NYC scientist fired after raising questions about a DNA test gets $1M settlement(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
NYC scientist fired after raising questions about a DNA test gets $1M settlement
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/nyregion/dna-testing-nyc-medical-examiner.html
131 comments
Before pulling out the pitchforks, I'd encourage you to investigate with more than just one article. It may very well be everything you recommend is warranted, but be aware that once reporters decide on the narrative for a story, they pull out quotes and data in a manner that specifically supports that narrative.
I know I've been burned in the past by just reading one side of the story and getting angry before understanding the entirety of what happened.
I know I've been burned in the past by just reading one side of the story and getting angry before understanding the entirety of what happened.
I typically read both the NYT and the WSJ, and they very often agree on news stories. When I subscribed to the WSJ, I was expecting to be blown away at how the NYT was sticking me in some sort of liberal media bubble. But it turns out, they both pick the same topics and both relay the same facts.
Even the opinion columns are the same -- "I support the position of the political party to which I am aligned, no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT."
Even the opinion columns are the same -- "I support the position of the political party to which I am aligned, no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT."
From a social perspective the WSJ and NYT have pushed similar narratives in the past. Eg the pewdiepie thing.
With respect to the NYT/WSJ having a similar point of view, I've heard it described as a "cosmopolitan bias". That the professional journalists are mostly college educated, live in a large city, have a sense of professional ethics, are exposed to people from a variety of backgrounds and ethnicities and all sorts of other markers of class and socio-economic background.
I grew up in a tiny rural town in Ohio where that certainly isn't the case and currently live in the suburbs of Virginia where that urban lifestyle feels very far removed.
This is less a political description and more of the urban/rural divide in viewpoint. Case in point: I've had multiple conversations with people locally who reacted with horror at the idea of taking a Lyft/Uber ("Don't do that you'll get killed.")
I grew up in a tiny rural town in Ohio where that certainly isn't the case and currently live in the suburbs of Virginia where that urban lifestyle feels very far removed.
This is less a political description and more of the urban/rural divide in viewpoint. Case in point: I've had multiple conversations with people locally who reacted with horror at the idea of taking a Lyft/Uber ("Don't do that you'll get killed.")
"mostly college educated, live in a large city, have a sense of professional ethics, are exposed to people from a variety of backgrounds and ethnicities"
You're making "cosmopolitan bias" look good, when it's not. It's still bias. Having a better education and being exposed to more cultures than the average person does not guarantee that you won't be a closed-minded, fundamentalist, holier-than-thou jerk.
Source: country-raised metropolitan-educated journalist
You're making "cosmopolitan bias" look good, when it's not. It's still bias. Having a better education and being exposed to more cultures than the average person does not guarantee that you won't be a closed-minded, fundamentalist, holier-than-thou jerk.
Source: country-raised metropolitan-educated journalist
It doesn't guarantee it, but it makes it more likely.
I will assert the opposite, based on decades of living in both major metros and backwater towns. Your biased comment just drives the point home.
Major metros will make you colder and slower to trust strangers, but you'll know a lot more about the world. There's simply more variance in cities. Living your life in a backwater town won't disabuse you of being trusting and friendly, but your preconceptions about the rest of the world won't be tested either.
Travel to other countries is better than either to broaden perspectives. Seeing the world from multiple points of view (sometimes literally) is the best way to eliminate bias.
Travel to other countries is better than either to broaden perspectives. Seeing the world from multiple points of view (sometimes literally) is the best way to eliminate bias.
I strongly disagree that metros will make you know "more about the world." They will let you know more about a specific bubble that is just as narrow as the bubble in any small town. You can travel the world and run into people who believe in exactly the same things you do and have read the same books and seen the same movies. In fact, it's hard not to.
I remember when I was a grad student, they would pair me up with a different foreign student each year. They were all cookie cutters of each other. One from Germany, one from the UK, one from Spain. They all immediately came here and complained about U.S. gun control and how the U.S. was too religious (Bible belters!) and the same tired old things that someone from Boston or NY would complain about. It got so bad I wrote down all their complaints on an index card and just handed it over when they started with their monoculture rants. It doesn't matter which nation in the west you are from, the elites form one gray goop of groupthink.
I do recommend travel, but go into the countryside or talk to people with different life values from your own, not just different stamps on their passport. Talk to a mormon. Talk to a devout Catholic. Talk to a rural minority from China. Talk to someone without a college degree from Spain. Go visit the a traditional village in Japan. Hang out with the cabbies in Holland who play chess all the time. There you will see diversity. Flying from Paris to London to Berlin and visiting hip coffee shops or tech seminars -- you might as well just stay in San Francisco and go out to a bar.
I remember when I was a grad student, they would pair me up with a different foreign student each year. They were all cookie cutters of each other. One from Germany, one from the UK, one from Spain. They all immediately came here and complained about U.S. gun control and how the U.S. was too religious (Bible belters!) and the same tired old things that someone from Boston or NY would complain about. It got so bad I wrote down all their complaints on an index card and just handed it over when they started with their monoculture rants. It doesn't matter which nation in the west you are from, the elites form one gray goop of groupthink.
