site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   27333 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 18, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here's some culture war red-meat: Jussie Smolett conviction overturned

On one hand, I want to see this smug a-hole who disparaged my once beautiful city get his comeuppance.

On the other hand, I dunno...I can't think of anything.

Smollett had challenged nearly every aspect of his case, arguing that his legal woes should have been over after the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office struck a controversial deal to drop charges just a month after Smollett was indicted in February 2019.

The agreement should have prevented Smollett from being charged for the same crime by a court-appointed special prosecutor a year later, according to the state’s highest court.

In a 5-0 opinion, with two justices abstaining, Justice Elizabeth M. Rocheford wrote the second case violated Smollett’s due process rights because he had fulfilled the requirements of his earlier plea deal by turning over his $10,000 bond and doing community service.

“We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust,” Rocheford wrote in the 32-page ruling. “Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the State was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied.” The court ruled that a controversial decision by prosecutors to drop all charges against Smollett amounted to a plea deal, and that the case brought by a special prosecutor a year later was invalid.

I suppose I can see the logic of "you can't charge a guy who's already agreed to a plea deal." So, whatever, I guess. As a former Chicagoan, the real villain always seemed to be Kim Foxx, who kind of just did whatever she wanted, including letting this fool off the hook.

With only nine days before she leaves office, Foxx claimed Thursday’s ruling offered her office a measure of vindication.

“We have spent five years and millions of dollars on the re-prosecution of someone for a low-level felony,” Foxx told the Chicago Sun-Times, noting that her office’s handling of the case was used as a cudgel by critics of her broader reform agenda.

“This case was bigger than what Jussie Smollett did,” she added.

You can say that again.

I'm sure most people, at this point, are simply sick and tired of all these people and figured the whole ordeal was over. It's clearly a slap in the face of the prosecutor Dan Webb (what's with all these double consonants? amiright??) but I doubt it's going to rehabilitate Smolett's career. Actors are infinitely replaceable, so without divine intervention his career is effectively over. Of course, I might also be wrong as I rarely watch TV or pay attention to celebrities.

Oh, wait...

In an interview last month to promote a new film Smollett co-wrote and directed, he remained defiant and claimed to have spent about $3 million on his defense — even though it might have made more sense to have served out his time.

So...was he a victim of a vindictive prosecution, or just an innocent dude trying to get a better contract? Ok, it's really hard for me to be unbiased her. I'll admit it.

The justice system is not designed to handle prosecutors actively trying to thwart punishment of criminals. The solution here seems not to be to add epicycles and do retrials with special prosecutors, but to not re-elect prosecutors who offer sweet-heart plea deals. Oh, wait:

Foxx won a second term even after Smollett’s case became a topic of national outcry.

If her electorate is happy with her, then there is little one can do, I guess.

Another case of why having principles sucks. The state offered him a sweetheart deal and then reneged. The worst person you know was a darling, but then a victim, of the state. The former doesn't inveigh on the latter as it would enshrine a terrible precedent.

his career is effectively over.

This would be interesting to bet on. It amazes me how people can eek out public careers for decades despite being vile. How many millions would tune in to a reality TV show featuring Smollett, now or in the future? We know he's shameless.

Basically what happened is they upheld his initial, corrupt, dismissal. This is not bad. The justice system is supposed to be pro-defendant. That is all that happened here.

He was part of the corruption. If you tamper with (e.g. bribe or threaten) a jury to obtain an acquittal, jeopardy does not attain, so by analogy even if a deal was enforceable in the general case, it should not be here.

As much as I want to see Smolett get his, I have to agree. Outcomes like this are essentially punishing the prosecutors for not following the rules. Fair enough too.

More comprehensive tl;dr (text of decision):

  • A grand jury is led by the county prosecutor to indict Smollett on 16 counts of felony disorderly conduct (false police reports).

  • The county prosecutor recuses herself and appoints an assistant county prosecutor to replace her in this case as "acting county prosecutor". The assistant county prosecutor decides to drop the case (nolle prosequi) in exchange for 10 k$ of restitution (less than 10 percent of the overtime pay spent by the Chicago police on investigating this case) and 15 hours of community service, all of which Smollett has already provided. Smollett will not even be required to admit guilt.

  • A third party moves to disregard the assistant county prosecutor's actions and appoint a special prosecutor. The third party argues that, when the county prosecutor recused herself, she was required by law to appoint a special prosecutor in her stead, and had no authority to appoint an assistant county prosecutor to the nonexistent position of "acting county prosecutor". The trial judge agrees and appoints a special prosecutor.

  • A new grand jury is led by the special prosecutor to indict Smollett on six counts of felony disorderly conduct. Smollett moves to dismiss the indictment, arguing that starting a new prosecution after entering into a nonprosecution agreement of which the defendant held up his end is a violation of the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy. The trial judge denies the motion. A nolle prosequi is presumed to be a unilateral and non-final decision rather than a formal nonprosecution agreement (dismissal with prejudice) that triggers double jeopardy if reneged upon (like what Bill Cosby received in Pennsylvania), and in this case there is not enough evidence of a bilateral agreement to overcome that presumption. Smollett is convicted on five of the six counts, and is sentenced to 5 months of county jail, 25 months of probation, 25 k$ of fines, and 120 k$ of restitution (the aforementioned overtime pay). A majority of the appeals panel affirms the trial judge's analysis.

