https://www.nber.org/papers/w28600
Communities across the United States are reconsidering the public safety benefits of prosecuting nonviolent misdemeanor offenses. So far there has been little empirical evidence to inform policy in this area. In this paper we report the first estimates of the causal effects of misdemeanor prosecution on defendants' subsequent criminal justice involvement. We leverage the as-if random assignment of nonviolent misdemeanor cases to Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) who decide whether a case should move forward with prosecution in the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office in Massachusetts. These ADAs vary in the average leniency of their prosecution decisions. We find that, for the marginal defendant, nonprosecution of a nonviolent misdemeanor offense leads to large reductions in the likelihood of a new criminal complaint over the next two years. These local average treatment effects are largest for first-time defendants, suggesting that averting initial entry into the criminal justice system has the greatest benefits. We also present evidence that a recent policy change in Suffolk County imposing a presumption of nonprosecution for a set of nonviolent misdemeanor offenses had similar beneficial effects: the likelihood of future criminal justice involvement fell, with no apparent increase in local crime rates.
Journal Reference:
Amanda Y. Agan, Jennifer L. Doleac, Anna Harvey. Misdemeanor Prosecution, (DOI: 10.3386/w28600)
NB: The DOI link was not active yet at time of his story's writing should be active before long.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:27AM (16 children)
There's an entire multibillion-dollar industry built around incarcerating as many people as possible for as long as possible, how will this valuable part of our economy survive if less people are persec... uhh, prosecuted?
(Score: 3, Offtopic) by crafoo on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:02PM (1 child)
Global and local economies are in the middle of an errrrhhhm, "redefinition". Part of this more, uh, "top-down" approach will be allowing certain, less relevant economic sectors and activities to cease. Besides, they need the space for gulags, re-education camps, and political prisoners.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:55PM
That's right - less prisons, more work camps.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @02:37PM
Just because there's a modicum of validity in what you're saying, it doesn't follow that a "progressive" reform agenda [city-journal.org] will be an improvement.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 30 2021, @02:42PM (11 children)
First, we need to define "value". Sending some dumbass 17 to 25 year old off to prison means we (taxpayers) support him, support the prison, support his girlfriend/wife and children, and lose any productivity he might have offered society, until he is freed. At which time he is ineligible for most productive work, and probably offends again.
We've been doing it all wrong for a hundred years, or more.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 30 2021, @03:26PM (8 children)
That depends entirely upon your objectives. If you're trying to create a stratified society with people at the top and people at the bottom to give the people in the middle carrots and sticks to motivate them, this system does that.
If you're looking for overall economic efficiency, productivity, quality of life, reduction of human suffering, or any of those namby pamby things... yeah, the U.S. system doesn't do that well as compared to plenty of functioning examples around the world for the last 50 years.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @06:07PM (7 children)
From my understanding, in the days of antiquity, to be prosecuted you had to have committed injury against a third party. As in actual tangible damages had occurred in a given event for the government to pursue it to any end. And in fact, if memory serves, because the government hadn't a ready supply of police in its employ, the injured party most often had to conduct the affairs of serving their own subpoenas (through a third party) and dealing with all the arrangements.
I'm quite gladdened that 100 years was brought up, I don't know that it was deliberate. From my admittedly ignorant understanding of it, the police force was erected around the automobile. Prior to the advent of highway travel it was a considerably smaller force. It's interesting, my mind had always assumed there was a fairly constant directly proportional relationship between the population and the police force. While that may have been the case, the coefficient of force to man has greatly escalated to a remarkable extent. Which brings another point to the fore, we managed to get this far with very little in the way of authoritarian forces cudgeling the masses into submission, for what reason did the escalation of force occur? And to what end do we continue to maintain it, if not for the sake of "tradition"?
As to the latter part, if we accept certain psychological findings, the availability heuristic as proposed by Kahneman and the propensity for the cess of violence and crime as syndicated by television and the internet conditions people to believe that this is happening constantly around them, which simply is not the case to the extent they are want to believe. This ensures that, as a product of insecurity generated by the described mechanisms, the demand for security will increase. If we speak on the point of the logic of the coercive ability of the police, it's very evidently ineffectual. Criminals emerge without regard to penalty, and have always emerged without regard to penalty, even with the expense of death or maiming made publicly evident at every avenue. I believe this is then a perverse feedback loop. The demand grows ad infinitum as crime is an unceasing constant, to satisfy this the force is increased, but it does little or nothing in terms of prevention. Perhaps most importantly, as a product of probability, the statistics relating to crime show a defined increase over time - thus we find a positive feedback loop. Is that not a monolithic hazard to the liberty of the people?
(Score: 2, Troll) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:25PM (2 children)
Your understanding is incorrect.
