Our wonderful criminal "justice" system at work. Tell me the name of another civilized country that does this stuff:
After an eleven-day trial, a jury acquitted defendant Michael Ibanga of all of the drug distribution charges against him and one of the two money laundering charges against him in the Indictment. The single count of which defendant Ibanga was convicted typically would result in a Guidelines custody range of 51 to 63 months. However, the United States demanded that the Court sentence defendant Ibanga based on the alleged drug dealing for which he was acquitted. This increased the Guidelines custody range to 151 to 188 months, a difference of about ten years.
What could instill more confusion and disrespect than finding out that you will be sentenced to an extra ten years in prison for the alleged crimes of which you were acquitted? The law would have gone from something venerable and respected to a farce and a sham.
Let's see, how many constitutional rights does that violate? We all know that it is incredibly hard to gauge the constitutionality of an action. The brightest legal minds would be vexed by a question as challenging as "should an acquitted man be punished, even after the jury finds him innocent?"
To say that this would instill confusion is inaccurate. It would instill bitter hatred of the legal system, and no decent person could be part of it as a prosecutor or a cop. The rule of law would become transparently meaningless to the general public, though the astute among us have seen that coming for years.
You know why I am quick to call people like these law school-trained scoundrels genuinely evil people? They know what they're asking for is dead damn wrong. It's the sort of thing that no decent person would ever think to do or at least bring himself or herself to ask. It's the sort of dark thought that no good lawyer would ever utter, and if they slipped, would be ashamed.
No, my friends, it takes a genuinely person to ask for something like this or to support someone who asks for it. There is no middle ground, no room for debate. You are either with justice or against justice on this issue.
Justice, being served!
Surely he can appeal the sentence?!?
This is outrageous.
Oh, it's outrageous, alright. That's why I said that there ought to be no mercy shown to these people. They willfully used state power to carry out an obvious injustice. They should hang for this.
And yet people don't put the pieces of the puzzle before them together. Would the Founding Fathers have even bothered if they knew it'd all come to that?
It's a bit of an aside, but I think it should be mandatory that every dollar budgeted to the Prosecutor's Office should be equally budgeted to the Public Defendent's office. If the Prosecutor can pay an "expert witness" to testify on behalf of his theory, than the defender should curry likewise to hire an "expert" of equal repute. Better a crime left unprosecuted than the wrong man getting railroaded into jail.
Hopefully the Judge will overrule the prosector's request.
In this case, I think that's highly likely. The judge is furious at the prosecutor for even asking for the original sentence. The question is will people like Scalia uphold the prosecutor's wishes on appeal? Most of the SCOTUS today has the legal acumen of someone in a persistent vegetative state so anything is possible.
I have a more radical solution: get rid of prosecutors entirely. The way it should work is through contract labor. Now, granted, I'm also in favor of a radical change to district judges, which is to designate them "attorney to the jury" which would mean that the judge is the chief legal advisor of the jury and can only overrule their judgement in cases where they find a defendant guilty for grounds that are not legally admissible. I think that turning the judge into the "jury's legal advisor" would do wonders for the system, though it would be the bane of the prosecutorial class and certain parts of law enforcement like vice cops.
Abe had a good question. Would our founding fathers have even bothered if they knew it would come to this?
Yup.
All things fall apart eventually. Even if they thought they could have cut out that option it would have cropped up eventually anyway.
Power corrupts.
I think that things started falling apart when judges started making the laws insteading of enforcing them.
"All things fall apart eventually"...
God's love for us - never fails.
Soooo, it would be safe to say, many/most/often things fall apart eventually.
As for the "power corrupts" comment, many/most/often/sometimes people in powerful positions can become corrupt.
Power itself doesn't do a damn thing without the people's choices backin it up.
... I think I'm done...
I think they would have gone through with it anyway, but I think the US Constitution would have been a little more verbose in limiting the power of government. For example, the interstate commerce clause would have defined interstate commerce to be actual sales and it would have said, "things that merely affect commerce, but that are not part of the transaction, are not covered by this."
I also think the judges only really started making up the laws when the law schools stopped requiring reading skills. I mean, come on. Some of the arguments you see "legal scholars" use are just mind-numbingly bad.
Yes, they still would have gone through with it, because it was the right thing to do. Besides, both Britain and Canada are worse. Honest to God, in Britain the Minister of Children is talking about the government forcing parents to sing nursery rhymes with their children.
But devolution and entropy have nothing to do with the form of government and everything to do with polluted human nature. As soon as we turn our backs on the giver of life, we turn them on life itself. Cultural can be social as well as individual.
That made no sense. What I meant to say was "Suicide can be cultural as well as individual."
I figure the American Revolution put about 50 years between us and Britain.
Upon reading your post, I was as angry as you and your audience. However, I researched the case and discovered the outcome was not as presented.
Defendant Inga was indeed "acquitted", meaning there was sufficient evidence to convict him; however, for some unknown reason, the jury refused to convict him or find him "guilty".
According to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Court is required to consider a defendant's "acquitted" conduct as part of their sentencing. However, the Judge would have none of it and sentenced Inga for the crime for which he was found guilty.
Had the Judge not done so, it would have, as you said, presented some serious Constitutional issues. Such consideration for sentencing should not be in law. We can thank Congress for that as they continue to encroach on Executive and Judicial Branch authority.
See for yourself; a link to the court's opinion appears below.
http://pub.bna.com/cl/04cr227.pdf
Your retired Fed Dad
I was and am glad that the judge ruled against the prosecution on this one, but that doesn't change the fact that these people were willing to carry out what any decent human being knows is a travesty of justice. I would say, if anything, that this is a case of the executive branch encroaching on the judicial process. If there be one thing that they hate the most it's the idea of the pesky concept of due process of law, especially the jury.
Remember, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (product of Congress)REQUIRES the Court to take the acquitted conduct into consideration for sentencing.
The prosecutor (Executive Branch) typically brings it to the Judge's attention at trial. However, if the prosecutor does not bring it up, the Court's own Department of Probation & Parole will investigate the defendant's background and include it in a report to the Judge at sentencing. This usually takes 30 to 90 days depending on case load and defendant's criminal history, etc.
Early in my career, Federal Sentencing Guidelines did not exist. Judges used to sentence defendants as provided witin the scope of the laws violated. However, some judges gave probation while others gave max for the same offense. It was instituted to bring some uniformity to sentences. Something was needed but as usual, they just kept adding to the rules and some are ridiculous and unconstitutional.