Citrate1007: They were normal going in to jail.......after this much time in prison do you really want them released to the general public?

Yes, you twat. Let's see how you feel when it is you who was wrongfully imprisoned. I am sure you will want to stay locked up for the safety of those of us on the outside.

MisterRonbo: Pet peeve (yeah, I've got a whole zoo full):

"up to 3,000"

up to

UP TO

As in, theoretically, this is the upper bound. According to TFA, a few dozen have been identified.

So stop with the "we'll just take this as an exact number, plug it in to a formula that makes an assumption about cost per year to incarcerate that is also a farking joke because it includes capital costs and is double the incremental cost per prisoner and then we'll come up with a REALLY BIG NUMBER!!!"

Well, there is the issue of the government not being forthcoming with those numbers. The ACLU might be using the best court records they have on hand. A full investigation is needed, hence the lawsuit to get the information and find the inmates wrongfully jailed.

Make that 2997 prisoners. They told the three white guys.

GAT_00: I was seriously wondering why you would think that of me.

People like Gat always amaze me in their internal doublethink. Government is great as long as it is taking away the rights of people you disagree with but criminals get a free pass. What is happening to these prisoners is atrocious but it is a direct result of increasing government power. Once you release that genie from the bottle the law of unintended consequences takes over. All I can do is shake my head in wonder at it all.

The request follows a USA TODAY investigation that identified dozens of people who had been imprisoned for something a federal appeals court later determined was not a federal crime. Although Justice Department lawyers have conceded the men are "legally innocent," the agency has made little effort to notify them and has argued in court to keep them locked up.

You know what? I generally oppose the death penalty, but I can't think of any reason why such an egregious and malicious abuse of the power society has given you should not be a capital crime. This is not just a crime against the imprisoned, it's a crime against fabric of our society and its legal system.

Remember these were federal charges. This isnt some rogue state doing stuff it shouldnt and the big bad federal govt being the hero and fixing it. This is the big wonderful government that 95% of fark thinks should be charged with the power to right wrongs. To have almost unlimited power to make people do what is best not only for themselves but for everyone else. More regulations, more power over people's lives, more more more. Be careful what you wish for people.

Weaver95: hey, it's not like anyone of those people are important, right? I mean...they're not rich! so what if they spend a couple/few years in jail for something that isn't a crime....i'm sure they were guilty of something.

you didn't read the article, did you?

theknuckler_33: MisterRonbo: Pet peeve (yeah, I've got a whole zoo full):

"up to 3,000"

up to

UP TO

As in, theoretically, this is the upper bound. According to TFA, a few dozen have been identified.

So stop with the "we'll just take this as an exact number, plug it in to a formula that makes an assumption about cost per year to incarcerate that is also a farking joke because it includes capital costs and is double the incremental cost per prisoner and then we'll come up with a REALLY BIG NUMBER!!!"

The fact that there are at least a few dozen people currently in federal prisons that are in fact, not guilty, and the Justice Department basically isn't doing anything about it doesn't outrage you far more than a couple of possibly exaggerated numbers. I mean, really? This is what you came away from TFA annoyed about?

The fact that I didn't repeat the outrage that has already been expressed here literally dozens of times, and which is astoundingly farking obvious, means I don't share it?

Sorry, next time I will be sure to echo the sentiments of all good people before I point out anything of secondary importance.

Aarontology: Weaver95: and probably a commie/socialist to boot!

The most terrifying thing is the state knew they were innocent but couldn't do anything because of those retarded tough on crime laws.

shiat like this is what people should remember when it comes to the death penalty.

This is why I am now against the death penalty except in cases of extreme situations like the guy who shot all those at the Batman opening.

Who do you think is going to pay tuition for the kids of the owners of private prisons? Huh? The prison census has got to stay up one way or the other.

There are wildly different opinions on what the founding fathers meant by a lot of the things in the Constitution but one thing they all consistently warned about was letting lawyers run the government. Did you know there was even an amendment to not allow lawyers to serve in Congress. It appears to have passed the state ratification requirement but it simply disappeared. Nobody is quite sure what happened to it. When you have lawyers making the laws and interpreting what happens is they get so caught up in the minutia of the law they forget the spirit of the law. I understand why there are processes and procedures in place for prisoners to appeal their convictions but in a case like this those procedures should not be a barrier for the right thing to be done. But since lawyers are trained since day 1 of law school that procedure is everything they just throw up their hands and say " We cant do anything. it is procedure and rules". And this is what happens.

