a******9
发帖数: 1 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: YourDad (YourDad), 信区: Military
标 题: 说FBI不是选择性针对华人执法的可以看看数据
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Jan 15 23:03:09 2021, 美东)
这个早就有系统的研究了：
http://cardozolawreview.com/prosecuting-chinese-spies-an-empirical-analysis-of-the-economic-espionage-act/
摘要：
The average sentence for Chinese defendants convicted of espionage was
twenty-five months, while the average sentence for all Asians, including
Chinese and Other Asians, was twenty-two months, twice as long as defendants
with Western names, eleven months. Nearly half (48%) of defendants with
Western names received sentences of only probation, while only 21% of
Chinese and 22% of all Asian defendants received only probation.
Finally, this Study finds that 21% of Chinese and 22% of all Asian
defendants charged under the EEA are never proven guilty of espionage or any
other serious crime. Rather, the defendant is acquitted at trial, the
prosecutors drop all charges before trial, or the defendant pleaded guilty
to making false statements during the investigation and received a sentence
of only probation. In other words, as many as one in five Asian-Americans
accused of being spies may be innocent. The same can be said for only 11% of
defendants with Western names. The fact that these defendants were not
convicted of espionage does not, of course, necessarily mean they were not
guilty of espionage. Nonetheless, these statistically significant
differences may suggest that the DOJ is prosecuting innocent Asian
defendants far more frequently than those of other races.
Second, this Article argues that cases like Xi and Chen, in which
prosecutors file charges, continue their investigations, and then drop
charges after concluding they are innocent, occur essentially because
prosecutors file charges too early in the investigation when the evidence of
guilt is still weak. One possible explanation for why this occurs more
often with Asian-Americans is implicit bias. Essentially, prosecutors may be
more likely to view ambiguous evidence of guilt as conclusive when it
involves an Asian suspect because that evidence comports with their
preexisting image of Asians as spies. Rather than racial animus or
indifference, it may be that prosecutors are filing charges based on weaker
evidence because they honestly believe the evidence is stronger than it
really is.
Finally, this Article analyzes the issue of “pretextual prosecutions” in
the context of espionage prosecutions. As explained further in Part I, in
the Wen Ho Lee case, prosecutors accused a nuclear physicist of selling
secrets about America’s nuclear arsenal to the Chinese government.19 Lee
was charged with fifty-nine separate counts for which he could have received
life imprisonment.20 After holding Lee in solitary confinement for months,
prosecutors allowed him to plead guilty to one count of mishandling data,
for which he was sentenced to “time served,” and allowed this alleged
traitor to walk free that same day.21 Perhaps similarly, two defendants in
this Study’s sample, both Asian-American, were charged under the EEA but
were allowed to plead guilty to “false statements,” for which they
received sentences of probation only.22 The big question, of course, is
whether these convicted defendants were actually “spies.”
In what are known as “pretextual prosecutions,” prosecutors who believe,
but cannot prove, that a defendant is guilty of a serious offense will seek
conviction and punishment for a more minor offense.23 This strategy was most
famously employed in the case of Al Capone, the notorious gangster who was
suspected of numerous homicides but was ultimately convicted for tax evasion
.24 Scholars argue that such prosecutions are often fair and efficient
because the pretextual conviction effectively delivers just punishment for
the serious crimes of which she is likely guilty.25 In contrast, this
Article argues that the conviction of Asian-Americans falsely accused of
espionage for minor offenses will often impose unjust punishment. In such
cases, conviction for the lesser offense serves only to punish an otherwise
innocent defendant for prosecutors’ incorrect and possibly racially biased
suspicions. Moreover, punishing otherwise innocent researchers for making
false statements to federal investigators perversely discourages loyal Asian
-Americans from speaking with investigators, thus making it harder to
uncover actual espionage.26 Such harsh practices also discourage highly
qualified researchers from working in government laboratories, hampering the
creation of the very research they seek to protect.27 In the same way
racial profiling of African-Americans as criminals may create the crime of
“driving while black,”28 this Article argues that the profiling of Asian-
Americans as spies, combined with broad federal statutes like false
statements, may be creating a new crime: “researching while Asian.” |
|
