Google Engineer bails out student in jail(neil.fraser.name)
neil.fraser.name
Google Engineer bails out student in jail
http://neil.fraser.name/news/2010/12/23/
201 comments
Or a pretty serious opportunity, if you get to build/run prisons for a living. Given how corrupt US politics is, I'm sure the two are connected.
And a massive cash cow if you're selling the products of the cheap labour that goes on in US prisons.
http://www.cio.com/article/595304/Prison_Labor_Outsourcing_s...
http://newworkerfeatures.blogspot.com/2010/02/us-prison-labo...
Paying someone who you have in complete physical bondage under $1 an hour is slave labour as far as I'm concerned, even if it is nominally voluntary. At best its unconscionably exploitative. Add to that the fact that the US govt. is legally bound to prefer prison labour over any other for the production of body armour, weapons etc. for the security agencies.
EDIT: Here's another fun stat: america has more black people in prison than in college: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2223709.stm
Although we in the UK are definitely doing pretty well at emulating uncle sam: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/uk_prisons_...
http://www.cio.com/article/595304/Prison_Labor_Outsourcing_s...
http://newworkerfeatures.blogspot.com/2010/02/us-prison-labo...
Paying someone who you have in complete physical bondage under $1 an hour is slave labour as far as I'm concerned, even if it is nominally voluntary. At best its unconscionably exploitative. Add to that the fact that the US govt. is legally bound to prefer prison labour over any other for the production of body armour, weapons etc. for the security agencies.
EDIT: Here's another fun stat: america has more black people in prison than in college: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2223709.stm
Although we in the UK are definitely doing pretty well at emulating uncle sam: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/uk_prisons_...
It is slave labor. The US constitution bans slavery except for prisoners. Here is the text of the Thirteenth Amendment, Section 1: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
– edit: To add a bit more substance, here is an article about the recent Georgia prison strike and the Thirteenth Amendment: http://prisonlaw.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/prison-labor-and-t...
– edit: To add a bit more substance, here is an article about the recent Georgia prison strike and the Thirteenth Amendment: http://prisonlaw.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/prison-labor-and-t...
The Constitution prohibits slavery except as a punishment for crime. The punishment for each crime is set by a judge during sentencing after a guilty conviction and it is very specific. Sentencing a prisoner to punishment in the form of prison for 10 years is not the same as sentencing to punishment of slave labor for 10 years. The two are completely different. If a judge has not sentenced the prisoner to slave labor as punishment, it is not Constitutional to have prison slave labor.
Slave labor convictions for blacks were very common in the South from reconstruction up until World War II when they fell out of favor. For 70 years from 1870 to 1940 it was quite routine whenever slave laborers were needed for companies to pay local sheriffs to round up blacks on bogus charges such as loitering, convict them in sham trials, and then sell them to corporations to do hard labor 6 days a week 14 hours a day. This is extensively documented in Blackmon's "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II."
Slave labor convictions for blacks were very common in the South from reconstruction up until World War II when they fell out of favor. For 70 years from 1870 to 1940 it was quite routine whenever slave laborers were needed for companies to pay local sheriffs to round up blacks on bogus charges such as loitering, convict them in sham trials, and then sell them to corporations to do hard labor 6 days a week 14 hours a day. This is extensively documented in Blackmon's "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II."
The article I linked to claims that the language of the amendment bars legal challenges to unpaid or minimally paid prison labor. (It also mentions the book you mentioned.) The Thirteenth Amendment which is ostensibly about slavery would seem to ban prison labor outside of prisons. That’s the connection I wanted to make. Is there something to that?
I know that I’m casting a wide net. Prison labor is certainly not the same as slavery as it existed in the US decades ago. I do think, though, that I’m at least somewhat justified in calling prison labor slavery. Prisoners are forced to do it and they are not paid or paid very little. (This is not necessarily a moral judgment. Just because something meets some definition doesn’t mean it’s wrong.)
I know that I’m casting a wide net. Prison labor is certainly not the same as slavery as it existed in the US decades ago. I do think, though, that I’m at least somewhat justified in calling prison labor slavery. Prisoners are forced to do it and they are not paid or paid very little. (This is not necessarily a moral judgment. Just because something meets some definition doesn’t mean it’s wrong.)
"The Thirteenth Amendment which is ostensibly about slavery would seem to ban prison labor outside of prisons."
That seems like quite a stretch and isn't really consistent with the language.
That seems like quite a stretch and isn't really consistent with the language.
It seems like at least some law professors agree with you but courts have generally decided otherwise: http://prisonlaw.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/a-different-take-o...
That article starts with a reference to an earlier blog post which seems to be more in line with what you are saying. Perhaps in future you could read the articles you link to and include the relevant information? A link is not an argument in itself.
I already linked to and extensively quoted the other article this article links to a few levels higher up ;-)
If this continue, soon the US will become worse than the Soviet Gulag. Only 14 million people passed through the Gulag from 1929 to 1953, with a further 6 to 7 million being deported and exiled to remote areas of the USSR. In the US 7,225,800 people at yearend 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. cresident population, or 1 in every 32 adults.
(Source wikipedia.)
I also recommend reading Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie, on why the US should empty their prisons: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-10/ff_smartl...
(Source wikipedia.)
I also recommend reading Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie, on why the US should empty their prisons: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-10/ff_smartl...
to me that means that labor has to be ordered by the judge as part of the punishment
That’s what I thought when I first read the text but apparently not. Quote from the article I linked: “In light of its plain text, the Thirteenth Amendment has generally been interpreted to bar legal challenges to unpaid or minimally paid prison labor.”
I'm not so sure. If it's ordinary for prisoners to work for minimal compensation, and the judge orders you to go to prison, he has implicitly included the possibility of labor in that sentence. There are a lot of other aspects of prison that would not fly when you're dealing with a free person but which are generally considered to be implicit when you're sent to jail.
EDIT: Here's another fun stat: america has
more black people in prison than in college:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/
americas/2223709.stm
This claim is a little misleading - the absolute numbers are true (or close enough depending on your source) but it compares blacks in all age groups in jail with blacks going to college. If you limit the comparison to college-aged blacks, there are far more blacks in college then prison.
This claim is a little misleading - the absolute numbers are true (or close enough depending on your source) but it compares blacks in all age groups in jail with blacks going to college. If you limit the comparison to college-aged blacks, there are far more blacks in college then prison.
A good point. It is still not exactly encouraging that these two figures should be anywhere near each other, considering it is not only young people that should be going to college.
EDIT: I wonder what would happen if you injected the racial makeup of the prison/university management and staff into the calculations.
EDIT: I wonder what would happen if you injected the racial makeup of the prison/university management and staff into the calculations.
Two things you should consider:
1. Prison terms often last longer than the average university education.
2. Once you've finished your term in university, there's not much encouragement (regardless of racial group) to continue.
For example: You have a BS in Computer Science, and are now working. Why should you go back for a MS? Or a PHD? Or Post Doc?
1. Prison terms often last longer than the average university education.
2. Once you've finished your term in university, there's not much encouragement (regardless of racial group) to continue.
For example: You have a BS in Computer Science, and are now working. Why should you go back for a MS? Or a PHD? Or Post Doc?
Those are excellent points. The number of years of one's life spent in prison on average for the population vs number of years spent in college on average for the population might be one other way to look at it and it would come out looking even worse.
What about other racial groups?
what is college age though? there are plenty of 30 year olds who go to college
what is college age though?
18-24: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/c4/fig04-06.htm
there are plenty of 30 year olds who go to college
True, but the under 25 range makes up ~70% of college students (IIRC).
18-24: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/c4/fig04-06.htm
there are plenty of 30 year olds who go to college
True, but the under 25 range makes up ~70% of college students (IIRC).
Not really thinking creatively though.
Why replace children in a chinese sweatshopa earning 80c an hour with prisoners being paid $1 hour. Wouldn't it be more profitable to replace people being paid $1000/hour with prisoners at $1/hour?
Imprison the bankers, have them continue to work from prison for $1 - use profit to pay off national debt.
Why replace children in a chinese sweatshopa earning 80c an hour with prisoners being paid $1 hour. Wouldn't it be more profitable to replace people being paid $1000/hour with prisoners at $1/hour?
Imprison the bankers, have them continue to work from prison for $1 - use profit to pay off national debt.
"Given how corrupt US politics is, I'm sure the two are connected."
Prisons get to extend the sentences of inmates if they test positive for drugs while in prison. Guess whether it's public or private prisons where inmates are on average 8 times more likely to test positive for drug use.
http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/...
Prisons get to extend the sentences of inmates if they test positive for drugs while in prison. Guess whether it's public or private prisons where inmates are on average 8 times more likely to test positive for drug use.
http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/...
There's perverse incentive for them to allow drugs into their prisons if they benefit when inmates fail drug tests.
Unfortunately, its not just those building and running the prisons. In 2009, a pair of judges outside of Philly pleaded guilty to accepting $2.6M in kickbacks from private detention centers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/14judge.html
BONUS: These were children.
The interesting thing is that for a lot of crimes, prison is ment as a time for rehabilitation. If the people that run the prison only make money if you come back again (or stay there), the situation changes slightly...
And yet, somehow, over the last 20 years the crime rate in the US has dropped tremendously. Every single one of those prisoners was convicted of some crime or another by a comparatively just court system.
The underlying problem--criminality in some American cultures--is difficult and rather unique to the United States. Other rich countries are more culturally homogenous and hence suffer less criminality, though that's changing if you look, for instance, at Scandinavia, where the rate of rapes has risen dramatically as more and more Muslims immigrate there.
The underlying problem--criminality in some American cultures--is difficult and rather unique to the United States. Other rich countries are more culturally homogenous and hence suffer less criminality, though that's changing if you look, for instance, at Scandinavia, where the rate of rapes has risen dramatically as more and more Muslims immigrate there.
And yet, somehow, over the last 20 years the crime rate in
the US has dropped tremendously.
[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-t...
[2] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-pris...
This is where the lack of controlled experimentation makes the data harder to read. To match the Dutch imprisonment rate, the US would have to release some 84% of its prison population, or in other words, to not have imprisoned those people to begin with. But if we did that, the crime rate would be different because, presumably, at least some of those people would have gone on to commit crimes!
I'll readily concede that at least half, maybe 60% of the US prison population is only locked up for drug offenses, and that legalizing drugs by the end of this week won't affect the rates of other crimes[1]. 84% seems high.
[1] I couldn't easily find any good breakdown of what all these people are imprisoned for, and would appreciate it. That said, as much I'm in favor of drug legalization, drug possession and sale is still a crime, and it's also a crime in nearly every other country you're comparing crime rates to.