I do recommend travel, but go into the countryside or talk to people with different life values from your own, not just different stamps on their passport. Talk to a mormon. Talk to a devout Catholic. Talk to a rural minority from China. Talk to someone without a college degree from Spain. Go visit the a traditional village in Japan. Hang out with the cabbies in Holland who play chess all the time. There you will see diversity. Flying from Paris to London to Berlin and visiting hip coffee shops or tech seminars -- you might as well just stay in San Francisco and go out to a bar.
Yet they will ride an ATV for fun, which actually will get them killed.
I agree that there's a cosmopolitan bias, but I'm extremely skeptical of the claim that journalists writ large are motivated by a sense of professional ethics and are exposed to people from a variety of backgrounds.
I don't think I saw a single journalist apologize for pushing the Trump/Russia misinformation, the NYT and WASHPO haven't given back their pulitzer for reporting on it, what's most telling is that after the report dropped, the journalists pivoted to impeachment - it's clear the Russia angle was more about having a stick to beat the dog than anything else.
Additionally, I think people in cosmopolitan areas are probably more ignorant about life in rural areas than vice versa. This is a pretty partisan source, but look how some journalists reacted when asked if they knew anyone who owned a pick up truck (one of the most common vehicles in America): https://www.dailywire.com/news/12138/journalists-lose-it-aft...
I'm sure journalists have 'diverse' friends/social circles, but I'd wager that they're all in agreement w.r.t culture war topics - how diverse is that really?
I don't think I saw a single journalist apologize for pushing the Trump/Russia misinformation, the NYT and WASHPO haven't given back their pulitzer for reporting on it, what's most telling is that after the report dropped, the journalists pivoted to impeachment - it's clear the Russia angle was more about having a stick to beat the dog than anything else.
Additionally, I think people in cosmopolitan areas are probably more ignorant about life in rural areas than vice versa. This is a pretty partisan source, but look how some journalists reacted when asked if they knew anyone who owned a pick up truck (one of the most common vehicles in America): https://www.dailywire.com/news/12138/journalists-lose-it-aft...
I'm sure journalists have 'diverse' friends/social circles, but I'd wager that they're all in agreement w.r.t culture war topics - how diverse is that really?
LOL. The NYT opinion page is likely less liberal than the WSJ, they're just disguised better. At least the WSJ is fairly upfront where they stand.
If you actually want opposite views, maybe step away from the NYT.
If you actually want opposite views, maybe step away from the NYT.
I have been following this case for some time in various sources, and there is essentially no way to spin this as other than a determined and long-running attempt to pervert justice. Deliberately falsely imprisoning someone is the moral equivalent of kidnapping in my book.
Do you have any other sources you can post? In particular, the article mentions how the OCME claimed they had done studies on the reliability of this DNA technique, but in fact hadn't.
If that turned out to be a complete, bald-faced lie, I would expect that there would be an independent investigation and, if those statements were made in an official capacity, that someone would be in legal jeopardy.
If that turned out to be a complete, bald-faced lie, I would expect that there would be an independent investigation and, if those statements were made in an official capacity, that someone would be in legal jeopardy.
Prison is worse than kidnapping, when you are kidnapped you can grab to the hope someone (the cops?) will rescue you soon, when the state does it that hope is non-existent.
You're also allowed to defend yourself when kidnapped. No such thing when the state does it.
[deleted]
Which should be the other way around... :-(
Are you saying you should not be allowed to defend yourself if you are kidnapped by an entity that is not the state?
They stated they had proven this controversial technique worked, then it came out it was never tested. That seems pretty clear cut to me.
People always make claims like "oh, innocent until proven guilty!", "Let's just wait for the evidence!'.
But apparently we are here right now, where the state was proven guilty, and they paid a million dollars to someone for their crimes, and the evidence does show that something bad happened, and yet people are still ignoring the evidence.
Yeah, no. They paid a million dollars to someone. That is good enough evidence for me to condemn them.
But apparently we are here right now, where the state was proven guilty, and they paid a million dollars to someone for their crimes, and the evidence does show that something bad happened, and yet people are still ignoring the evidence.
Yeah, no. They paid a million dollars to someone. That is good enough evidence for me to condemn them.
> But apparently we are here right now, where the state was proven guilty
You just posted something that is completely false. The state settled a lawsuit. Large organizations settle lawsuits all the time because the cost of litigation can be huge even if the organization wins.
Even your leading statement that "People always make claims like "Let's just wait for the evidence!"??? Please, we should only be so lucky.
You just posted something that is completely false. The state settled a lawsuit. Large organizations settle lawsuits all the time because the cost of litigation can be huge even if the organization wins.
Even your leading statement that "People always make claims like "Let's just wait for the evidence!"??? Please, we should only be so lucky.
A million dollars is a million dollars.
In the court of public opinion, I can judge them guilty.
