Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Reading Spouse's E-Mail a Crime?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the ask-the-judge dept.

Crime 496

Hugh Pickens writes "The Detroit Free Press reports that Leon Walker is charged with unlawfully reading the e-mail of Ciara Walker, his wife at that time, which showed she was having an affair with her second husband, who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her son. Walker says he gave the e-mails to her first husband, the child's father, to protect the boy. 'I was doing what I had to do,' says Walker. 'We're talking about putting a child in danger.' Now prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker with a felony for logging onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife. Prosecutor Jessica Cooper defended her decision to charge Walker. 'The guy is a hacker,' says Cooper, adding that the Gmail account 'was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded [the emails] and used them in a very contentious way.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675322)

Is opening a spouses physical mail a crime?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675336)

It should be! You could at least ask to have his/her consent.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (2)

groslyunderpaid (950152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675348)

Letter of the law? I believe so.

However, in practice, though mail addressed to you may have your name on it, it's the address that's important. As long as you live at that address, you can open that mail.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675382)

So by that logic, if you rent out a room in your house you can legally read that person's mail? I think that name is pretty important.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675406)

You assume addresses are unambiguous. I live in a rural place, and my address is ", , ".

The name is the only thing that sets my house apart from any others in the village, the address could apply to anyone.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (2)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675550)

Almost but not quite, Look at it with the same logic that we do programming with protected\private members. If a letter is addressed to the occupent of 123 Raintree St then anyone living at that address can open it. If the same letter is addressed to John Smith at 123 Raintree St then we know that the letter had been addressed to a specific person.

The deciding factor here is if state law in Michigan grants any power of attorney like rights to a spouse in which case he's free and clear, or if his lawyer can convince the jury that reading his wifes e mail was in the interest of protecting the child. IANAL but given the hindsight from this stub, I think even I could pull that off in court.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (5, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675724)

Letter of the law? I believe so.

However, in practice, though mail addressed to you may have your name on it, it's the address that's important. As long as you live at that address, you can open that mail.

Err, not exactly. Slashdot-lawyering is always fun to watch.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6293417_federal-mail-not-addressed-you_.html [ehow.com]

In grotesque summary of a website's summary at the federal level "The statute is essentially about stealing mail from the Post Office.". In other words the feds pretty much don't care as long as there are no post office employees or post office property directly involved.

In the computer world that we live in, we all know and understand there is a desperate goal to re-legislate all our crimes with the words "on a computer" suffixed at great expense and publicity, etc. But in the real physical world, they mostly use general statutes which only tangentially happen to involve a piece of physical mail in this specific case.

So you might get charged with stealing, if you stole someones mail. Or identity theft if you do that, with someone elses mail. Or maybe some weird insider trading law, if thats what you do based on some stolen mail.

In other words the trial will be about them doing some naughtyness, and the stolen mail will be a piece of evidence. But there will be no charge of "opening the mail"

That being said, just as anyone can be civil sued for anything at any time by any one, the same applies to criminal court, although that doesn't mean it won't be thrown out with laughter by the judge, or involved as the start or end of a plea bargain, or tossed out on appeal by a sane judge.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675360)

Only in a hilariously fucked up relationship?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (4, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675386)

I don't think so. US Postal regulations forbid anyone other than the recipient to open the letter, until delivery. Once a letter is delivered, they don't care what happens to it. After all, I throw out junk mail addressed to my wife. Is that also a crime?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675598)

Please, don't give the junk mail senders ideas for their next lobbying move.

Be that as it may, Cooper is a lamer (4, Funny)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675602)

Prosecutor Jessica Cooper is totally lame and would not know what a real hacker is if she said "he had wonderful skills" vs he had mad skillz. Typical know-nothing government official.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675436)

opening someone else's mail is a crime however email does not enjoy the same legal protections as mail. even fedex and ups do not enjoy the same legal protections as usps mail.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675496)

Is email perceived to be a letter or a postcard?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675606)

Hmm... considering that accessing an email address requires you to verify that it's "really" you (i.e. you have to enter a password of some sort), my guess would be that it's closer to a letter with a sealed envelope. More so, because usually only you can open it, not (only) by law but by technical means.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675624)

Is email perceived to be a letter or a postcard?

