Hey, there! Log in / Register
Catch and release for most of the Occupiers arraigned today
By adamg on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:12pm
The Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports that 16 of the 22 Occupy Boston participants arrested the other night as part of the city's effort to re-sod Dewey Square were basically let go on condition they stay away from Dewey Square and not break any laws, including city ordinances that require permits.
However, six protesters rejected the "pre-trial probation" and demanded trials, as is their constitutional right, the DA's office says.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I'm wholly,
unremittently, 100% opposed to their form of expression and think it is an imposition upon the public. They should not be allowed to practice it and I believe this is a Constitutional opinion (if one should consider also the equal right of every other man a non-Occupier, who wishes not to expend a tax dollar upon that expression of theirs, as it is unjust taxation).
This said, the arrested should not be charged with anything else but trespassing; they are squatters, and if they wish to be seen as more, they should also fear the wrath of the uncertain hand of the body public. As squatters, they should be thankful for the sentences they receive. I think they served a good purpose; their message in its purest, that there is too much influence by lobbyists in the halls of power, that the system is bought and paid for by the wealthy and that the working man gets nothing, is true. That purpose served, let them move on. It should be agreed by all that theirs was a temporary occupation, and a symbolic one. Their point made, let them make no other ones, because they have no inherent right to impose their (often abstract) grievances upon another's title rights.
None have the right to impose their opinion on another. The Occupations were an outburst: let there be a radically new discussion, and outcomes. But all the same, I wish the Occupiers and their sympathizers would not get too attached to the symbolic, the abstract. Tne real is here, and everywhere you look.
We're a Republic
You have a chance to influence where you tax dollars go once a year. It's called voting. Further, you can always petion your representative, as OWS did.
You have no right to piecemeal say where, how, and why it's spent as a individual.
If you think so, please renounce your citizenship and ship out to some libertarian bastion of freedom. There's plenty of nations in Africa where petty laws won't stop you from being your own king. Make sure to bring guns and bribe money (those "unofficial" taxes).
Weren'te there 46 arrests, not 22?
OccupyBoston's press release from that morning says:
More arraignments tomorrow
They didn't do them all at once.
awesome
guess who gets to pay for those 6 trials...
another example of how they supposedly support "the 99%", yet hurt them again (see also: farmers market, food truck fest, etc)
somehow
were I to calculate it all out, I really doubt the Occupiers cost me more than Goldman BallSachs, et al.
Life and Liberty costs money
Or would you like to sign away your constitutional rights to any future fair trial to offset the costs to the taxpayer?
Are we really going to start complaining on the costs of running the court system as a waste? Are we really all that selfish and dirt poor?
If so, this country is done. You guys really know how drive someone to drink.
Also, if the cost to bring forth charges is so out of line with the punishment and possible fines then the DA can always drop them and move on to more important matters.
Yea but anon2
The courts are basically telling these people that they have enough probable cause to convict them of these crimes, but that the crimes are so small that it is in the best interest of everyone that they are simply given a warning and told to stay away from the place they were trespassing on.
Since I am not a constitutional scholar, I cannot say for sure if these people have zero chance in court, but in the end, if everyone ended up fighting small time charges like trespassing with jury trials, you might see what happened with trafic appeals, which is a sharp increase in fees. These fees hurt the poor in the long run when they actually might have a case.
But hey, if the occupiers have a chance to beat the charges, then go ahead and try to beat them I gueess.
Tough call
But one can also look at it as disproportional punishment, and something that ultimately shouldn't be wasting the courts time.
Same with traffic appeals. If the system has to raise fees to where it's prohibitive to appeal, somethings going wrong at the point of entry and how we deal with these things. The taxpayers are not put to funding the courts to where they want their laws to be, or the clogged system is showing the law is ensnaring way too many offenders and should be looked at.
Traffic appeals are mostly for speeding tickets and parking violations, correct? My guess is the violation fines themselves are hitting a level where it makes sense to try to get it kicked out or appealed, rather then just pay the fine. With moving violations you have to worry about insurance surcharges, which is damn expensive. And then there's the pesky issue of some jurisdictions using it as a lucrative source of revenue, putting more people into the system then it can handle.
Just some thoughts on the issue, I'm by no means a expert.
Only moving violations
And all that money goes right to the state so there really isn't much incentive for the courts or local departments to fine anyone, but you are right, there is more to lose for some people with traffic violations than there would be with the occupiers ($100 fine only for tresspassing)
But what is happening is that everyone is appealing for the sole reason that they hope the paperwork gets lost, or that the judge is sick that day. You have people appealing decisions when they know they are wrong.
That being said, I would recommend to anyone that gets a moving violation to appeal it no matter what happened. Is going 61mph in a 55mph zone really worth $1,450 to you in insurance and fees? Or do you want to do the right thing and admit that you were speeding? Small moral decision we have to make on that one, but I'm still appealing even though I am guilty. If everyone appealed every ticket though, the court system is going to lose a lot of money, and would force fees and punsihments to be raised.
