Comment and Go To Jail

February 9, 2010 11:16 AM

Is it a crime to assist an accomplice?

My cursorial, NAL reading of this indicates that anyone (in the US anyway) responding in that thread may be opening themselves up to felony charges.

posted by DU to Etiquette/Policy at 11:16 AM (57 comments total)

Yeah! Let's send all the facebook felon's fans to jail while we're at it! 70,000 inmates is nothing: just ask California.
posted by HabeasCorpus at 11:21 AM on February 9, 2010

IANAL and all that, but my initial thought would be yes. I sure as hell wouldn't be responding to it personally.

Are anonymous AskMe's subject to mod approval? I seem to remember this being the case but I don't spend much time on the green myself...
posted by rollbiz at 11:22 AM on February 9, 2010

If anyone is charged with a felony as a result of answering that question I will perform the implausible act of your choice.
posted by enn at 11:23 AM on February 9, 2010 [15 favorites]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that offering information about the legal services available to someone is not a criminal act, even if the person receiving the information might be a criminal. Otherwise, the ACLU would be in some pretty deep dip.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:24 AM on February 9, 2010

You're asking whether giving someone advice about what sorts of legal resources a parole violator might avail himself of in New York is a felony? That is the dumbest thing I've heard today.
posted by nanojath at 11:26 AM on February 9, 2010 [11 favorites]

This is the sort of anonymous question we would generally not approve. While I can't speak to the "whether someone helping the Anon user is breaking the law" issue, this is a little too "might cause site trouble" to be okayed. What happened here is that someone asked a question non-anon and then had an "oh shit" moment and asked a mod to anonymize it. It didn't go through the normal approval process. I closed it. The person who asked the question is welcome to find another way to ask that is a little less "help my friend evade justice" and a little more "need resources for someone who is working out a sticky legal issue"

I don't have a strong opinion about probation violations, but we'd like AskMe to not be used for this sort of thing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:27 AM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

It mentions his work qualifications and says "Any other advice or resources would be most welcome." That's not just legal aid.
posted by DU at 11:28 AM on February 9, 2010

I think it's important to make a distinction between whether you have a personal problem with the idea of assisting someone on the run, and whether there is actually a reasonable risk of anyone on Metafilter having legal trouble as the result of answering the question.
posted by bingo at 11:28 AM on February 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

I think it's important to make a distinction between whether you have a personal problem with the idea of assisting someone on the run, and whether there is actually a reasonable risk of anyone on Metafilter having legal trouble as the result of answering the question.

I'm not sure in which direction or from what side you're saying this, but I completely agree. I have no moral issue whatsoever with the scenario presented, and I also think that the likelihood that anything would happen to a site member is pretty much nil, but it doesn't seem like it's exactly a great idea anyway.
posted by rollbiz at 11:39 AM on February 9, 2010

Yeah, sort of a different-mods-looking-at-different-things cluster with this one, basically my fault for servicing a panicked "this was supposed to be anonymous!" request without really vetting the question itself in the process in any case.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:45 AM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

We do like to draw a line between "We have a problem with this topic personally" and "We have a problem with this topic being on AskMe"

I'm sure we have blind spots as to our own prejudices, but for the most part things get approved in the AnonyMe queue if they meet the general guidelines, regardless of topic. People may not like the questions for any number of reasons [and there's a discussion going on right now in another MeTa about how people use the AnonyMe feature and why they might choose to be anonymous] but we pretty much don't want to get into the "is this or is this not very illegal?" discussion as much as "From a risk management perspective, we don't want people asking 'how to be a fugitive' questions here"

I personally hope that Anon's friend gets the help that they need but I'm okay with that not happening here. And, as cortex has said, this was sort of a weirdy blip that caused this question to go live anonymously.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:52 AM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

I personally hope that Anon's friend gets the help that they need but I'm okay with that not happening here.

That was exactly my position. Also to warn away any potential helpful souls that inadvertently opened themselves up to something.
posted by DU at 12:04 PM on February 9, 2010

"I want him to seek legal aid so that he at least knows the parameters of his problem, but he's not in a position to be able to pay anyone right now."

It's called the Defender's Association, they'll help him out after he gets locked back up.
posted by The Straightener at 12:07 PM on February 9, 2010

How sad. I've been in deeper shit than this guy's friend. So have most of my immediate family, for that matter. Good thing I didn't come looking for help here.

(Seriously, has anyone, ever, been prosecuted for aiding and abetting violation of probation? Any lawyers want to weigh in?)
posted by a young man in spats at 12:28 PM on February 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

The person who asked the question is welcome to find another way to ask that is a little less "help my friend evade justice" and a little more "need resources for someone who is working out a sticky legal issue"

To be honest, it read more like the latter than the former to me. The comment about his looking for work confounded the issue though.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:41 PM on February 9, 2010

In the MetaFilter Justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important sites: the green, where questions are answered, and the grey, where offenders are prosecuted. These are their stories. BA DONG DONG.
posted by Rhomboid at 12:42 PM on February 9, 2010 [27 favorites]

You want a deletion? I know a guy who knows some guys. Forget about it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:45 PM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Good thing I didn't come looking for help here.

Let me be perfectly clear, closing up this question was not because it might open answerers up to legal charges. We closed it because we have a risk management approach/policy that basically says that questions that ask how to do things that are illegal or avoid legal mechanisms are questions we'd rather people didn't ask here. This is because we don't want to be seen as an outpost for this sort of thing and/or attract any sort of law enforcement attention that might lead to people asking us questions we'd prefer not to answer [i.e. "who asked that?"] same as suicide questions. We can explain this more in depth if people want [because people often have follow-up questions like "why is this speeding ticket questions okay then?"] but this is the overarching guideline that we think about. "Could this bring a sort of scrutiny on the site that we would not prefer?"

There are enough people on MeFi that if you're a regular here you know who you can direct your questions about legal issues towards if you're in a jam. If you're so new here that you don't know who these people are, we're okay with you not asking your AnonyMe question here. I'm not sure why this has come up as such a hot topic this past week, but I feel the need to restate this in case telling it a slightly different way makes the situation more clear for anyone.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

Isn't the deletion of that thread destruction of evidence? *ahem*
posted by Xoebe at 12:54 PM on February 9, 2010 [4 favorites]

Seriously, has anyone, ever, been prosecuted for aiding and abetting violation of probation?

Actually, yes, though I don't know any of them personally.

I have been threatened with basically this in a situation when, somewhat ironically and unfairly, I couldn't actually provide any help in giving information on where someone actually was. But fairness and justice and just plain common sense aren't always traits found in certain people in certain situations.

Admittedly, I don't think it's something that happens often. And I don't think once you add the extra level of "violation of probation of anonymous person from the Internet by giving them somewhat generic advice" I sincerely doubt any prosecution (or even persecution) would take place.

But I still don't think such questions have any place on AskMe (despite having lived through times when a strong dose of common sense and/or a swift judgmental kick to the head from the green would have probably helped me greatly)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:54 PM on February 9, 2010

Worse than that - It's a crime to assist you assist potential accomplices in a hyperbolic crime.
posted by 2bucksplus at 1:05 PM on February 9, 2010

Isn't the deletion of that thread destruction of evidence? *ahem*

And really, aren't we all to blame for what his friend did because, like, society and shit? I'm going down to the police station to turn us in. You guys coming with me or do I have turn us in all by myself?
posted by pracowity at 1:12 PM on February 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

Alright Anonymous, straight from the mouth of Parole Officer Jack, my colorful office mate:

"Whether or not dere gonna come lock 'im the fug up really depends on da charge. Some stoopid lil shit like theft? Fug it. Dey ain't gonna extradite him on dat. Dey don't even wanda spend da money. If he gets stopped? He might not even be in da system. If it's big, doe, da charge? Believe me, dere gonna come get 'im and lock 'im da fug up. They'll be like, 'Yo, we got your guy out here, you want we should lock 'im da fug up and send 'im back to yous all?' Dey'll gitcha, too, dat shit don't never go away, you know? So it's really better da just turn yourself da fug in and hope da judge'll cut ya a lil break. If you make 'em come gitcha, dey don't like dat. It's all depends on how you come back into da system. I would tell da guy to just sac up and turn himself da fug in, if it's a lil bullshit charge ain't nothin' bad gonna happen anyway."
posted by The Straightener at 1:18 PM on February 9, 2010 [37 favorites]

I remember the last time I committed a hyperbaric crime; my accomplices and I got into pressure suits, turned ourselves up to about 2 atmospheres and went out and robbed a bunch of high altitude strip clubs.