  • The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously reverses. (1) In this case, from the wording that the assistant county prosecutor used, it is apparent that a bilateral agreement had been reached between the assistant county prosecutor and Smollett, and that the parties intended the agreement to be final. Under these circumstances, the fact that the charges technically were merely nolle prosequied rather than being dismissed with prejudice does not matter. Call it a "bilateral nolle prosequi". (2) Smollett himself never argued that the assistant county prosecutor's appointment was unlawful. Rather, he relied on the idea that the appointment was lawful in obtaining the bilateral nolle prosequi. Therefore, the third party was not entitled to suggest that the appointment was unlawful in order to cancel Smollett's bilateral nolle prosequi.

We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust. Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the State was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied. As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently stated [in the Bill Cosby case] when enforcing a prosecutorial promise not to prosecute:

It cannot be gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse society’s interest in ensuring that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society’s interest in prosecution does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons.

That court further noted the consequences of failing to enforce prosecutorial promises when a defendant has relied on them to his detriment:

A contrary result would be patently untenable. It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain.

Illinois gonna Illinois. I'm pretty sure that normally, jeopardy does not attach in a plea bargain until the plea is accepted; the prosecution cutting a (corrupt) deal to drop the charges without the court's involvement doesn't cut it. And won't cut it in future cases when the political element isn't included.

It's not a plea bargain, but a non-prosecution agreement. Whether or not jeopardy attaches is irrelevant because the court didn't overturn the conviction on double jeopardy grounds. The court ruled that, as a matter of public policy, prosecutors have to honor non-prosecution agreements once the defendants have performed their end of the bargain. They note Santobello, where a defendant had struck a plea deal where he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a favorable sentencing recommendation. He plead guilty, but the prosecutor asked for the max and got it. The basic premise is that if the defendant gives something of value in reliance of getting something from the prosecutor, the prosecutor can't reneg.

Here, Smollett agreet to forfeit his bond in exchange for the charges being dropped. He forfeited the bond, and a nolle pross was entered. Cosby gave up his right to Fifth Amendment protections, Smollett gave up cash. You may think that one is more valuable than the other, and that dropping the charges for $10,000 wasn't justified, but that's irrelevant—deals like this don't work if you allow the court to second guess whether they were worth it or not.

the prosecution cutting a (corrupt) deal to drop the charges without the court's involvement doesn't cut it.

The court's involvement has nothing to do with it. The deal is between the defendant and the prosecutor, not the defendant and the judge. In Santobello, the problem was that the prosecutor didn't make the promised recommendation, not that the judge didn't impose the desired sentence. Santobello plead guilty on reliance of the prosecutor's promise, but the judge can typically impose whatever sentence he wants to. There are compelling reasons I won't get into here why this rarely ever happens (and why if a judge has a problem with a plea deal he'll usually give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea), but it is technically permissible.

More specifically, in the case of dropped charges where no guilty plea is involved, the prosecutor doesn't offer a dismissal with prejudice because this isn't within the prosecutor's power. Prosecutors can't dismiss cases; judges can. Technically they could file an unopposed motion and a judge could sign off on it but they don't do this because they've never had to before, and because it gums up the system when you have to wait 2 months for a judge's signature. And I don't even know if this would work because the practice isn't customary and until some custom develops around it the judge's default is always going to be to dismiss without prejudice. I've been an attorney for over 10 years and I've never seen a judge dismiss anything with prejudice. I've heard of a few cases, but these are either criminal cases that involved constitutional violations so dire that the judge wasn't confident the prosecutor could ever make a case, and one civil case where the pro se plaintiff was obviously nuts and the judge didn't want to deal with it anymore.

And won't cut it in future cases when the political element isn't included.

Future cases are one of the reasons the case went the way it did. The opinion is pretty clear on this. There are various diversionary programs where defendants are given the opportunity to have their cases dropped if they complete them. They get nolle prossed and if they flunk the charges are pursued and if they pass they stay nolle prossed. It would be perverse to suggest that someone would participate in such a program and be prosecuted anyway after successful completion. Some of these programs have high success rates saying that prosecutors aren't bound by these deals would put them in jeopardy.

the prosecution cutting a (corrupt) deal to drop the charges

What's corrupt about the deal? Do you have evidence that Smollett paid a kickback to the prosecutor in exchange for lenience? Or is just that you don't like the politics that you assume was behind the decision?

Illinois gonna Illinois.

Ain't that the truth. I didn't realize how bad it was until I moved to another state.

I'm not sure what standard practice here is supposed to be (or perhaps ought to be), but Bill Cosby's conviction got overturned for similar reasons. And his was definitely less politically charged than Smollett's despite being related to the whole #metoo movement.

Cosby's conviction was overturned on self-incrimination grounds; he was induced to testify in a civil case by an agreement not to prosecute, and then that testimony was used against him. There was no such consideration in this case.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats