Last September, a group of academics and activists gathered at Princeton University to discuss the limits of artificial intelligence in public policy. The longest debate concerned some of the most sensitive decisions in the justice system, like whether to release a person on bail or parole. Many in attendance were queasy about using algorithms to determine prison stays — not least because crime data tends to reflect racial bias. But one conference goer in particular stood out for his skepticism.
His name was Bruce Reilly. The deputy director of a New Orleans organization called VOTE, which advocates for the formerly incarcerated, Mr. Reilly is a minor celebrity in the field. He was a sounding board for the leader of the recent Florida ballot campaign that restored voting rights to up to 1.4 million former felons, and helped lead similar initiatives in Rhode Island and Louisiana. Mr. Reilly, 45, has playful eyes, weathered skin and a boyish voice, and at Princeton, he wore a dark blazer that did not appear to be his natural uniform. Though it was barely midmorning, his shirt was already threatening to decamp from his pants as he turned to address a Princeton postdoctoral researcher sitting next to him.
"Statistically," Mr. Reilly told her, "the safest person to let out of prison is a murderer." The academic, Madelyn Sanfilippo, screwed up her face in apparent disbelief. "You seem like a person who cares about statistics," Mr. Reilly continued, arguing that people convicted of lesser crimes often cycle in and out of prison, while someone serving a long sentence for murder has typically matured out of crime by the time he is released.
"That makes sense," Ms. Sanfilippo said, warming to the claim. They talked amiably for a few more minutes. When they were done, Mr. Reilly turned and whispered in my ear: "She has no idea."
Related: Virginia Court Overturns Order That Restored Voting Rights to Felons
Florida Voting Rights Restoration Process Found Unconstitutional
Related Stories
McAuliffe had issued a sweeping executive order in April that affected 206,000 ex-offenders in the state.
In a 4-3 ruling, the state's justices said under the state constitution, McAuliffe didn't have the authority for such a proclamation.
[...] Nothing stops the governor from granting rights to felons on an individual basis, but the justices said it was unconstitutional to do it through a blanket order.
[...] Under McAuliffe's order, the restoration of rights only extended to felons who have finished serving their terms — anyone in prison, or on supervised probation or parole, was still barred from voting. The order also granted felons the right to serve on juries and become a notary.
[...] He also noted that most states allow felons who have completed their terms to vote — Iowa, Kentucky and Florida are the only other exceptions.
[...] "Republicans suspect the real motive for McAuliffe's order is political," [NPR's] Pam [Fessler] reported [earlier this month]. "The governor is a close ally of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who could benefit from more African-American voters if the race in Virginia is tight. McAuliffe denied that was his reason for issuing the order."
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker has ruled that Florida's system for restoration of voting and other civil rights to convicted felons is unconstitutional. Florida is likely to appeal the ruling:
A federal judge has declared unconstitutional Florida's procedure for restoring voting rights to felons who have served their time. In a strongly worded ruling seen as a rebuke of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who is the lead defendant in the case, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker said the disenfranchisement of felons who have served their time is "nonsensical" and a violation of the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Although nearly every state bars incarcerated criminals from voting, only Florida and three others — Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia — do not automatically restore voting rights at the completion of a criminal sentence.
Walker, an Obama administration appointee, decried the state's requirement that someone with a felony conviction must "kowtow" to a partisan panel, the Office of Executive Clemency, "over which Florida's governor has absolute veto authority" to regain their right to vote. "[Elected], partisan officials have extraordinary authority to grant or withhold the right to vote from hundreds of thousands of people without any constraints, guidelines, or standards," the judge said. [...] The judge cited one clemency hearing where Scott announced the panel "can do whatever we want" as evidence of its arbitrary nature.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:03AM (11 children)
When arguing that statistics show a certain thing to be true. I am reminded of the quote: : "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics [wikipedia.org]
While, it may be true that a murderer is the safest kind of criminal to release. That's only dealing with a tiny aspect of the whole issue. Not least of which being the question of "What is the proper punishment for taking a life?". Those affected by the loss of a loved one will be affected for life, in some manner or other. Society at large is generally affected negatively as well. Is the proper punishment meted out in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, . . ., or Life?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:10AM
A classic text [wikipedia.org] on the subject. The 3 copies I've owned have been loaned out, never to be returned -- a bunch of possible statistical jokes there.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:35AM (2 children)
Shouldn't we be concerned with rehabilitation in preference to punishment? If so, even a single night [youtube.com] might be enough.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @01:04AM
Estimates between 25-75% of the prison population meet the diagnostic criteria for ASPD which is untreatable. Psychopaths are indifferent to punishment, they respond to reward based "treatment" -- institutional control and not rehabilitation. The phrase "restorative justice" is a huge red flag to me.
