A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what? • Hacker News Board

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#471

Post by scottdw2 » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 1:23 AM UTC

This bothers me.

I know this is a bit of a 'libertarian fantasy', but I think the constitution ought to be amended to contain something like the following:

1) No person shall be subject to any criminal penalty exceeding one year of incarceration or $300 in fines for any non violent offense relating solely to the possession, sales, distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an intoxicating substance.

2) The purpose of this article is to limit the scope of criminal penalties that may be applied to "non violent drug offenders". It's provisions shall be interpreted with such intent in mind.

3) This article applies to all jurisdictions with the Several States, the United States, and any territories or possessions thereof

4) Any forfeiture of assets resulting from the conviction of a "non violent drug crime" must be limited to:

a) The intoxicating substances constituting the "core element of the crime"

b) Any asset materially and predominantly used for the manufacture, production, and possession of such substances.

Provided that such seized assets do not also have reasonable, fundamental, predominant, and legally authorized uses. In such case any seizure must be subject to the provisions of "eminent domain".

5) Congress, or the states, acting within the provisions otherwise authorized by this constitution, may adopt measures to ensure assets actually used in the commission of a "non violent drug crime", when not seized in accordance with this constitution, are only used in accordance to lawfully authorized purchases.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#472

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 1:30 AM UTC

reginaldjcooper wrote: post #375

enko wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is attempted murder basically Oh come on. I've lost my license for what you'd call DUI - made a stupid decision to drive the 1.5km back home from a pub, got a 1 year ban and a hefty fine. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do and I deserve what I got, but attempted murder ? Don't be ridiculous. At most repeated DUI is criminal negligence, and negligence on the part of whomever supplied the offender with the vehicle…

It's not negligence because you are an active participant. But, ok, let's meet in the middle and call it attempted manslaughter because you had no mens rea . The goal of this idea is to encourage you to not attempt manslaughter with your vehicle, so if you were faced with life imprisonment perhaps you would think long and hard before you do it the third time.

> The goal of this idea is to encourage you to not attempt manslaughter with your vehicle, so if you were faced with life imprisonment perhaps you would think long and hard before you do it the third time.

This is the worst part of excessive penalties -- that people think they would actually be effective. Most defendants have absolutely no idea what the penalties are until after they've been charged with the crime, which makes any deterrent effect of increasing the penalties quite impossible.

Even if you ran some kind of expensive continuous education campaign (which naturally can't work for every category of crime because there are so many types with such complicated penalties that no one could keep track), you're assuming that people engage in planning. If people planned ahead then they would all have a ride home from the bar in the first place.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#473

Post by was_hellbanned » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:18 AM UTC

enko wrote: post #389

heynk wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you advocate for the same 'top-down' approach to stimulating the economy in the US or another developed country? I think the concept of 'hawkers' could be easily applied to startups. Do you believe a good consumer should be supporting big corporations or fledgling startups? I'm just genuinely curious of your position and if you think the analogy applies in the first world.

I am not so sure it is such a good analogy. The "business model" of these hawkers in third world countries like Cambodia or Laos is to explicitly present themselves as impoverished, and then pressure or guilt-trip you into buying something from them as a gesture of charity. The OP seemed to encourage such behaviour, even admitted it was "crap" they were selling (it is). I'd suggest that any startup worth its salt is…

> to explicitly present themselves as impoverished

That's not the least bit true, in my experience. I've watched them come over from where their families are working and attempt to sell trinkets, then go back to their families (or friends' families).

As for "crap", yeah, it's crap. Because you don't give children appliances and automobiles to sell. It's no different than the stuff you'll buy from American children going door to door, trying to raise money for their school.

I think you're really looking down your nose at people. You have a choice when traveling in areas like this. You can either act like you have to guard your precious money from all these street urchins trying to cheat you, or you can simply accept it as part of the experience traveling in a very poor area, and embrace the reality that you can make some small difference in an individual's life.

You talk as if denying individuals some income is somehow helping their long-term tourism. Yet Thailand, which is decades ahead of Cambodia in terms of development and wealth, still sees foreigners as wealthy, pesters them for sales and rides, and they have a very healthy tourism industry in spite of this. A country can't force its way into a $500/night resort industry. Thailand has tried for years, and it's not happening anytime soon. Cambodia doesn't even have a reasonable highway infrastructure.

> Hotels really do employ locals

To give an interesting regional example, are you aware that the Thai island of Koh Phi Phi is controlled by the Chinese mafia?

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#474

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:23 AM UTC

clarky07 wrote: post #221

anigbrowl wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but bear in mind that elder/end of life medical care tends to be especially expensive, so I think the total is realistic. I don't find it so odd that cost varies - consider land price, cost of living (for prison staff), heating (much more expensive in northerly latitudes), and so on.

I don't find it odd that it varies, just that it varies so wildly. well over 10x seems unreasonable. If it is an area that is that expensive, perhaps it makes sense to transport the prisoners a bit to a less expensive area.

There are often legal barriers to transferring prisoners out of a state, not least that it imposes a significant burden on their families who may be unable to visit them (and who have rights of their own, regardless of how one feels about the prisoner).

I should have mentioned that states like NY als have more extensive rehabilitation programs (which cost money); on the upside, as far as I recall NY has one of the lower rates of incarceration and recidivism (but I might be wrong, don't feel like delving into the stats right now).