I'll readily concede that at least half, maybe 60% of the US prison population is only locked up for drug offenses, and that legalizing drugs by the end of this week won't affect the rates of other crimes[1]. 84% seems high.
[1] I couldn't easily find any good breakdown of what all these people are imprisoned for, and would appreciate it. That said, as much I'm in favor of drug legalization, drug possession and sale is still a crime, and it's also a crime in nearly every other country you're comparing crime rates to.
That makes your argument circular: you suggest that the US has higher criminality and this justifies the larger prison population; but faced with statistics that show it's not particularly higher, you now suggest the criminality would be higher if the prison population were lower.
In other words, the prison population is large because there are more criminal actors; and there are more criminal actors, because there is a large prison population.
In other words, the prison population is large because there are more criminal actors; and there are more criminal actors, because there is a large prison population.
It's easy to make it look like that when you ignore leading and lagging indicators. Someone might be in prison today because of a crime they committed in 1990. Obviously, their being in prison has nothing to do with the 2010 crime rate and a little bit to do with the 1990 crime rate. In 1990, the US did have higher criminality!
My point, though, was that it's not a controlled experiment to compare the US and the Netherlands. It would be a controlled experiment to compare the US to an alternate universe US where, for whatever reason, we didn't incarcerate 84% of the current US prison population.
The US imprisons maybe six times as many people, per capita, as a Western European country. The question is why. Obviously, actual criminality has to play into this, unless the US wrongfully convicts many times more innocent people than Western European countries do. Longer sentences also play into this, though--it will obviously increase the prison population (or, more precisely, stop it from decreasing) but it will also decrease the crime rate by preventing prisoners from committing crimes in open society.
My point, though, was that it's not a controlled experiment to compare the US and the Netherlands. It would be a controlled experiment to compare the US to an alternate universe US where, for whatever reason, we didn't incarcerate 84% of the current US prison population.
The US imprisons maybe six times as many people, per capita, as a Western European country. The question is why. Obviously, actual criminality has to play into this, unless the US wrongfully convicts many times more innocent people than Western European countries do. Longer sentences also play into this, though--it will obviously increase the prison population (or, more precisely, stop it from decreasing) but it will also decrease the crime rate by preventing prisoners from committing crimes in open society.
Criminals are created by (a) laws, (b) their transgression, and (c) their enforcement. You seem to think that the whole issue is in (b) - that there's something about the US that causes more people to act unlawfully, to transgress. Have you considered other possibilities, such as unjust laws, or unequal application of laws?
Besides that, there's social issues, whereby subgroups are disadvantaged and have fewer opportunities for lawful profit in life. It could be that these social issues are the same in the US as elsewhere, but the US invests in prisons rather than welfare, for self-defeating political reasons.
Besides that, there's social issues, whereby subgroups are disadvantaged and have fewer opportunities for lawful profit in life. It could be that these social issues are the same in the US as elsewhere, but the US invests in prisons rather than welfare, for self-defeating political reasons.
It's certainly the case that (b) is a major role. Forget about convictions - lets just look at crimes. The US murder rate is 5/100,000 people, Britain, Denmark and similar countries have about 1/100,000 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
The reason why we are different from much of Europe isn't a secret, it's just taboo to discuss. Most of our crime is confined to a small subset of our population and this subset is mostly absent from Europe.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_informati...
(I'm focusing on murder because while things like drugs might be counted differently between the US and Britain, dead bodies with knife holes probably aren't.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
The reason why we are different from much of Europe isn't a secret, it's just taboo to discuss. Most of our crime is confined to a small subset of our population and this subset is mostly absent from Europe.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_informati...
(I'm focusing on murder because while things like drugs might be counted differently between the US and Britain, dead bodies with knife holes probably aren't.)
> The US murder rate is 5/100,000 people, Britain, Denmark and similar countries have about 1/100,000 people.
Depends which crimes you look at. Britain, for example, has a higher overall rate of violent crime than the US.
Depends which crimes you look at. Britain, for example, has a higher overall rate of violent crime than the US.
UK murder rate is 1.4/100000
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murde...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murde...
Violent crime is a broader category than murder. Although the UK has a lower murder rate than the US, it has a higher overall rate of violent crime.
> [Murder conviction is proportionately much higher in Black people]
What happens when you control for income?
In Europe, race appears to play a major role in criminality, unless you take wealth into account. Models controlling for social factors don't reveal any significant race effect.
Poverty is the real culprit. I wouldn't be surprised if this transfered to the US.
What happens when you control for income?
In Europe, race appears to play a major role in criminality, unless you take wealth into account. Models controlling for social factors don't reveal any significant race effect.
Poverty is the real culprit. I wouldn't be surprised if this transfered to the US.
"Most of our crime is confined to a small subset of our population and this subset is mostly absent from Europe."
According to those figures, the most effective way to lower the homicide rate is to get rid of men.
According to those figures, the most effective way to lower the homicide rate is to get rid of men.
If the subset you're talking about is blacks and maybe other racial minorities, I have to disagree with you.
This subset is far from being "mostly absent" from Spain, UK, Portugal, Italy, France, Netherlands, and Germany for example.
What subset are you talking?
The link you provided to fbi.gov doesn't indicate it.
The link you provided to fbi.gov doesn't indicate it.
It's murder rate by race. Black people account for 15%-20% of the US population, while white people account for about 60%, yet their tallies are nearly the same.
It's not really taboo if rationally discussed in a small group (like a college classroom) since there's a long and complicated history surrounding the contributing factors which have been fairly unique to the Americas, but in an open forum on the internet it's practically impossible without moderators.
It's not really taboo if rationally discussed in a small group (like a college classroom) since there's a long and complicated history surrounding the contributing factors which have been fairly unique to the Americas, but in an open forum on the internet it's practically impossible without moderators.
Well, let's consider (a) and (c). We're comparing statistics to other Western countries, and other Western countries have largely the same criminal laws the US does. Some of them legalize prostitution more than the US does, but everything else (violent crimes, property crimes, drug crimes) that's illegal in the US is illegal in the countries we're comparing the US with. So that rules out (a) for the purpose of this discussion.
(c) doesn't create criminals so much as it creates prisoners. (c) is bounded by (b) in one respect, but in another respect, you can unjustly change aspects of (c) through longer sentences. There is evidence of this, if you look at some of the differences in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine.
The social issues you cite are probably a big part of (b), though. It's easier for these disadvantaged subgroups to arise when you have cultural heterogeneity (since the society has to have some way of distinguishing a subgroup in order to disadvantage it) but there's definitely room to say the US has answered those challenges poorly throughout history.
(c) doesn't create criminals so much as it creates prisoners. (c) is bounded by (b) in one respect, but in another respect, you can unjustly change aspects of (c) through longer sentences. There is evidence of this, if you look at some of the differences in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine.
The social issues you cite are probably a big part of (b), though. It's easier for these disadvantaged subgroups to arise when you have cultural heterogeneity (since the society has to have some way of distinguishing a subgroup in order to disadvantage it) but there's definitely room to say the US has answered those challenges poorly throughout history.
While criminal laws are similar, punishment might be more severe in the USA. The same crime which leads to several years in prison in the US might result in a fine in the Netherlands. I have no statistics to back this up so I can’t tell you whether that‘s actually the case but I think it’s important to note that the mere existence of the same crimes in the criminal law of different countries is not sufficient to decide the question.
> Some of them legalize prostitution more than the US does, but everything else (violent crimes, property crimes, drug crimes) that's illegal in the US is illegal in the countries we're comparing the US with. So that rules out (a) for the purpose of this discussion.
I'm not so sure about that. You'll not go to jail for possession of small quantities of drugs in Denmark, but you might in the US?
I'm not so sure about that. You'll not go to jail for possession of small quantities of drugs in Denmark, but you might in the US?
Absolutely! I'm not going to throw around a figure I'm not sure of, but there are a stunning amount of people in American prisons for non-violent possession charges.
What a horrendous farce!
What a horrendous farce!
There are people in prison with a life sentence in the US because they were carrying some marijuana and it's their third strike. What european countries also do this?
There are people in prison in the US because they were 18 and they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend. What european countries also do this?
There are people in prison in the US because they were 18 and they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend. What european countries also do this?
I'd suggest that our living arrangement (get isolated from community, earn and spend money to purchase a simulacrum of what community used to provide) has a lot to do with the bleakness of American life, and bleakness is probably a bigger predictor of criminality than anything else. If you want to fix the US, go back 60 years and fight highway and auto subsidies.
Given that crime rates are vastly higher in walkable urban settings than sprawling suburbs, I'd suggest that highway subsidies are a poor indicator of crime rates.
Violent crime rates in the US are really high in rural areas right now due to drugs and gang activity.
Possible explanation: the highway subsidies led to the middle and upper-middle classes leaving the cities, leaving only those too poor to afford a move (because they can't afford the added transportation costs, etc.).
Of course, possession and use of drugs is not a crime in the Netherlands (selling them is illegal for hard drugs and soft drugs above a certain quantity). That explains away part of the difference. If you consider fewer things to be crimes then you have less criminals. Dutch laws are also more tolerant on things like prostitution (if not forced), euthanasia (if properly executed), underage drinking (not in a bar), and a few others.
A clear side effect of being in prison is that you are more likely to get the wrong friends and less chance of a job which leads to more crime. Rinse & repeat. That explains away a lot of the rest.
A clear side effect of being in prison is that you are more likely to get the wrong friends and less chance of a job which leads to more crime. Rinse & repeat. That explains away a lot of the rest.
However, I picked The Netherlands from the list because it was closest to the US and has a higher crime rate than Germany, France, Canada, etc. You can substitute any of those in my argument and it still holds.
You can reduce the prison population by giving out smaller prison terms.
Taking a look at the definition of Crimes per capita it states: "Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population.".
According to the crime statistics for The Netherlands the rape victims rate is 0.8% versus 0.4% for the united states [1] (its definition being: "People victimized by sexual assault (as a % of the total population)". However looking at the rapes per capita[2] The Netherlands has 0.1 per 1000 vs 0.3 for the US.
Additionally the murder rate in the US is about 5 times higher than in The Netherlands[3]. The Dutch rate is without attempts, but still I doubt if it would get even close to that in the US.
[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-vic...
[2] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
According to the crime statistics for The Netherlands the rape victims rate is 0.8% versus 0.4% for the united states [1] (its definition being: "People victimized by sexual assault (as a % of the total population)". However looking at the rapes per capita[2] The Netherlands has 0.1 per 1000 vs 0.3 for the US.
Additionally the murder rate in the US is about 5 times higher than in The Netherlands[3]. The Dutch rate is without attempts, but still I doubt if it would get even close to that in the US.
