Justices sympathetic to immigrant in ID theft case (How could this be?)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_identity_theft;_ylt=AiUXDt.EByBZ0MEjZZ7VuMJMEP0E ^

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

If the law is too vague or poorly written, let the govt rewrite it for specificity and clarity.

Then arrest, convict, jail and deport “identity thieves” of all types.

[Just A Nobody]

The concern grows daily, especially with this type of ruling.

[Mike Darancette]

Should someone get two extra years in prison "if it just so happens that the number you picked out of the air belongs to someone else?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Justice Department lawyer Toby Heytens.

I guess random criminal acts are OK as long as the actor doesn't know the victim.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The issue is not whether illegal aliens have committed a crime— that is not disputed. The issue is whether this particular alien committed the specific crime he is being charged with, which is identity theft.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[Kackikat]

Noone seems to be addressing the fact that the retailer gets stuck and is the victim too....this is unbelievable.

[Polarik]

"Look, Officer. I did not INTEND to shoot that illegal stealing my car...I didn't intend to leave a cartridge in my shotgun..and I didn't intend to go off when I saw my car belong stolen...and I'm sure that the Mr. Gonzalez did not INTEND to get in the way of the buckshot...from a gun I didn't KNOW was loaded....and i'm sure that he didn't KNOW that the car belonged to me and did not INTEND to steal it."

Ahem....

[Sir Gawain]

It’s time for more direct action.

[Lurking Libertarian]

"Look, Officer. I did not INTEND to shoot that illegal stealing my car...I didn't intend to leave a cartridge in my shotgun..and I didn't intend to go off when I saw my car belong stolen...and I'm sure that the Mr. Gonzalez did not INTEND to get in the way of the buckshot...from a gun I didn't KNOW was loaded....and i'm sure that he didn't KNOW that the car belonged to me and did not INTEND to steal it." Ahem....

All of those would actually be defenses, if (and it's a huge if) the jury believed you. In this case, the trial judge told the jury that the defendant was guilty if he used someone else's SSN whether or not he knew it belonged to someone else or intended to commit identity theft. If the Supreme Court reverses, there will probably be a new trial, but the jury will be instructed that the defendant is not guilty unless he intended to steal someone else's identity.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Judges shouldn't be socializing with people who are parties or attorneys in cases coming before them; to do otherwise violates the canons of judicial ethics. I don't think you would be to happy if, for example, you were suing someone and you spotted your opponent hobnobbing privately with the judge(s) assigned to the case. An honest, ethical judge should never even create the slightest suspicion that he is partial to one side in a case before him or which will likely come before him.

You may remember from a couple of years ago when the Supreme Court denied the motion to disqualify Justice Scalia from hearing a case against Vice President Cheney, even though Scalia and Cheney went hunting together. Scalia said that they didn't talk about the case during the hunting trip, and that was enough. So the same precedent seems to apply here.

[dcwusmc]

What happens when the tax collector (POH) wants to talk to you about the income taxes due?

[justiceseeker93]

So the same precedent seems to apply here.

If so, just remember that the SCOTUS has set many bad precedents down through the years which have resulted, generally speaking, of a severe watering-down of the Constitution and the rule of law.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks justiceseeker93.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

All of those would actually be defenses, if (and it's a huge if) the jury believed you.

So why don't they acquit drunk drivers who accidentally kill someone? Very few drunk drivers actually intend to kill or injure. The "principle" you are claiming really doesn't sound right.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Never mind, I see what the problem is here. The poorly written article does not explain that the law requires that a person "knowingly" uses another person's ID. The defendant in question here already has a 51 month sentence for other crimes, so he won't escape punishment completely.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So why don't they acquit drunk drivers who accidentally kill someone? Very few drunk drivers actually intend to kill or injure. The "principle" you are claiming really doesn't sound right.

Different crimes have different intent requirements. Murder and voluntary manslaughter require intent to kill; involuntary manslaughter doesn't. Drunk drivers are typically convicted only of the latter.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

OK, see #35.