he spent no political capital on climate.

But he was able nonetheless to claim a victory of sorts. His accession to office coincided (coincidentally) with the widespread adoption of hydraulic fracking to drill for natural gas, resulting in a sudden boom in supplies and a rapid drop in price, to the point where gas began to supplant coal as the fuel of choice for American power plants. As a result (and as a result of the recession Obama also inherited), the nation's carbon dioxide emissions began to fall modestly.

For a political leader, it was the very definition of a lucky break: Without having to do much heavy lifting against the power of the fossil fuel industry, the administration was able to produce results. In fact, it gave Obama cover from the right, as he in essence turned the GOP chant of "Drill Baby Drill" into "Frack Baby Frack." Not only that, the cheap gas was a boost to sputtering American manufacturing, making it profitable once again to make chemicals and other goods close to home. As Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union address, as his reelection campaign geared up, "We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly a hundred years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy."

In his second term, Obama has become more vocal about climate change—and even more explicit in his reliance on natural gas to make the numbers work. Here's the State of the Union 2014: "If extracted safely, it's the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change."

On September 09 2014 04:33 Velr wrote:
sounds like he tried the easiest way out when it was offered him... Which is kinda understandable.

On September 09 2014 04:29 heliusx wrote:
A preschool doesn't have the authority to determine his innocence. Secondly why would he admit to doing something he didn't do? They claimed they had video of him doing something he knows he didn't do... so he confesses? I'm not saying the guy is guilty but fuck when you confess to diddling kids you're going to get in serious shit. Third supposedly they said he could go back home to Denmark if he confessed, so he did. That's his own story, doesn't seem like they forced anything. Seems like he was too dumb to realize a cops promise means nothing in an interrogation.

On September 09 2014 04:44 radiatoren wrote:

In Denmark police is not allowed to lie like that under an interrogation.

On September 09 2014 05:00 heliusx wrote:

Well it isn't right but police regularly use that tactic against intellectually disabled persons in attempts to get confessions.

@velr You keep saying you understand why he would admit to it. Why? I would never do that in a million years. That's not something they gonna let you get away with.

On September 09 2014 05:00 heliusx wrote:

Well it isn't right but police regularly use that tactic against intellectually disabled persons in attempts to get confessions.

@velr You keep saying you understand why he would admit to it. Why? I would never do that in a million years. That's not something they gonna let you get away with.