Jussie Justice
Yesterday President Trump tweeted that the Jussie Smollett case is an "embarrassment to our Nation!" (The capitalization is his.) I know--what else is new? I would have hoped this story, even though it's gotten national attention, was beneath the notice of the President. (The capitalization is mine.) In general, the President has enough to do without worrying about controversies that are, in essence, local.
I have little doubt Jussie Smollett perpetrated a hoax. (Do you perpetrate a hoax? I know you perpetrate a fraud.) But, for whatever reason, he's managed to get off without even having to admit guilt. This may not be fair, but that's how things worked out. I'm not a fan of letting the authorities get a second bite at the apple in celebrated cases where the public isn't happy.
The second bite may be looking at the crime from a federal, civil rights point of view. Or the second bite may be finding another crime (Smollett is accused of sending himself a fake threatening letter, which could be mail fraud). I'm not thrilled with either path.
In the first example, taking the same basic set of facts and characterizing it as a federal crime seems like a version of double jeopardy. I don't care if the first procedure was flawed or corrupt, we shouldn't be trying defendants twice for the same crime.
The second example is a bit trickier, since we're talking about a second crime, with a different set of facts. But, if the prosecution hadn't failed with the first crime, how seriously would the authorities have gone after the second one? If they're just doing it because the public demands Smollett be punished in some way, that's not a good enough reason.
If people feel the Chicago authorities were crooked in giving Smollett a special deal, fine, investigate them. But don't go after Smollett a second time just because you think he got away with something. Maybe he did, but you don't get to keep going after someone until you get the result you want.
posted by LAGuy @ 9:27 AM
6 Comments:
I think the real solution would be for Chicago police to go after the two Nigerian (capitalization is appropriate) attackers. Charge them with the attack, require Smollett to testify, and challenge him to commit perjury or take the fifth. Maybe too much time and money has been spent on this matter already, but it would satisfy the public, and the attackers did indeed commit a crime, even if they were paid to do it by the apparent victim. The possibility that the victim paid them as part of an attempted fraud on his studio only makes it worse (possibly conspiracy).
Hmm. Interesting, DG. I half way agree; my hesitation is whether it's any different than LAGuy's scenarios. Unlikely that they would be of interest but for the Smollett prosecution. Even so, I'm tempted to say yes.
As to LAGuy's thoughts, I by and large agree, but the problem is we engaged in profound ideological warfare. This, obviously, is what happened with the Rodney King case (federal prosecution after unhappiness with the state effort). Choosing not to fight is choosing to lose.
What would I do if I were in the decisonmaking spot? I do not know. But I would be seriously considering it.
(Related, I'm a bit surprised by Mueller's punt. I would have expected him to throw out the typical Clintonian bullshit and just push his way through. I suppose it says something about his character that he didn't; but then, why send the storm troopers after everyone the way he did?)
As to your first point, I agree completely in principal and aesthetically. I hated it when Pres. Obama got involved in every little TMZ issue that occurred in our Nation. Reality TV Pres Trump has a similar predilection.
I don't know the best solution for Smollett since there was not really a victim (other than all of the people he was trying to smear.) This is not the first time that a false crime was victimizing a group of people rather than one individual. I do think false crime charges should be fully prosecuted and the punishment should be equivalent to the real crime, when there is a real accused victim.
LAGuy wrote:
Taking the same basic set of facts and characterizing it as a federal crime seems like a version of double jeopardy.
I agree, but unfortunately this happens all the time.
Brian wrote:
I do think false crime charges should be fully prosecuted and the punishment should be equivalent to the real crime, when there is a real accused victim.
I don't quite agree. Yes, there must be some proportionality: a fraudulent murder charge is worse than a fraudulent jaywalking charge.
But there must be a distinction between someone who falsely claims an anonymous crime (I claim that an unknown assailant hit me with a baseball bat),
someone who falsely claims an anonymous crime which leads to an arrest (I claim that an unknown assailant hit me with a baseball bat, and the police arrest Fred Jones), and someone who falsely accuses a specific person (I claim that Fred Jones hit me with a baseball bat).
And even in the last case, if I falsely accuse Fred Jones of murder, I don't think that I should receive a murder-level penalty unless I actually intended for Fred Jones to receive the death penalty. If I live in a state with no capital punishment, falsely accusing Jones of murder would be an attempt to get Jones sentenced to life in prison. So my crime is more like attempted wrongful imprisonment or kidnapping than it is like attempted murder.
This sounds like a set up to defend Manafort from state charges once the current president (the lack of capitalization is mine) tries to effect a pardon. I am fine with not prosecuting Smollett further but I think a full and explicit investigation needs to occur nonetheless so there is less of a question as to what happened
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/man-gets-20-years-for-deadly-swatting-hoax/
Post a Comment
<< Home