I prefer to think of it as those jumbled up knots of wire and other assorted junk sent to Wired.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675774)

Is email perceived to be a letter or a postcard?

More like, is storing your password in a semi-secure at best web browser on a shared computer running an well known to be insecure OS when better alternatives are available, more like locked and secured door or more like a wide open gate into a public space very much like a park?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675590)

So if you care to be interested.. feel free to write some angry letters to the prosecutors office. I am, as a Michigan resident I feel there are bigger problems going on then a simple issue of invasion of privacy. More so where none should exist. As a local computer expert in my area, I routinely access computers that people have "forgotten" passwords too. That is more hacking then looking in a little book and reading the password.

info@oaklandprosecutor.org

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675644)

Such as Michigan's unemployment rate?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (-1, Flamebait)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675632)

It is unless your spouse is your property.

If you would like it not to be a crime, your rightful place is amidst the Taleban and in Saudi.

If you would like to live in a civilised society where privacy is a respected right, you have to live with the fact that _EVERYONE_ has a right to privacy. That includes your wife. It also includes the special case where you are sysadminning your home network. The fact that you have access to the mail log and to su and sudo does not suddenly give you the right to treat you wife as if she is wearing a burka and break into her $HOME.

Same goes the other way around with the minor difference that there are not that many matriarchical societies out there to be given as an example.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (5, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675788)

This might come as a surprise to you but you give up a lot of privacy to your spouse when you get married.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675842)

Is shooting a load of jizz into your spouse's stinky pink littering?

Not according to the federal government (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675852)

How many times have the Feds argued in court (or filings) that people have no expectation of privacy in emails?

Depends on prenap (1, Interesting)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675328)

If they agreed that their correspondence is not private from each other in a marriage contract, then it is not.

Re:Depends on prenap (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675370)

Pre-nap? You mean I'm bound by things I said before I first slept with her? Oh god.

Re:Depends on prenap (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675474)

The state of Michigan does not recognize prenuptual agreements. State law here recognizes, in effect, one generic marriage "contract", which is very vaguely defined. Michigan law *barely* defines how property is to be divided upon divorce. It certainly does not go in to any detail about the boundaries of privacy.

In practice, what happens in a Michigan divorce is that property is divided equally between "the parties", regardless of who filed, what caused the divorce, or either party's behavior during the marriage. Not an entirely unreasonable approach - family law judges have enough to sort out withou having to hear divorcing spouses' laundry list of grievances.

Michigan law *does* allow for unequal distribution of marital property in cases of egregious misconduct by one spouse. Presumably this is a "out" to allow one spouse to keep the marital property if the other spouse is convicted of trying to bump them off. But the bar for unequal distribution is set pretty high, meaning you pretty much have to have a felony conviction against your ex in order to get more than 50% of the family assets. Unfortunately, this means that the spouse who made the charges in this case has a financial interest in elevating the reading of spousal e-mail to the level of a felony.

DISCLOSURE: I am not a lawyer, but I was divorced in Michigan (more than the statute of limitations ago), and my ex tried to raise this same charge against me in family court. Judge and lawyers agreed at that time the was no clear statutory guidance on this issue, suggesting that the state courts will have to make this up as they go.

Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (2, Insightful)

Post-O-Matron (1273882) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675344)

What's next? Charging a husband who read his wifes diary. Oh yes there was a lock on it and he broke it. No that wouldn't reach court, but hackers - those smelly dodgy think they are smarter than us geek types - let's lock all of them up and throw away the key! They are terrorists! And they want to give away the fruit of all of hard work for free!

What the hell are they putting in your water?

