> As for his brother Jelani, it wasn't Facebook that landed him in Rikers, it was a witness identification.
That's not what I get from the article. It was a witness that got him accused it was facebook likes that lead to him being denied bail on the grounds of being "gang affiliated"/"part of a conspiracy".
His story wouldn't have been half as bad, if he'd just been falsely accused, and then had the case dismissed. That's how a working justice system should work: some innocents will be caught up in it -- but they shouldn't suffer any more for it than strictly necessary.
On another note, with such strong conspiracy laws in NY, maybe there's still hope to get some convictions down on Wall Street?
He was in Rikers, a jail used to hold people pending trial, because he was charged with attempted murder on the basis of the eye-witness identification. The article doesn't even say he was charged with a conspiracy or that the Facebook posts were used as evidence to charge him with a conspiracy. It appears the prosecutor uses the Facebook posts to show gang affiliation, which is a factor in deciding whether someone is a dangerous criminal who shouldn't be granted bail (i.e. being set free pending trial).
> It appears the prosecutor uses the Facebook posts to show gang affiliation, which is a factor in deciding whether someone is a dangerous criminal who shouldn't be granted bail (i.e. being set free pending trial).
I might have been unclear. This was my point. It appears that he might have been charged with attempted murder either way, but might very probably have been granted bail if not for the facebook likes. So it's not a far stretch to say that the likes landed him in jail?
I see your point, but that's a pretty "cute" way to phrase what happened. It makes it seem like he was arrested and charged for what he did on facebook.
It's important to remember that jail is for innocent people, prison is for those that have been found guilty. We don't know why the case was dismissed, but I think it is rather safe to assume that it wasn't a very strong case. So bail might "ordinarily" have been rather likely.
I do think it is pretty bad that you can be jailed for a year because of hanging out with childhood friends in pictures.
That's not what I get from the article. It was a witness that got him accused it was facebook likes that lead to him being denied bail on the grounds of being "gang affiliated"/"part of a conspiracy".
His story wouldn't have been half as bad, if he'd just been falsely accused, and then had the case dismissed. That's how a working justice system should work: some innocents will be caught up in it -- but they shouldn't suffer any more for it than strictly necessary.
On another note, with such strong conspiracy laws in NY, maybe there's still hope to get some convictions down on Wall Street?