Most of the rest of your word salad makes little sense.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:13AM
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42449469-policing-the-open-road [goodreads.com]
But you're an illiterate, so:
https://www.audible.com/pd/Policing-the-Open-Road-Audiobook/1094088129 [audible.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:58PM
Just because you might lack literacy does not mean an otherwise interesting and cogent point is word salad.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:23AM (3 children)
You said it yourself: the advent of the automobile. Not only did traffic itself (common folk piloting weapons of mass murder on a daily basis) require policing, those inclined to commit crime now had the means to flee the scene with great efficiency, requiring a stronger "Dragnet" to deter hit and run crimes and providing endless fodder for the nacent Hollywood film industry, especially the ubiquitous chase scene.
You mean: fuel for the 2nd Amendment nuts, and support for "strong police" politicians? Why wouldn't the powers that be perpetuate that which keeps them in power?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @06:03AM
The biggest objection that the police had to the creation of the Highway Patrol was that it changed their core job from law enforcement to revenue generation, and that change has turned what was supposed to be a public service* into essentially organized crime. Civil forfeiture and the increasing militarization** are natural outgrowths of this mentality as police increasingly become an occupying force.
*The deplorable treatment of minorities is a separate issue, but I don't see equality before the law ever occurring while police are above the law.
**I hate using this term but don't know a better one. Professional militaries are trained, have rules of engagement, and are subject to military law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @01:05PM (1 child)
In times past people had an even greater ability to flee the scenes of crime since there tended to be relatively minimal police presence at any given location. But it didn't mean a lack of law enforcement. Instead of high speed chases you had greater detective work, bounty hunting, and community involvement in law enforcement.
While partially tangential, I think in many ways the attack on "toxic masculinity" in America has been an attack on any sort of community coherence in the US, as odd as that might seem. For instance toxic masculinity means thinks like not standing idly by slack jawed while an innocent person who cannot defend themselves (for instance an older Chinese lady) gets beat to death, or nearly as such, by another person, which is becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence in the US. I'd call it "our country", by I increasingly feel like a foreigner and not only because I no longer live within the borders of our nation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @05:11PM
Bureaucracy, and liability. The "Bystander effect" is precisely what you're speaking on. I'd say it's probably amplified by the distinction of authority we make in modern society. If someone is witness to domestic violence, intervention becomes a hazard, both legally and physically, not to mention it isn't their "job", and they most certainly don't have the authority. And it becomes a highly sophisticated gambling computation. Even when someone is injured or ill you'll elicit the same reaction, "someone here must be better qualified than I am!" There's also institutions like OSHA, MSHA, and the FRA which act as a buffer between business and employees by creating a standard of quality, and assuming the authority due to unions and their workers.
A sort of irony, most people assume they'll run in and save the day in such a situation. Most people do not. At least in the study I read. I'm skeptical about the application of psychology from lab conditions in the real world though, but this one seems to hold true.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 31 2021, @01:07AM
You bring an interesting point. It raises the question, is a total lack of prosecution really the best answer or is it just that our criminal justicve system is such an epic fail that it's actually worse than nothing (at least for non-violent crime).
I suspect that a criminal justice system with a sense of proportion that was actually designed with a goal of integrating people productively into society might actually be better than nothing at least.
Otherwise we run the risk of at least some non-violent crimes creating violent crimes. People will only put up with porch pirates for so long before they set a trap and beat the crap out of one, for example. It could be argued (and I would be sympathetic to that argument) that beating the crap out of a porch pirate isn't a crime at all, but it certainly would be violence and could easily escalate to a crime.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 31 2021, @03:12AM
Forgiveness, restitution, deportation, or death. When I become dictator, those will be the possible outcomes for criminals. You may notice prison is omitted, tho holding tanks may occasionally be required. (Sharks need to eat too.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @04:52AM
Just because something isn't violent, doesn't mean that it doesn't destroy people's lives. There's a difference between possession of pot and defrauding people of their life savings. Both are nonviolent offenses, but I'd hope that most would agree that defrauding people of their life savings is a bigger problem than somebody possessing pot. Likewise, shoplifting is a massive problem that has little relationship to poverty and just results in everybody else having to pay for it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:38AM (24 children)
Making everything a "crime" and then selectively prosecuting targeted individuals is not very compatible with the "democracy" branding.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:45AM (22 children)
That's right, they should just ship them all back to Africa.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @12:12PM (4 children)
Who should we ship? The grammar there is ambiguous.
The "criminals"? Those who profiteer off of " criminals" who, in the interest of society, should probably rather be dealt with differently? Or should we better ship those away who keep demanding "real" democracy, as opposed to the current, fake "pretend" democracy, because running a dictatorship is so much more profitable anyway? (that's the definition of fascism, by the way)
I'm not really sure what your meaning was. Maybe I misunderstood completely, but I could see your point for all three variants, it's just that they all make you look like a totally antisocial asshole.