I do. [amazon.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:26PM
I prefer to settpe it how the Bible says. Mr Reilly should not be breathing to make his arguments.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:56AM (4 children)
Also if we let murderers out after a week, they would be just as likely to commit another as a shoplifter would be to shoplift again.
Except it would be someone getting murdered instead of something getting stolen.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday February 21 2019, @01:57AM
- Stance:
To prevent convicted shoplifters from taking lives just eight days after they're put away, we can ensure the safety of your society by sending up each convicted showlefter for the rest of their very days.
My Hat's Off To You, Sir!
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
"Also if we let murderers out after a week, they would be just as likely to commit another as a shoplifter would be to shoplift again."
Interesting premise; but its probably not true. Statistically, a fair number of people in for murder have already killed the only person in the world they wanted dead, that they were that angry at; and for many of them even that person maybe they didn't really mean to actually kill. They'll never kill anyone again. Ever.
Their time in prison is simple punishment.
Of course, some murderers will absolutely murder again. And they need to be in prison for the well being of others. So there's two groups.
I just don't see the same division for shoplifters.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)
While some of what you say may have some merit, treating murder as lightly as shoplifting would likely greatly increase the number of murders committed. When the worst punishment one could receive is no worse than shoplifting, how long would it be, before there would be some murder challenge going around? The potential punishment is also a deterrent. When your entire life can be totally screwed up by murdering someone, a potential murderer is likely to not murder someone. Whereas, if it's a slap on the wrist, an angry enough person could excuse their own actions, without a whole lot in the way of consequences. Of course, then you might have retaliatory killings as well. I could see a very slippery slope coated in blood there.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday February 23 2019, @10:51PM
I'm not suggesting we change anything about how we treat murder convicts.
I'm just pointing out that there's a sizeable percentage of murderers who have already killed the only person they'll ever kill.
The class of people I'm talking about killed without regard for the consequences. A slap on the wrist, life in prison, drawn and quartered, eternal damnation... it simply didn't even enter the equation at the time.
You are right of course, that lowering the punishment would definitely serve to make the -other- class of would be murderers more murderess though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:40AM
You really just don't get it since you don't question what benefits society. When a gang member kills another gang member isn't it one less gang-banger off the streets? When a hitman assassinates a corrupt politician or a day-trader isn't it just sparing society from the worst of the worst? And how does the the collateral damage of gangs begins to compare to a single pyramid scheme when people die off by the thousands after losing their life savings and not being able to pay their medical bills and rent?
The more you grok the numbers, the more apparent it becomes a "reformed" white-color criminal is both more likely to commit crime again and far more harming to society then a dozen unrepentant murderers combined.
And that's what behind those "damn lies" stats of theirs. Got it now?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:00PM
"What is the proper punishment for taking a life?"
And like pretty much every other question regarding human life the answer is "it depends."
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:11AM (1 child)
Convicted Murderer Turned Lawyer.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:54AM
Convicted Lawyer Turned Murderer
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday February 21 2019, @01:54AM (2 children)
- on planes.
That is, if there really _is_ a Bomb on the plan that you're flying it, the likelihood of there being _two_ bombs is so vanishingly small it might as well be zero.
So if you want to avoid being blown up by some White Aryan Nation enthusiast who would otherwise bring a bomb on your plane, while Anderson didn't specifically point this out, what you really want is for _your_ bomb to be carried on board before the one carried on by that White Supremacist.
So just always fly first class when you bring your bomb and you'll be just fine.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by RamiK on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:51AM
Here's how the pros do it:
Folks, there never been a single person, man, woman or child, who died on a plane, boat, or in fact, in any sort of way, after sending me their crypto wallets' keys. Even their dogs lived on safely and comfortably in bliss. Not ever knowing pain, discomfort, disease, old age or even death!
Immortality. Right here. For you. For your loved ones. G-u-a-r-a-n-t-e-e-d.
Yours and forever,
RamiK
sendmoneytoramik@fakemail.com
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @10:35PM
Who is Laurie Anderson? Because that is a VERY old mathematics joke.