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675376)

I agree that this goes a bit far, but...
My wife has the password for my email account. I don't know why she would need this but I gave it anyway.
Yet I do not appreciate her reading my email without my consent.

But would I ever sue her for that... Probably not.
I just get upset:).

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675508)

>My wife has the password for my email account.

hand over your geek badge, please

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675522)

It's either that or a long argument over trust that makes no sense to me:)

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675578)

Trust is not needing that password.

Lack of trust is asking for it.

End of.

Not sure what I would do in that situation.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675732)

Trust is not needing that password.

Lack of trust is asking for it.

End of.

Not sure what I would do in that situation.

This.

Perhaps I'm a bad husband, but my wife doesn't have any of my passwords, and I don't know any of hers. If she brought it up I would say the exact same thing as you said. If she takes offense, that is her problem.

Yeah, I haven't been married very long.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675642)

Then hand her a false password and accuse her of abusing your trust when she finds out.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675526)

Personally I think this case is a good thing. Her account, her cell phone, her diary..

Why should you give up all personal integrity just because you're in a relationship?

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675692)

Why should you give up all personal integrity just because you're in a relationship?

Shit man, because you already have, you already have.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (1)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675730)

I don't think that word means what you think it means

In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.

Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.

"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time.

Oh how I wish I could be on the jury. Reading the article - this is just a divorce getting a bit nasty.

This isn't a great case about privacy, or hacking, or any of that. Just one divorce attorney seeing an opening and going for the kill. He already knows his client will be a less than sympathetic character, so he's doing what he can to balance the playing field.

The Free Press is reporting it because it's racy. Sex, computers, hacking - Just like an episode of Law and Order! Her attorney is smart by not letting her talk to the Freep. She comes across as the injured party, when she's not.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (3, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675814)

She was having an affair with her abusive ex-husband. What integrity?

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675652)

If I broke the lock on your diary or the password on your email to read it, it would definitely be a crime.
If I broke the lock on my ex-wifes diary or the password on her email to read it, it would definitely be a crime.
The only question is wether their current problematic-but-still-legal marriage changes that or not.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675770)

Fluoride, for one. Apparently we're too stupid to brush our teeth, so they have to force us to ingest it every time we drink water, or buy our water bottled.

Witch burning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675350)

...'The guy is a hacker' said Cooper...

Then fry the bastard already!!

WTF is wrong with some people, really. Reading someone's email == a felony? Duh..

The conflict nation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675352)

It's the U.S. of today. Conflict everywhere. Women hating men. People abusing children. Tax dollars to kill Iraqis and Afghanis.

What a hacker! (5, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675362)

According to TFA, her email password was written down in a little book kept by the family computer. And yet, "The guy is a hacker" and "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained."

Really, I don't see how it can get any more ridiculous than this. I realize the prosecutor has to put on a show to support such ridiculous charges, but good lord...

Re:What a hacker! (2, Funny)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675380)

DUDE, Reading is hacking, don't you know anything about the US Legal term for hacking?!?

Re:What a hacker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675438)

DUDE, Reading is hacking, don't you know anything about the US Legal term for hacking?!?

You know why they call it the 2600, right? 'Cause there are 26 letters in the alphabet. The "double zero" represents "w00t", yo.

h4ck th3 g1bs0n!

educational system (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675680)

DUDE, Reading is hacking, don't you know anything about the US Legal term for hacking?!?

Given the state of large parts of the US educational system, I think reading could qualify as "wonderful skills" and being "highly trained".

Breathing (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675690)

I think breathing counts now too. Eating sugar, fat and salt are in a whole different area.

Re:What a hacker! (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675706)

DUDE, Reading is a wonderful skill and needs high training, don't you know anything about the US?!?

FTFY

Re:What a hacker! (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675782)

Eyeballs are an unauthorized decryption device!

Re:What a hacker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675828)

"Reading"?! What are you, a fag? Here in Merica we only watch the teevee!

