Smollett And the Presumption of Innocence

[metalhead]

It looks similar, but my original concern, that there was a payment without a guilty plea shows that Chicago is awfully similar to the Canadian version that I've seen

Reading the spoilered text, what it now seems like happened is that, given the profile of the case and political football it had become, the State's Attorney for Cook County decided she had to make the case go away if she wanted a political future in Chicago. So, she made it go away.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

An admission of guilt is for a criminal legal burden. A civil charge has a much lower burden.

Was he sued? Or the state can just find someone broke a random statute and slap them with whatever? I guess I'm having trouble figuring out what the due process here? I am fairly ignorant of the law.

 

[El_Machinae]

I have no real idea. It looks like a civil charge, like a fine. I'm just describing how something like that could go forward even if they didn't get an admission of guilt first.

Heck, there might be overwhelming evidence. With adult diversion (in Canada), we use diversion as a tool to streamline the courts. I've seen it used in cases where everything was clear-cut. It was just that diversion was the appropriate response.

 

[Zkribbler]

Reading the spoilered text, what it now seems like happened is that, given the profile of the case and political football it had become, the State's Attorney for Cook County decided she had to make the case go away if she wanted a political future in Chicago. So, she made it go away.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I have a similar view.

It's not about guilt or innocents. It's about the most effective use of limited resources. Prosecutors want to focus on murders, rapists, and robbers. This non-violent first-offender is small potatoes.

In comparison, Fox News wants to ride this pony for all its worth. It fits into their fake narrative that there are no hate crimes against blacks. "It's all fake news, like Smollett!"

 

[Berzerker]

Thankfully the cops didn't kill anyone in their search for the culprits

 

[Hamid.H]

see this is what ive been saying all along. jussie was just trying to protect his country from fascists like the nazi who attached those mosques in nz (he has admitted to being inspired by trump among other alt-right figures such as candace owens and ben shapiro - no surprises there). he was taking a stand against an ideology hats literally killed millions of people. we can squabble over his methods but his heart was in the right place. the courts recognized that and thats why he walked.

hh

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you ever concerned that you are jumping to conclusions, stating them strongly, without any real evidence?

 

[Berzerker]

and there I thought he did it to avoid losing his job

 

[Hamid.H]

Are you ever concerned that you are jumping to conclusions, stating them strongly, without any real evidence?

what conclusions would i be jumping to exactly?

and there I thought he did it to avoid losing his job

i watched jussies tv interviews about the attack. he clearly used the event as a platform to expose how hateful the trumpists really are and the kind of attacks that trump inspires like the nz mosque terror attack.

hh

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wonder whose double login you are.

 

[Traitorfish]

see this is what ive been saying all along. jussie was just trying to protect his country from fascists like the nazi who attached those mosques in nz (he has admitted to being inspired by trump among other alt-right figures such as candace owens and ben shapiro - no surprises there). he was taking a stand against an ideology hats literally killed millions of people. we can squabble over his methods but his heart was in the right place. the courts recognized that and thats why he walked.

hh

How was he protecting the United States from fascists?

 

[Hamid.H]

How was he protecting the United States from fascists?

he was resisting an atmosphere of hate and intolerance thats being promoted daily from the white house via racist dog whistles. you cant allow fascism to become normalized. the outrage over this case is so misplaced and out of proportion. its being used from city hall to the white house to deflect and distract from the real hatred thats brewing in this country. its very fake news and it happened because white liberals blinked, again. heck, jussie is now being sued by chicago after the charges were dropped. what kind of justice is that? the alt-right is using the levers of power and the institutions of state to destroy him. its disgraceful.

hh

 

[rah]

Yes poor Jessie is being sued by the city of Chicago which is run and populated mostly by liberals. Most of whom would love to spit on our president and what he represents.

 

[El_Machinae]

he was resisting an atmosphere of hate and intolerance thats being promoted daily from the white house via racist dog whistles

It's certainly a worthy goal, and it can certainly be an underlying motivation for actions taken. I think some of the confusion is that we don't know what you're describing.

Can you create a small timeline of what (you think) he did? We can compare this timeline to what (I think) he did. Because of this lack of clarification of what we each think the timeline is, it's hard to figure out what everyone means about what happened and motivations.

 

[Traitorfish]

he was resisting an atmosphere of hate and intolerance thats being promoted daily from the white house via racist dog whistles.

But, how, specifically?

 

[Camikaze]

This is a completely bizarre statement to me. I don't see how prosecutors are immune from the irrationality described in the BBC article, and when you add the careerist incentive to get as many convictions as possible it doesn't seem like plea deals have the remotest chance of being as just as jury trials.

That's only because the American system of prosecutors is even worse, not because the jury system isn't bad.

 

[innonimatu]

That's only because the American system of prosecutors is even worse, not because the jury system isn't bad.

Consider the differences between one prosecutor and then one judge (or a panel of, say three judges), or one prosecutor then a jury of twelve and then a judge. I feel that the later will always offer more protection to the defendants.

 

[Camikaze]

But the jury system is not a jury of twelve and a judge, it's a jury of twelve instead of a judge. The judge is bound by the jury's findings on fact, it's not an extra layer of protection. So there are frequently appeals where the convicted person will have to strain to identify some error of law, because no matter how ridiculous, the jury's factual findings cannot be assailed.