Same with how the mathematician was arrested trying to board a plane with a protractor, ruler, and compass. He was carrying weapons of math instruction.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:17AM
I saw a news report that in passing referred to those in jail voting in Israel decades ago.
.
This was a bit jarring at the time (which is why it stuck with me) and so I thought about it.
.
Eventually i decided that the right to vote should be accorded to criminals in jail and after.
.
Not because I particularly like criminals or how they are likely to vote, nor do i have any dog in that hunt on a personal level. This is a viewpoint based on practicalities of our world and principle.
Simply put, government disenfranchisement of individuals is a greater evil than the value of denying the vote to scumbags.
.
If politicians can use the power of government to disenfranchise, then they will do so to their political enemies through various means to cement power and weaken opponents.
This is absolutely wrong, and also absolutely how politics works.
.
I do find it interesting that this has become a subject of discussion in recent years.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:34AM (6 children)
Well, there is the obvious. Prisons make money for people whose ancestors were probably slave owners.
Perhaps a little less obvious, prisons help to destroy the nuclear family.
But, prison is also a weapon for the cause of disenfranchisement. If you don't want a group of people to vote, you convict them, and send them to prison, then deny them the right to vote if/when you set them free.
I was actually told all of that many years ago, but it didn't soak in then. Then, we had a rash of firearms laws convictions, where people had broken various state laws about weapons. That's when it sank in that gun owners and second amendment supporters were being targeted for disenfranchisement. That pretty much blew over, but disenfranchisement is still a tool in the ruling class' armory.
Socialists and fascists alike love their prisons!!
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:00AM (4 children)
Christ, for the first three lines I thought you were actually going to say something reasonable, and then...nope. You're turning into a caricature of yourself, you know that?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:44PM (3 children)
On a few rare occassions, you've posted that I said something reasonable. I immediately looked back, and double checked. If 'Zumi thinks it's reasonable, there's a problem.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 21 2019, @09:49PM (2 children)
Oh, hell, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Even the goddamn Nazis had anti-smoking and environmentalism campaigns. Just means some things are so obvious even the aforementioned goddamn Nazis can figure them out. You, for some reason, can't. This is...not a favorable comparison.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by PlasticCogLiquid on Friday February 22 2019, @01:30AM (1 child)
I specifically look for Runaway, he's a regular guy with insightful comments based from life experience. You just sound like a bitch that hates on anyone you disagree with, liberal style.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @05:04AM
I thought that about him too until I started cataloguing the things he actually says. If you have the intellectual honesty (who the fuck am I kidding, with that last sentence you've already proven you don't) you can go looking for my journal entry titled something like "Runaway has hit peak crazy" and you'll get a glimpse of what the man actually is in the dark.
Then again, considering how you ended this post, it sounds like you and him are birds of a feather. Oh well, no skin off my nose; there will be plenty of room for you lot in hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:21PM
I agree that given current climate it is fairlu easy to disenfranchise gun owners. Every year in some shithole states there is a new law.that restricts gun ownership in obtuse fashion, is applied to arms purchased retroactively (unlike most federal laws) and requires active vigilance not to run afoal of it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:50AM
... If you knew he had killed people?
Please don't take offense: I'm not saying taken military action that requires killing someone is the same "murder" (though in some cases, it may be judged so, if the orders were illegal, or if a soldier takes it upon himself to do something particularly heinous). Nor should this be taken as disparaging military veterans, whom I generally hold in very high regard for service and sacrifice.
I'm pointing out that in modern society taking another human life is an unusual act for anyone. It's not a coincidence that the soldiers who do this are often young men still lacking some of the judgment and wisdom of older people -- a similar demographic to those who often end up in jail for various types of murders (gang murders, crimes of passion and sudden rage, etc.). It's also not a coincidence that it often takes special training for elite special forces groups to prepare young people for the gruesome acts of killing sometimes called for in elite units.
And we've noted incidence of PTSD (earlier called other things like "battle fatigue" or "shell shock") that causes sometimes permanent psychological changes in those involved in such military killings. We've seen the increased rates of violence and suicide often among such combat veterans.
Yet, we also recognize that there are many veterans who mature and become psychologically stable adults, adults who often may not reflect back on their killings as young people with nostalgia... instead, they may sometimes question whether they would be able to do such actions again, without the naive jingoism often instilled in young troops. (I have a family member who fought in WWII who felt this way later.)
