Because semi-famous people or people with reasonable means almost always get special treatment for minor misdemeanors. If you are the sort of person who knows people in power, or who can hire an attorney who knows people in power, you get treated differently than those who lack these means. I think the conspiracy explanation here is a bit much.
Whatever
at September 18, 2009 3:08 PM
Ditto, what whatever says. I hope you're not changing your stance on known criminals gaining citizenship. Whether or not pot should be legal, it isn't and he knowingly broke the law while awaiting citizenship.
muggle
at September 18, 2009 3:28 PM
Without a conviction the charge is no impediment to citizenship. That was probably the point of the exercise.
Anyone who still thinks the legal system is remotely interested in fairness or justice is living in a fantasy world. Did you now you can be sentenced for a crime even if the jury exonerates you? Dropping a minor pot charge is nothing compared to that. This incident is just one more minor bit of evidence that a peaceful resolution is very remote.
What I like about this is that although it doesn't mean much, a bunch of really small-minded people are going to make a bunch of noise about it to annoy Sullivan, which is wonderful.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail]
at September 18, 2009 7:17 PM
Someone dug up a quote from Sullivan's blog that was along the lines of:
A Society that will prosecute the powerless while granting favors to the powerful diminishes it's soul.
Or something like that.
Yes, he should get annoyed.
sean
at September 18, 2009 8:07 PM
>>If you are the sort of person who knows people in power, or who can hire an attorney who knows people in power, you get treated differently than those who lack these means.
Not quite, Whatever.
I've a friend in immigration law.
ANY competent attorney with ANY client who is a non US-citizen will try to get a dismissal for a misdemeanor drugs charge, when imprisonment (after conviction)is a possible punishment in that state.
Misdemeanor possession convictions carrying possible jail time became a potential problem for non-citizens in the 1990s. (I.e. it's not linked to 9/11) Basically the rules were changed then by the immigration authorities.
It's complex; my friend was dealing with a legal immigrant sent back to some distant country where he was born - despite having a wife & kids here, as an otherwise blameless resident for 26 years. An old misdemeanor pot conviction here made him ineligible for re-admission to the USA after a holiday trip to Canada!
In fact, it's now routine in US district courts for the bench to openly advise non-citizens to take advice about pleas to "non-serious" charges from an immigration lawyer - in case they're not aware of problems.
And it's also routine for the prosecution to dismiss very specific charges. ( But only for a first offense, IIRR).
In short, Sullivan is getting "special" treatment because he's not yet a citizen. Not because he's an annoying columnist.
The legal expert quoted in the story fulminating how it's all "nothing short of extraordinary" is full of shit.
(I've gone from memory here. And tried to keep it brief, but I think I have the basics right!)
Because semi-famous people or people with reasonable means almost always get special treatment for minor misdemeanors. If you are the sort of person who knows people in power, or who can hire an attorney who knows people in power, you get treated differently than those who lack these means. I think the conspiracy explanation here is a bit much.
Whatever at September 18, 2009 3:08 PM
Ditto, what whatever says. I hope you're not changing your stance on known criminals gaining citizenship. Whether or not pot should be legal, it isn't and he knowingly broke the law while awaiting citizenship.
muggle at September 18, 2009 3:28 PM
Without a conviction the charge is no impediment to citizenship. That was probably the point of the exercise.
Anyone who still thinks the legal system is remotely interested in fairness or justice is living in a fantasy world. Did you now you can be sentenced for a crime even if the jury exonerates you? Dropping a minor pot charge is nothing compared to that. This incident is just one more minor bit of evidence that a peaceful resolution is very remote.
parabarbarian at September 18, 2009 4:11 PM
What I like about this is that although it doesn't mean much, a bunch of really small-minded people are going to make a bunch of noise about it to annoy Sullivan, which is wonderful.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 18, 2009 7:17 PM
Someone dug up a quote from Sullivan's blog that was along the lines of:
A Society that will prosecute the powerless while granting favors to the powerful diminishes it's soul.
Or something like that.
Yes, he should get annoyed.
sean at September 18, 2009 8:07 PM
>>If you are the sort of person who knows people in power, or who can hire an attorney who knows people in power, you get treated differently than those who lack these means.
Not quite, Whatever.
I've a friend in immigration law.
ANY competent attorney with ANY client who is a non US-citizen will try to get a dismissal for a misdemeanor drugs charge, when imprisonment (after conviction)is a possible punishment in that state.
Misdemeanor possession convictions carrying possible jail time became a potential problem for non-citizens in the 1990s. (I.e. it's not linked to 9/11) Basically the rules were changed then by the immigration authorities.
It's complex; my friend was dealing with a legal immigrant sent back to some distant country where he was born - despite having a wife & kids here, as an otherwise blameless resident for 26 years. An old misdemeanor pot conviction here made him ineligible for re-admission to the USA after a holiday trip to Canada!
In fact, it's now routine in US district courts for the bench to openly advise non-citizens to take advice about pleas to "non-serious" charges from an immigration lawyer - in case they're not aware of problems.
And it's also routine for the prosecution to dismiss very specific charges. ( But only for a first offense, IIRR).
In short, Sullivan is getting "special" treatment because he's not yet a citizen. Not because he's an annoying columnist.
The legal expert quoted in the story fulminating how it's all "nothing short of extraordinary" is full of shit.
(I've gone from memory here. And tried to keep it brief, but I think I have the basics right!)
Jody Tresidder at September 19, 2009 5:49 AM
Leave a comment