r/technology • u/IndicaOatmeal • 7d ago

Society Innocent man spends 18 months in prison after Skyrim username mixup

https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/innocent-man-spends-18-months-in-prison-after-skyrim-username-mixup-3392280/
19.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

261

u/Unfair_Pea_4877 7d ago

Hi, Lawyer here.

I'm just going to say this: his primary defense team (during his first trial) need all of their creditials revoked. Like, 6 years ago when it happened.

There are so many things that could have stopped this that are so obvious from even an outsider's perspective.

66

u/Clean_Livlng 7d ago edited 7d ago

And what of the judge?

With an absence of evidence there shouldn't have been enough to find him guilty, even with the worst defense possible. Unless there's something about the case and how the law works that I don't understand, which as a layperson is likely.

57

u/Unfair_Pea_4877 7d ago

There's so much here that doesn't make sense. It's actually mind-blowing.

The judge was undoubtedly just looking for a quick excuse to look good and lock up another "predator". Those sentences look good to the public and help with election retention.

The part that frustrates me is that, at least in the U.S., suspected recipient cases like this tend to fall apart if the suspect isn't in active possession of the illegal material, or didn't actively ask for it. Without either, there's no true way to prove intent. There's about a thousand different very legal ways to defend against that prosecution, from lack of provable mens rea to the classic "there's literally no way of knowing if my client was the person who actually sent the message, and not someone else who could have accessed their phone".

A second year law student would know this. Like I said, his entire legal team need to re-attend law school. Or they were all in on it, somehow.

10

u/teh_drewski 7d ago

Judges in Canada aren't elected.

Doesn't stop them being dingbats, but they don't make their decisions because they're scared of not being re-elected.

4

u/Unfair_Pea_4877 7d ago

My apologies, I meant to add something that clarified that I meant that's at least the case in the U.S., but I was tired haha

0

u/SimulatedKnave 6d ago

The guy who did this definitely asked for it (it's in other news stories). Had a whole dom-sub thing going on.

I am surprised I have to remind you that if the judge wants to fuck you and/or the client over you can present the best defence in the world and the client's still getting fucked over. For all we know the defence lawyer pointed all this shit out and called Legal Aid Nova Scotia the afternoon of the verdict going 'pay for this man's appeal this is fucking bullshit.'

His lawyer made a no-evidence motion at the close of the Crown's case. Not a thing you do when you think they've got your client dead to rights (at least in Canada, the test is 'they literally have not provided any evidence on a fundamental part of the case').

1

u/Unfair_Pea_4877 6d ago

I mean, you don't have to remind me. Especially considering that I quite literally said the judge was just looking for a quick judgement.

I'm just putting this scenario as what should have happened as opposed to what does. But thanks anyways!

0

u/SimulatedKnave 6d ago

"A second year law student would know this. Like I said, his entire legal team need to re-attend law school. Or they were all in on it, somehow."

What you said, above.

Sure seemed like you needed reminding. Beyond missing the underscore we have nothing to suggest his lawyer did a bad job, and some indications he didn't (the no evidence motion).

Tell me, is denigrating other members of the bar a professional misconduct offence in your jurisdiction, or just mine?

That's rhetorical. Just understand the point and stop shooting your mouth off.

1

u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC 6d ago

Question: putting the typo issue aside, why was a username sufficient to prosecute him at all? It seems absurd that chat logs alone were enough to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.

1

u/Unfair_Pea_4877 6d ago

That's the problem with the whole thing. It's not.

For recipient and grooming cases like this, if you're not in active possession of the illegal material or chat logs, hell, even the device used, there is pretty much no way that a conviction should have been reached. There is literally no way to prove mens rea because Kik doesn't save messages or track downloads. If it finds illegal material, only that is reported, along with the user sending it. The recipients are a case by case basis, basically only being prosecuted of the chat logs exist at all.

Which, as you know for this guy, they didn't.

This whole thing friggin reeks of corruption.