SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-you-a-net-gain-or-a-net-drain? dept.
Many jobs have spillover effects on the rest of society. For instance, the value of new treatments discovered by biomedical researchers is far greater than what they or their employers get paid, so they have positive spillovers. Other jobs have negative spillovers, such as those that generate pollution.
A forthcoming paper, by economists at UPenn and Yale,1 reports a survey of the economic literature on these spillover benefits for the 11 highest-earning professions.
There's very little literature, so all these estimates are very, very uncertain, and should be not be taken literally. But it's interesting reading.
Here are the bottom lines – see more detail on the estimates below. (Note that we already discussed an older version of this paper, but the estimates have been updated since then.)
(Emphasis in original retained.)
At the top, researchers who generate +$950,440 in positive externalities; at the bottom, financiers who generate -$104,000 in negative externalities. In a glaring omission, telephone sanitisers were not listed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:03AM (20 children)
Problem is, when the government is after you for whatever reason you're looking at a 20k minimum to have a lawyer help you. That's minimum. Think DUI.
Look at Bill Cosby's case. Don't care if he's guilty or not, he spent several hundred grand, minimum, for his defense. If the government retries him he has to spend that same money again. This seems wrong to me.
You get accused of a Bill Cosby offense? Doesn't matter if you're guilty or not, can you come up with a few hundred kay to defend yourself? No? I thought not.
Our "justice" system is a joke. We have a legal system. If you can afford to pay the lawyers you're golden as long as someone isn't looking to make an example out of you. Otherwise, too bad somebody somewhere decided to train their sites on you.
My ducks are not in a row. I don't know where some of them are, and I'm pretty sure one of them is a turkey.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:34AM (19 children)
The very first thing they drill into you at Law School is that justice is inexistent, there is only application of the law; so you are correct, as with many other things, the ‘justice system’ is a misnomer and we really have only a legal system.
My professional malformation, I can’t imagine a different system. Would it be better to have Solomon the Wise pass judgment on every case? Yes, but what happens when he dies? Would it be as good under Pontius Pilate? No.
What about a council of elders? You can see the problem, who elects the elders or what are the required qualifications to be an elder? How is this different from electing judges in the current system? What happens when you feel the elders failed to see your point of view?
Think of Socrates, we regard him highly nowadays but in his day he was sentenced to death by a council of elders… and he had no recourse, except escaping the city to avoid the penalty.
It is like democracy, not perfect but better than every other system we tried.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:54AM (4 children)
I think we can have the law handle matters quite well, we've proven it as an effective means to maintain civilized society. The issue is varying forms of justice in the form of lawyers and personal ability to hire one. How about we provide a much broader public defender support base, reduce the clientele for the snakes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:00AM (3 children)
An alternative? How about 1/3 of the DA's budget goes to public defenders. As it is the DA has no skin in the game, they have a fixed (unlimited to you and me) budget, force them to pay for your defense.
It's absurd the average American has to take a second mortgage on their house to defend themselves, guilty or not. And, it found not guilty, they still have to pay off that second mortgage.
My ducks are not in a row. I don't know where some of them are, and I'm pretty sure one of them is a turkey.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:34AM
With dozens and dozens of women claiming that he victimized all of them in similar ways, Bill Cosby isn't the best example.
I would have used a whistleblower who got screwed by O'Bummer and his "transparency in gov't" bullshit as the example.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday June 29 2017, @08:50AM (1 child)
You do know who the public defenders are, right? There are three classes:
- Freshly minted attorneys, who don't yet have a client base or reputation. They may be good or bad, but they are certainly inexperienced.
- Incompetent attorneys who cannot make a living any other way.
- Good attorneys who do some public defense because it's the right thing to do. This is a very small group.
So, sure, you can probably insist on a public defender (although, iirc, the court can decide that you are too rich, and aren't entitled to one until you've bankrupted yourself). But the quality of representation you will get is likely to be poor.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday June 29 2017, @09:45AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:02AM (4 children)
Aren't you being a little hyperbolic with your comparisons?
There are other legal systems (e.g. France uses the inquisitorial system) and it isn't like we'd be forced to start praying to Solomon for legal guidance if we wanted to fix some problems with our legal system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:57AM (3 children)
Even third-world countries are moving away from the inquisitorial system: Mexico, with the help of the U.S. Government [usembassy.gov], moved to a modern, oral system.
Again, not perfect but the best we tried.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:38AM
I guess your example of Mexico switching is at least better than Pontius and Solomon, but the logic of "Even third-world countries are [jumping off bridges/smoking Marlboro Reds]" isn't incredibly compelling.
You made the claim that our system is the best, but haven't really provided evidence for that claim. I'm sure that you'll acknowledge the problems associated with cost and plea bargains, but do the "pay to play/win" parts balanced out relative to other modern approaches?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:59AM (1 child)
It's rather more complicated than that. The US system is being split into different legal systems and some of them are very different. Drug court and family court around here are very different from what you'd see in civil court or criminal court. Mental health problems are also handled by a different model from what people associate with the US system.
The problem with the US system is that money has a huge influence. If you've got enough, you can hire the best attorneys, consultants and even have focus groups. Whereas the poor receive attorneys making minimum wage, who may not even be conscious or free of Alzheimer's.