Re:What a hacker! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675410)

Sounds more like the guy had a lousy defence team. Either that or it is was some crazy cowboy court where as soon as the hacker word was mentioned it was deemed over.

Re:What a hacker! (2)

DragonDru (984185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675460)

Charged not convicted. His defence team hasn't started to play yet.

Re:What a hacker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675418)

I love how Slashdotters play this down because it doesn't fit their definition of hacking yet when businesses require saftey screenings to stop known crimes in their own places of business the same people get up in arms about privacy concerns.

It gets harder and harder to take this kind of tripe seriously.

Re:What a hacker! (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675656)

What's one got to do with the other?

We're furious about this, let's say, "liberal" use of the term "hacker". By that definition, anyone able to read and open a mail program is a hacker.

That should be, like, everyone.

Re:What a hacker! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675426)

I think it would have been better for every one if he would have taken the low tech approach and beaten the crap out of her. Better for the kid, and less jail time if he would have gotten caught.

Re:What a hacker! (4, Funny)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675448)

"he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained."

Perhaps he's an MCSE??

Re:What a hacker! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675662)

I think an ECDL [wikipedia.org] would do.

Re:What a hacker! (1)

UDChris (242204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675464)

Plus, the laptop likely falls under "joint property," so it's legal for him to access the laptop in general. If she knowingly left her password where he could access it, it's highly unlikely that she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Still, the case could go to whether it's legal to read mail of ypur spouse in Michigan. He may have access to the mailbox but nott be authorized to read the contents.

Re:What a hacker! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675648)

Calm down, most likely the prosecutor is highly trained, too.

Re:What a hacker! (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675728)

You are missing the best part.
That he has wonderful computer skills because he could download and print the messages from googlemail.

Is the google email user interface so bad that you have to be highly trained to use it? Should we as computer professionals be worried that something as simple is considered needing a high level of training?

"Hacking" (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675364)

I am going to guess that either her password was easy to guess, or that he used a keystroke logging program to learn it. Either way, we are not talking about something that requires "wonderful skills," we are talking about something anyone could do. From the way the prosecutor is talking about him, you would think that this guy was involved in the Chinese government's Google hack.

Re:"Hacking" (4, Informative)

codegen (103601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675388)

I am going to guess that either her password was easy to guess, or that he used a keystroke logging program to learn it.

from the TFA, the wife kept the passwords written down in a book beside the computer.

Re:"Hacking" (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675402)

It's too early to RTFA!

In all seriousness, though, that still proves the point: this was not some kind of epic hack.

Re:"Hacking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675422)

Well In Firefox password are visible for all to see. You just have to open the browser and look in the option.
Further on if iGoogle is the wife's homepage than she surely is, by default, logged into her Google account, and then it only takes one click...

Re:"Hacking" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675442)

Wouldn't "the TFA" be a redundancy?

Re:"Hacking" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675552)

I just remembered I need to change my personal PIN number, and that my TCP protocol stack is giving me trouble with the Internet IP protocol.

Re:"Hacking" (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675678)

I had to deal with lawyers. For the average prosecutor, being able to guess a password or use a keylogging dongle would constitute "wonderful skills".

Considering... (4, Insightful)

ewhenn (647989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675412)

Considering that when you are married, in terms of property rights, you are considered a single legal entity, I honestly don't see how this would stand up in court.

Re:Considering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675512)

Wouldn't that mean trying to kill your wife is a suicide attempt?

Re:Considering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675584)

suicide is illegal in the U.S.

Re:Considering... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675688)

Why wouldn't I be surprised if anyone got sued in the US for killing himself...

Re:Considering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675718)

No, she is not your property.

Say your wife gets into a car accident and injures soemone beyond what your insurance covers, in civil court the victim can come after your home for financial restitution, even it was only in the husband's name.

Also, consider if your wife shoots and kills somebody. They won't imprison you (unless of course you were in on it).

Property law and criminal law are two entirely differnt animals.