Perhaps the kind of asshole to be shipped far away, for the betterment of local society??
That wouldn't be nice to the African communities though ... after all, they're normal people who despise assholes just as much as we do.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:00PM (1 child)
Well we all know you've never been to Liberia now. Hey, maybe check out their flag and then read a little of their history. Also, exiling violent criminals isn't a terrible idea.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:18PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:04PM
Indeed, and based on a decade living and working in London, that's why they apparently export as many of them as possible...
It's a global game, we all try to make our arseholes someone else's problem, as an example, I've not yet met a USian living here who wasn't a complete and utter arse, ditto wrt other colonial types...Aussies, Kiwis, Rhodesians, English (they're colonials in my part of Britain.) etc. etc.
Britain, the place of my birth, based on my experience living here, is apparently the biggest arsehole magnet on the planet...oh, wait...
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @02:39PM
Well, with a native american as Secretary of the Interior, I'm looking forward to an interesting take on sending immigrants back where they came from.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:37PM (12 children)
I understand that the existence of people who are not white causes you great distress. However the crime of being non white, great as it may seem to you, would not qualify as a misdemeanor let alone a felony crime. It would not even qualify as a crime of any kind outside of redneckistan. And this article is about NON-prosecution of non-violent crimes.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @04:58PM (8 children)
Note, the OP didn't specify which "they" were being shipped back.
Granted, the presence of "back" can be used as evidence that they were possibly stating to send back non-whites.
But the OP might have meant the owners of the prison businesses that profit off of all these small crimes being prosecuted and creating a revolving door of guests for those business owners to profit from.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:16PM (6 children)
The internet spawned a lot of sarcasm and terrible jokes because anonymity made it easy to say terrible if sometimes funny things. Around this phenomenon quickly grew the expectation that nothing on the internet is serious or to be trusted. After decade it has become clear that most of this dynamic is being pushed by the worst trolls who delight is their mud pits.
Society is slow to adapt and easily flummoxed at first, but these days more people are realizing that the trolls have been fooling everyone with their "justa prank bro" behavior and too many regular people accepted their bullshit. Long story short, we now *believe* people when they say fucked up shit instead of assuming they must surely be joking. So by the new NetLaw yes, the poster is a racist douche that is *at best* an immature stupid troll. At worst? An angry weasel faced fatty that has trouble with ramps.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:44PM (4 children)
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
--Maya Angelou
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 30 2021, @09:53PM (3 children)
You have to be able to perceive as well to see what is supposedly shown. I don't agree with the above quote as a result. I've seen way too many people jump to non sequitur conclusions, taking something out of context, or just make up shit.
A classic example is when I express skepticism about some alleged climate change assertion made on the basis of an untested model. I even justify my concern on the basis of the demonstrated known harm of environmental and climate mitigation measures we already have implemented. But too often, the first accusation is that I'm being short sighted and selfish. The accuser doesn't even bother to perceive my argument. They just go straight for the ad hominem.
Another common argument is to just accuse me of being a shill for Big Oil. That's the make-up-shit variation. They don't have a clue what shilling would look like, but golly, I have to be an agent for Exxon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @04:22PM (1 child)
Couldn't have anything to do with your denial of an obvious problem, constant rejection of everything climate change related, and constant messaging that oil is the only solution.
Yup, we are totally unfair to you because you think we don't listen. Says the person who actively avoids engaging with evidence due to how you feel about it. You icky.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 31 2021, @07:29PM
Indeed. It couldn't be because I explain myself. I even acknowledge, repeatedly over years, the existence of climate change and its potential for harm - which rules out the "deny" accusation. But we still have these erroneous narratives come up again and again.
How do we fix that?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 31 2021, @07:28PM
No, no, it's Wells Fargo, nobody said anything about Exxon
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @06:10AM
It's removing the mask. What you're seeing is the individual, probably among their most sacred thoughts in some cases. There's just no precedence for this kind of communication, or at this resolution. And when it's done without intent behind and real world identity you get a lot of wild noise. The real world is far more sterilized and far less human than the anonymous corners of the internet. All the professionalism and sensitivity instituted everywhere is extracting humanity from its real-world realization. I'd say a lot of what you see on the internet is just directed 'artistic' backlash against a part of the system that's frustrating somebody's sensibilities, but I'm speculating.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 30 2021, @09:52PM
Then, in that case, based on my perception of the troll, that they must have meant to send native Americans "back" to Africa.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @10:20PM (1 child)
And if a whitey offends, chuck em off back to the UK, EU, Russia, etc. One standard, for all.