Marcus Aurelius: Although Justice Department lawyers have conceded the men are "legally innocent," the agency has made little effort to notify them and has argued in court to keep them locked up

Why is it that prosecutors are more ethically corrupt than the criminals they prosecute?

method action?

I always like those "tough on crime"ivelostfaithinhumanity: Aarontology: Weaver95: and probably a commie/socialist to boot!

The most terrifying thing is the state knew they were innocent but couldn't do anything because of those retarded tough on crime laws.

shiat like this is what people should remember when it comes to the death penalty.

This is why I am now against the death penalty except in cases of extreme situations like the guy who shot all those at the Batman opening.

If you leave exceptions, people will just find reasons to expand the exceptions back to the current situation (i.e. blame the nearest poor person, preferably non-white, for any serious crime to make it look like it has been solved quickly, and then execute them as soon as possible so there is less incentive for people to try to prove they were innocent and cause fuss/doubt about the effectiveness of the system)

theknuckler_33: Mmm... yea, that's exactly what I saw all the time. *rolls eyes*

The picture you paint is a caricature.


It is a curious doublethink I find on fark. There are many things advocated on fark that can only come to fruition through a massive expansion of government power. Whether the motive is punitive as in the case of those against gay marriage or simply the power to right societal wrongs. On the other hand fark wants government to make all drugs legal and all controls on behavior to be removed. So basically fark wants to be able to do whatever THEY want to do no matter what yet punish greatly those who disagree with them.

Next to unloading cargo from China and fighting wars for Israel, Justice and Corrections is the only growth industry we have left.

walkingtall:
It is a curious doublethink I find on fark. There are many things advocated on fark that can only come to fruition through a massive expansion of government power.

I don't think single-payer health care would be a massive expansion of government power, but I can see where others can. Got any other examples?

Whether the motive is punitive as in the case of those against gay marriage

How does allowing gay people to marry punish anybody? Hint: Nobody is getting forced in to a gay marriage.

How is allowing gay people to marry an expansion of government power? If anything, its a diminution.

or simply the power to right societal wrongs. On the other hand fark wants government to make all drugs legal and all controls on behavior to be removed.

How is legalizing recreational drugs a massive expansion of government power? Its a diminution. Same with legalizing prostitution. It gets government OUT of a private realm.

So basically fark wants to be able to do whatever THEY want to do no matter what yet punish greatly those who disagree with them.

Oh please, give me three examples of things most fark folks want that will greatly expand government power and punish those that the fark folks disagree with.

Difficulty: letting other people get married or get high does not constitute punishment. Fines, incarceration, restrictions on *your* freedom or *your* privacy, those are punishments.

theknuckler_33: The fact that there are at least a few dozen people currently in federal prisons that are in fact, not guilty, and the Justice Department basically isn't doing anything about it doesn't outrage you far more than a couple of possibly exaggerated numbers. I mean, really? This is what you came away from TFA annoyed about?

SOme people do... They think getting arrested="automatically guilty" until it's someone they know, and then they temporarily switch to 'presumption of innocence', which lasts until the case of their frined or family member is settled in one way or another, and they switch right back.

So a previously convicted felon isn't allowed to have a gun if their sentence was longer than one year...but because the rules in NC tied incarceration time to the number of previous convictions, sometimes people with lesser crimes that typically wouldn't require a year in lockup were locked up past the threshold. Then, these same criminals were released from jail and were arrested on federal weapons charges for illegal possession of a firearm.

Meh. I'm with the feds on this one. You're talking about repeat convicts who have done multiple stints in prison - these are exactly the kinds of people who shouldn't have free and easy access to guns. I know the liberal mindset says everyone can be reformed but the liberal mindset also says guns should be tightly regulated. I'd rather they not be in the hands of repeat criminals and frankly I don't give a shiat that a criminal who thinks it's a good idea to illegally own a gun isn't on the streets.

Marcus Aurelius: Although Justice Department lawyers have conceded the men are "legally innocent," the agency has made little effort to notify them and has argued in court to keep them locked up

Why is it that prosecutors are more ethically corrupt than the criminals they prosecute?
-=-

Because Law, like Chickens, are a business. And the wolves are guarding the hen house.

Kibbler: Run a poll in North Carolina (or pretty much anywhere) and ask them, should we:

1. Release them
2. Keep them in jail
3. Execute all of them, just to be sure

And you'll get more than 50% picking #3.

Most of the rest will pick #2.



I hate to say it, but your probably right and not just in one state. Check out the comments section on CNN about the man with the 61 IQ who was executed. Scary stuff. Forgiveness is last thing on the minds of the masses.

