[857] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House J
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan)
Fri May 16 15:08:13 1997
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan <alano@teleport.com>
To: Peter Trei <trei@process.com>
cc: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>, Phil Helms <phil@cccs.cccoes.edu>,
cryptography@c2.net, trei@c2.net, marc@cygnus.com
In-Reply-To: <199705161324.GAA14819@blacklodge.c2.net>
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Peter Trei wrote:
> Marc Horowitz is quite correct when he points out that my
> scenario (encrypt Miss November and get 5 years in jail) is
> quite mistaken. I was basing my statement on earlier versions
> of the bill.
>
> I have a general problem with the notion that an ordinary,
> everyday activity which is perfectly legal in normal use
> should add to a jail sentence. The example I see most often
> is 'wire fraud' charges that get tacked on to almost every
> case if the defendent made a phone call. To give a contrived
> example, if two sheepherders discuss how to get rid of a bald
> eagle which is killing their lambs, they are felons (killing
> a BE is a felony, and conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony
> in itself). If they conduct their discussion over the phone
> instead of face to face, they could get wire fraud charges
> tacked on as well. Whatever I think of the basic charge
> (conspiracy to kill an eagle), it seems to me ludicrous that
> using a telephone should make a difference in the outcome.
The way charges are determined I have found very odd as well.
In Oregon there was a high profile murder case. (The director of prisions
was killed.) The person who was convicted of the killing faced multiple
counts of murder for the one killing. (And was convicted on more than one
of them.) It has been a while since i have studied law, but I find this
application of it upsetting. It seems that you cannot be tried twice for
the crime, but you can serve multiple sentences for it. (Two convictions
for the price of one.)
The game in the prosecutors office seems to be "lets throw a whole bunch
of charges at the guy and see how many stick." Dones not seem to bother
them that they are all variations on the same crime, just phrased a bit
different to maximize the legal damage.