[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-vic...
[2] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
Many of those crimes are drug crimes, which are only a crime because we've chosen to make them so. It's not all that hard to change a law to make a certain group of people whose habits you dislike criminals.
All crimes are crimes because we decided to make them so.
Depends on your definition of "decide." Some things are crimes because it is in human nature to revile them, and to enforce social mores against them.
What things exactly? Killing people? That is widely supported through ongoing wars, trade embargoes, abortion, and the death penalty.
Rape? What we call rape in many states in the USA, an 18 yr old having consensual sex with a 16 yr old, is accepted in other parts of the world. Or let's take Sweden's definition, having consensual sex without a condom. That's not against the law in most places. Pedophilia? Anthropologists claim found that it is common and accepted in Polynesia and other cultures. Cannibalism? Again, supposedly many cultures practice it and consider it an acceptable and beneficial practice.
What exactly is universally reviled by human nature? Copraphilia? That's not illegal though.
Rape? What we call rape in many states in the USA, an 18 yr old having consensual sex with a 16 yr old, is accepted in other parts of the world. Or let's take Sweden's definition, having consensual sex without a condom. That's not against the law in most places. Pedophilia? Anthropologists claim found that it is common and accepted in Polynesia and other cultures. Cannibalism? Again, supposedly many cultures practice it and consider it an acceptable and beneficial practice.
What exactly is universally reviled by human nature? Copraphilia? That's not illegal though.
The most obvious case is property theft. Everyone feels some sort of base emotional sting when something that they have grown attached to is forcefully taken away from them. This can be generalized to conceptual belongings: pride, control, honor, dignity, etc. can also be "stolen" in various ways.
The more serious immoral acts, however, of the kind that leave their subjects unable to emote (whether because they are dead, in a coma, "brainwashed", or whatever else) have to be analyzed from an in-group vs. out-group perspective. Given a "tribal unit", murder by outsiders of the tribe, to insiders in the tribe is universally reviled by tribe members. As we all (except sociopaths) mentally assign ourselves one or more tribes, this is generalizable back to all of humanity.
The more serious immoral acts, however, of the kind that leave their subjects unable to emote (whether because they are dead, in a coma, "brainwashed", or whatever else) have to be analyzed from an in-group vs. out-group perspective. Given a "tribal unit", murder by outsiders of the tribe, to insiders in the tribe is universally reviled by tribe members. As we all (except sociopaths) mentally assign ourselves one or more tribes, this is generalizable back to all of humanity.
People support taxes and welfare though. Taxation is theft plain and simple. So again, although some are opposed to the theft of taxation, not all are, and so it's not true there is universal revulsion for property theft. Also theft of even people's houses and land via eminent domain seizures, or of cars through police confiscations against the innocent are supported by some and not by others.
[deleted]
There are definitely elements of this involved; I just challenge the idea that this is the whole story. If you're comparing the US to a country where drugs are legal, of course the US crime and incarceration rates are going to be higher on account of that fact. That's not the comparison being offered, though.
You don't realize how lax drug sentences are in other countries.
In canada, people caught with kilos of coke get house arrest.
There was a guy caught with 500kg of MDMA in his backyard kitchen and he got house arrest.
People don't go to jail for drug crimes - they usually get community service or house arrest.
Certainly for possession NO ONE goes to jail in Canada, but I've read that in the US people with a gram of weed have been sent to jail. WTF?
Or for that matter, two hits of crack, and you get like 10 years or something ridiculous.
In canada it's almost impossible to actually serve jailtime for a possession charge, and even trafficking charges are often not met with incarceration but rather conditions.
In canada, people caught with kilos of coke get house arrest.
There was a guy caught with 500kg of MDMA in his backyard kitchen and he got house arrest.
People don't go to jail for drug crimes - they usually get community service or house arrest.
Certainly for possession NO ONE goes to jail in Canada, but I've read that in the US people with a gram of weed have been sent to jail. WTF?
Or for that matter, two hits of crack, and you get like 10 years or something ridiculous.
In canada it's almost impossible to actually serve jailtime for a possession charge, and even trafficking charges are often not met with incarceration but rather conditions.
Drugs are not legal in Denmark.
Yes, that was roughly my point. If drugs were legal in Denmark, we'd be able to say "of course the US crime and imprisonment rates are higher than Denmark's because the US considers drug use to be a crime and Denmark doesn't". But, since drugs are illegal in Denmark, Danish drug dealers contribute to the Danish crime rate (and imprisonment rate, when caught) just as American drug dealers contribute to the American crime rate (and imprisonment rate, when caught).
Not only drug crimes, but drug-related violence as well.
"Comparatively just court system" !? Dude pull your head out of your ass, you're drinking some really dangerous Kool Aid. How was this 17 year old kid treated with any justice? The cops destroyed his private property and ruined his family's life to protect their own power-tripping asses.
The core of being American should be to question and challenge authority at every opportunity. It's why we have the First and Second Amendments. It makes me sick that so many Americans are spineless slaves to this dying corrupt government.
The core of being American should be to question and challenge authority at every opportunity. It's why we have the First and Second Amendments. It makes me sick that so many Americans are spineless slaves to this dying corrupt government.
>Every single one of those prisoners was convicted of some crime or another by a comparatively just court system.
Like this one?
Like this one?
This one isn't a prisoner because he hasn't been convicted.
In the US system, there's a distinction between jail (i.e. pre-trial detention) and prison (i.e. post-conviction incarceration).
In the US system, there's a distinction between jail (i.e. pre-trial detention) and prison (i.e. post-conviction incarceration).
True, though they both have massive effects on ones life and others' view of them (especially professionally). It's nearly as bad, especially after 7 months.
You seem to be saying that if we got rid of all the blacks and muslims we'd have far less crime. Did I misread you?
You seem to be accusing me of racism rather than offering a counterargument. Did I misread you?
Cultural homogeneity and its effects on crime transcend race. European immigration to the US during the 19th and 20th centuries were linked to crime as well. Usually, the dominant cultures in a heterogenous society will exclude and oppress minority populations, which leads to poverty and desperation. The problem really is cultural heterogeneity, not anybody's race. Acceptance of minority populations into the greater culture solves the problem much more effectively than any kind of antagonistic separatism, that's for sure.
Plus, assuming cultural heterogeneity leads to higher crime doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. I happen to think the benefits of a diverse, heterogenous society outweigh the costs. That doesn't mean the costs don't exist.
EDIT: In particular, check this link out: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-t...
There are countries with majority Muslim populations with lower-than-average crime rates--check out Turkey and Tunisia, as do countries with majority black populations--check out Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Jamaica. Obviously Islam, or blackness, isn't the problem here.
Cultural homogeneity and its effects on crime transcend race. European immigration to the US during the 19th and 20th centuries were linked to crime as well. Usually, the dominant cultures in a heterogenous society will exclude and oppress minority populations, which leads to poverty and desperation. The problem really is cultural heterogeneity, not anybody's race. Acceptance of minority populations into the greater culture solves the problem much more effectively than any kind of antagonistic separatism, that's for sure.
Plus, assuming cultural heterogeneity leads to higher crime doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. I happen to think the benefits of a diverse, heterogenous society outweigh the costs. That doesn't mean the costs don't exist.
EDIT: In particular, check this link out: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-t...
There are countries with majority Muslim populations with lower-than-average crime rates--check out Turkey and Tunisia, as do countries with majority black populations--check out Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Jamaica. Obviously Islam, or blackness, isn't the problem here.
That link seems suspect to me. India is rife with crime. Daily life, even for rich people, involves lots of activities that would be crimes in a Western country, particularly official corruption.
Anyway, you spoke in terms of "criminality in some American cultures", which sounds like a euphemism, since you neglected to name them. Although you followed it up with your hetereogenity thesis I (like many readers) was already lost.
I do agree that it is the rifts between groups that ultimately cause all the problems. However, who's really to blame for that? America's slave-descended population have been in the country for over 500 years. By any normal expectations, their original culture should have been completely blended with the mainstream culture hundreds of years ago. And a large extent this is true of those blacks that enter the middle class and beyond. But for those that are trapped in a ghetto lifestyle -- with ghetto attitudes -- I don't think you can attribute that up to cultural differences. That's circular reasoning again. Something else is keeping the cultures separate.
I think we should be open to the idea that the forces keeping the cultures separate are both external and internal to the black community in America. Still, anecdotally speaking, as a Canadian I find the racism in America to be pretty breathtaking. White Americans, whether liberal or conservative, take it as a given that there's always some part of the city dominated by blacks where gunfire is heard at night and the cops are afraid to go. If you probe even a little bit you find that most white Americans, even nominally liberal ones, think blacks have lower capacities than they do. This seems to me, with my Canadian attitudes, like a shocking abandonment of a large part of your citizenry.
In any case, heterogenity doesn't always lead to a higher crime rate. Toronto is over 38% immigrant [1] and yet has a low crime rate. Montreal has been riven by cultural heterogenity (between English, French, and others) ever since the 1700s, and yet has an even lower crime rate. [2] I'm not saying Canada is perfect in this regard, and it is a pretty universal rule that the newest immigrant population has a higher rate of crime and organized crime. But, unscientifically, it seems to me that the availability of better social services, less inequality, more equitable law enforcement, plus a very strong tradition that the norm of "Canadian" isn't any particular race [3], must all be factors in mitigating this.
[1] http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/multi/
[2] http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm
[3] Even the gangs in Canada are sometimes multiracial: the "United Nations" gang is famous for this. http://www.vancouversun.com/Gallery+gang/1350012/story.html
Anyway, you spoke in terms of "criminality in some American cultures", which sounds like a euphemism, since you neglected to name them. Although you followed it up with your hetereogenity thesis I (like many readers) was already lost.
I do agree that it is the rifts between groups that ultimately cause all the problems. However, who's really to blame for that? America's slave-descended population have been in the country for over 500 years. By any normal expectations, their original culture should have been completely blended with the mainstream culture hundreds of years ago. And a large extent this is true of those blacks that enter the middle class and beyond. But for those that are trapped in a ghetto lifestyle -- with ghetto attitudes -- I don't think you can attribute that up to cultural differences. That's circular reasoning again. Something else is keeping the cultures separate.
I think we should be open to the idea that the forces keeping the cultures separate are both external and internal to the black community in America. Still, anecdotally speaking, as a Canadian I find the racism in America to be pretty breathtaking. White Americans, whether liberal or conservative, take it as a given that there's always some part of the city dominated by blacks where gunfire is heard at night and the cops are afraid to go. If you probe even a little bit you find that most white Americans, even nominally liberal ones, think blacks have lower capacities than they do. This seems to me, with my Canadian attitudes, like a shocking abandonment of a large part of your citizenry.