Look, it made sense at the time.
posted by quin at 1:56 PM on February 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

Comment and Go To Jail

Do I get to pass 'Go' or collect $200?
posted by qvantamon at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

MetaTalk: just sac up
posted by adamdschneider at 2:05 PM on February 9, 2010

Look, it made sense at the time.

Lots of stuff make sense when you're under pressure.
posted by qvantamon at 2:14 PM on February 9, 2010 [6 favorites]

My, that deletion was a bit cruel, if not full-bore ironic.

("My friend is having trouble finding help.... [door slams!]")

Harsh. Perhaps what you need is a way to answer privately. A question posted with a throwaway e-mail address... closed to comments but not deleted?

Or maybe repost the question making it clear that it's only asking for legal advice or approaches? Would that survive the axe of harsh judgment?
posted by rokusan at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

Obviously, the best advice is for the probation violator to return and take whatever punishment. That way, his life is ruined for a while instead of forever.
posted by Cranberry at 3:00 PM on February 9, 2010

It's a crime I never told you about the diamonds in your eyes.
posted by jtron at 3:35 PM on February 9, 2010

Hey, guys, let's destroy America by committing a crime so viral that even the President, congress, and the supreme court are imprisoned!
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:36 PM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Jesus fucking Christ, another meta about somebody somewhere maybe getting away with something and shouldn't we all be worried?

I disagree with the deletion, though I can see why it got axed from the mods' point of view, but this MeTa is the stupidest one we've had since… well, actually, it hasn't been very long, has it?

This is what happens when you make MeTa too nice and welcoming—people post all their nanny bullshit, tripping over themselves to lickspittle the law. Yeah, we're all getting rounded up for telling the dude that legal aid should be the first stop he makes, and that if push comes to shove, he can probably get a dishwashing job off the books. Lock me up now, judge! That's about as likely as anyone caring that you made a video of yourself sneaking a plastic knife onto a plane.

Is the trouble that MeFi is now so insular that no one ever goes outside and has their fevered paranoiac assumptions challenged?
posted by klangklangston at 4:03 PM on February 9, 2010 [13 favorites]

klangklangston, I hope you never change. You are the best, just as you are.
posted by boo_radley at 4:43 PM on February 9, 2010

Is the trouble that MeFi is now so insular that no one ever goes outside and has their fevered paranoiac assumptions challenged?

speaking for myself, the real trouble is when I go outside and have them confirmed

* adjusts tinfoil hat, looks both ways, leaves quietly *
posted by toodleydoodley at 5:18 PM on February 9, 2010

Let me be perfectly clear, closing up this question was not because it might open answerers up to legal charges. We closed it because we have a risk management approach/policy that basically says that questions that ask how to do things that are illegal or avoid legal mechanisms are questions we'd rather people didn't ask here.

Is this a blanket policy or discretionary? Because it just seems preposterous to me to give credence to the idea that answering his question would have even an angel hair's chance of getting Mefi in hot water.

Or I guess I'm asking, what is the difference between "having a risk management policy" (which you are citing) and "because it might open answerers up to legal charges" (which you specifically refuted)?

If you're so new here that you don't know who these people are, we're okay with you not asking your AnonyMe question here.

Please post a list of the Anonyme questions you're not okay with being asked/resolved elsewhere.
posted by mreleganza at 6:08 PM on February 9, 2010

Is the trouble that MeFi is now so insular that no one ever goes outside and has their fevered paranoiac assumptions challenged?

It's more that people seem to have this special attitude toward legal stuff, where any risk is thought to be a stupid risk (and here I'm talking about being afraid of answering the question, as opposed to the site's choosing not to host the question, which does seem reasonable to me). There's all kinds of stuff we do every day that, if it went bad, could mess up our lives in far worse ways than even the worst case scenario for telling people how to make pot brownies or how to avoid getting caught for a parole violation. Yet we do them -- we dash across the street, we try our one-year-old on raw carrots, we leave the dryer running when we go to work in the morning. What's so special about taking teeny-tiny legal risks?
posted by palliser at 7:32 PM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm with klang on one thing: there was no reason to delete that question. Look at it:

He is essentially a fugitive. What resources are available to him in New York City?

