When a prosecutor is not only technically illiterate, but proud of their illiteracy, they should be disbarred.
By that logic, when a programmer is illiterate with regards to the law, they should be barred from programming forever if they make an app/SaaS/whatever that breaks any law, any where, for whatever reason.
Prosecutors, especially US Attorneys, are self-aggrandizing, attention-seeking political whores, but technical illiteracy by itself is not a justification for disbarring them from the practice of law.
Weev's attorney can, and should, [edit (past tense)]have sought[/edit] Moramarco's removal from the case based on his statements. Prosecutor's don't need to be fully technically literate when it comes to prosecuting a crime, but they do need to at least understand the basic details in order to maintain their ethical obligations to their position, the court, and the defendant.
>> By that logic, when a programmer is illiterate with regards to the law, they should be barred from programming forever if they make an app/SaaS/whatever that breaks any law, any where, for whatever reason.
a lawyer exists to defend and interpret law. which this guy is arguably incapable of, given his elementary knowledge of really simple technical principles.
that is not the job of a software engineer. i'm not sure your analogy holds water.
It is not a lawyer's job to understand technology; it is the lawyer's job to understand the law. The lawyer understood the law and the technicalities of the law just fine--the problem is that he admits that he may not understand some, most, or all of the technology at issue in weev's case.
> need to at least understand the basic details in order to maintain their ethical obligations to their position, the court, and the defendant.
So, if he didn't do this, and knew he didn't do it, couldn't one argue that he should be disbarred, or at least be subjected to some sort of professional sanction?
Disbarment? No. Sanctions? maybe. It depends on how relevant the misunderstanding was to the actual prosecution of the case. While the prosecutor was very technically illiterate, based on available records that illiteracy wasn't relevant to the elements of the crime itself, namely that he "impersonated" (within the meaning of the law) someone else's identity to access protected information.
The id theft charge is the biggie here--it actually imposes more criminal time than the underlying offense itself, because as other posters have noted it changed a misdemeanor to a felony.
I'd argue that it becomes a pretty relevant misunderstanding when an innocent man (as far as the accusations go) sits in prison for a year. If someone can't practice law effectively (such as if they erroneously prosecute people for crimes they did not commit), then their ability to practice becomes a danger to society.
By that logic, when a programmer is illiterate with regards to the law, they should be barred from programming forever if they make an app/SaaS/whatever that breaks any law, any where, for whatever reason.
Prosecutors, especially US Attorneys, are self-aggrandizing, attention-seeking political whores, but technical illiteracy by itself is not a justification for disbarring them from the practice of law.
Weev's attorney can, and should, [edit (past tense)]have sought[/edit] Moramarco's removal from the case based on his statements. Prosecutor's don't need to be fully technically literate when it comes to prosecuting a crime, but they do need to at least understand the basic details in order to maintain their ethical obligations to their position, the court, and the defendant.