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#475

Post by mml » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:30 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #355

michaelt wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be less biased to show statistics for the kind of people sentenced under the three strikes law, but that wouldn't tug the heart strings as much. Perhaps we could aspire to have a law that works right in outlier cases, not just on average?

One of the most basic principles of system design is that there will be edge cases. Every engineer knows that. In a country with 300 million people, enough will fall into these edge cases for the ACLU to put together a pamphlet with a few examples. That's inevitable. That said, with three strikes laws, you don't need to resort to sob stories. The statistics are evidence enough: about half of three strikers in Califor…

If the last 25 years or so have taught me anything, it's that politics is _never_ about rational, thinking people voting for their own best interest. It's pretty much just emotion and/or fear for the vast, vast majority (of the tiny minority of people who actually bother to vote).

Irrational emotion bred these laws, they will only go away via the same pathetic process. The ACLU is just playing the game with their appeal to emotion.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#476

Post by mml » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:33 AM UTC

smm2000 wrote: post #470

thecodeore wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordinary people don't live in the kind of circumstances where they might wander into a felony conviction Ohh I think you should be shocked at the number of felonies a person could commit on the course of everyday life. Felony is not just used for serious crimes. Almost every state have what are referred to a "catch all" felonies that can be brought against just about any one at any time if you piss off the right pers…

what felony conviction can you get in the course of regular life? I do not have a single friend who was threatened with one much less was convicted.

It's really not that complicated.

Piss off the right person, and you may find yourself getting pulled over on some deserted road where officer Clancy "discovers" a felonious amount of a controlled substance concealed in your car or on your person.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#477

Post by rjbwork » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:35 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #456

eropple wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagreeing with your interpretation of the Second Amendment does not mean they do not support civil rights. Nor does spending their money and time defending civil rights that don't have massive organizations devoted to defending them.

Yeah, I get that the ACLU's actions regarding the 2nd Amendment are defensible. That wasn't the topic. The topic was the claim that the ACLU is a "strong supporter" of the second amendment. Do you know a definition of "strong supporter" that is appropriate for the ACLU's actions regarding the Second Amendment? No, I don't want to hear about how great the ACLU is. No, I don't want to hear about the ACLU really does su…

>Don't have anything to say about that? Then please stay out of the discussion rather than changing topics and blurring the issues. Thanks.

The topic of this thread is actually that we have a lot of people serving life in prison for non-violent crimes.

Your post is now 8ish levels deep and asking people to prove that the ACLU is a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights.

This seems like a pretty big topic change and blurring of the issues.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#478

Post by zanny » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:47 AM UTC

scottdw2 wrote: post #471

This bothers me. I know this is a bit of a 'libertarian fantasy', but I think the constitution ought to be amended to contain something like the following: 1) No person shall be subject to any criminal penalty exceeding one year of incarceration or $300 in fines for any non violent offense relating solely to the possession, sales, distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an intoxicating substance. 2) The purpose of…

> for any non violent offense relating solely to the possession, sales, distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an intoxicating substance.

I find it somewhat ridiculous as a species we even consider writing into the absolute law of the land anything to do with growing or selling plants that aren't fatally toxic. And even then, you don't need to say "don't sell toxic plants" you just need to say "don't hurt or kill other people with toxic plants". Or in general.

And the point is the general - don't be specific to intoxicating substance. Better yet, ask why the fuck someone is in jail without committing some violence. Implicit to a crime being nonviolent means all parties engaged (including those unknowingly, because committing fraud can still be a felony because you are harming the unknowing parties you actively lie to and deceive to benefit from).

If all parties are privy to something, you really need to sit back and ask why the hell you are throwing people in jail for participating it. If there are no losers without bringing police and prison sentencing into the picture, you are probably doing it wrong.

But I really hope something like this isn't worthy of a constitutional amendment. If anything, you should seek out and fix the direct empowerment in said document that enables rampant abuses of the legal system like this in the first place. Or you need to ask how the hell enough of a majority of your citizenry support it that may call into question the functioning of democracy, because if there is nothing wrong with the system then the people are to blame.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#479

Post by zanny » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:48 AM UTC

csomar wrote: post #457

grecy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don't appreciate how much a solid social net does to reduce crime. Even the poorest Canadians have access to good health care and education. In America, I have no doubt in my mind I'd steal to pay for an operation on my kids. Hell, I'd rob a bank at gunpoint if it came down to it. In Canada, I just walk into a Hospital.

I don't think making such a public comment is a wise idea in a surveillance state. I also think stealing is wrong whatever is the reason[1]. [1] I don't have kids but got at some point seriously sick and broke.

If speaking my mind gets me thrown in prison, I'd rather stand by my beliefs and be proud of them then to lie and live a hollow life of subservience.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#480

Post by fleitz » Sun, Nov 17, 2013, 2:58 AM UTC

waps wrote: post #276

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No

I keep wondering how people can possibly defend what Snowden did. He used social engineering exploits in his job as sysadmin on a large scale, then published the resulting information. He apparently even compromised personal accounts of the people he was supposed to help. Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that w…

Yeah he's in the leagues of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence who used social engineering exploits in their jobs as legislators to undermine the authority of the crown.

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that following orders contrary to good conscience is immoral and illegal, but luckily the better part of the world agrees with me in the precedent set at Nuremberg.