In any case, heterogenity doesn't always lead to a higher crime rate. Toronto is over 38% immigrant [1] and yet has a low crime rate. Montreal has been riven by cultural heterogenity (between English, French, and others) ever since the 1700s, and yet has an even lower crime rate. [2] I'm not saying Canada is perfect in this regard, and it is a pretty universal rule that the newest immigrant population has a higher rate of crime and organized crime. But, unscientifically, it seems to me that the availability of better social services, less inequality, more equitable law enforcement, plus a very strong tradition that the norm of "Canadian" isn't any particular race [3], must all be factors in mitigating this.
[1] http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/multi/
[2] http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm
[3] Even the gangs in Canada are sometimes multiracial: the "United Nations" gang is famous for this. http://www.vancouversun.com/Gallery+gang/1350012/story.html
Still, anecdotally speaking, as a Canadian I find the racism in America to be pretty breathtaking. White Americans, whether liberal or conservative, take it as a given that there's always some part of the city dominated by blacks where gunfire is heard at night and the cops are afraid to go. If you probe even a little bit you find that most white Americans, even nominally liberal ones, think blacks have lower capacities than they do. This seems to me, with my Canadian attitudes, like a shocking abandonment of a large part of your citizenry.
Wow, so you just did what Americans are always accused of doing - paint large groups of people with one giant brush.
True racism in America I think has shrunk considerably. The problem is that racism is now commonly used to label any not so nice statistics about any given group of people. Years ago when Bill Cosby pointed out that strong families raised better kids he was called racist. He was just looking at the facts that over 1/2 of the single parent families out there are black[1], and kids from single parent families generally don't do as well as those from a 2 parent family.
When it comes to bad areas in large cities nearly every city has at least one such area, although racial groups may differ. There used to be places in LA where simply wearing a blue or red shirt will get you shot. This is not something made up or in the minds of white people. Even when I lived in a smallish city it had streets or areas that even police avoided. Heck, even my black friends avoided the area.
I also strongly disagree that 'most white Americans' think blacks have lower capacities than they do. That's complete BS. I don't know anyone who thinks that, and I certainly don't think that is true.
[1] http://family.jrank.org/pages/1574/Single-Parent-Families-De...
Wow, so you just did what Americans are always accused of doing - paint large groups of people with one giant brush.
True racism in America I think has shrunk considerably. The problem is that racism is now commonly used to label any not so nice statistics about any given group of people. Years ago when Bill Cosby pointed out that strong families raised better kids he was called racist. He was just looking at the facts that over 1/2 of the single parent families out there are black[1], and kids from single parent families generally don't do as well as those from a 2 parent family.
When it comes to bad areas in large cities nearly every city has at least one such area, although racial groups may differ. There used to be places in LA where simply wearing a blue or red shirt will get you shot. This is not something made up or in the minds of white people. Even when I lived in a smallish city it had streets or areas that even police avoided. Heck, even my black friends avoided the area.
I also strongly disagree that 'most white Americans' think blacks have lower capacities than they do. That's complete BS. I don't know anyone who thinks that, and I certainly don't think that is true.
[1] http://family.jrank.org/pages/1574/Single-Parent-Families-De...
>When it comes to bad areas in large cities nearly every city has at least one such area. [...] This is not something made up or in the minds of white people.
I think neilk is aware of that. I took his point to be that it is surprising that Americans accept this as a normal fact of life.
I think neilk is aware of that. I took his point to be that it is surprising that Americans accept this as a normal fact of life.
Yeah, exactly. And living in the Bay Area really makes that plain.
I lived with a friend in San Francisco's Potrero Hill / Dogpatch neighborhood. The north side of the hill is one of the most desirable areas of the city and is one of those deliberately quaint neighborhoods that is pretty much 100% white. The south side has low-cost housing and is almost as uniformly black. [1]
My friend lived very near the top of the hill, where the character abruptly changed. Police sirens were common, but since it was all over on the other side of the hill, everything was okay and nobody even felt unsafe. Apparently whoever it is that makes trouble on that side knows never to come over to the other side, presumably since the police will bring down the hammer much harder.
Taking the bus into the city was embarrassing. The bus started on the "black side" and then came over to the "white side" on its way downtown. And half a century after Rosa Parks, the bus was voluntarily segregated with blacks at the rear. I got on the first "white" stop and was stunned to see how, every day, the entire bus was filled at the back with nobody at the front. One day I went to a different bus stop (just three blocks over!) and got a lot of stares, because this was obviously a "black" stop and I'd crossed the line.
I'm not saying Canada does it much better -- ethnic ghettos exist, and are often encouraged by realtors or even government policies. But I always felt like, in Canada, we all sort of knew that was a bad situation that had to be rectified eventually. If you asked a typical Obama-loving resident of Potrero Hill if they lived in some kind of cultural standoff that amounted to a separate regime for their black neighbors, they'd be shocked and offended.
[1] Race map of the Bay Area: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4981425631/
I lived with a friend in San Francisco's Potrero Hill / Dogpatch neighborhood. The north side of the hill is one of the most desirable areas of the city and is one of those deliberately quaint neighborhoods that is pretty much 100% white. The south side has low-cost housing and is almost as uniformly black. [1]
My friend lived very near the top of the hill, where the character abruptly changed. Police sirens were common, but since it was all over on the other side of the hill, everything was okay and nobody even felt unsafe. Apparently whoever it is that makes trouble on that side knows never to come over to the other side, presumably since the police will bring down the hammer much harder.
Taking the bus into the city was embarrassing. The bus started on the "black side" and then came over to the "white side" on its way downtown. And half a century after Rosa Parks, the bus was voluntarily segregated with blacks at the rear. I got on the first "white" stop and was stunned to see how, every day, the entire bus was filled at the back with nobody at the front. One day I went to a different bus stop (just three blocks over!) and got a lot of stares, because this was obviously a "black" stop and I'd crossed the line.
I'm not saying Canada does it much better -- ethnic ghettos exist, and are often encouraged by realtors or even government policies. But I always felt like, in Canada, we all sort of knew that was a bad situation that had to be rectified eventually. If you asked a typical Obama-loving resident of Potrero Hill if they lived in some kind of cultural standoff that amounted to a separate regime for their black neighbors, they'd be shocked and offended.
[1] Race map of the Bay Area: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4981425631/
I hear gunshots in my North Portland neighborhood - in one weekend 3 people were shot and killed this last summer. My neighborhood is the predominant black neighborhood in Portland. Now, I don't believe it's black/white but driven instead by poverty and lack of education, however these areas exist. Granted, even though I have heard gunshots and people have been shot I still consider this neighborhood relatively safe. I don't live in the "real hood" like you'll find in Chicago, LA etc, and the cops certainly aren't afraid to be here (they dropped a precinct a few blocks away to help with the crime rate).
As a counterpoint (Canadian.. living in Toronto). There is a good chunk of people growing up (my age... university age) that just assumes every city with a significant non-white population will have some region where the poor of the non-white people end up shooting at each other. Toronto has/had these areas (Jane and Finch ring a bell?). Vancouver has these areas. Montreal does too. It's no where as bad as the crime rates you'll see in other North American cities (well, except Vancouver...), but that's the feel.
Also... if you leave Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal (and few other big urban centers), there actually is a very strong tradition of Canadian being a white christian.
You're painting everyone with overly broad stereotypical brushes. Nothing makes a Canadian look as lame as possible as going out trashing talking Americans armed with stereotypes and stuff they remembered from Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans.
Also... if you leave Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal (and few other big urban centers), there actually is a very strong tradition of Canadian being a white christian.
You're painting everyone with overly broad stereotypical brushes. Nothing makes a Canadian look as lame as possible as going out trashing talking Americans armed with stereotypes and stuff they remembered from Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans.
You're right, the situation in Canada is changing. And I am older than you so perhaps my attitudes are outdated. When I hear about such areas developing in Vancouver I think of it as some sort of un-Canadian cancer, perhaps caused by recent adoption of US-style policies.
That said, I know what I'm talking about. I'm an insufferable do-gooder who has volunteered to teach in East Vancouver, and I've had friends and significant others who are artists using warehouse space in economically depressed areas, like Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (which, to be fair, is for many a race-blind vortex of despair). And in the Bay Area I've had similar experience making frequent trips to West Oakland, Emeryville, and San Leandro. I never lived there, but I am the sort of person who tries to walk whenever possible (even when people tell me it's ill-advised) so I've seen a lot more that one does from an automobile.
Trust me: the ethnic divide in Canada is nothing compared to the USA. In Canada you have neighborhoods where people are struggling. In the USA you have neighborhoods that look like the apocalypse happened, thirty or forty years ago.
That said, I know what I'm talking about. I'm an insufferable do-gooder who has volunteered to teach in East Vancouver, and I've had friends and significant others who are artists using warehouse space in economically depressed areas, like Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (which, to be fair, is for many a race-blind vortex of despair). And in the Bay Area I've had similar experience making frequent trips to West Oakland, Emeryville, and San Leandro. I never lived there, but I am the sort of person who tries to walk whenever possible (even when people tell me it's ill-advised) so I've seen a lot more that one does from an automobile.
Trust me: the ethnic divide in Canada is nothing compared to the USA. In Canada you have neighborhoods where people are struggling. In the USA you have neighborhoods that look like the apocalypse happened, thirty or forty years ago.
America's slave-descended population have been in the country for over 500 years. By any normal expectations, their original culture should have been completely blended with the mainstream culture hundreds of years ago. And a large extent this is true of those blacks that enter the middle class and beyond. But for those that are trapped in a ghetto lifestyle -- with ghetto attitudes -- I don't think you can attribute that up to cultural differences. That's circular reasoning again. Something else is keeping the cultures separate.
It sounds like we're violently agreeing here. What I refer to as "cultural differences" or "cultural heterogenity" is the result of this process, not the cause. As long as blacks have been materially excluded from the middle class in America, America as a whole has been trapped with these cultural differences.
In any case, heterogenity doesn't always lead to a higher crime rate. Toronto is over 38% immigrant [1] and yet has a low crime rate. Montreal has been riven by cultural heterogenity (between English, French, and others) ever since the 1700s, and yet has an even lower crime rate.
That's a fair point. Canada probably does a better job than the US of handling those issues. French Canadian culture is an interesting difference we don't really have in America--French Canadians (unless I'm mistaken) are no more or less affluent than English Canadians and, aside from various controversies over Quebec separatism, by and large don't seem to be materially oppressed. Those aren't things you can say about, for instance, America's Spanish-speaking population.