Hey Ozztrillia is deporting Kiwis left, right and center, often for even minor infractions...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:05AM
Increases the average criminal tendency of both countries. (to steal a similar joke about IQ).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:26AM
It's such a simple basis for prejudice. Want to explain to the kiddies which strangers you can trust and which you should run away from screaming? It's a tough one, but dark skin is a handy shortcut for poor, and poor is a handy shortcut for desperate, and desperate is a handy shortcut for dangerous, and people who have "proven themselves right" even one time with such shortcuts are nigh impossible to break of their prejudices.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday March 30 2021, @08:05PM (3 children)
Do you have any support for this statement in such a way that doesn't also support calls for people of European ancestry to return to that continent as well?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:06AM
Don't think about it too hard. Just enjoy the humor.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 31 2021, @07:36PM (1 child)
A mere stopover. They must be sent back to the cosmic cloud of dust from whence they came.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @07:44PM
It's "whence", not "from whence". Whence means "from which" or "from where". The "from" is built in.
Or are you one of those people who unironically refers to ATM machines, PIN numbers, SSN numbers, etc.?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:18PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:47AM (13 children)
Is It Worth it to Prosecute Non-Violent Crime?
Yes
The difference is what you are trying to achieve here. If someone stole some CC numbers or passing along counterfeit currency, then do you make such individuals do community service and require them to pay restitution or require them to attend social programs (provided they are non-repeats), then that seems to be ok in my mind. If the purpose is to throw them in jail, then that only feeds the prison system and makes no benefit to society at large.
The courts can decide individual's penalty for the crime. Who else decides? Police? They write tickets for speeding and other traffic minor traffic violations. So yes, we still need courts and prosecutions for non-violent crimes. Just like we need courts for divorces. But that doesn't mean we should be throwing people in jail. Such a system is patently broken. And US system is shit in this regard - just look at the retarded bond system and how people with no money are stranded in jails for no reason.
PS. 5 Invalid form key: L153v0IYw5 so far... yay!!!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @12:34PM (4 children)
Any rule that is not policed in some way can safely be deleted - because everybody will ignore it anyway.
Selective enforcement does not change this basic equation.
Now, whether you should immediately hack of his hand after the 4-year-old "stole" a single gummy bear from _your_ side of the bag ... well, no. At least the first time, telling him you don't find that OK may be the better way of building a workng family. And that is what the research was actually about.
Of course, if all you care about are your gummy bears, and you'd rather see the 4-year-old gutted than raised, then, well, go away and keep your bag'o'bears. Someplace else please, and probably all alone.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:54PM (3 children)
Actually selective enforcement changes this in a very socially destructive way. If you aren't going to enforce it, you *should* delete it.
That said, I feel laws against fraud and coercion should be enforced, even when no violence is present. And even when the group committing the fraud is a corporation. Jail the entire mob.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 30 2021, @03:28PM (1 child)
Selective enforcement puts power in the hands of the enforcers, and who doesn't like to have power?
We've put off watching the watchers for far too long.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:10AM
But we can watch people on their unsecure webcams [insecam.org].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:32AM
Agreed, however - the incarceration component of legal punishment should be rethought and greatly reduced from current U.S. levels of deployment.
What happens when a first time offender is sent to jail? They are socialized with all kinds of other offenders, offending behavior is normalized, society rightly distrusts ex-cons but it's not because of their first offense but rather their extensive exposure to all kinds of offenders in jail - placing said ex-cons in a continuing virtual community outside the jails after release in large part by excluding them from mainstream society.
Crime and punishment. Treble restitution for theft and fraud. Community service for non-violent offenses. Coercion borders on violence and probably requires long term monitoring at least as rigorous as one-time sex offenders. But prison? What moron thinks that prison helps anything but satisfaction of a vengeful streak among the justice seekers?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday March 30 2021, @12:53PM (1 child)
Couple points: minimum sentencing laws have taken sentencing out of the hands of judges. they apply to many non-violent crimes. second, divorces happen in family court, a completely different justice system that uses different courts and judges.
I'm in favor of the Singapore system of justice, personally, simply based on their outcomes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @07:54PM
I think the word you're looking for is "legal", not "justice". The American legal system is well known for not dispensing justice. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't have things like the BLM movement and so many dirty cops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:21PM (2 children)
The invalid form keys are very annoying, seems unlikely that it would be so hard to keep form keys from conflicting. Re-loading a comment submission doesn't change the key either, you have to wait out the couple minute timer.
Maybe it was intentional to prevent some DDoS attacks, but i'm guessing just lazy good'nuff coding.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:28PM (1 child)
I wonder if the Invalid Form Key only shows up for us ACs. It's probably a way to cut down on our postings. If so, it's working quite well, I'm usually put off from posting for a day or two when those errors come up, as it's just not worth the bother of trying anymore. Not like anyone gives a rat's ass about what I have to say anyway, so I can just write out something in my text editor and then delete it with just the same effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:18AM
Poor AC. I gave you a pity Disagree mod - a wasted mod to go with your wasted post and waste of life. Please don't kill yourself.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday March 30 2021, @07:44PM (2 children)
They should either enforce the fucking laws, or allow Americans to defend their person and property. Some states wisely allow the latter and more are jumping onboard.
