The Peter Watts Case
Mar. 19th, 2010 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7So, Peter Watts has Been Convicted. You may remember that I mentioned Mr Watts-- Biologist, Pacifist, Anti-War Advocate, SF author-- as having been charged with resisting lawful search at the border, as he tried to exit the US to enter his home country of Canada. He was beaten, detained, and charged, all for asking why he was being detained and searched. So, the trail has happened, and he was convicted of assaulting an officer, and obstructing a lawful search.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but I have a great vested interest in the law, and in the treatment of people by that law, so I've consulted legal professionals, to review what facts of this case are readily and publicly available, and what I've been able to gather is that the reportage on this is probably sloppy. As you know, there are two main brackets of crime, on a state level: Misdemeanor and Felony. A misdemeanor will be calculated in months-- One to 12 months is the range-- while a felony will be calculated in years-- 1 to n years. There is is no charge that gets you "up to two years," and each of those charges-- Assault and Obstruction-- were likely lodged as misdemenors. This means that what was probably levelled as "up to 24 months" (being up to 12 months , for each charge) was not so delicately parsed, by the press. Not their fault, really; short blurbs on a breaking story.
In addition to this, the lawyers to whom I spoke don't think that this was anything other than a calculated move by a competent lawyer and client, advising and having been advised of all the options before him. If he took the pre-trial deal, it could go away, for good, never to be talked about again. Ever. If he took a plea to a lesser charge, much the same. But if he was outraged enough to take the stand, at the border, and he was still outraged at his treatment, then he could see it through to trial. If he won, he could have talked about how Justice prevailed in the face of a border cop's gross misuse and abuse of power. But if he lost, then he would have to talk about how the American system has gone slowly gone mad, due to the War On Terror, in the "Post-9/11 World." Too preoccupied with notions of "Safety," America has lost all notions of reasonable response and civility. Either way, he gets to talk to the world about his experience, and have people hear and think about what he's been through. But only if he goes to trial.
It's a risk, and it is an outrage, both that the incident at the border happened to him, at all, and that he lost, but no lawyer worth her salt would have advised her client to go to trial without knowing all the scenarios he was facing, and giving him various ways to turn them to his potential advantage. And I seriously doubt Watts would have obtained a lawyer who wasn't worth her salt.
The lawyers to whom I spoke have said that the most likely outcome of all of this is several months probation, a fine (let's call it a max of $1000), and a whole lot of outrage, across the Blogoplex. So, I'll be watching, and waiting, to see what happens.
Keep in mind, this is all simply with what's available, thus far. I suggest clicking the above link, for Watts' own take on the matter.
Also, clarification on whether the charges were felony or misdemeanor charges would be helpful, and are hard to come by.
EDIT: According to Michigan statute (PDF; search for "81d"), it IS a felony. That's... Very odd phrasing.
Sucks.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but I have a great vested interest in the law, and in the treatment of people by that law, so I've consulted legal professionals, to review what facts of this case are readily and publicly available, and what I've been able to gather is that the reportage on this is probably sloppy. As you know, there are two main brackets of crime, on a state level: Misdemeanor and Felony. A misdemeanor will be calculated in months-- One to 12 months is the range-- while a felony will be calculated in years-- 1 to n years. There is is no charge that gets you "up to two years," and each of those charges-- Assault and Obstruction-- were likely lodged as misdemenors. This means that what was probably levelled as "up to 24 months" (being up to 12 months , for each charge) was not so delicately parsed, by the press. Not their fault, really; short blurbs on a breaking story.
In addition to this, the lawyers to whom I spoke don't think that this was anything other than a calculated move by a competent lawyer and client, advising and having been advised of all the options before him. If he took the pre-trial deal, it could go away, for good, never to be talked about again. Ever. If he took a plea to a lesser charge, much the same. But if he was outraged enough to take the stand, at the border, and he was still outraged at his treatment, then he could see it through to trial. If he won, he could have talked about how Justice prevailed in the face of a border cop's gross misuse and abuse of power. But if he lost, then he would have to talk about how the American system has gone slowly gone mad, due to the War On Terror, in the "Post-9/11 World." Too preoccupied with notions of "Safety," America has lost all notions of reasonable response and civility. Either way, he gets to talk to the world about his experience, and have people hear and think about what he's been through. But only if he goes to trial.
It's a risk, and it is an outrage, both that the incident at the border happened to him, at all, and that he lost, but no lawyer worth her salt would have advised her client to go to trial without knowing all the scenarios he was facing, and giving him various ways to turn them to his potential advantage. And I seriously doubt Watts would have obtained a lawyer who wasn't worth her salt.
The lawyers to whom I spoke have said that the most likely outcome of all of this is several months probation, a fine (let's call it a max of $1000), and a whole lot of outrage, across the Blogoplex. So, I'll be watching, and waiting, to see what happens.
Keep in mind, this is all simply with what's available, thus far. I suggest clicking the above link, for Watts' own take on the matter.
Also, clarification on whether the charges were felony or misdemeanor charges would be helpful, and are hard to come by.
EDIT: According to Michigan statute (PDF; search for "81d"), it IS a felony. That's... Very odd phrasing.
Sucks.