Morality
So when the judge asks whether you were speeding, you perjure yourself? Aren't you some kind of police officer, Pete? Not that speeding is the most serious infraction, but still- the law is the law, right? Also, though this is maybe neither here nor there, speeding should probably be considered a more serious offense than "trespassing on public property". Greater potential for harm to others.
The DA is not "the courts"
The DA is not "the courts" s/he is the county's attorney who represents the People of Suffolk Co. The court is the judge, jury, bailiff and court reporter.
So, all the suspects were charged with trespassing for being in Dewey Sq during the period it's closed, ~ 11:30pm-6am but then DA Conley surprised some of the people by adding a second charge, resisting arrest. The first charge has relatively minor sentences but the resisting amps it up.
A lot of people were confused that DA Conley would charge resisting because it had been made clear in the press conference, by Evans I think, that everyone who was arrested wanted to be arrested. That each individual was given the choice to leave or be arrested. So most took the plea which is 1 year probation, abide by permitting law and not allowed to enter public park Dewey Sq.
Six chose to plead not guilty and take their case to trial. It'll be interesting to see how that comes out.
Has anybody heard of Glik v Cuniff?
We were talking about costs to the taxpayer
The DAs office, judges, court officers etc all get paid from the same source. And either way, judges are supposed to make sure the correct legal procedure is being used in the courts. They have to approve any deal that gets struck between the DA and defense. If the deal is lopsided one way or the other, the judge will often refuse to let the deal go through (unless the state pushes for charges to get dropped)
And there were different people who were arrested here. Some told cops that they wanted to be arrested and put their hands behind their backs to be arrested. Some refused to do that and sat on their hands and the cops had to physically use some sort of force to handcuff them when they refused to be arrested. Those are some of the people who were charged with resisting arrest.
Of course some people simply resisted more than others. The police are the ones who determine on the street if someone resisted. If the DA has a good case, they go through with it. If they don't they won't.
And no, I don't have google on my computer. Why don't you tell me what Gilk vs. Cunniff is and what it has to do with this thread?
I see what you mean about
I see what you mean about sitting on their hands, if that's what happened.
Anonymous, You Are Confused
The DA doesn't bring charges. Police swear out complaints that DAs arraign and prosecute in court. Boston Police charged the occupiers with resisting arrest and the DA dismissed those charges for most of them. No one is confused by this, except maybe yourself.
DAs are responsible for
DAs are responsible for making decisions about how to charge suspects in court. They look at the evidence and assess whether they can make the case. It is solely their judgment.
Here's how it works in
Here's how it works in district court. Police witness or hear about a crime and apply for a complaint. Based on the facts in those applications, a clerk makes the determination of whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime occurred and the suspect committed it.
If the clerk finds PC, he or she issues a complaint. That complaint and the officer's report(s) are handed to a prosecutor. By the time the case reaches the DA's office, the charge has already been brought. DAs may dismiss a charge for a wide variety of reasons but they don't seek the complaint and they can't go back in time to un-charge someone.
I'm not saying you have to lie.
But if you say that you thought you were going a safe speed, or had to accelerate in order to pass someone that was speeding up, or that you always try to stay below the speed limit and you may have gone over by accident, etc, etc, the judge might give you a break and consider that there might be a good reason why you had to speed a certain amount over the speed limit.
Categorical imperative
When you get your google back, you should look it up.
Oh I've studied it Sock_Puppet
And I wasn't going to write a thesis on Lying and The Metaphysic of Morals, but I take it that you are one of those who belive that The golden rule is that there aren't golden rules? Or are you saying I am like that?
And I don't want to pretend like I'm some expert on Kant or morality, but it does raise some interesting questions. I'm sure we can think of a lawyer joke or do in there as well.
Just making a wee point
If you find yourself saying on the one hand
"This is a great thing for me to do"
(e.g. appeal moving violations no matter what happened)
and on the other hand
"It would be terrible if everyone else did it"
(e.g. the court system is going to lose a lot of money, and it would force fees and punishments to be raised)
then you have a problem.
Ok but there are several differences here.
When you get caught speeding, the cops aren't giving you a chance to slow down. They pull you over and give you a $1,200 fine (w/insurance). You can appeal based on whatever you want. I don't have any problem with someone telling a judge that they were sorry and didn't have any intent on speeding, and may have only been speeding because of reasons x,y,z. Maybe they have never been pulled over before?
Now if you appeal the ticket and question the speed limit law or the accuracy of the radar when you know in your own mind that you probably were speeding, I might have a problem with that. Many people say they simply weren't speeding, when in fact they were.
The Occupy tresspassers had several warnings from the police and then one final warning before they were arrested. Then the DA tells them that their charges will be dismissed if they agree to not do it again. The tresspassers are getting chances from the legal system that the speeder doesn't always get.
I might link the two together if a speeder appeals a ticket and the judge tells them they will waive the fine if the person agrees not to speed anymore, but the speeder tells the judge no, that they have some sort of problem with the speeding statute or the juristiction of the courts (you see many soverign nation people pull this one).