Vandalism and stealing are not victimless crimes. If a shitbag doper wants to smoke meth, let 'em. But if they're committing crimes while high, or otherwise to support their habit, then lock the fuckers up. There seems to be a lot of Pilpul in this discussion using wormy logic to claim that traffic tickets are an injustice while totally ignoring all the personal and property crime Antifa and BLM shitbags perpetrate.
Either way, the aftermath of the Fentanyl Floyd trial is a big wild card, because their "sympathizers" are in charge now. BLM raised billions of dollars that got funneled directly into the White Jewish administration, of all the billions they raised only $200,000 went to actual Black people. So there's the high likelihood of their funding or morale being too dry this time around to do anything. All violence will be in Democrat-run cities, so there's the prospect of a lot of friendly fire. Finally, all the dems/progressives are betrayed by their administration and all Republicans are fed up with rioting, and they will not allow what happened last summer to happen again, at least not in their own neighborhoods.
What I'm hoping from that is to see Chauvin let free, riots break out, and Biden/Kamala fucking smash them all the rioters dead bringing in the national guard. They voted for all that, they supported all that, now it's on them to fix it, at least until Republicans take back the house and deport all those cockroaches before the Dems and their buddies the cartels try to get them turned into citizens.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @09:11PM (1 child)
Hi fuckhead, still angry you can't get laid? Did even the Tijuana hookers tell you to piss off? Maybe you can get some work in one of those donkey shows?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:31PM
Ignoring any points made in a post and just attacking the person who posted it, is a pretty good sign that the poster was hitting too close to the truth.
AC, you shouldn't get paid when your astroturf posting is that obvious. Try to have some pride in your work at least, sheesh.
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Tuesday March 30 2021, @12:29PM (2 children)
From my first search result [commonwealthmagazine.org]:
So basically only if the assistant DA isn't entirely sure, it seems best to default to not prosecute.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:40PM
They need it for the statistical analysis where they use an instrumental variable approach. This approach requires variation in the independent variable (tendency to move forward) that is independent of the outcome (recurring justice involvement). This is needed for a causal interpretation. Strictly, indeed, they can only conclude something about the sub-population of cases they considered in the analysis. Most likely they show something in the paper to compare their population to the general population of misdemeanors.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:39AM
That drawn out process in itself is a cruel and unusual punishment disproportionate to the crime in most misdemeanor cases.
Those who work in the legal system fail to acknowledge that the simple coercion to answer legal charges is in itself highly damaging punishment.
Consider the case of someone who accidentally walks out of WalMart without paying for a $19.88 item, gets in a scuffle with an overzealous communication impaired security officer and ends up in court off and on for 185 days defending themselves. Each court appearance costs a minimum of 10-fold the level of the offense, 100-fold if the defendant employs a lawyer. A minimum of three engagements with the court is likely for the most minimal of "stand your ground" defenses that don't involve capitulation to terms offered by the prosecution.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:00PM (24 children)
If you make something illegal, you prosecute it when that law's broken. If you don't you do not have rule of law, you have a situation where everyone is always guilty and can be thrown in prison whenever they get on the nerves of the powerful.
If you don't want people thrown in jail for something, you get rid of the laws against it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:09PM (1 child)
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
(hate the book, on the whole, but always liked this quote)
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 31 2021, @01:38PM
Her philosophy ain't by any means perfect and she can't tell a story worth a fuck but she does have a good point or three.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:47PM (17 children)
If you don't want someone thrown in jail for something, then EITHER (a) get rid of laws against it, or (b) revise the sentence for the crime to not include jail.
Some things should not be crimes. eg, masturbation in private. singing in the shower. Thinking certain thoughts. Use of emacs.
Some things should continue to be crimes, but not have jail. Jaywalking. Stealing a pack of gum.
We should decriminalize tobacco use and language of fowls.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:57PM
What kind of crazy monster are you? Use of emacs not being a crime? HOW COULD YOU! We all know that only the Acme editor should ever be allowed in a civilized society.
Some people. What is happening to this country?
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Tuesday March 30 2021, @03:04PM (13 children)
Please explain why jaywalking should be a crime?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by slinches on Tuesday March 30 2021, @03:32PM (5 children)
Because when people are dumb enough to step out in traffic and get hit it causes damage to motor vehicles and can cause serious harm to motorcycle and bicycle riders.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @04:17PM (1 child)
Then prosecute those who DID cause harm by putting their stupid body in vehicle's way. Or make their estate pay for the ACTUAL harm done if the idiot got offed in the process. And leave everyone else ALONE.