American culture accepted and integrated generations of European immigrants, but those immigrants largely assimilated (or rather, their children did) due to geographic isolation from the countries they immigrated from. That geographic isolation doesn't exist for Latin American immigrants, and it's quite possible they will remain a different culture in perpetuity. America is going to have to learn how to accept that diversity rather than expecting assimilation. As you may have gathered, we're not doing a great job of that so far.
It sounds like we're violently agreeing here. What I refer to as "cultural differences" or "cultural heterogenity" is the result of this process, not the cause. As long as blacks have been materially excluded from the middle class in America, America as a whole has been trapped with these cultural differences.
In any case, heterogenity doesn't always lead to a higher crime rate. Toronto is over 38% immigrant [1] and yet has a low crime rate. Montreal has been riven by cultural heterogenity (between English, French, and others) ever since the 1700s, and yet has an even lower crime rate.
That's a fair point. Canada probably does a better job than the US of handling those issues. French Canadian culture is an interesting difference we don't really have in America--French Canadians (unless I'm mistaken) are no more or less affluent than English Canadians and, aside from various controversies over Quebec separatism, by and large don't seem to be materially oppressed. Those aren't things you can say about, for instance, America's Spanish-speaking population.
American culture accepted and integrated generations of European immigrants, but those immigrants largely assimilated (or rather, their children did) due to geographic isolation from the countries they immigrated from. That geographic isolation doesn't exist for Latin American immigrants, and it's quite possible they will remain a different culture in perpetuity. America is going to have to learn how to accept that diversity rather than expecting assimilation. As you may have gathered, we're not doing a great job of that so far.
Yeah, perhaps we do agree, but you do phrase things in a way that pushes people's buttons more. ;)
I'm not as pessimistic about Latin American integration as you are. Their values are pretty much identical to mainstream America. I don't expect they will ever vote in blocs; they don't even do that today. The worst thing about that situation is the hypocrisy about so-called "illegals", especially in California.
BTW, the French in Quebec were never excluded from government, higher education, or the professions, although they were excluded from the business and managerial classes for centuries. So it wasn't quite oppression, like say Cuba, but the French did feel like second-class citizens in their own country. It's not comparable to any other situation I know of.
I'm not as pessimistic about Latin American integration as you are. Their values are pretty much identical to mainstream America. I don't expect they will ever vote in blocs; they don't even do that today. The worst thing about that situation is the hypocrisy about so-called "illegals", especially in California.
BTW, the French in Quebec were never excluded from government, higher education, or the professions, although they were excluded from the business and managerial classes for centuries. So it wasn't quite oppression, like say Cuba, but the French did feel like second-class citizens in their own country. It's not comparable to any other situation I know of.
> White Americans, whether liberal or conservative, take it as a given that there's always some part of the city dominated by blacks where gunfire is heard at night and the cops are afraid to go.
This place exists in just about every major American city. Not sure about gunfire every night, but places where police presence is minimal and you just don't go there, unless you live there.
This place exists in just about every major American city. Not sure about gunfire every night, but places where police presence is minimal and you just don't go there, unless you live there.
You said this: "if you look, for instance, at Scandinavia, where the rate of rapes has risen dramatically as more and more Muslims immigrate there." making correlation with increased rape rates with "muslim" immigrants and then said "Obviously Islam, or blackness, isn't the problem here"
How is this consistent? Do you have any single evidence your blanket group of "muslim immigrants" caused the increase in rape? Make your mind please.
How is this consistent? Do you have any single evidence your blanket group of "muslim immigrants" caused the increase in rape? Make your mind please.
It's consistent in that, apparently, the crime rates in Muslim countries continue to be low.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/muslim-rape-epide...
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/muslim-rape-epide...
It is dangerous to idly attribute a rise in violent crime to lack of integration with a specific cultural group.
You've backed up your theory here - but you didn't initially.
In my opinion, the most dangerous form of prejudice - is prejudice that's backed up by an 'intellectual' argument.
You've backed up your theory here - but you didn't initially.
In my opinion, the most dangerous form of prejudice - is prejudice that's backed up by an 'intellectual' argument.
Or, there is a problem with the "justice system" and how it deals with minorities, non-white people, immigrants or members of some other less powerful group. One glaring example:
http://www.theworld.org/2010/12/06/missouri-court-guatemalan...
[deleted](1)
You got downvoted because people disagreed with you, not because you didn't elegantly state a perfectly valid perspective.
His perspective isn't valid. "The court system" actually consists of many parts:
--the legislature who chose to make particular laws
--the police who chose to enforce particular laws
--the prosecutors who chose to pursue particular cases
--the courts who adjudicated the final case
Every one of those four groups is biased against particular groups in the U.S.A. Arguing that the courts alone are "comparatively just" is not only false (race is a notable bias in the courts themselves), it neglects all the other factors that are also biased.
--the legislature who chose to make particular laws
--the police who chose to enforce particular laws
--the prosecutors who chose to pursue particular cases
--the courts who adjudicated the final case
Every one of those four groups is biased against particular groups in the U.S.A. Arguing that the courts alone are "comparatively just" is not only false (race is a notable bias in the courts themselves), it neglects all the other factors that are also biased.
Stupid war on drugs :(
That's merely a symptom, not a cause. The cause is that US prisons are for profit organisations, and that laws are written by lobbyists and passed by bribes. This shows how effective market forces are.
they should get paid for every prisoner they rehabilitate instead of incarcerate
Isn't that a bit like using "bugs fixed" as a metric of programmer quality? It gives them an incentive to get lots of people in for nothing, do nothing, and then call them "rehabilitated."
So start paying based on prisoners who get decent jobs, don't commit crimes, or go back to school or something.
obviously the metric for "rehabilitated" needs to be judged by someone other than the prisons
[deleted]
Sure, but stopping the drug war would shut down a vector for incarceration.
Is there a good example of a country with legalized drugs? Afghanistan is one I know of. It does not reflect well on legalizing drugs.
This clip from the british TV show IQ goes into those kinds of numbers. It's staggering. Especially for black men.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E7wgFcCefE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E7wgFcCefE
That 25% number seems pretty hard to believe, given that compared to all countries (not developed countries) America is very low-crime and America is 5% of the world's population.
I suspect that either a) poorer countries are too cash-strapped to lock up dangerous criminals or b) that many poorer countries don't have reliable data on prisoner numbers.
I suspect that either a) poorer countries are too cash-strapped to lock up dangerous criminals or b) that many poorer countries don't have reliable data on prisoner numbers.
"The United States' incarceration rate is, according to official reports, the highest in the world, at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000 (as of 2005).[7] A report released in 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison.[8] The United States has 4% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population.[9]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration
Just to be exact, wikipedia is not the "source". Click on the [7] and you'll get the source:
Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. (November 2006). "Prisoners in 2005" (PDF). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. pp. 13.
You're, of course, as correct as I'm lazy...
The '25%' number is a red herring and not worth debating. The US has over 6 times the number of inmates (per capita) as the average Western European country[1][2]. How could that be, other than because of a seriously fubared justice system?
[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-pris...
[2] http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r234.pdf
[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-pris...
[2] http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r234.pdf
> other than because of a seriously fubared justice system?
I live in Brazil and I had two cars stolen. None was found, nobody was charged. A couple years back I had my backpack (with my laptop inside) robbed at gunpoint.
A friend of mine who lives in the US had his car stolen. It was returned that same afternoon. Another friend of mine had his home completely cleaned up (the thieves left the heavy furniture and the kitchen). All his stuff was returned by the police two days later.
The larger inmate population could also be, in some part, due to more efficient law enforcement.
That, of course, does not forgive the cops from breaking laws themselves. It's just that the issue is not that black and white.
I live in Brazil and I had two cars stolen. None was found, nobody was charged. A couple years back I had my backpack (with my laptop inside) robbed at gunpoint.
A friend of mine who lives in the US had his car stolen. It was returned that same afternoon. Another friend of mine had his home completely cleaned up (the thieves left the heavy furniture and the kitchen). All his stuff was returned by the police two days later.
The larger inmate population could also be, in some part, due to more efficient law enforcement.
That, of course, does not forgive the cops from breaking laws themselves. It's just that the issue is not that black and white.
I hope one day not to have to say this in one of these debates: Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. At all. Not only is it invalid reasoning but it taints the rest of the debate because it often sounds so convincing, going hand in hand as it usually does with appeals to emotion. This applies doubly when discussing macro-level societal issues like the justice system.
However, anecdotal evidence can point to a line of inquiry that might uncover important statistical evidence. It presents categories: "Crimes not addressed" as a cause of low incarceration.
Truly, to combat his assertion, you should find statistical evidence to show that his anecdotes are actually contrary to the trend.
Anecdotal evidence _is_ evidence. It is just not strong statistical evidence.
Truly, to combat his assertion, you should find statistical evidence to show that his anecdotes are actually contrary to the trend.
Anecdotal evidence _is_ evidence. It is just not strong statistical evidence.
>Truly, to combat his assertion, you should find statistical evidence to show that his anecdotes are actually contrary to the trend.
It is never my responsibility to disprove any assertion, as that is fundamentally impossible. It is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to provide a sufficient quantity of relevant evidence.
It is never my responsibility to disprove any assertion, as that is fundamentally impossible. It is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to provide a sufficient quantity of relevant evidence.
Interestingly this is actually untrue in a statistical sense. Purely statistically, we never prove an assertion, we merely find that we cannot disprove it for a certain strength of disproof.
The old adage that 'you can't disprove a negative' is more specific in scope than your allusion to it here.
Mostly, however, the nature of collaborative argument is such that yes, we are disproving and attempting to disprove each other all the time.
The old adage that 'you can't disprove a negative' is more specific in scope than your allusion to it here.
Mostly, however, the nature of collaborative argument is such that yes, we are disproving and attempting to disprove each other all the time.
If you consider that the original premise - based on one anectode, BTW - is that a corrupt law-enforcement/judiciary/correctional system is the sole responsible for a high incarcerated population, all I need to provide is evidence that other factors may be at play.
Well... This time you really didn't have to say that.
I was, in fact, trying to highlight the fact that the larger number of prison inmates in the US compared to other countries cannot be attributed solely to corrupt law enforcement, judiciary and correctional systems. That's not saying they are perfect, but that is not the cause of the larger population and that, maybe, you could point your suspicions elsewhere.
I was, in fact, trying to highlight the fact that the larger number of prison inmates in the US compared to other countries cannot be attributed solely to corrupt law enforcement, judiciary and correctional systems. That's not saying they are perfect, but that is not the cause of the larger population and that, maybe, you could point your suspicions elsewhere.
