🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec14.044441.25362@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.161745.197@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>And would you have a similar problem with recasting the opinions of
>>people who happen to disagree with you as their wanting to "feel good
>>about the outcome of the case"?

>Only if I thought it were misrepresentation to do so.

>>Texas
>>has a law that makes doing what Morris did a crime.  Try him and give
>>him the penalty prescribed (a jail term plus a fine) FOR EACH SYSTEM
>>IN TEXAS HE AFFECTED (I don't know how many, if any, that was).
>>Sentences to be served consecutively.

>This would be a very unusual way for Texas to prosecute the Morris 
>case. It would also be an unusual sentence for Texas. Looks as if you 
>want to bend Texas law to make your point.

No, what I cited is what the Texas law says.  Whether or not sentences
on multiple charges are served concurrently or consecutively is up to
the judge.  No bending of the law required.  Also note that *I* am not
the one saying he should go to jail.  I'm simply following your logic
and doing what the law says instead of what I think would be a
'better' sentence.

>Besides, Texas prosecutors are barred by double-jeopardy principles from
>trying Morris.

I would question this.  If he was never charged under the Texas
statute, would it be double jeopardy to so charge him, even if the
same actions were charged for something else in another jurisdiction? 

[Actually, I think the real reason that this isn't feasible is that
the superior court gets jurisdiction first -- which means if the Feds
want him, they get him first.  It's simply not worth dragging him
around charging him hither and yon.]

>>Do you like that better?  It's
>>in accord with all those legal principles you're worried about, so you
>>should.

>What you have written is in accord neither with my principles nor with
>Texas criminal law.

I believe you may be mistaken on that last one.  And it certainly
seemed to flow from what your principles were complaining about.

>>Now then, back to where I think that problem really lies.  I've had
>>this problem in discussions involving the law with friends of mine who
>>are lawyers before.  The presumption seems to be that the law is
>>'right' and that what we 'should' do stems from taht.

>In the Morris case, in my opinion, the law (as interpreted by the
>government) was wrong. So your discussion here seems inapposite.

Then you're just acting like a jerk, as usual.

>>It's a great pity that Mr Godwin appears to feel that the appropriate
>>response to someone disagreeing with him is to try and pillory them
>>instead of trying to figure out where they're coming from.

>Why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person?

I don't.  I'm hardly the only one you've ever done this sort of crap
to, Mike.  It's one of the reasons I often find myself recommending
AGAINST people supporting EFF, despite my support for the general
principles espoused.  I find that some of the people involved leave me
wondering if they are something I would want to recommend supporting.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.