Because, face it, when you start juggling what CAN be, there is no stopping point. Look around you and observe how bureaucrats already are causing MORE damage and suffering, than people could EVER do to themselves in absence of hordes of parasites "protecting" them from X,Y,Z,Z1,...Z9999999999
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:28PM
This is basically how it is done already. It is not feasible to write laws with exemptions and qualifiers, a certain amount of flexibility is required from the policing departments to determine when such edge cases such as jaywalking need to be punished. That said, we also need accountability measures to stop enforcers from abusing their positions like persecuting someone they don't like by applying every petty law possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:03PM
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:24AM
This is the result: https://newsone.com/3778282/asheville-police-officer-beating-man-johnnie-rush-jaywalking-video/ [newsone.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @01:20PM
Jaywalking was made a crime in the 1920s because car manufacturers didn’t want to be liable for the crappy brake systems and tires on their cars not being good enough to stop a vehicle.
Welcome to “blame the victim” for something as simple as walking.
Most “accidents “ today are caused by drivers not paying attention to what they’re doing or purposely doing something stupid. So they’re not really accidents, they’re negligent drivers. Same as programs don’t have “bugs”, they have coding mistakes by programmers.
In both cases the reframing is an attempt to avoid responsibility.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 30 2021, @04:21PM (3 children)
Jaywalking already is a crime in some places. Think for yourself, for a moment, and ask yourself why some places might not want people jaywalking? Imagine a situation where there are many people and vehicles moving about on a busy street.
If jaywalking should be okay, then maybe we should also remove lane markers from roads? After all, why shouldn't drivers be allowed to drive on any side or portion of the road they want to? MY RIGHTS!!!!
And why, oh why, should we bother having stop signs, and expensive traffic signals?
People who scream the loudest about their rights are always the ones least concerned about anyone else's rights.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:19PM (2 children)
It WILL be less damaging to remove lane markers, than remove all our rights. If the self-appointed nannies cannot stop, they must be stopped.
Dude, please explain WHY you are imagining yourself a right to be my master?
And you are wrong, we are VERY concerned about the ever-growing list of "rights" to control, bully, and steal, that certain people are assigning to themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @05:36PM (1 child)
Oh my, someone has zero understanding of basic human civilization. Put the weed down bruh! Or paradoxically, if you are a teetotaller, pick the weed UP bruh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @06:35PM
Oh right, there was no human civilization before Obama! All that history and archeology is lies, all lies, nothing but lies of The Evil Patriarchy!!!11
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday March 30 2021, @07:52PM (1 child)
In my hood, near a busy boulevard with a lot of hotels and liquor stores, there is a lot of jaywalking. In a 15 mile radius there are at least 2 fatal accidents a year involving jaywalking. That sucks for the people driving the vehicles, but they are always the ones surviving. The jaywalkers are always bums, crackheads, or Black people who shuck and shimmy with one hand in their pocket across the boulevard rather than run across it like a normal person would.
These people never use crosswalks, never dress in bright colors, and always try to cross around blind hills and other places where drivers driving the speed limit don't have enough time to slow down before hitting somebody. And don't even get me started on those cyclists -- They're getting me changing my mind regarding the legality of vehicular homicide laws. Putting down douchbag cyclists should be legal everywhere, along with putting down Antifa/BLM shitbags as is legal in Florida and a couple other states, provided it is in self-defense or they are blocking the road.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:29AM
Putting down douchbag cyclists should be legal everywhere
Not just legal, mandatory. Also no need for the qualifier, they're all douchebags.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:41PM
Liability.
When a driver hits a pedestrian, who's at fault? If the pedestrian was breaking the jaywalking law, and the driver was not breaking any driving laws, then it was almost assuredly the pedestrian's fault. Sure that's balanced in most areas by laws stating the driver has to be fucking paying attention, but jaywalking laws mean the likelihood of liability tilts to the pedestrian if the driver wasn't doing anything wrong. (Yeah, you'll have the edge cases where someone darted into traffic to push a rouge baby stroller out of the path of the oncoming school bus -- that's why they actually have trials, so the details of each case can be reviewed just for those edge cases.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @10:31PM (1 child)
I could make a pretty good case for masturbation in public, singing in public, voicing certain thoughts, AND use of emacs all being not-a-crime.
(Score: 1) by Acabatag on Wednesday March 31 2021, @01:13AM
Back the first time I tried Minix, the only editor you had to work with was called 'elle'
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Emacs and vi users.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Tuesday March 30 2021, @03:01PM (2 children)
Why do Karens exist? Because there are thousands of laws and regulations governing the minutiae of everyday life.
“Barbecue Becky” made her entrance on social media when a white woman tried to call the police on two Black men having a barbecue at a lake in Oakland, California (she claimed their charcoal grill was in violation of area regulations). Permit Patty called police to report an 8-year-old Black girl selling water on the sidewalk in San Francisco without a permit. There are many other examples.
