Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
The verdict would be guilty and usually the judge himself determines the years served.
Jurors are merely finders of fact. They rarely dole out the punishment as that is not their role within our legal system. Their role is to determine if the facts, as alleged, are true and if so, what crime has been committed based on the jury instructions they are given.
It's then generally the judge's discretion to determine how the law is then applied to the facts as determined by the jury.
Yeah, there are plenty of judges that would give this kid 5 years.
And like I said, if I were a judge I could not possibly come up with a more brazen violation of an invasion of privacy statute. I'd give them the maximum amount allowed by law unless I found that Congress had acted unreasonably. With the psychological damage that can arise from an invasion of privacy (as has been witnessed), I'm disinclined to understate the degree of damage that can be done through an invasion of privacy and would therefore not determine 5 years to be unreasonable.
Bailiff, take the defendant into custody...
|
Do you have access to the applicable statute(s)?