Re:Considering... (0)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675556)

If my wife gets an important letter she's waiting for, while she's at work, I phone her to ask for permission to open it and read it to her.
It's one of the cornerstones of marriage that you respect the privacy of your partner, even if you're a jealous asshole.

Re:Considering... (1)

Dephex Twin (416238) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675752)

But can people normally be arrested for not being respectful to their partner?

Re:Considering... (1)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675848)

It is one of the cornerstones of your marriage. This guy's situation is a bit different, I bet. Count yourself fortunate

Better to keep quiet and have people think you are an idiot, rather than post and confirm our suspicions.

Is-ought fallacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675414)

Wait, are we asking whether reading your spouse's email IS a crime (in Michigan, at least), or whether it OUGHT to be a crime?

Whether it is a crime depends on the way the statute in question was written. I haven't even so much as read it, myself, and I'm quite happy with letting a court figure out whether the statute really covers what happens: that's precisely what we have courts for, after all. Of course, IF it is found that it IS indeed a crime, then we need to ask ourselves whether it OUGHT to be a crime (and the answer is not necessarily an immediate "yes" or "no") and, if necessary, have the law changed.

Re:Is-ought fallacy (3, Funny)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675450)

Wait, are we asking whether reading your spouse's email IS a crime (in Michigan, at least), or whether it OUGHT to be a crime?

This is slashdot. Laws are irrelevant here. Just stick IMHO in front of everything, including this paragraph, and you'll be fine.

Re:Is-ought fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675452)

Whether it is a crime depends on the way the statute in question was written.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Yes (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675416)

It's odd to see something this minor go to court, but... yes, why wouldn't it be illegal?

Really going to have to talk about the difference between "easy" and "legal".

Re:Yes (1)

synnthetic (103582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675626)

This is a FELONY charge. how is that "minor" ???

Doin' the Right Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675428)

It would have been best (for him) to simply leave. That woman is not a well person. Besides, if this man can't protect the child, what's the first husband going to be able to do, since she clearly has custody? (And this is assuming there was no 'vengeance' motive behind his act...)

And now he's facing a felony? Despite the prosecutor's claim of his "highly trained," "wonderful skills", he likely knew her password long before this incident. I wonder who owns the computer...

In ALABAMA It is, but only If you are BLACK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675430)

Go figure them 'Bamans.

They say in Enterprise (AL), if you are in a car, and black, you are under arrest. For what? For whatever they can think of. No shit.

Lots of rope still hangs from trees in Enterprise. That's where the song "Stange Fruit" was written. Billie Holiday managed to get away with performing it.

Southern trees bear strange fruit
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the popular trees

Pastoral scene of the gallant south
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop
Here is a strange and bitter cry

Weird, huh?

Stupid prosecution (5, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675468)

I think it is ridiculous that this is being brought as a criminal prosecution. If his ex-wife had brought a civil suit, I would still think he should win, but that would be a sensible case. The man's fear of the child being exposed to domestic violence (possibly even physical abuse of the child) was perfectly legitimate. I would really like to know why the prosecutor is really going after this man. It sounds personal.

Re:Stupid prosecution (4, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675490)

he successfully used a computer, which makes him a nerd. The prosecutor is a chick, and chicks hate nerds.

Re:Stupid prosecution (0)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675794)

chicks hate nerds

Because they're scared that some ugly four-eyed dwarf can look through all their slutty lies. Can't pretend to be a good girl after that.

Re:Stupid prosecution (4, Insightful)

VendettaMF (629699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675816)

>>I would really like to know why the prosecutor is
>>really going after this man. It sounds personal.

He located evidence that the mother is not the best suited of the two parents to keep custody of the child. In the US this is blasphemy of the highest order. He shall be stoned forthwith.

What About The Children? (4, Interesting)

cob666 (656740) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675486)

Imagine if the second husband DID assault the child? Then the new husband would be in trouble for NOT doing anything to prevent this atrocious act.

Funny that when we actually SHOULD be thinking about the children something else gets in the way.