People are quick to call out the Karens, but never stop to think that their impulse to legislate every detail is what creates and enables them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:31AM
Misread as Koreans. Made sense.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:43AM
Karens don't need a statute to enable them. They simply complain to management is such a loud and obnoxious fashion as to get their way - management (police or store) uses the statutes on the object of Karen's wrath to get Karen to STFU, but if no statute existed you can be assured that management or the police would do something illegal just to relieve themselves of Karen's continued presence in their field of sight and/or hearing.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Tuesday March 30 2021, @06:48PM
In other words, legislators need to do their jobs and roll back draconian laws and sentencing.
But the government should also take care, in choosing not to prosecute certain offenses that are a nuisance to the community, that it does not inspire a mass of angry citizens who then decide to carry out that prosecution themselves. It's possible to go too far in the other direction.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 30 2021, @01:50PM (27 children)
Burglary? That's a non-violent crime.
Embezzling $500,000 from your employer? That's a non-violent crime.
Defrauding investors with a Ponzi scheme for $65 million? That's a non-violent crime.
Slapping someone? That's a violent crime.
Tossing a brick through a window? That's a violent crime.
Getting into a bar fight? That's a violent crime.
I'm not sure that the line between "violent crime" and "non-violent crime" is really the right dividing line. Petty versus serious crime seems to be a better idea.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @02:03PM (10 children)
A far better metric would be "is there a victim?" If there is no victim, there can be no crime.
Typically, the easiest way to assess this is that actual real crimes that do not require a government to make them wrong are: fraud, theft, assault, rape, murder, vandalism, kidnapping/imprisonment. Gray area would be: trespassing, squatting, gaslighting.
These are also the easiest to prosecute in civil cases because they have very clear victims.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 30 2021, @03:25PM (4 children)
I don't like that standard either: Stealing a candy bar from a store has a victim, but not a lot of impact. Dumping tons of toxic chemicals into a lake typically has no specific human victim, but a substantial indirect impact (e.g. it probably kills a bunch of fish and makes the fish that remain poisonous, but good luck tying the death of someone who ate that fish to the company that dumped the toxic chemicals in). Ergo, a system that punishes people who steal a candy bar but fails to punish someone who dumps tons of toxic chemicals is unjust.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @06:44PM (3 children)
Maybe, just maybe, if you CANNOT produce a poisonous fish to present to a judge, it means that your imagined crime is just that, IMAGINED ?
No amount of rhetoric, green or any other color, should be able to compensate for lack of demonstrable facts.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:17PM (2 children)
If a company has a dangerous and unsafe workplace, but no one actually gets hurt, should they be fined? If someone is driving recklessly - speeding, blowing through red lights, etc., but doesn't manage to hurt anyone, did they do anything wrong? If someone does a drive-by of your house, but manages to completely miss it because they are a terrible shot, was a crime committed?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @01:17AM (1 child)
NO, because then you have NO PROOF the workplace is "dangerous and unsafe" beyond your say-so.
NO, because then you have NO PROOF he is driving "recklessly" beyond your say-so.
NO, because then you have NO PROOF he was not shooting into the air beyond your say-so.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Invoking unreasoning fear is how people are turned into cattle since ancient times. Any self-respecting human being should have the self-control to counter such attacks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 01 2021, @01:01AM
People die at great distance from people shooting into the air. This person died from a stray bullet shot from half a mile away: https://www.q13fox.com/news/woman-at-family-bbq-for-fathers-day-shot-killed-by-stray-bullet [q13fox.com]
We prosecute crimes that endanger other people because if we don't, they get repeated until someone does die.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday March 30 2021, @07:58PM (4 children)
Is there a victim if you catch someone driving piss drunk and they haven't been involved in an accident yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @11:53PM (2 children)
Rhetorical question? Driving isn't a right. A better example: In an open-carry state, can you go and randomly shoot off a box of ammo in a busy grade school playground so long as you don't hit any of the children?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @12:46AM
Inventing taboos is certainly NOT A RIGHT. Especially when you guys do lack sense God gave all normal rats and are just UNABLE to stop on your own.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:52AM
OK OK I got one. Imagine 2 homos, no 3 homos fuckign eachother in the butt. If they get married to a dog, does Mr. Potatohead get to keep his male sex organ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @01:01AM
Note that the unfortunate act of your being born is how YOU haven't been involved in an accident YET, while a timely abortion would surely 100% have prevented that possibility.
(Score: 5, Informative) by theluggage on Tuesday March 30 2021, @04:14PM
From TFS, cunningly hidden in the sentence after the headline where nobody will read it:
Distinction between felonies and misdemeanors [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 30 2021, @04:36PM (11 children)
Nobody injured. So non violent.
Ah, but someone rich and well connected was offended.
Again with the rich and well connected. Ask Bernie Madoff (curr. age 82) how his 150 year prison sentence is going? I wonder if he can be paroled after serving only 120 years?
