Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#91

Post by kardashev »

vidarh wrote: post #61
davidgay wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> though it is a bit like solving the equal access to education problem by banning all private colleges -- more than a little absurd. While one can definitely argue against this view, it's far from absurd: the basic argument is that the availability of private college/lawyers/your-favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get actual equal access for all to education/trial-defense/somethi…

The Norwegian view of private schools was long that only those rich to send their kids to Swiss private schools (or similar) would use them... Since the rise of the labour movement, sending your kids to private schools has been largely seen as either a moral failing like in Switzerland, or an admission that your kid is so dumb that you need to buy them a diploma from somewhere else. For a very long time there were ha…

Wow! What a depraved view they have. I wonder if they would still think it was moral to limit their children to a 3rd world education because it's only fair that education (level) be equal for everyone?

Human progress is made by those who are exceptional. It is only through the efforts of exceptional people that everyone else's lives are improved. Imagine if Faraday and Einstein were forced to not publish, and even destroy their papers because it wasn't "fair" that they had discovered something that other people hadn't.

Is this view of "fairness" fair at all? Should we break the legs of a natural runner, so they can only run as fast as the average person? Should we damage the brains of the gifted so they are equal with everyone else? Rather, shouldn't people have the freedom to excel as far as they can?

The intellectually gifted should be encouraged to excel as far as they can, because their work and discoveries will cause tremendous improvements to the human condition. It would be more fair for there to be special schools for the gifted, so they are not slowed down by the lowest common denominator.

Imagine that you had the intellect to cure cancer, or make solar power more economical than fossil fuels. Now imagine that you are denied from accomplishing these things because it isn't "fair" for you to earn more money than others. Guess what? It takes tons of money to do research and development. The only reason Elon Musk is making the major improvements for humanity that he is, is because he was able to use his intellect to earn lots of money so he could do even better things.

What would become of humanity if we decided to hinder everyone to the same skill and wealth levels? What would become of progress?

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#92

Post by anon4 »

kardashev wrote: post #91
vidarh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Norwegian view of private schools was long that only those rich to send their kids to Swiss private schools (or similar) would use them... Since the rise of the labour movement, sending your kids to private schools has been largely seen as either a moral failing like in Switzerland, or an admission that your kid is so dumb that you need to buy them a diploma from somewhere else. For a very long time there were ha…

Wow! What a depraved view they have. I wonder if they would still think it was moral to limit their children to a 3rd world education because it's only fair that education (level) be equal for everyone? Human progress is made by those who are exceptional. It is only through the efforts of exceptional people that everyone else's lives are improved. Imagine if Faraday and Einstein were forced to not publish, and even d…

If the country is so far in the shitter, that they can't pay for good schools for everyone, then allowing only the comparatively mega-rich to pay for mediocre education, while everyone gets nothing won't solve the problem and might even exacerbate it farther.

About 50% of people have an IQ of over 100. That makes them smarter than average. But of course, how smart you are doesn't correlate with how rich your parents are, which has a much bigger impact on your future. In that light, won't it be most fair to test people on their intelligence, then have the state seize everyone's assets once per year and redistribute it proportionally on that?

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#93

Post by fennecfoxen »

gohrt wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #37

Playing up the "equal access to justice" angle here is shortsighted. Rich people have historically served as an important counterweight to government. When the government prosecutes them, it raises special interests, beyond the abstract interest in justice implicated whenever the government prosecutes someone. After all, it was the new-money commercial interests that lead the revolutions that gave us many of our mode…

Why don't poor people deserve to be a counterweight to government?

It's not a question of desert. If rich people can't defend themselves with all their money and resources, how can poor people without money or resources possibly hope to stand a chance?

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#94

Post by shawnee_ »

This particular policy is aimed at people accused of bank fraud, insider trading and other high-finance crimes.

There is indeed an entire group of self-proclaimed professionals that uses asset-shifting tactics to

(1) avoid detection by systems that seek to detect fraud (2) operate a number of legally "separate" but owned by the same group of people / businesses operating in the same sphere

Small transactions among these entities might not raise a flag on their own, but given the sum of them all, it can definitely help point an arrow to larger schemes for market manipulation.

Freezing the liquidity of these complex legal structures for a temporary period of time ... tracing the still-liquid "drip" (because the analogy is too good to not use) back to the source does seem to be a logical way to suss out the scum.

If you've ever invested in a growth company for "long", only to have your investment diluted and eventually delisted by one of these private enterprises, this reform should make you very happy.

[Edit] For example .... http://sirf-online.org/2013/03/11/paper-world-of-brookfield-...

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#95

Post by vinceguidry »

Natsu wrote: post #41
vinceguidry wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, this argument falls flat when you realize the limitations. If I made millions legally, then why in the world would I decide to start making all subsequent money illegally? Wouldn't it be much better to just keep milking my legal cash cow? The government doesn't seem to be limiting their purview to just the money that was supposedly illicitly gained. They're freezing all moneys that could conceivable by su…

> If I made millions legally, then why in the world would I decide to start making all subsequent money illegally? I would suggest you pose that question to this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff > They're freezing all moneys that could conceivable by subject to a fine. It's not just the $5000, but everything. That's extremely problematic from a rights standpoint. From what I read, it's only freezing…

Are we reading about the same case?