Yeah, I can buy the general "well, sorting out releases takes time" excuse for, say, a few months. But when you start counting in large fractions of years, it's officially the State's fault and time to start putting lawyers and judges behind bars for denying people due process.

Aarontology: If you don't support the state incarcerating innocent people then depriving them of their rights to appeal, then you're soft on crime.

This is the crux of the issue.

No matter the issue, and no matter the person's personal beliefs, when it comes to incarceration, any politician or those appointed by said politicians can be defeated by the opponent trotting out the "He's Soft on Crime! Vote Me instead!" line. Anywhere, any time, and no matter what the actual situation. Often it is more subtly couched, of course; but the net result is that EVERYONE, liberal and conservative, hardliner and social reformer alike, end up erring on the side of "I'm not soft on crime...but..." which means they have to be Hard on Crime.

Any time reforming drug laws comes up, out come the antidrug opponents, (who may have more rational reasons for their position) who then scare people off the reform by claiming it will coddle criminals and allow mega-cartels to run rampant in the streets, i.e. it's soft on crime. Propose reforming the draconian Three-Strikes Law--Oh! You don't want criminals who pose a threat to society punished (you're soft on crime). Same thing here. People who want to make changes and get these guys out earlier--we have to review their cases and follow the appeals process. You want dangerous felons out on the street? You must be SOFT ON CRIME.

UNC_Samurai: palladiate: Hey, they finally shut down our eugenics program within the last decade. At least they admit there was no crime committed.

And GOD FORBID we give the victims any sort of reparations for being farked over by the state.

Hey! We did them a favor, just like the prisoners, who got to live for free!
/NC is a poor man's paradise!

dittybopper: Often, Justice lawyers have acknowledged that inmates did not commit a federal crime by having a gun but have argued they can't be released because of laws that strictly limit how prisoners can challenge convictions.

This must be the sort of thing that motivated H. L. Mencken to write "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats".

This reminds me of a case I read about. Girl around 11 is upset about her mother dating again after a recent divorce, wants her mother to break up with the boyfriend. She claims he touched her inappropriately. Mother doesn't just dump the boyfriend, also calls the cops, girl is too scared to tell the truth so she sticks to the story. Guy gets sentenced to a long time in prison.

A year or so later, the girl admits the story was made up, tries to help get the man out of prison, but the state appeals procedures won't permit the guy to appeal his conviction, even though the only witness against the guy has changed her story, because the defense could in theory have called the girl as a defense witness originally (or some equally idiotic reason). Last I heard on that, the only hope was for a pardon.

Stuff like this and that are why I could never work in law. I follow processes in my own job, but never to the extent that I'd let doing the procedurally correct thing stop me from doing the right thing.

Law enforcement isn't concerned with justice, it is concerned with incarceration rates. Why the hell would the DoJ release prisoners that it had worked so hard to put away? That won't look too good on the ol' resumé when it comes time to get a job somewhere within the prison industrial complex.

It's North Carolina's fault for making things confusing.

If you committed a type of state misdemeanor that could result in a 366+ day jail term upon repeat convictions, the federal government decided to treat it as if you committed a felony on the first conviction. Even if you got 90 days for a misdemeanor that could lead to a future longer period sentence for the same misdemeanor, the feds were treating people as if they were getting year plus convictions.

Now to give the NRA a rageboner... It's Obama's DOJ repressing gun owners in North Carolina.

And I don't think the federal prisons are private.

The humor here is the people in this topic trying hard to overlook the fact that this is a federal screw up, not a state one.

dittybopper:

Often, Justice lawyers have acknowledged that inmates did not commit a federal crime by having a gun but have argued they can't be released because of laws that strictly limit how prisoners can challenge convictions.

This must be the sort of thing that motivated H. L. Mencken to write "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats".

I often am. Does that make me normal now?

walkingtall: GAT_00: I was seriously wondering why you would think that of me.

People like Gat always amaze me in their internal doublethink. Government is great as long as it is taking away the rights of people you disagree with but criminals get a free pass. What is happening to these prisoners is atrocious but it is a direct result of increasing government power. Once you release that genie from the bottle the law of unintended consequences takes over. All I can do is shake my head in wonder at it all.

Dafuq?

Mikey1969: And THIS is the type of thing that makes me cringe every time someone wants to put in a 'Death Row Express Lane'. Too many people are in jail right now just because their lawyer sucked, the jury sucked, cops witheld evidence, cops falsified evidence, cops lied, the judge didn't know how to be a judge, the law was misinterpreted, etc...