Yes
Was it? No person was injured. Only property damage was caused. Of course, then one could say arson is not a crime. I haven't used arson [sourceforge.net] in quite some time when I was on KDE 3.5, but it is still available on SourceForge. But now days we don't usually burn downloaded music onto CDs.
Yes.
I think the real seriousness of a crime is WHO the offended party was, not how much actual damage or violence was done against them. Lightly pushing the wrong person could be assault. Downloading a song could be worth $150,000 statutory copyright damages.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30 2021, @04:50PM (2 children)
> Nobody injured
Oh? [lawinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 30 2021, @09:40PM (1 child)
Yeah. I think anyone who got burglarized would consider it a crime.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 01 2021, @01:34PM
The word you're looking for is "burgled". A burglar doesn't "burglarize" any more than a doctor doctorizes, a cleaner cleanerizes, or a snow plow operator plowerizes.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 30 2021, @06:46PM (7 children)
In the joke of the "justice" system that exists in the US, yes, that has a significant effect on whether an action is treated as a crime. Although also significant is who is doing the offending, e.g. a white guy raping somebody is treated as a minor bit of stupidity, whereas a black guy raping somebody in exactly the same is treated as a reason for him to be in jail forever or even killed.
I'm talking about what *should be* the rules, not what *are* the rules right now.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Tuesday March 30 2021, @07:05PM (6 children)
Can you provide some evidence that this is the case today? Maybe 50 years ago it was commonplace, but I don't see where this is happening now on a regular basis.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 30 2021, @08:00PM (4 children)
Let's start with the obvious stuff: The former president of the United States has been credibly accused of raping over 25 people. At least 1 of the current Supreme Court justices has been credibly accused of sexually assaulting somebody. Harvey Weinstein coerced dozens of people into sexual relationships, which is arguably rape. None of them faced criminal charges or jail time, and only 1 has suffered any professional consequences. Brock Turner commits 3 counts of felony sexual assault (and probably would have done more had he not been caught in the act), and was released after only 3 months in jail (which is approximately the same level of punishment as 3 counts of petty theft).
Black guys don't get that kind of treatment, on average.
The law in my state at least is that rape is punishable by anywhere between 3-25 years, and in the case of rape of a minor that can be escalated to life without parole. And according to a report sponsored by the US DOJ [ojp.gov] at least, there's significant racial differences in who gets how long.
Or, if you want another crime: White kids caught with pot either don't get arrested or get sent to rehab. Black kids caught with pot go to juvy or jail. And according to the same report I linked to above, the disparity in sentencing is even higher for drug crimes than for violent crimes.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday March 31 2021, @05:42AM (2 children)
I'm not saying that the system is perfect or that wealthy or famous people don't get preferential treatment. They do. But the data you provided in that DOJ report is mostly based on data from the 70s and 80s and was published 17 years ago. There has been a lot of progress in that time. Marijuana and other drugs are being legalized and there's quite a few states clearing records of possession charges unrelated to violent crimes. There's greater awareness of the profiling and biases that lead to disparate outcomes and there are more and more training and programs to help the police and judges make the system operate more fairly. There's certainly still a ways to go, but it isn't anywhere near as pervasive of a problem as it used to be. Let's take credit for these advances and build on them. Denying hard won progress will only alienate those who have been trying to make improvements and deter them from doing more.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 31 2021, @03:30PM (1 child)
Brock Turner wasn't particularly wealthy, and definitely not famous, when he committed his crimes. But he was white, and that almost definitely was part of the reason why his multiple felony counts led to less punishment than many far more petty crimes. And that was 2 years ago.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday March 31 2021, @04:15PM
I don't know the details of that case, but that there are recent likely examples of racial disparity of outcomes isn't surprising. I didn't say the problems with the justice system were fixed entirely. I just said that it has gotten better in a lot of ways and we shouldn't ignore that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @11:05PM
Oh come on, surely Der Schlickmeister had more than 25 conquests. How many did the first (ahem) lady silence for him?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday March 30 2021, @09:43PM
Just see the trial that is going on today as we speak.
If you're a black guy who tries to steal $20, then you get a cop kneeling on your neck until you die, while three other cops and various witnesses watch as you say in your final breaths you can't breathe, you think you're dying.
If you're a white guy tho tries to steal $20, the cops will escort you home, maybe even give you a ride and drop you off.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:46AM (2 children)
Jail for monetary damages makes little sense.
Treble damages and restitution makes plenty of sense for monetary crimes - can't make restitution plus damages? Don't do the crime, or have your future income garnished until you can.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @02:59AM
How does provide redress in the case of Bernie Madoff? Prison for life-destroying financial crimes that the perp cannot repay seem fair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31 2021, @10:15PM
Cool! If you don't get caught, you get a free pass! What are the odds against getting caught?
If you're caught less than 1/3 of the time... profit!