But that is what happened to these traffic appeals. I'm going to make an imperical guess that 98% of motorists who get tickets actually broke the law. When 50% of these people appeal based on different reasons (from saying they didn't do it to just looking for a break), it isn't really fair to us all to pay for the extra court costs does it?
Interesting discussion all around anyway.
Soapbox Only
So far as I can see, they have already been offered an opportunity to do no time and pay no fine, and also to have no permanent record of court action (I'm assuming that last part.) Thus, the true need for a trial has been obviated. What will the trials accomplish? The opportunity to get up on a soapbox and expound. That's all (Oh! And, of course, the possibility of their getting a judge with a hair across his ass who decides to fine and/or imprison them.)
Do they have the right to a trial? Of course they do. Should they exercise it? I'm of the opinion they shouldn't, both for their own sakes and ours. They've already been given an opportunity to go free. But, if they truly want to punish themselves at public expense, it is their right.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
It's still a plea bargin
and there's still room for punishment. It's pleaing guilty for probation, which last time I checked means that you're agreeing you broke the law, and the state is agreeing to drop the punishments.
The big BUT attached to that is if they get in trouble for anything, from future protests to jaywalking or unpaid parking tickets during their probation period. Then their plea-probation evaporates and the state hits them with the max punishment and they have that record still.
I don't blame them. I'm not sure if they have a leg to stand on after the judges ruling on the encampment, but it'll be a interesting exercise either way. And it's their right.
I didn't see the actual outcome
but you aren't pleading guilty to anything. You are basically agreeing that the case is going to be continued for a few months and that if you don't get arrested again for the same offense the charges will be dismissed. If you do tresspass again, the original charges will be brought against you, and since the case is so strong, you are better off taking the continued without a finding decision.
Again, I'm not sure what they agreed to, but 99% of the time it would be a continued without a finding decision.
It's not a plea bargain. A
It's not a plea bargain. A few points need to be clarified here.
First, the Occupy folks were arrested for some combination of disorderly conduct, trespassing, and/or unlawful assembly. Some of them were additionally charged with resisting arrest. These are the charges sought by Boston Police and approved by a Boston Municipal Court clerk. They were not brought by the DA's office, as someone suggested above.
At yesterday's hearing, prosecutors offered pre-trial probation to any arrestee willing to take that disposition -- a fairly standard resolution for non-violent first-time offenders in midemeanor cases. As an incentive, and in light of the passive nature of the resistance, prosecutors also offered to dismiss the resisting arrest charge for any who accepted it.
There is no admission of guilt in such a case and pre-trial probation is not a sentence. It essentially delays the arraignment for a probationary period with some conditions. If the person completes that probationary period successfully, there is no arraignment, the case is dismissed, and no conviction appears on a person's record.
But there is a record of the arrest itself,
and the final disposition of the charge, available to certain types of potential employers, right?
Sure there's a record.
Sure there's a record. There's a record of everything done in a courtroom. Under last year's CORI reform legislation, however, non-convictions (such as pre-trial probation) no longer appear on most CORI reports. A law enforcement employer will probably have access to it -- but they'll also see that it's a pre-trial probation disposition for a non-violent misdemeanor by a first-time offender, which kind of speaks for itself.
Say Jake, did you guys have anything to do with Valerie Tebetts?
I'm having trouble understanding the incredibly light sentence imposed on her by Carol Ball. Did Dan Conley go along with that?
That was not a Suffolk County
That was not a Suffolk County case.
Ok, sorry- looks like it was Coakley
That explains the sentence- Martha's got a soft spot for CEO's, wealthy white people, and so forth. She'll scold and fine but not really punish (The Big Dig, the Rotenberg Center, the ongoing bank "prosecutions"). Do you guys ever do any white collar crime?
Mass action
If the DA has to deal with 100 trespassing court cases suddenly and the court system has to put together 100 juries and everything else, then the greater offenses which the state has to deal with will not be taken care of. The system chugs to a halt over 100 cases that the DA doesn't want to even deal with. He'll drop the charges or the whole judicial system will burst at the seams. It's a continued form of the same protest that got them unnecessarily (and potentially unconstitutionally) arrested in the first place.
They are also easy cases though too Kaz
You could assign one ADA to the whole caseload. These are all videotaped with warnings and everything. Once one judge decides to find someone guilty of resisting arrest and then sends that person to jail for a month (2.5 years max), then you may see the others plead out.
But this leads me back to the punishment fitting the crime issue. Many of our penalties for crimes don't add up in my mind in terms of jail time vs. fine $. The max fine for resisting arrest is $500 and/or 2.5 years in prision. I'm going to bet this has been the same penalty since the early 1900s or even longer.
Take the Occupy Boston case out of this, and I think these fines need to be increased.
Hokay
Let's also see police subject to discipline and fines for all "resisting arrest" bullshit charges that don't stick.
And we all know that "resisting arrest" is a bullshit charge used by cops to cover their asses nine hundred ninety nine times out of a thousand.
Oh, but hells bells we can't possibly make cops accountable to anybody when sucking down our tax money.
Too bad most of these arrests were videotaped.
So there won't be much of a chance of bullshit charges going on here. But as a troll you probably don't really care about what happens in the real world.