> charges of operating a complicated scheme that allegedly defrauded Medicare of upwards of $40 million.

> federal government moved to freeze not only her “tainted” assets, meaning those assets that can be arguably traced back to the alleged underlying crime; but the federal government also moved to freeze Luis’ undisputedly legitimate assets, which amount to some $15 million that cannot be connected in any way to any alleged criminal activity.

> Luis v. United States raises significant questions about both the scope of the Sixth Amendment and the reach of federal asset forfeiture law.

> According to the federal government, because all of Luis’ assets could be subject to forfeiture if she is ultimately convicted, federal prosecutors should not be stopped from freezing all of her “forfeitable” assets before she goes on trial.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#96

Post by geggam »

jhall1468 wrote: post #27
[deleted] wrote: post #14

[deleted]

You can call it that, however this is not asset forfeiture, it's asset freezing (which is vastly different). Furthermore, there is a four point test that judges use to determine if a freezing order is valid. It very rarely impacts anyone aside from perpetrators of fraud. It is nothing like you claim, because if the government loses their case the assets are unfrozen. They can't use them, nor do they have actual acces…

If you cannot access your assets because someone has frozen them essentially this is the same thing as forfeiting them. Especially when the use of the assets can be used to prove your innocence...

Assuming someone is guilty of a crime and taking their assets is theft.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#97

Post by sokoloff »

anon4 wrote: post #92
kardashev wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! What a depraved view they have. I wonder if they would still think it was moral to limit their children to a 3rd world education because it's only fair that education (level) be equal for everyone? Human progress is made by those who are exceptional. It is only through the efforts of exceptional people that everyone else's lives are improved. Imagine if Faraday and Einstein were forced to not publish, and even d…

If the country is so far in the shitter, that they can't pay for good schools for everyone, then allowing only the comparatively mega-rich to pay for mediocre education, while everyone gets nothing won't solve the problem and might even exacerbate it farther. About 50% of people have an IQ of over 100. That makes them smarter than average. But of course, how smart you are doesn't correlate with how rich your parents…

Just as I think you can't allow money to solely guide outcomes, you also can't allow intelligence to solely guide.

It's a fact that I'm somewhere on the right side of the intelligence curve. If I just laid about and waited for the state to funnel me vast sums of other people's money, society is worse off than in a world where I need to create something of value in order to be paid.

Taking away the incentive to create value (by annually confiscating the rewards) leads to a terrible outcome, and I believe a more terrible outcome than today. I agree that money has too much influence today, but that adjustments should be made methodically and carefully to prevent massive unintended consequences.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#98

Post by rdtsc »

tikhonj wrote: post #65
rdtsc wrote: post #33

> Their argument dealt only with the Sixth Amendment — that while the government can seize untainted assets before trial, it must allow a defendant access to enough of his untainted assets to pay for his own defense. However, in this case it seems to me the defendant is guilty of defrauding the govt. to the tune of $40M. The possible outcome of the trial would be forcing them to pay back + penalties perhaps. Had this…

That's not the question here—those $20 bills would still be "tainted". Moreover, the bar to demonstrate that they are tainted is reasonably low, significantly easier than getting a conviction. In this case, though, the persecution agrees that the assets are unrelated . As far as the courts are concerned, that's an established fact. It's more like if you steal some apples, perhaps eat some of them and then the governm…

In the larger scope they are related if they can be converted back to cash. I imagine if assets are family photos or other maybe important items which have no value. But if they have monetary value I can see govt's position in freezing access to them.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#99

Post by jeffdavis »

Couldn't asset freezing be more like "spending review" where the court approves certain spending for certain purposes?

I don't see any reason why ordinary spending on lawyers, rent, food, etc. should be prohibited before conviction.

For civil cases it might be different. If there are specific contested assets, it might make sense to freeze those.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#100

Post by vox_mollis »

Laaw wrote: post #48

Can't you just pay your defense attorney after the trial, guilty or not, whenever your assets are unfrozen? Assets frozen during trial that aren't linked to any criminal activity can't be permanently confiscated, so your defense attorney can just settle up your bill at the end of the trial, when the assets are unfrozen. Maybe that's not how it works now, but if this happens, then defense firms will have to do their b…

I can only assume you're trolling, or an incredibly obsequious shill for federal power.

The only time an attorney will defend you without both a retainer and on-time payments is when your particular case is high enough profile to make pro-bono work worth it in terms of publicity. Your odds of this circumstance are less than one percent.

Federal prosecutors have extremely high conviction( or rather, plea )rates because they live and breathe by the extraordinarily asymmetrical power wielded over their victims. That you defend this asymmetry is sickening.

Ironically, with this case making the WaPo, she will likely find easy pro-bono work now. That vast majority of us? Probably not.

Post reply on HN