Anyone who can't see that as "need resources for someone who is working out a sticky legal issue" is working overtime to *not* give the asker the benefit of the doubt.

I thought we didn't do that here. The asker even adds, "I want him to seek legal aid." I'm sorry, but this is a dumb callout and a just ever-so-slightly-too-twitchy deletion.
posted by mediareport at 8:40 PM on February 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

Anyone who can't see that as "need resources for someone who is working out a sticky legal issue" is working overtime to *not* give the asker the benefit of the doubt.

There's a difference between what we'll accept and approve as an anonymous question and what we'll not delete as a regular old question. This question would not have been approved had it gone through the normal anonymous channels and so it was deleted somewhat clumsily after the fact once cortex anonymized it. The OP is welcome, as I've said, to ask a slightly edited version of this question under their own username and take the heat that comes with it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:50 PM on February 9, 2010

we dash across the street, we try our one-year-old on raw carrots, we leave the dryer running when we go to work in the morning. What's so special about taking teeny-tiny legal risks?

It may be paranoia induced by having a crazy government. If a guy in the US does something that a bored cop thinks looks a little suspicious, your news shows make it look like any number of horrible things can happen to him, from tasing his ass up and down the shopping mall floor until he squeals for mercy (and then sending him a bill for the electricity), to putting him on various black lists he can't get off because he doesn't even know he's on them, to having a team of anonymous goons drag him away to a secret prison purposely located offshore so it doesn't have to answer to US law. Americans are afraid of America. Their afraid to even cut their grass the wrong way or hang out their laundry for fear of a local watch committee coming down on them.
posted by pracowity at 9:05 PM on February 9, 2010

Yeah -- and my point is that this special legal-related paranoia is silly, just like a special stranger-kidnapping-related paranoia is silly. Either of these can be fed by the media. And either of these is not something to worry about, compared to the risks I alluded to above, the plain old everyday risks we all take all the time.

I mean, you're not saying that stuff you outlined is a realistic, everyday hazard for Americans, right, on par with serious, boring shit like choking and house fires?
posted by palliser at 9:22 PM on February 9, 2010

Well, at least he's not claiming we're going to be responsible for his kids starving to death this time.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:38 PM on February 9, 2010

Yeah -- and my point is that this special legal-related paranoia is silly...

As I said, US television shows make that paranoia look rational. The scary stuff that happens 0.001 percent of the time but makes the news 100.0 percent of the time has made viewers irrational. But what can you do, reason them out of being as unreasonable as they've been conditioned to be? Recondition them by making them watch the Non-News Tonight to get an entirely representative view of real life, with daily reports on postal workers accurately delivering reasonable utility bills, families contentedly living in houses that are not burning down or being broken into, children being bored but otherwise getting along quite nicely, teenagers doing trigonometry homework and getting Bs on their tests, and, very very rarely, a cop, and not a cop doing anything exciting, but a cop quite calmly and politely taking care of mundane business such as issuing a small fine for a broken turn signal before giving someone else directions to the interstate?
posted by pracowity at 10:55 PM on February 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

But what can you do, reason them …

Yes, you reason with them.
posted by floam at 11:29 PM on February 9, 2010

At least it's a slight twist on the same OH NO I SAW A CUSS AT WORK NOW I'M TALKING IN ALL CAPS ABOUT HOW MY KIDS ARE GONNA HAVE TO LIVE ON THE LAWN bullshit that gets trotted out every time homeboy sees something he shouldn't be looking at on the clock.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 1:40 AM on February 10, 2010

For the sake of argument: assisting someone violate their probation is not a teeny tiny legal risk. It's a real crime with real consequences.

That said, I don't see the harm in the question. A better solution would, IMHO, have been to delete the troublesome answers and leave the find-a-way-to-get-legal-assistance answers.
posted by gjc at 5:47 AM on February 10, 2010

We don't even know who it is, and we're not directly helping that person do anything. At most, we're providing information to someone who will then use it or not use it as he/she chooses.