The inquisitorial system and some of the other systems out there have a different set of problems associated with them. In the US, if you really want the judge to be involved all you have to do is request a bench trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:12PM
I provided an example of a couterpoint that wasn't a strawman from 2000 years ago and I understand that legal systems are complicated and have different advantages/disadvantages.
Are you making the claim, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" (appeal to ignorance), because that is also not a compelling argument why the US has the best system. Juxtaposing the US system to that of France and showing the US system is better would provide one piece of evidence.
You seem to speak with authority on the topic, but when you make such a poor argument for your claim and deliberately ignore alternatives then it seems like you are assuming your claim is true and simply rationalizing.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:11AM (6 children)
Seems to me we could task an AI with the entirety of the legal system, and get vastly better justice out of it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:16AM (5 children)
Many functions of the legal system can indeed be automated, even without true AI but the core must and will, remain human-centered.
I’m an engineer by training and vocation, but I happen also to be a lawyer, so I can see the two sides of the fence :-)
The concept of mens rea [wikipedia.org] is the core of the criminal justice system and very difficult to automate. Even with a human jury, it is difficult to clearly demonstrate the intent of someone when performing a criminal act.
As an example, you’re at a party and after a few drinks you push someone, that someone falls, strikes his/her head on the corner of a piece of furniture and dies.
You are a murderer, the law makes that perfectly clear, but what penalty should be given to you? If your intention was to harm that person, you get first-degree murder; if you and him/her were horseplaying, you get manslaughter, even if you were not horseplaying, you can allege that it was a friendly push, not meant to harm anyone.
Take the case of Philando Castile [wikipedia.org], probably you’ve seen the video. To me, the police officer is guilty as hell, but he convinced a jury that he was afraid for his life and he walked away, literally, with murder.
How AI would know about your intentions or the fear the police officer said he felt? I don't see that happening anytime soon, unless we really write new laws and trash centuries of precedent.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @11:35AM
Concept of mens rea is bringing thought crime into real crime and diluting the concept of responsibility.
You should have known better then to drink or to push people around in a room with hard protrusions.
If you are afraid for your life, you have to make a tough decision, a bargain of your life or your life in prison, and it is your decision. Don't ask the judges to overturn your decision after the bargain was already made. If you were afraid of dying, you should be content that you stayed alive, even for a long while under lock and key.
I know why you need mens rea, because you want to get back to really evil, nasty, sadistic characters by punishing them for taking joy in crime. I understand that, but it is wrong, because mens rea is exactly what gives them an evasion route. If you hate them and what they represent that much, make a responsible decision and off them from their lives. In the legal system of fixed punishments, you would know the exact price (see above). Someone with a sense of duty toward society, or just appalled enough, would knowingly and willingly sacrifice some of their freedom for betterment of all. The fact that there exist people who would, should keep sociopaths from getting too far.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:07PM (3 children)
As your subsequent sentences demonstrated, no the law doesn't make that perfectly clear.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday June 29 2017, @08:30PM (2 children)
The law if perfectly clear: the act of killing someone is murder. That describes the action. Then the penalties associated to how the action was performed: was it self-defense? Walk away free. Was is accidental? It is manslaughter. Was it intentional? Yes, then sub-clause, was it premeditated? The penalty you get depends on how the act was committed.
If you can’t understand such a simple and clear arrangement, you make my point that AI is far from being able to run the legal system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 29 2017, @09:38PM (1 child)
No, it's not. Not even intentionally killing someone. You need more such as the mentioned mens rea or aggravating circumstances such as while committing a felony.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Murder is more than just killing someone.
As to running the legal system, there's already several ways that humans are integral to the system, particularly a jury of peers. But the rest doesn't require humans. I don't feel the urge to automate the process since it works well enough and automated processes can be vastly less efficient in ways that human counterparts can't match.
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Friday June 30 2017, @10:26PM
You are correct, the word I should have used is homicide, not murder.
I normally avoid technical terms (such as homicide) that might not be familiar to people in the group or have a subtle meaning, thus with lawyers I won’t bring up the Fresnel Zone and call it simply line of sight and with engineers or other technical people I would use murder instead of homicide.
Cheers
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @11:01AM (1 child)
Times change slowly bit by bit. There is always something we haven't tried yet. Let's keep on trying, even though there is always a push-back by those who got it good for themselves. No system is stable until the majority is content.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 29 2017, @04:25PM
And therein lie the cracks and stagnant pools of corruption that some of the most virulent evildoers in our society thrive in.
For instance, it's perfectly obvious that the "drug war" is, as to its asserted purpose, a resounding failure and source of harm to society that far outweighs its purported benefits. Yet getting rid of it is one of those very areas resistant to change; this is because there is a very large amount of money and power pendant upon the lies that form the foundation of the drug war. The slow change isn't a natural thing, one of simply moving towards the right thing as we learn what that is; it's a matter of overcoming resistance by those who use the existing faults to enable their parasitism upon the rest of us. What is right is obvious when the data is in front of you, and we already know what it is. That tells you the precise nature of the resistance to change: Evil.
Many other social issues are similar.