Hacker News Reader

Comment by tedunangst | Hacker News Reader

The sad part is the people who refuse to recognize this and keep repeating the 400 year numbers. That probably only makes it even more terrifying for the next defendant. Hopefully their lawyer will tell them what they're really facing, but it can be tough for a lawyer (we all hate the lying lawyers, right?) to overcome peer sentiment.

Perpetuating these myths does a disservice to anyone who believes them. If you want to take away prosecutors power to threaten, stop giving it to them.

View on HN

In fairness, the DOJ also shouldn't be publishing falsehoods in press releases like this.

Yeah. The problem is that they aren't quite falsehoods. A judge can structure the sentences to run consecutively, especially if that's necessary to achieve the guideline sentence. It's true, though, that this is extremely uncommon. Nonetheless, though, DOJ probably should also not be out there spouting a lower number. Perhaps they should just stop bragging about sending people to jail altogether.

(We've disagreed about this before. Instead of rehashing everything we've already written about the guidelines, I'll just direct people to this previous discussion -- unless, that is, you have anything you'd like to add. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999002)

I don't think this is accurate.

[Is what I wrote before you pointed out your earlier comment, which is fantastic and I have nothing to add to it. Sorry, I should respond to comments assuming people know what they're talking about, and in criminal law threads I have a bad habit of doing the opposite.]

The "Introduction to Federal Sentencing" here:

http://nj.fd.org/Introduction%20to%20Federal%20Sentencing%20...

...states outright that grouping is mandatory. I'm guessing you're right: that if a judge can articulate a reason to override the sentencing rules, they can do that. I'm trying to find a case where such a thing happened and was then challenged on appeal.

But what did the conversations look like behind closed doors? "If you don't work with us, I'll guarantee the judge gives you the maximum sentence" seems plausible.

They can't guarantee that. Even the judge can't guarantee it. The grouping rules for sentencing multiple charges are binding. It's not a situation where "usually judges are just cool and don't make you serve the sentence for every charge". Grouping is mostly not discretionary.

They can't guarantee it but they can say that they can guarantee it. They are allowed to use "trickery".

Which is why we guarantee criminal defendants legal counsel.

Which isn't worth much in some states, like Texas.

I find it curious that so many people HATE lawyers, until they need one.

The state has virtually unlimited resources and a legal monopoly on the use of force to compel obedience. That's far more terrifying than the ability of some lawyers to spin events in a favorable light.

Because when it comes down to it, lawyers (as a profession) are responsible for getting this garbage into the legal code in the first place.

It would be like me writing a business-critical app in INTERCAL or Brainfuck simply out of job security by obscurity, except instead of just me, imagine this was a commonly accepted practice for programmers, and you had to go to a very expensive school to become a programmer in this hypothetical world.

What people are upset about, harsh sentences and lack of judicial discretion in sentencing, were introduced on the back of public concern over criminals being let go on "technicalities" or judges giving lenient sentences based on "sob stories."[1] But those changes reduce how much good lawyering can help a defendant, and thus reduce the value of criminal defense lawyers.

[1] It's really interesting to watch 80's dramas like "Star Chamber" to see these concerns aired out.

As much as programmers are responsible for making computers as impenetrable as possible for normal folks to understand.

And let's not even get started with the mathematicians.

We all know that when stuff gets down to the details, things get complicated, edge cases multiply, and language turns into jargon. Law is no different.

>As much as programmers are responsible for making computers as impenetrable as possible for normal folks to understand

Programmers have made computers significantly easier to use, for more purposes, including programming them, over time.

Lawyers have done the reverse. This comparison is not favorable to them.

> I find it curious that so many people HATE lawyers, until they need one.

I'm pretty sure they hate them after they need them too.

>I find it curious that so many people HATE lawyers, until they need one.

Just like how people hate their captors until they want to know where the keys are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com