Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Working on databases from prison

turso.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 567 posts

Re: Working on databases from prison

#311

Post by int_19h »

voidUpdate wrote: post #85
komali2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the circumstances of this case, but in many states, e.g. Texas my home state, simply having above an arbitrarily defined amount of a given controlled substance automatically gets you tagged with "intent to sell." An overloaded court system combined with a pay-to-win "justice" system means a lot of people take the charge in their plea deal even if they aren't dealers.

In the part 1 article, the author mentions "making tens of thousands of dollars a week" in relation to drugs, which is why I talked about dealing. Obviously I've got no proof of that or anything, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. Drug charges are difficult. In my opinion, if you are using drugs personally, I don't really see a problem. If you commit some crime while under the influence which could harm another person,…

When it comes to selling, the nature of the drug also matters IMO. I don't have a problem with people selling stuff like cannabis or LSD to consenting able-minded adults, but given the nature of opioids, there's no responsible way to consume them outside of medical necessity.

Re: Working on databases from prison

#312

Post by Hamuko »

stickfigure wrote: post #267
zaphar wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. If you are in posession of enough of a controlled substance to kill 300 people I'm kind of okay with a drastic response. For every Preston Thorpe who turns their life around there 100s of others who will just go out and keep endangering lives like this. I think this is a nuanced topic and 10-30 years is too much for drug possession is entirely lacking the necessary nuance to evaluate. Comparison to othe…

"enough of a controlled substance to kill" is an absurd, inflammatory metric. They guy was selling a good to willing and aware buyers and we have no reason to believe he was trying to kill anyone. He shouldn't be in prison, period.

>They guy was selling a good to willing and aware buyers

How do you know that they were both willing and aware? Just how aware is your average drug buyer on what they're buying and how upfront your average drug seller on what they're selling?

Re: Working on databases from prison

#313

Post by Hamuko »

conductr wrote: post #282
zaphar wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. If you are in posession of enough of a controlled substance to kill 300 people I'm kind of okay with a drastic response. For every Preston Thorpe who turns their life around there 100s of others who will just go out and keep endangering lives like this. I think this is a nuanced topic and 10-30 years is too much for drug possession is entirely lacking the necessary nuance to evaluate. Comparison to othe…

How many deadly chemicals are in an average home? Every time I fill up my car with gas, I buy enough to commit dozens of cases of arson. Intent matters and there's no reason to believe he intended to harm anyone. I believe it's a crime and should be a felony but this sentence is a bit extreme in terms of punishment fitting the crime.

Gasoline isn't a controlled substance for one.

Re: Working on databases from prison

#314

Post by Retric »

snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #309
Retric wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, contraband includes many things that are completely legal for non prisoners to have like currency, phones, knives, or alcohol. Sending that stuff to prisoners is illegal https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1791 List of prohibited items: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...

You can send phones, knives or alcohol via email or slack?

You can agree to pay for them at a given prices via email or slack. It’s more or less guaranteed that contraband will get into prisons if someone is willing to pay for it. Thus the rules around no cash or phones for prisoners.

Inmates are treated very differently by the legal system than regular people. Thirteenth Amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States”

Re: Working on databases from prison

#315

Post by Hamuko »

IncandescentGas wrote: post #269
croemer wrote: post #246

Great story, I wish this inspired more prisons around the world to follow suit. For those who don't want to hit Google, the conviction was for possessing 30g of a synthetic opioid "U-47700". A normal dose is ~1mg, 10mg can be deadly (so this was 30000 trips or killing 3000). The drug became illegal across the US on November 14, 2016. "Police said they found the drug in Thorpe’s apartment in Manchester in December 201…

Since the top comment seems to be judging the worthiness of this individual to work with databases after prison, for those considering working with or hiring someone with a criminal record, I'd beg you to consider: You're hiring the person as they are today, long after any punishment, rehabilitation, parold, probation, and personal growth. Not who they were at the time of past actions. Having your own mini trial, whe…

Your comment doesn't seem applicable to this scenario since this is not about "work with databases after prison" or "long after any punishment, rehabilitation, parold, probation, and personal growth". Even the title says it: "from prison". This individual is actually still undergoing their punishment, not long after it.