That sounds like the difference between inefficient and an efficient police work - not something that is due to a greater incarceration rate. If that was the cause, there would be fewer crimes, but the resolution of them should be about the same. Of course, that evades the question of whether incarceration has any kind of positive effect on crime rates - Popular wisdom assumes that, but scientific evidence is lacking.
And the efficiency of police work doesn't always depend on location. I also live in Brazil (São Paulo) and had my car stolen last year; they found it the next morning. While living in Paris years ago, I had my car stolen and it was never found.
I was told it was safe to assume, considering model/year of my stolen cars, that they were dismantled the very same day. It's possible your recovered car had a lower demand for aftermarket parts.
As for your car in Paris, the obvious conclusion is that the total prison population in France is a bit lower than it should be. ;-)
As for your car in Paris, the obvious conclusion is that the total prison population in France is a bit lower than it should be. ;-)
If the people who told you that were the police, they have a conflict of interest if they don't feel like hunting down stolen cars, which I imagine is policework equivalent of being the guy who gets to tell people to reboot in the IT world. Yeah, it fixed the problem, but it's just going to happen again, in the exact same way, possibly to the same people.
However, and given the more-or-less subject of this thread, it might be a good punishment for bad cops to have to work these cases (no gun or handcuffs) for $2/day.
However, and given the more-or-less subject of this thread, it might be a good punishment for bad cops to have to work these cases (no gun or handcuffs) for $2/day.
I had my car broken into in the US, and I knew who did it. It was a friend of a friend (hey, my friends weren't the best back in high school) and they bragged about it. The cops wouldn't take prints when they investigated. When I called up the officer in question after finding out who did it, they said "sorry, we don't aggressively pursue theft".
So, your experience in Brazil isn't foreign to Americans. Not all police are created equal, and in a place as big and culturally diverse as the US, you'll get some good ones and some bad ones.
So, your experience in Brazil isn't foreign to Americans. Not all police are created equal, and in a place as big and culturally diverse as the US, you'll get some good ones and some bad ones.
Well... That sucks.
The US is, indeed, a very diverse place, but I always had the impression that it has a very disciplined, if somewhat tense at times, society. At least the places I visited.
My point was that the larger number of inmates in relation to the general population can be, at least in part, attributed to a better law enforcement in relation to other countries. When I was robbed, I could have been shot dead. I am sure the guy would never be caught - if for no other reason, he would have killed one key witness.
The US is, indeed, a very diverse place, but I always had the impression that it has a very disciplined, if somewhat tense at times, society. At least the places I visited.
My point was that the larger number of inmates in relation to the general population can be, at least in part, attributed to a better law enforcement in relation to other countries. When I was robbed, I could have been shot dead. I am sure the guy would never be caught - if for no other reason, he would have killed one key witness.
It could be because of higher crime than the average Western European country. Imprisonment is a lagging indicator, of course, so the US crime rate would have to have been higher than the average Western European crime rate 10, 20, 30 years ago, rather than today necessarily.
A factor is that countries like Germany don't imprison first time criminals, but give them probation mostly. And sentences are much, much shorter than in the U.S.
Well, for instance[1] shows that the violent crime rate has been 2.5 to 3.5 times as large as in Canada between 1980 and 2000. That still leaves a factor of 2 to be explained. The other statistics in this report only makes the difference in incarceration rate harder to explain. The most common explanation I have heard is that in the US, people that are accused are both prosecuted and convicted more often. It seems extremely doubtful that the US police force and justice system could be twice as effective as that of other Western European countries.
[1]http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002.../01...
[1]http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002.../01...
I'm more than willing to let that factor of 2 come down to a fubared justice system--or possibly to longer prison sentences, which is possibly a "works as designed" type of bug.
Big complex problems have big and complex sets of causes. Higher actual crime is not an outlandish partial cause of a higher prison population, even if it isn't a complete explanation.
Big complex problems have big and complex sets of causes. Higher actual crime is not an outlandish partial cause of a higher prison population, even if it isn't a complete explanation.
Another possibility is that America is jailing a lot of people who are not really "dangerous criminals".
You forgot (c) law enforcement gone mad in the US.
I didn't forget it, I don't think that that can be a 50x effect.
Yeah, but you seem to be under the impression that the other countries have fewer inmates because they are poor? Really?
How about Germany which has 95 inmates out of 100.000 people? [1]
[1] http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/worl...
How about Germany which has 95 inmates out of 100.000 people? [1]
[1] http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/worl...
You also can't be sure it's a zero-effect.
In case you're (like me) wondering what "attempted lynching" means in the context of the article, consider yourself enlightened by the California Penal Code:
405a. The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful
custody of any peace officer is a lynching.
405b. Every person who participates in any lynching is punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years.
The original (pre-racist) definition of "lynching" was populist punishment before a proper trial. Crowds would break into jail, remove a suspect that had yet to be given a proper trial, and hang (or otherwise punish) him.
Now companies and countries do that for us! coughWikiLeakscough
The part about "attempted lynching" results from an accusation that the student yelled "Kick her (the police officer's) ass!" during the confrontation. At least that makes the charge make sense, though of course who knows if it's true or not.
Details were linked off the linked page-
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-12-09/news/jeremy-marks-attempt...
Details were linked off the linked page-
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-12-09/news/jeremy-marks-attempt...
New goal in life: if I ever have children, don't send them to LAUSD schools. Schools with armed police at the door are undesirable -- borderline tolerable if they're there to protect from outsiders, but if they're needed to control the students, something is seriously wrong.
You're lucky that you have the choice to send your kids to a different school (as do I, and most HN readers). The people who don't have this choice, also disproportionately have children who need to be controlled by police (leaving the families without a choice, but with non-feral children, as unfortunately bystanders).
This seems pretty weak to me.
So say you are having the shit beaten out of you. You're being beaten, and shit is coming out. Will the shout, "kick her ass" yelled by some random onlooker change your strategy for dealing with the situation? You were going to just lay there, but because of that onlooker's suggestion, now the thought to fight back occurs to you?
I kind of doubt that.
Maybe we should arrest the adrenaline that your body produces for "attempted lynching".
So say you are having the shit beaten out of you. You're being beaten, and shit is coming out. Will the shout, "kick her ass" yelled by some random onlooker change your strategy for dealing with the situation? You were going to just lay there, but because of that onlooker's suggestion, now the thought to fight back occurs to you?
I kind of doubt that.
Maybe we should arrest the adrenaline that your body produces for "attempted lynching".
Presumably the "kick her ass" comment was directed at the other bystanders, not the guy in custody. I could see how that could be considered inciting a riot in some cases, but among a bunch of teenagers who ultimately did not act on it it seems excessive. Not to mention they don't seem to have any evidence it was Marks who yelled it, and in fact I believe the officer even said in her report it wasn't him, yet they charged him anyway.
It seems like they're just looking for someone to make an example of.
It seems like they're just looking for someone to make an example of.
There is a condition called 'Contempt of Cop' which is probably what fueled this. While it was happening, I can only imagine the police officer thinking, "Oh no you don't", at which point her focus changed.
One hopes logic prevails in this case. Kudos to Neil Fraser.
One hopes logic prevails in this case. Kudos to Neil Fraser.
The point is that doesn't make sense. He wasn't trying to get the person who the police officer was holding to administer his own justice. That's what lynching means...
Do you think it would still be "attempted lynching" if the students were white?
Back in the 90's my son got arrested for getting in the way of a campus cop trying to arrest a Berkeley protester. He was charged with Lynching. So, yes, it's real and used. He was let go because there was no provable case.
“For my friends anything, for my enemies, the Law”
[From: http://www.laweekly.com/2010-12-09/news/jeremy-marks-attempt...]
The first thing to understand is that Jeremy Marks touched no one during his "attempted lynching" of LAUSD campus police officer Erin Robles.
The second is that Marks' weapon was the camera in his cell phone.
The third is that Officer Robles' own actions helped turn an exceedingly minor wrongdoing — a student smoking at a bus stop — into a state prison case.
---
Edit to add: Jeremy wasn't smoking, just recording the cop (which is legal in his state)(wo)man-handling the smoker.
The first thing to understand is that Jeremy Marks touched no one during his "attempted lynching" of LAUSD campus police officer Erin Robles.
The second is that Marks' weapon was the camera in his cell phone.
The third is that Officer Robles' own actions helped turn an exceedingly minor wrongdoing — a student smoking at a bus stop — into a state prison case.
---
Edit to add: Jeremy wasn't smoking, just recording the cop (which is legal in his state)(wo)man-handling the smoker.
I don't live in the US but when I read that kind of story or how Bradley Manning is treated (regardless of whether he's guilty or not), it really looks like the US is acting like the worst kind of police state or despotism (where the despot would be a mixture of corporations and corrupt media/politicians).
Keep in mind that the US is a very distributed system. You can have a local District Attorney who decides to pursue cases like this, but in the next jurisdiction over, you could very well have a DA who is an entirely reasonable person and would never allow something like this to happen.
Eventually these things usually get sorted out in some higher court, but that can take years and can really mess up a person's life in the meantime. Especially if that person is poor, unfortunately.
Eventually these things usually get sorted out in some higher court, but that can take years and can really mess up a person's life in the meantime. Especially if that person is poor, unfortunately.
This is why a government of law is far, far better than a government of men.
Well, as long as some people aren't being abused, the system is fine and in no need of repair.
Not the point he was trying to make.
There are plenty of flaws, but there are different avenues available other than what the GP mentioned.
There are plenty of flaws, but there are different avenues available other than what the GP mentioned.
The way that Bradley Manning is being treated doesn't surprise me too much. He is suspected of "leaking classified information," so it would make sense to keep him in solitary confinement from a government/military bureaucrat's point of view. If they don't segregate him, he might leak more secrets to other people.
The other stuff (no mattress or pillow) just seems like pettiness on the part of the people in power that were embarrassed.
The other stuff (no mattress or pillow) just seems like pettiness on the part of the people in power that were embarrassed.
Read that http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/23...
tl;dr Many experts say that his punishment is torture and the US has denounced such treatment as torture not too long ago when it was done by others.
tl;dr Many experts say that his punishment is torture and the US has denounced such treatment as torture not too long ago when it was done by others.
Anyone can be suspected of anything. Let's have a trial, a real trial, and then worry about punishment after he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
(And by real trial, I mean a jury of Americans, not some bullshit military tribunal. Yeah, yeah, he signed some papers that said he can't have a real trial. Fuck that. This is America, not Saudi Arabia.)
(And by real trial, I mean a jury of Americans, not some bullshit military tribunal. Yeah, yeah, he signed some papers that said he can't have a real trial. Fuck that. This is America, not Saudi Arabia.)