This shiat needs to be fixed fast.

There should be a Death Row Express Lane for cops that with hold evidence, falsify evidence, lie, corrupt judges and prosecutors, etc.

China White Tea:

The request follows a USA TODAY investigation that identified dozens of people who had been imprisoned for something a federal appeals court later determined was not a federal crime. Although Justice Department lawyers have conceded the men are "legally innocent," the agency has made little effort to notify them and has argued in court to keep them locked up.

You know what? I generally oppose the death penalty, but I can't think of any reason why such an egregious and malicious abuse of the power society has given you should not be a capital crime. This is not just a crime against the imprisoned, it's a crime against fabric of our society and its legal system.

That's some pretty subversive stuff to be saying in public. You don't need to drive, get a good job or or ride in airplanes, I take it.

I.e. I agree with you, but I can afford to. Maybe one thing people should learn from all these "The US government is a monster!" stories is that it's better to quietly conspire to overthrow the US government than to publicly voice even the mildest criticism of it. Or something.

But don't look at me: every conspirator-type I ever knew thought I was a showboating loadmouth who can't be trusted with a secret and who'd rather say "radical" things in public than get up off his pimply ass to actually do something contributing to overthrowing the US government.

To put it another way, I don't hesitate to say that the US government should be overthrown. But how you do that or who you do that with is not my concern: by the time you've reached that point you've gone beyond my Peter Principle.

theknuckler_33: I think you got that wrong. The way I read the article was that since a crime, say possession of coke (the example in TFA) would carry a sentence of over 1 year, that means that ALL people convicted of possession of coke, whether they got over a year or not, would not be allowed to own a firearm because the crime CAN carry a penalty of over a year. My reading is that this issue affects the people who got sentences less than a year, thought they were ok to have a gun (maybe had it before their incarceration) and were then arrested on federal gun charges.

Ok, reading the article linked within TFA, I think your interpretation is correct. However, there's no one disputing that the crimes committed are not felonies - the only question is whether the maximum sentence for the felony be used for the definition of if just committing the felony is enough to warrant losing the right to firearms. Based on my reading, the rules about what is counted under the law has changed, but at the time these people were found guilty of the crime it was technically illegal and they were rightfully imprisoned.

Isn't this like a reverse ex post facto situation?

The One True TheDavid: China White Tea:

The request follows a USA TODAY investigation that identified dozens of people who had been imprisoned for something a federal appeals court later determined was not a federal crime. Although Justice Department lawyers have conceded the men are "legally innocent," the agency has made little effort to notify them and has argued in court to keep them locked up.

You know what? I generally oppose the death penalty, but I can't think of any reason why such an egregious and malicious abuse of the power society has given you should not be a capital crime. This is not just a crime against the imprisoned, it's a crime against fabric of our society and its legal system.

That's some pretty subversive stuff to be saying in public. You don't need to drive, get a good job or or ride in airplanes, I take it.

I.e. I agree with you, but I can afford to. Maybe one thing people should learn from all these "The US government is a monster!" stories is that it's better to quietly conspire to overthrow the US government than to publicly voice even the mildest criticism of it. Or something.

But don't look at me: every conspirator-type I ever knew thought I was a showboating loadmouth who can't be trusted with a secret and who'd rather say "radical" things in public than get up off his pimply ass to actually do something contributing to overthrowing the US government.

To put it another way, I don't hesitate to say that the US government should be overthrown. But how you do that or who you do that with is not my concern: by the time you've reached that point you've gone beyond my Peter Principle.

Who said anything about overthrowing anyone? I said it should be a capital crime, and I meant "crime" within the context of our actual legal system. As in, our legislature should pass such a law, our law enforcement should pursue breaches of such a law, and our courts should hold trials in which evidence is presented both against and in defense of the accused.

It's mind-boggling that anyone who is employed within our legal system can say, free from consequence, "Yeah, I know this guy isn't guilty, but I want to keep him in prison anyway."

China White Tea: Who said anything about overthrowing anyone? I said it should be a capital crime, and I meant "crime" within the context of our actual legal system. As in, our legislature should pass such a law, our law enforcement should pursue breaches of such a law, and our courts should hold trials in which evidence is presented both against and in defense of the accused.

It's mind-boggling that anyone who is employed within our legal system can say, free from consequence, "Yeah, I know this guy isn't guilty, but I want to keep him in prison anyway."

Your mind must be boggling every day, then.