

You Can Be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History - el_duderino
http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history

======
Someone1234
This phase gets repeated far too much on the internet, but in this specific
case "don't talk to the police" is key.

He is effectively getting punished for voluntarily going to the police station
and talking about his links to known criminals. Had he either not gone or said
nothing, they would have lost 3/4 of their charges (and arguably 4/4 since the
final one is based on the premise that they can show that he was being
investigated, which arguably he wasn't being until he spoke to the police).

In the UK the whole talking to the police thing is "complicated" (due to the
whole "But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court." bit), but in the US it not only
isn't complicated, but there tons of laws on the books against lying that can
be used even if you believed what you said at the time but that turned out to
be materially untrue (e.g. mis-remembering something).

As an aside this is yet another case of an innocent person pleading guilty to
a "crime" they didn't commit just because the way the plea system works they
will be punished for actually receiving a fair trial. Why this and other case
like this aren't a national scandal I'll never know?

> In March, Matanov pleaded guilty to all four counts of obstruction of
> justice. When he entered his plea, he told Judge William G. Young that he
> maintains his innocence but fears a decades-long sentence were he to go to
> trial. His plea agreement with prosecutors calls for a 30-month
> sentence—still a harsh punishment for little more than deleting videos and
> clearing his browser history. Matanov’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for
> June.

The judge, William G. Young, is also corrupt for accepting a guilty plea from
a man who claims they're innocent. That entire paragraph is solid proof of how
utterly broken the criminal justice system is (even if you believe he did
something, the point is HE doesn't believe it but hasn't received a trial).

------
GeorgeOrr
How many times do we have to see prosecutors using laws in ways never intended
when passed before we stop passing these broad laws?

After Enron anyone fighting against Sarbanes-Oxley passage was laughed at for
claiming it was over-broad. No prosecutor would misuse it, of course it's just
meant to reign in other evil doers like Enron.

Why is it that anyone even considers the idea that we can rely on
proprietorial discretion to keep laws in check? Shouldn't that concept be
laughable by now?

~~~
x0x0
At some point this is all judgement calls -- by police, by prosecutors, and by
lawmakers. You can't run a complex society on a series of bright-line rules.
If you don't like the judgement calls that inevitably must be made, you should
pay more attention to the selection of prosecutors (local DAs are often
elected; federal DAs are appointed) and those who set the agenda for policing.