Hey Hugh Pickens, (5, Insightful)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675492)

i.e. summary writer: learn to summarize better! Your first sentence had me so fucking confused. My mind as I read through that mess: "so he's the guy's husband, and he read his wife's email, he finds out his wife is having an affair with the second husband. Second husband? Oh, so do you mean the "hacker" is the first husband, and at the time the article was written, she's married to the guy she's been having an affair with? OK. But then he printed the emails and handed them to the woman's first husband. Wait, what? Isn't the hacker the first husband?"

You could have added ", who is Ciara Walker's third husband," in there to make the whole fucking thing easier to comprehend! I even RTFA to see if that incomprehensible mess was a copy/paste job, but lookie there: "Leon Walker was Clara Walker's third husband."

*mumble mumble kids and stupid American education these days.*

Re:Hey Hugh Pickens, (0)

Excelcior (1390167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675564)

Glad to see I wasn't the only one left with a 'huh?'. I just kept reading, because ultimately, it's irrelevant which husband he is. Hence... who cares if it makes sense?

Oh, wait, this is slashdot...

MOD PARENT UP +1 Informative (0)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675802)

And tag TFS "badsummary".

Light up the phones (1)

synnthetic (103582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675504)

http://www.oakgov.com/prosatty/index.html

Seriously.. Gmail gives a free phone account. Call the "prosecutor's office" and ask them if that's a felony crime.

A felony crime means no guns, and no voting for life in some states. It also means no job. Or good luck finding one.

BTW, a REAL person answers the phone !!!! please reply if you called and asked

Idle Story? (0)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675514)

Reading TFA, nothing convinces me that this story should come under YRA!! Idle perhaps????

America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675528)

...it was a good experiment, but we all knew this "freedom" thing was a farce that couldn't actually last....

The GUY was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675554)

a man! And pigs, I mean men, are always wrong. Why do you think I became a persecuter, I mean prosecutor?

Sexism? (4, Insightful)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675572)

In this particular case I wonder, if the wife had checked the husband's email and found out about an affair, would she have been charged with a felony too? This seems almost like an attempt to abuse the law for sexist purposes to me. Unless the prosecutor just needs attention.

Re:Sexism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675804)

if the wife had checked the husband's email and found out about an affair, would she have been charged with a felony too?

I should hope so.

Too bad this isn't happening in Detroit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675574)

You could just keep filing motions until the city went bankrupt. They already are cutting services to over half the city, so it wouldn't take that long either...

counter-sue (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675596)

If I was the email-reader, I'd just sue the beater saying that "He beats women".

So it would be an accusation of reading an email vs an accusation of beating a woman. The other parties will have much more to loose.

The other option would be to just plead guilty. Probably the judge will just give him a night behind bars or just let him go, if he's a first "offender".

it comes down to one thing (1)

andoman2000 (1755610) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675610)

He took the emails and turned them over to the first husband because she was cheating on the current husband with the second husband who had been convicted of physically abusing the wife (who I could care less about after reading the story) and kids from the first marriage. I think the governments stance is over the transfer of the information from the third husband to the first husband, were it should be banning this woman from re-marrying again since she's severely damaged goods.

detroit area prosecutors just looking for work? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675676)

detroit area prosecutors just looking for work? so it looks like they have a job to do?

I hope They get some smart people to do the jury duty.

He probably also setup the e-mail accounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675698)

Meaning they were really his, only he let his wife use it (them).

I opened all the e-mail accounts in my househould, including the ones used by my wife - so technically, they're all mine.

Too bad (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675766)

Too bad they didn't own their own business, courts have already ruled that your employer can read your email. Maybe he can have his wife arrested for stalking, because she keeps showing up wherever he is. It seems the real crime here is a prosecutor who would prosecute this in the first place. If I were the judge, I'd throw it out and issue a warning to the prosecutor not to waste the court's time when there is a backlog of real crimes that need to be dealt with.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?