Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnewsh!wcs
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Our unfair legal system.
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.160314.11504@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Date: 28 Jun 91 16:03:14 GMT
References: <1991Jun18.184312.22347@news.cs.indiana.edu> <1991Jun18.210956.48146@cc.usu.edu>
Organization: Your typical phone company involved in your typical daydream
Lines: 57

In article <1991Jun18.210956.48146@cc.usu.edu> sl4r7@cc.usu.edu writes:
} In article <1991Jun18.184312.22347@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Keenan Royle <royle@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
} > From what I understand of the Rose case and the Bellsouth 911 case the
} > evidence (and how it was aquired) was pretty shakey.  They all may have
} > had a good chance at being found not guilty (or having the cases droppped)
} > if they had had the money (and the will) to fight a protracted battle.
} I think it would be better to say that the side with the most knowledge won.
} The government --well, not the government, Bellsouth and the others-- knew
} _much_ more about how computers work.  .....
} Most public defenders and most lawyers have little or no knowledge of 
} computers.  Because of this, they don't know what they can use to knock down 
	I strongly disagree - any competent "hacker" knows far more
	about computers than most of the government people involved
	in these cases, not that all the accused computer people
	have been real hackers, and you can EDUCATE your own lawyer
	in the important issues IF you've got the time and money.
	(You generally CAN'T educate PDs much - if you don't have
	the money for a heavy-duty big nasty pro-active lawyer,
	you're in major trouble.)

	For example, if the government had known what they were doing,
	they wouldn't have used the "explaining how Kermit works"
	issue as either part of their case or excuse for seizure,
	unless they were deliberately, rabidly malicious.

} From what I've seen, public defenders are substandard because they are 
} underpaid and overworked, but so are DA's and other prosecution attornys. 
	Public defenders also have minimal incentive to win,
	because they're paid by the state to preserve the appearance
	of justice, unlike private lawyers who are paid to win.
	In particular, you need a lawyer who will take a LOT of
	initiative to figure out what the bad guys are up to
	and what approaches they're planning.

	PDs have guaranteed pay, and a real incentive to get guilty
	pleas and plea bargains.  Also, they tend to be people who
	couldn't get better-paying lawyer jobs - except for a few idealists,
	they're generally NOT the cream of the crop.

} What we need to do is to make sure that the courts understand computers when
} they deal with computer cases.  It would also help if the general public
	Definitely - it's also a major issue in intellectual-property
	cases such as software patents and copyrights, where the
	judge is being called on to decide technical issues he really
	doesn't understand, as well as criminal cases where the
	judge and jury have to decide the applicability of pre-computer
	laws in a computer environment.

	Unfortunately, in criminal cases, if the jury doesn't really
	understand the technical issues involved, it's highly influenced
	by perceived intent - in cracker cases, this usually isn't good,
	and the Government is good at making people sound EEEVILLLL.
-- 
				Pray for peace;		  Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
# No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment.
# You can read it here in the fine print.