Charges dropped: rapper no longer facing life sentence over lyrics and Facebook post

[Underseer]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/charges-dismissed-rapper-facing-life-prison-lyrics/

This is great news!

PS -- Dear California: I think you ought to repeal that stupid law.

 

[Derec]

What kind of idiot gives themselves a name that basically means "little piece of shit"?

 

[Axulus]

ReasonTV produced a good video on the issue of using rap lyrics against someone being charged with a crime:

Killer or Artist? Why Rap is on Trial:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi7xi_SnEDQ[/youtube]

 

[Axulus]

PS -- Dear California: I think you ought to repeal that stupid law.

This one?

California Penal Code 182.5 makes it a felony for an individual to participate in a criminal street gang or benefit from gang activity.

I agree that the length of prison is way overboard from what that article described they were facing, but I'm not so sure that we need to go to the other extreme and repeal it. Criminal gangs cause a lot of harm to communities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

PS -- Dear California: I think you ought to repeal that stupid law.

This one?

California Penal Code 182.5 makes it a felony for an individual to participate in a criminal street gang or benefit from gang activity.

I agree that the length of prison is way overboard from what that article described they were facing, but I'm not so sure that we need to go to the other extreme and repeal it. Criminal gangs cause a lot of harm to communities.

Yeah. The criminality of the act is reasonable, the punishment is not.

 

[dismal]

I don't think it's entirely accurate to say he's being prosecuted for his speech. Rather his speech is being used as evidence of a crime - that he's a gang member. It still seems like a bad prosecution and a bad law. They should need some direct link to criminal activity or participation in a criminal conspiracy not just guilt by association.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think it's entirely accurate to say he's being prosecuted for his speech. Rather his speech is being used as evidence of a crime - that he's a gang member. It still seems like a bad prosecution and a bad law. They should need some direct link to criminal activity or participation in a criminal conspiracy not just guilt by association.

No--his speech is a means of profiting from being a gang member--an illegal act.

 

[Underseer]

PS -- Dear California: I think you ought to repeal that stupid law.

This one?

California Penal Code 182.5 makes it a felony for an individual to participate in a criminal street gang or benefit from gang activity.

I agree that the length of prison is way overboard from what that article described they were facing, but I'm not so sure that we need to go to the other extreme and repeal it. Criminal gangs cause a lot of harm to communities.

Really? You're OK with guilt by association?

You must be a libertarian.

 

[Axulus]

This one?

California Penal Code 182.5 makes it a felony for an individual to participate in a criminal street gang or benefit from gang activity.

I agree that the length of prison is way overboard from what that article described they were facing, but I'm not so sure that we need to go to the other extreme and repeal it. Criminal gangs cause a lot of harm to communities.

Really? You're OK with guilt by association?

You must be a libertarian.

Just to test your consistency here, do you think participating in a criminal Mafia family or a criminal terrorist organization should not be a crime if you are not the one directly committing the crimes? It seems to potentially fall under the category of being an accessory to a crime. Perhaps on that basis we don't need a separate law for it, but I don't think laws against being an accessory to a crime are anti-libertarian, no.

 

[dismal]

Really? You're OK with guilt by association?

You must be a libertarian.

Just to test your consistency here, do you think participating in a criminal Mafia family or a criminal terrorist organization should not be a crime if you are not the one directly committing the crimes? It seems to potentially fall under the category of being an accessory to a crime. Perhaps on that basis we don't need a separate law for it, but I don't think laws against being an accessory to a crime are anti-libertarian, no.

I think you need to prove someone is part of a group that committed a specific crime, not someone is part of a group that has a propensity to commit crime or in the past committed crimes.

 

[Axulus]

Just to test your consistency here, do you think participating in a criminal Mafia family or a criminal terrorist organization should not be a crime if you are not the one directly committing the crimes? It seems to potentially fall under the category of being an accessory to a crime. Perhaps on that basis we don't need a separate law for it, but I don't think laws against being an accessory to a crime are anti-libertarian, no.

I think you need to prove someone is part of a group that committed a specific crime, not someone is part of a group that has a propensity to commit crime or in the past committed crimes.

Agreed. I'm guessing that "criminal gang" has some sort of specifics to it that address that issue, but I agree that there needs to be repeated crimes committed by the group and the general purpose of the group is to advance its interests through crime.

 

[ksen]

PS -- Dear California: I think you ought to repeal that stupid law.

This one?

California Penal Code 182.5 makes it a felony for an individual to participate in a criminal street gang or benefit from gang activity.

I agree that the length of prison is way overboard from what that article described they were facing, but I'm not so sure that we need to go to the other extreme and repeal it. Criminal gangs cause a lot of harm to communities.

Would Hunter Thompson have been arrested under that law for his Hell's Angels book?

 

[Underseer]

Really? You're OK with guilt by association?

You must be a libertarian.

Just to test your consistency here, do you think participating in a criminal Mafia family or a criminal terrorist organization should not be a crime if you are not the one directly committing the crimes? It seems to potentially fall under the category of being an accessory to a crime. Perhaps on that basis we don't need a separate law for it, but I don't think laws against being an accessory to a crime are anti-libertarian, no.

We really need to bring back civics classes.

Guilt by association is one of the mistakes of the old world the founding fathers were trying to prevent.

If someone is a member of an organized group of criminals, we prosecute them if we can prove that they participated in a crime, not by proving that they are members of the same organization.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't disagree with the law but the application was shaky at best. It's really reaching to just use terminology and concepts from sociology that describe behaviors and social dynamics of gangs and then present them in a hypothetical salad as evidence that this guy benefited.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This one?

California Penal Code 182.5 makes it a felony for an individual to participate in a criminal street gang or benefit from gang activity.

I agree that the length of prison is way overboard from what that article described they were facing, but I'm not so sure that we need to go to the other extreme and repeal it. Criminal gangs cause a lot of harm to communities.

Really? You're OK with guilt by association?

You must be a libertarian.

I have no problem with guilt by association when the association is for the purpose of criminal activity. This is just a variation on conspiracy charges. (However, I would accept an I-was-forced-to-join defense.)