Re: Working on databases from prison

#316

Post by BlarfMcFlarf »

mp05 wrote: post #263
kgwxd wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No cut is reasonable.

Don't you suppose that it's "fair" to request compensation for the room and board if the person is making a "fair" wage?

No. Prisons should cost society money. If you are taking away someone’s freedoms, there should be a high cost so you don’t do it flippantly when another solution will work.

Re: Working on databases from prison

#317

Post by franga2000 »

conductr wrote: post #268
kgwxd wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No cut is reasonable.

I disagree. The cut should support the program itself and then further offset taxpayer expenses related to housing, feeding, and caring for the prisoner. I could even see a case for taking it as a way of ensuring it was saved and returned at release.

Fuck no! Lowering the cost of keeping people in prison would make it even easier for the government to lock people up for smaller crimes and with bigger sentences. It's even worse with the privatised prison system that the US has. They already know the "market price" (what the government is willing to spend) so adding "free money" into the equation just makes it easier for them to raise prices and end up pocketing even more money than they already do.

Framing it as offsetting the cost would also make it very easy to increase the cut, bit by bit, until it gets to a truly unreasonable level. And since the person is already in prison and we have to pay for them no matter what, why would they choose to work if the deal is so bad?

Re: Working on databases from prison

#319

Post by ty6853 »

BryantD wrote: post #209
ty6853 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an example in connecticut[]. DV applications: ~8800 DV ex parte granted (no chance for defendant to defend him(her)self): ~5100 DV final order granted after defendant able to defend him(her)self): ~3200 So for example in CT on just a civil standard, only 2/3 of the accusers were able to get even a temporary order when the defendant had zero chance to tell their side of the story. Once the defendant was able to…

Sincere thanks! Some notes: in Connecticut, restraining orders can be granted for a variety of reasons, not restricted to domestic violence alone. Fairly close correlation but it does include, for example, stalking. It seems unwise to assume that restraining orders alone represent the entire count of domestic violence complaints that reach the legal system. For example, surely domestic violence arrests should be coun…

Yes I'm sure we could keep digging up more. I've been down this rabbit hole before so I know how it always ends: I provide a data driven take backed by source after source which ends in endless nitpicking and scrutiny and rejection of the sources, meanwhile unsourced hot takes go completely unchallenged without the demand sources, as seen in your sister comment.

This is the key of this two-pronged approach, one commenter can bury the data driven comment in source rejection (without being beheld to prove a counter point, since the asserter has the burden of proof) while the sister comment can drive the more approved comment unchallenged. Of course we really know, in many cases, the two separate commenters are advancing the same line of opinion, but using this split strategy both are compartmentalized in their burdens.

Although, the truth is, the scrutinizer is rarely offering counter sources of their own, which they of course are under no obligation to provide. But barring that, we're left at worst with "I don't know" which is a terrible standard under which to assume the word of the wife is predictive of guilt, thus even if all the sources are rejected you leave from a practical perspective no off no better than you started in predictive guilt.

Re: Working on databases from prison

#320

Post by Ray20 »

HappMacDonald wrote: post #203
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds good. It is important that we recognize all of the purposes of punishment instead of overemphasizing one or neglecting the other. Punishment has three ends: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It is important that you pay for your crime for the sake of justice; it is charitable and prudent to rehabilitate the criminal, satisfying the corrective end of punishment; and would-be criminals must be gi…

> Punishment has three ends: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. One might argue a fourth end as well: removal. When people talk about "cleaning up the streets" they don't mean causing ruffians to clean up their act, what they refer to is removing the ruffians entirely. To "someplace else". To "Not in my backyard". Out of sight, out of mind as is often said. For profit prisons may view prisoners as cheap lab…

>harsh sentences never seem to cause crime to go to zero

Harsh sentences work great when used with the inevitability of punishment. It is obvious that a harsh sentence does not discourage a criminal to commit a crime if they expect to avoid any responsibility

Post reply on HN