Manning is a soldier charged with violating the UCMJ, and should be court-martialed like any other soldier charged with violation of military law. (This is distinct from the "military tribunals" established for "enemy combatants" during the Bush administration.) The duties and obligations of a soldier don't change just because he's become a cause celebre on the internet in the course of allegedly violating his duties.
Interestingly, nearly every service member I've heard discuss the subject would prefer to be tried by a court-martial than by a civilian court.
Interestingly, nearly every service member I've heard discuss the subject would prefer to be tried by a court-martial than by a civilian court.
I remember in one of H Beam Piper's novels, I think it was Little Fuzzy, a character mentions that he had heard, "If you were innocent you are better off being tried by a military court, and if guilty by a civilian one." (not an accurate quote, but close).
Actually, I'd reverse that, at least for the U.S. military.
There are several types of military courts, in a spectrum ranging from "lower burden of proof of guilt but tighter restrictions on punishments" to "higher burden of proof of guilt but fewer restrictions on punishments." For the rest of this post I will arbitrarily refer to the latter as the "lower" end of the spectrum and the former as the "higher." Non-judicial punishment (NJP), which isn't actually a court-martial, anchors the lower end of the spectrum: the commanding officer (CO) can consider more or less any evidence he chooses, and gets to decide guilt or innocence based upon a preponderance of evidence (as opposed to "reasonable doubt"), but the maximum punishments he can hand out are severely limited (still shitty if you get them, but not even in the same ballpark as hard time). At the high end of the spectrum are general courts-martial, which are comparable to civilian courts in terms of burden of proof, rules on evidence, and maximum sentences.
Generally, the type of court-martial chosen is a function of how certain the authorities are that the defendant is guilty, and how bad they want to hammer the defendant. For example, if they're very confident that the defendant is guilty, but don't feel a need for very harsh punishment, they might use a summary court-martial (the "lowest" type of court-martial, with only NJP being lower on the spectrum). If they are not that confident of guilt, or if they really want to go for the maximum punishment, they will use a general court-martial. If you're guilty, you want to be towards the lower end of the spectrum because your punishment will be minimized. If you're not guilty, you want the general court-martial because anything less gives you a higher chance of being wrongfully convicted. Fortunately, in most circumstances, defendants have the right to demand proceedings which are higher on the spectrum. Typically, however, defendants who know that they are guilty have the good sense to accept the lower-end proceeding.
There are other things which separate courts-martial from civilian courts, such as article 31 rights, and the composition of the jury.
There are several types of military courts, in a spectrum ranging from "lower burden of proof of guilt but tighter restrictions on punishments" to "higher burden of proof of guilt but fewer restrictions on punishments." For the rest of this post I will arbitrarily refer to the latter as the "lower" end of the spectrum and the former as the "higher." Non-judicial punishment (NJP), which isn't actually a court-martial, anchors the lower end of the spectrum: the commanding officer (CO) can consider more or less any evidence he chooses, and gets to decide guilt or innocence based upon a preponderance of evidence (as opposed to "reasonable doubt"), but the maximum punishments he can hand out are severely limited (still shitty if you get them, but not even in the same ballpark as hard time). At the high end of the spectrum are general courts-martial, which are comparable to civilian courts in terms of burden of proof, rules on evidence, and maximum sentences.
Generally, the type of court-martial chosen is a function of how certain the authorities are that the defendant is guilty, and how bad they want to hammer the defendant. For example, if they're very confident that the defendant is guilty, but don't feel a need for very harsh punishment, they might use a summary court-martial (the "lowest" type of court-martial, with only NJP being lower on the spectrum). If they are not that confident of guilt, or if they really want to go for the maximum punishment, they will use a general court-martial. If you're guilty, you want to be towards the lower end of the spectrum because your punishment will be minimized. If you're not guilty, you want the general court-martial because anything less gives you a higher chance of being wrongfully convicted. Fortunately, in most circumstances, defendants have the right to demand proceedings which are higher on the spectrum. Typically, however, defendants who know that they are guilty have the good sense to accept the lower-end proceeding.
There are other things which separate courts-martial from civilian courts, such as article 31 rights, and the composition of the jury.
How many of these service members are openly gay?
Gays in the military have nothing to do with Manning's case (unless he is openly gay, then I digress).
Accounts I've read indicate that Manning was in fact gay and that DADT was part of his motive. I do not know if it's true or not, though, as I have no way of corroborating that information.
My understanding is that everyone knew Manning was gay. I doubt that has much to do with the case though. Their primary evidence is that someone claiming to be Manning confessed to some other dude via internet chat. It seems to me that anything confessed over (non-video non-voice text only) internet chat should be completely inadmissible as there really is no way to know who you are talking to.
As philwelch stated, you give up a bunch of rights to join the military. "Fuck that. This is America." is a 'bunch of bullshit' on your part. Even the Constitution itself states that you give up rights when you join the military. Don't invoke the Founding Fathers only when it's convenient.
While people sometimes knock the Reddit community on here this is an impressive example of Redditors really helping people. Great job to the founders and everyone who put Reddit together, for all the sarcasm and jokes about it it's really cool to see stories like this.
Most importantly, good luck to this kid!
Most importantly, good luck to this kid!
There are just so many WTF moments in this story.
1) Why are police involved with a kid smoking at school? Kids caught smoking when I was in HS got after school detention.
2) There seems to be zero respect for the police officer. At what point did kids quit respecting police and did the police lose that respect?
3) The DA actually bringing charges against someone who just looks to have been idly filming the event. Where are charges against the more rowdy people?
4) The judge letting this case go forward.
1) Why are police involved with a kid smoking at school? Kids caught smoking when I was in HS got after school detention.
2) There seems to be zero respect for the police officer. At what point did kids quit respecting police and did the police lose that respect?
3) The DA actually bringing charges against someone who just looks to have been idly filming the event. Where are charges against the more rowdy people?
4) The judge letting this case go forward.
People in the US lost respect for police officers when they became bullies. Either they're giving law-abiding citizens tickets or they are killing and injuring suspects in their custody. Yes, I know, it's not all cops. But, there are too many of these stories in the news. Young people, especially those that hang out on reddit, will definitely have the sense that cops are just bad.
I live in Oakland, CA. Lots of crime here, but the beat cops spend most of their time generating revenue and hassling people unlikely to be dangerous (to them). It is pretty pathetic.
EDIT: an example (from the 80's)
I was in a bad part of Oakland one day, driving down a one-way street (2 lanes). A couple of blocks in front of me was a cop waving everyone on the street over to the side. Each one of us (20+ people) got a ticket. Mine was for "straddling the lanes", even though I protested that I was changing lanes because I saw him standing in my lane. I realized that he was just making something up.
I contested the ticket and he didn't show up. He knew he had no leg to stand on.
How many of the people in that poor neighborhood did that? How many just ignored the ticket and were later arrested on a bench warrant? Really pathetic. That's the day I lost respect for them. (And, this happened in the early 80's.)
I live in Oakland, CA. Lots of crime here, but the beat cops spend most of their time generating revenue and hassling people unlikely to be dangerous (to them). It is pretty pathetic.
EDIT: an example (from the 80's)
I was in a bad part of Oakland one day, driving down a one-way street (2 lanes). A couple of blocks in front of me was a cop waving everyone on the street over to the side. Each one of us (20+ people) got a ticket. Mine was for "straddling the lanes", even though I protested that I was changing lanes because I saw him standing in my lane. I realized that he was just making something up.
I contested the ticket and he didn't show up. He knew he had no leg to stand on.
How many of the people in that poor neighborhood did that? How many just ignored the ticket and were later arrested on a bench warrant? Really pathetic. That's the day I lost respect for them. (And, this happened in the early 80's.)
I love this quote, why he did this:
"One of the things I learned was that bad things can only happen if good people do nothing. I consider myself to be a good person, so I had no choice but to act when I saw something like this happening."
When I've heard mention of Neil Fraser in the past I've thought of his awesome MobWrite project. But now I'll think of what he did for this kid and his family.
Makes one think about what one wants to be known for.
Makes one think about what one wants to be known for.
I know of him because of http://code.google.com/p/google-diff-match-patch/ which is best in its class by a longshot. And it's a very awesome class of a library: a powerful text diff tool with implementations in multiple languages. Haven't read TFA yet but I'm expecting I'll be even more impressed by him when I get done reading it.
Edit: read the article. What an amazing contribution to justice! I'm especially glad to hear of Google matching some legal funds. By the way, he's likely to get the bail money back.
Edit: read the article. What an amazing contribution to justice! I'm especially glad to hear of Google matching some legal funds. By the way, he's likely to get the bail money back.
Neil is one of the world's quietly great people. I had the good fortune of knowing him in high school, and working with him at my first job (Ingenia Communications, running Canada's SchoolNet). He's always been an alloy of incredible intellect, diligent attention to detail, and calm kindness. Every time I come across his work and thinking, I get inspired (and humbled) anew.
I hope my daughter grows up in a world with a few more Neil Frasers.
I hope my daughter grows up in a world with a few more Neil Frasers.
Honestly, I think we're going to need a constitutional right to videotape on-duty cops or something one of these days.
That, and more people who refuse to convict anyone for "resisting arrest", especially when that's the only charge and none of the cops are injured. Doubly so if only the suspect is injured.
I realize they charged them with "attempted lynching" here, but "resisting arrest" is by far the more common charge. Mind you, I'm not saying that one can't resist arrest or that it shouldn't be a crime, only that I wish more people were wise to the abuse of that charge and that they knew to look for warning signs that it's being used abusively. Specifically, I would consider it to be a warning sign if: no cops are injured, there's heavily injured suspect especially when they're disproportionately injured compared to the hypothetical threat they might pose to an officer (two large cops shouldn't be very threatened by a small, unarmed kid), no weapons are found or alleged to have been seen, officer say-so is the only evidence of the crime, suspect is charged with no crime except resisting, contradictory or non-existent testimony about what they were arresting for to begin with and any other contradictions in the evidence.
That, and more people who refuse to convict anyone for "resisting arrest", especially when that's the only charge and none of the cops are injured. Doubly so if only the suspect is injured.
I realize they charged them with "attempted lynching" here, but "resisting arrest" is by far the more common charge. Mind you, I'm not saying that one can't resist arrest or that it shouldn't be a crime, only that I wish more people were wise to the abuse of that charge and that they knew to look for warning signs that it's being used abusively. Specifically, I would consider it to be a warning sign if: no cops are injured, there's heavily injured suspect especially when they're disproportionately injured compared to the hypothetical threat they might pose to an officer (two large cops shouldn't be very threatened by a small, unarmed kid), no weapons are found or alleged to have been seen, officer say-so is the only evidence of the crime, suspect is charged with no crime except resisting, contradictory or non-existent testimony about what they were arresting for to begin with and any other contradictions in the evidence.