Thinking that this could be a chargeable offense, or that it should be removed from AskMe, is entirely ludicrous.
posted by Malor at 8:22 AM on February 10, 2010

I should have added: The person asking the question might potentially be charged with an offense if he or she follows bad advice given on AskMe, but the asking of the question not a crime, nor is answering it.
posted by Malor at 8:23 AM on February 10, 2010

we leave the dryer running when we go to work in the morning.

See, I can leave the dryer running for some reason, but I have a nervous breakdown every time I think I even left the coffeemaker plugged in.
posted by anniecat at 8:47 AM on February 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

For the sake of argument: assisting someone violate their probation is not a teeny tiny legal risk. It's a real crime with real consequences.

Okay, but what we're talking about here is the risk that, by answering this question on the internet, you will end up facing those consequences.
posted by palliser at 10:25 AM on February 10, 2010

The OP is welcome, as I've said, to ask a slightly edited version of this question under their own username and take the heat that comes with it.

Jessamyn has said this twice, and I don't think people upset about the deletion are hearing it. It's OK for the poster to ask the question. It's not OK for Metafilter to bear the heat of making the question anonymous. That's all there is too it. It's not a "door slamming" on helping the asker, it's a door shut gently on helping the asker when the asking is anonymous via direct modly action.

It's been cranky around here lately.
posted by donnagirl at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2010

The OP is welcome, as I've said, to ask a slightly edited version of this question under their own username and take the heat that comes with it.

If they'd have wanted their username connected to this problem, they wouldn't have asked for it to be anonymous in the first place.
posted by timeistight at 12:48 PM on February 10, 2010

The OP wasn't anonymous originally; Cortex updated to anon later, at OPs request.

quit yer bitchin' about the deletion. GYOFB if you want to host questions of questionable legality.
posted by killy willy at 3:27 PM on February 10, 2010

The OP wasn't anonymous originally; Cortex updated to anon later, at OPs request.

cortex spoke of "servicing a panicked 'this was supposed to be anonymous!' request." That tells me posting non-anonymously was never the OP's intention.

quit yer bitchin' about the deletion. GYOFB if you want to host questions of questionable legality.

I already have my own fucking blog, fuck you very much. What does that have to do with anything?
posted by timeistight at 4:06 PM on February 10, 2010

timesight, the last part of my blog was a general message, not directed at you. sorry 'bout that.
posted by killy willy at 4:52 PM on February 10, 2010

Well, it is worth pointing out that most of those who urge caution in matters legal are in fact the lawyers among us (DU is one, I believe) and similarly, for medical issues, the physicians among us. They have specific professional concerns with these issues that predominate in their thinking. Although bottom line is, if you can't countenance what does do down here because it compromises your particular professional ethics, you probably should avail yourself of the clearly marked exit, as ikkyu2 once did for precisely that reason.

On the other hand, we all benefit from the specific expertise of these folks, so I think it's not such a big deal to indulge their concerns. For the site, a blanket policy against discussing actual illegal activity is probably wise and necessary, even if it sweeps some innocuous questions up in its application. When you have a blanket policy you always exercise, you show good faith when you inevitably miss something and trouble ensues. That becomes believable as an oversight rather than an error in judgment if you normally kick anything of the sort to the curb under a uniform policy.

Anyone who's ever owned a business should be sympathetic. None of us are personally exposed, realistically, in the ways Matt is, if something bad happens.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:05 PM on February 10, 2010

gah. comment, not blog. I'm on painkillers, shouldn't be talking at all tonight.
posted by killy willy at 6:26 PM on February 10, 2010

You have to think about this from a law enforcement perspective. How worth it is it going to be to a police officer/ prosecutor to do pursue charges in this case? If you think it'd be ridiculous to call your response "aiding a felon", they probably do too. I mean, if you were brainstorming ideas for a hit on the president, it might be a different story, but a glance at the conversation showed that the posters weren't advising anyone to do anything illegal.

I can certainly understand the site not wanting to host the conversation, though, for issues of not wanting any possibility of crazy people starting moral panics about the state of the internet these days.
posted by _cave at 8:36 PM on February 10, 2010