By no means am I saying that all murderers -- or even most murderers -- should just be excused and assumed rehabilitated. Many if not most display various psychological traits that won't change as they mature. But I think a significant minority of those who commit such crimes as young men may in fact grow up to be different people a couple decades later, people who would never kill again. Some may even find their actions immediately abhorrent (as many PTSD sufferers do), but a crime of passion is often excused in wartime as "normal" if inflicted on a "bad guy," but a similar crime inflicted by a civilian on another person who has acted as a "bad guy" can land someone in prison for decades or life.
I'll freely admit I would have probably been skeptical myself of befriending this person or perhaps giving him a chance initially in the first few years after he was released from prison and started going to law school. But now? It sounds like he's done a great deal of good within the legal system.
It really comes down to whether you believe people can change. I think the murdering/killing impulse is actually a pretty basic human instinct that has gradually become less and less acceptable in society over the millennia. So do I think it's possible that someone who does something horrible as a teenager could become an adult who would never commit such an act again? Absolutely. I also think many and perhaps most who commit murders may never be able to rejoin society fully as this person seems to... but that doesn't mean I would judge all those who committed past crimes long ago in that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @10:53AM (1 child)
depends on the murder.... you can murder someone by accident .... or because it's a crime of passion .... but what about the serial killer that does it for fun?
Statistics have their outliers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:45PM
No. You can kill someone by accident, but murder by definition is intentional.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:50PM
Would I hire him as attorney?
Well, that depends on the answer to exactly one question: Would the probability of winning my case increase if I do so?
OK, two questions, actually, the second question being: Can I afford to hire him?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:51PM (2 children)
He's a paralegal, not a lawyer. "Mr. Reilly, who graduated from Tulane in 2014, would like to be able to practice law, but it’s highly unlikely that he could pass the 'character and fitness' portion of the bar admissions process."
And "lawyer", like "doctor" and "nurse" and any number of titles, are regulated by the State whether you're legally allowed to call yourself one.
That aside, he won't really know if he can pass it or not if he does not try.
One story [nbcnews.com] of someone who didn't make it, yet the court who ruled against that applicant did note that even a murder conviction might be possible to pass wtih extraordinary showing of rehabilitation and moral character.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 22 2019, @03:04AM (1 child)
All true, though he has also extensively described [unprison.com] the reason he believes a law education is important and why he values that a lot more than a law license.
It's a truly refreshing concept, in my opinion -- should I care if a legal activist or even a legal scholar passed the bar? I care about what they know and what they have to say, not what their license says.
Practicing law is of course a different matter -- there are liabilities and responsibilities there that perhaps justify licensing and additional oversight.
But it's heartening to me to hear stories of people who value education for the sake of education, rather than merely as a stepping stone to some credential. If he wants to try to pass the bar at some point, great. If not, he can still do much more good in the world than the vast majority of licensed attorneys manage to do.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 22 2019, @02:44PM
Well, first of all, i was correcting the Submitter or Editor's misleading title, "Convicted murderer turned lawyer and felon rights voting activitst." He's not a lawyer. The correct title would be "Convicted murderer earns law degree and becomes a felon rights voting activist." Or "Convicted murderer gets degree and wants to pass the bar...." But those, of course, aren't nearly as sexy.
Second, yes I indeed care if a legal activist or legal scholar has passed the bar, and you should too. Someone who has passed the bar has professional responsibilities towards assuring their advice is absolutely correct. Someone who has passed the bar can be held responsible if their advice or words are incorrect in a context where they have been paid for, both in a civil lawsuit for malpractice and before the bar association and in some cases the criminal justice system. And such a person will take a degree of responsibility in protecting their job by making sure their words aren't lies outside of the paid system as well.
Mr. Reilly does indeed deserve quite a bit of credit and his words do mean something because he does know what it is like to murder someone, to serve the time for it, and most especially because he has gotten a law degree. I don't want to take away from his accomplishments. And I wish he'd try to go for the bar anyway - expense aside, I don't know what it would hurt him. Maybe if he continues on his path he can satisfy the ethics side of things that show how much he really does care and that his violence was a true aberration to whom he really is. That's the picture the article paints, anyway.
I also have a firm belief in education for education's sake, too. Learn all that you can because it helps you, and more importantly can help others.
It's a good story.
But he's still, sadly, not a lawyer.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:18PM
Whenever I hear of crazy laws, like civil forfeiture, sure enough it's another crazy U.S. thing.
In Canada, inmates and former criminals have a constitutional right to vote.
We even let lawyers and politicians vote.