It's probably worthwhile to have some familiarity with how the arrest/jail/lawyer process works beforehand. While for most people it is a low-frequency event, it's not good to learn about the process for the first time while in jail!
The key is: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#
The key is: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Laywer
It's also good to familiarize yourself with the distinctions between detention and arrest.
In the United States, "detention" is whenever police temporarily restrict someone's rights based on an "articulable" suspicion that a crime has occurred. Police can detain anyone at any time if they have an articulable suspicion, but only for a short period of time, and they cannot search the belongings or vehicles of people in detention without consent (many cops will try to obtain consent by saying things like "let me see what's in your bag," but you are well within your rights to verbally deny consent). A good way to establish if you're being detained is to ask the officer if you're free to go. If not, you should then ask why you're being detained, and memorize the response. This is the "articulable suspicion" that the officer is supposed to have before detaining you.
"Arrest" occurs when "any reasonable person" would feel that they are not free to leave. The distinction between detainment and arrest is subtle, but if you're being handcuffed or put into a police vehicle, your belongings or vehicle are being searched after you have denied consent, or you are detained for an extended period of time, then you're under arrest. Crucially, police are not required to make any formal declaration of your arrest, nor are they required to read you your Miranda rights (though they are required to read them if they wish to question you). If you feel that you're under arrest, your best course of action is to state that you refuse to speak and wish to see an attorney. You can repeat this as often as is necessary. They're not allowed to question you after you say this, but only if don't say anything else. If you do, then you've waived your right to silence. The only exception is that you are allowed to give your name and address in order to be released with a promise to appear in court. If you do give that information, immediately follow it by repeating that you will remain silent until an attorney is present.
Again, I Am Not A Lawyer, although all of this information does come from lawyers who give talks about civil liberties. None of these talks are online, but most of the above is explained in more detail on an actual lawyer's website[1].
[1]: http://www.williamweinberg.com/lawyer-attorney-1127658.html
It's also good to familiarize yourself with the distinctions between detention and arrest.
In the United States, "detention" is whenever police temporarily restrict someone's rights based on an "articulable" suspicion that a crime has occurred. Police can detain anyone at any time if they have an articulable suspicion, but only for a short period of time, and they cannot search the belongings or vehicles of people in detention without consent (many cops will try to obtain consent by saying things like "let me see what's in your bag," but you are well within your rights to verbally deny consent). A good way to establish if you're being detained is to ask the officer if you're free to go. If not, you should then ask why you're being detained, and memorize the response. This is the "articulable suspicion" that the officer is supposed to have before detaining you.
"Arrest" occurs when "any reasonable person" would feel that they are not free to leave. The distinction between detainment and arrest is subtle, but if you're being handcuffed or put into a police vehicle, your belongings or vehicle are being searched after you have denied consent, or you are detained for an extended period of time, then you're under arrest. Crucially, police are not required to make any formal declaration of your arrest, nor are they required to read you your Miranda rights (though they are required to read them if they wish to question you). If you feel that you're under arrest, your best course of action is to state that you refuse to speak and wish to see an attorney. You can repeat this as often as is necessary. They're not allowed to question you after you say this, but only if don't say anything else. If you do, then you've waived your right to silence. The only exception is that you are allowed to give your name and address in order to be released with a promise to appear in court. If you do give that information, immediately follow it by repeating that you will remain silent until an attorney is present.
Again, I Am Not A Lawyer, although all of this information does come from lawyers who give talks about civil liberties. None of these talks are online, but most of the above is explained in more detail on an actual lawyer's website[1].
[1]: http://www.williamweinberg.com/lawyer-attorney-1127658.html
In Brazil we used to have "civic classes" in highschool about that. Then it became classes on things like "how to not be racist" and then they disappeared completely.
You can talk about the privatization of the penal system as yielding degenerate incentives but ultimately it's up to the police on the streets to get them into the system.
If there's no dead body, damaged/missing property or even an aggrieved person (as in this case) what problem are the police trying to solve by capriciously jailing people?
What's the incentive here?
If there's no dead body, damaged/missing property or even an aggrieved person (as in this case) what problem are the police trying to solve by capriciously jailing people?
What's the incentive here?
Since the real crime he committed was obviously "contempt of cop", the incentive for the cop is to encourage people to kowtow properly, by showing them what happens when you don't.
[deleted]
This is why you use a livestream tool like Ustream or JustinTV so your video evidence can't be destroyed.
Mike Konczal has posted an interesting chart suggesting a link between economic freedom and prison:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/the-conservative-w...
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/the-conservative-w...
I liked the statement he made, "Bad things can only happen if good people do nothing".
I'd already noted Neil Fraser as an open source star
http://www.pixelbeat.org/misc/google_stars.html
but now see he's an all around great guy
I wonder how the situation will evolve as cameras that can stream to the cloud are introduced into the marketplace. I imagine it cant be more then 10 years away.
Anyone knows what was the bail out amount?
$155,000, according to the linked story. Fraser paid $50,000, which he'll get back when the kid makes his court dates. The alternative was paying 10% and not getting it back, which I didn't know was standard policy. (Most of what I know about bail bonds comes from Jackie Brown.)
Interestingly, there are some district courts/jurisdictions that are turning against bail bondsmen for being exploitative. Some will try and outright ban them from operating (either by explicit local ordinance, or by denying them the agreements on standing credit and prisoner transfer that they need to operate), but more interesting are the courts that try and eliminate them via competition.
As of now, bail bondsmen generally charge a fee of 10% of the bond posted, and then use a standing line-of-credit they have with a local bank to pay the bond to the court. The fee covers their costs and the costs of hunting down people who skip bail, and the line-of-credit is what actually pays the bond. To out-compete them, some courts are setting a normal bail bond, but giving people the option of satisfying the bond by paying 10% in cash (which is refunded if they show up in court) as opposed to 100% on credit from somewhere.
Let's say someone is placed on bail with a bond of $100K. Option 1 is to find $10K in cash, use it to pay a bondsman (which costs $10K), and then have the bondsman put up the $100K to get them out of jail. Option 2 is to find $10K in cash, pay it to the court directly, and then get that $10K back when the person shows up in court. Either way, the person is out $10K - but if they pay it to the court directly, they'll get it back.
As of now, bail bondsmen generally charge a fee of 10% of the bond posted, and then use a standing line-of-credit they have with a local bank to pay the bond to the court. The fee covers their costs and the costs of hunting down people who skip bail, and the line-of-credit is what actually pays the bond. To out-compete them, some courts are setting a normal bail bond, but giving people the option of satisfying the bond by paying 10% in cash (which is refunded if they show up in court) as opposed to 100% on credit from somewhere.
Let's say someone is placed on bail with a bond of $100K. Option 1 is to find $10K in cash, use it to pay a bondsman (which costs $10K), and then have the bondsman put up the $100K to get them out of jail. Option 2 is to find $10K in cash, pay it to the court directly, and then get that $10K back when the person shows up in court. Either way, the person is out $10K - but if they pay it to the court directly, they'll get it back.
That sounds like you just lowered the bail, in which case the defendant would probably just pay $1K for someone to borrow the $10K. How can credit and cash be distinguished anyway?
Bondsmen don't generally put up the cash directly for a bond, instead they have a standing deal with the courts they work that guarantees that they will pay if someone skips bail (which is backed by the local line-of-credit; I should have been clearer about that).
Thus, it's pretty clear who's paying for the bond. If someone walks in with a bunch of cash or a cheque then they're probably doing it themselves (or they've committed some other crime by getting money from an unlicensed lender), if a bond agent walks in and says "he's with us", then it's with them.
On paper, it's lowering the bail. In practice, the amount the person is paying has stayed the same, as have the incentives.
Thus, it's pretty clear who's paying for the bond. If someone walks in with a bunch of cash or a cheque then they're probably doing it themselves (or they've committed some other crime by getting money from an unlicensed lender), if a bond agent walks in and says "he's with us", then it's with them.
On paper, it's lowering the bail. In practice, the amount the person is paying has stayed the same, as have the incentives.
I think it should read 'pay 100K to the court', which you get back.
It's the policy of the bondsman, not the court. You basically pay the bondsman 10% of the bond in exchange for them posting the rest of it.
Some people skip the hearing, and then the bondsman is out the money, so they keep the 10% to cover their risk.
I don't know how the $50,000 number works - it seems the bond company is paying the rest of it, but I don't know what they get in return.
Some people skip the hearing, and then the bondsman is out the money, so they keep the 10% to cover their risk.
I don't know how the $50,000 number works - it seems the bond company is paying the rest of it, but I don't know what they get in return.
A bondsman may also make you sign over collateral for the bail and make you put up 10%. If you skip, you (or a family member) loses something like... a house.
Once you skip, a bondsman has some pretty darn liberal rights at returning you to the law - and getting his money back.
Once you skip, a bondsman has some pretty darn liberal rights at returning you to the law - and getting his money back.
>>so they keep the 10% to cover their risk.
The bondsman doesn't simply absorb the 90% loss if you skip, that's where Boba Fett comes in. I believe if the bondsman's bounty hunters catch up to you before the police do, he gets back the money that was put up.
The bondsman doesn't simply absorb the 90% loss if you skip, that's where Boba Fett comes in. I believe if the bondsman's bounty hunters catch up to you before the police do, he gets back the money that was put up.
Actually I believe the bondsman gets the money either way (cops or bounty hunter) - but the bondsman has to pay the bounty hunter, and the 10% helps cover that.
~$50K that he put up of his own money. There is a longer discussion (and link to another article) at Reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/eqj5b/redditor_b...
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/eqj5b/redditor_b...
"Christmas miracle as Bay Area Google engineer pays $50,000 to spring student from jail"
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-12-16/news/jeremy-marks-bailed-...
or this guy's lawyer was benign or the system is really screwed up.
I would really like to read the analysis of the judge to justify that one.
I would really like to read the analysis of the judge to justify that one.
We need tiny spy camera attachments which work on bluetooth with your cellphone. These should be cheap to make (a couple of bucks) and everyone should have one with their phones. This way we can record without police knowing.
lol at the US! Sounds like the police in a third world state.
Yeah, I've never heard of charges being maliciously fabricated against a perceived enemy of the local authoritarians anywhere else. Not even in Sweden.
Yeah, it's so funny to see a kid's life ruined. Ha ha. Good comedy all around.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, I hope you enjoy your perch.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, I hope you enjoy your perch.
This is a pretty serious problem.