It is impossible to hold people accountable otherwise, because they will always just settle and escape the political consequences.
In the court of public opinion, I can judge them guilty.
It is impossible to hold people accountable otherwise, because they will always just settle and escape the political consequences.
Okay, great, but if it is found to be a cut and dry case, you agree a firing and bar from public office are the correct course of action?
I think very few things are "cut and dry", but if it was indeed true that the claimed study was never done, and if the superiors knew this and lied about it, and then retaliated against this scientist for attempting to bring this fact to light, then yes, I absolutely think they should be fired. Note that "bar from public office" is not even a potential sanction in this case - the superiors are not publicly elected officials, and saying "no public government is allowed to hire you" is not a punishment that exists or is legal in the US. Depending on the level of knowledge, I'm guessing there are some criminal punishments available, but that would obviously be a very high bar in terms of determining culpability (IANAL).
IANAL, but not that high, actually, esp. if the feds want to get involved and can find a legit way. Any attorney general could be a serious problem but if the feds involved, I'd not want to be their legal rep.
Before pulling out the pitchforks,
And yet -- Occam's Razor, and lengthy enough observation about how things operate in various city agencies in NYC prudently suggests:
At the very least, do keep those pitchforks ready at your side - and freshly sharpened.
And yet -- Occam's Razor, and lengthy enough observation about how things operate in various city agencies in NYC prudently suggests:
At the very least, do keep those pitchforks ready at your side - and freshly sharpened.
Razengan(2)
> The city and the Office of Chief Medical Examiner said Monday that the settlement did not mean that Ms. Stajic was treated inappropriately. In pretrial papers, its directors had argued that there had been some unrelated concerns over how she managed her laboratory.
I suspect that parallel construction is very common in situations where management wants someone fired for illegal reasons.
I think I'd need to see the results of an independent investigation before reaching any conclusions in this case.
I think I'd need to see the results of an independent investigation before reaching any conclusions in this case.
Is this an undefeatable weapon? It seems governments and bosses have "7 things they can hang you for" against anybody. Or Malicious Compliance wouldn't be a working striking strategy. What could go wrong with:
1. Accuser must provide evidence that deviations indicate worst case behaviour, not normal procedure, after researching similar staff members 2. No suing for deviations and law violations known by bosses 3. Prevent counter suing and prioritizing the suit of less powerful
1. Accuser must provide evidence that deviations indicate worst case behaviour, not normal procedure, after researching similar staff members 2. No suing for deviations and law violations known by bosses 3. Prevent counter suing and prioritizing the suit of less powerful
I've seen it happen both ways (at least I think it was) where someone with a legit problem claimed they were fired for X when ... naw man you really were terrible at Y.
At the same time I've kinda suspected about situations where someone was let go that the "reasons" appeared after another situation occurred and that made me wonder.
Really hard to know. I agree an outside investigation would really be the only route to try to find out.
At the same time I've kinda suspected about situations where someone was let go that the "reasons" appeared after another situation occurred and that made me wonder.
Really hard to know. I agree an outside investigation would really be the only route to try to find out.
I reported my boss to HR based on his inappropriate behavior (with other employees at the company). I was put into the next round of layoffs. Needless to say I don't trust HR anymore.
If you are ever in a situation where you feel as though you need to report something to HR, hire an attorney and have them do it for you.
If you feel like that would be overkill, don't report anything to HR. They don't work for you; they are not on your side; they will never be on your side.
If it is an issue that could be criminal, hire an attorney and have them tell the cops, without letting HR know about it first. Internal whistleblower programs are probably a trap.
In short, nobody should trust HR, ever, except the board and CEO.
If you feel like that would be overkill, don't report anything to HR. They don't work for you; they are not on your side; they will never be on your side.
If it is an issue that could be criminal, hire an attorney and have them tell the cops, without letting HR know about it first. Internal whistleblower programs are probably a trap.
In short, nobody should trust HR, ever, except the board and CEO.
> They don't work for you; they are not on your side; they will never be on your side.
But they're not on the manager's side either. What rational HR department would want to keep a manager who makes their subordinates feel unsafe, work ineffectively, etc?
But they're not on the manager's side either. What rational HR department would want to keep a manager who makes their subordinates feel unsafe, work ineffectively, etc?
> What rational HR department would want to keep a manager who makes their subordinates feel unsafe, work ineffectively, etc.?
Any of them, because:
(1) The manager is more likely to know their legal rights,
(2) The manager is more likely to be able to afford the cost of litigation in a dispute,
(3) The manager is more likely to have a contract beyond at-will employment,
(4) Determining whether the manager is a problem or the employee is malingering has a cost, plus risks creating evidence of corporate liability
Etc.
Except in the most clear and egregious cases, HR is naturally aligned with management against the human resources that management manages; that's kind of the point of HR, whose function is to assist management in efficiently (i.e., at minimum cost per unit value produced) managing those the human resources.
HR is not a neutral referee; the closest there is to that is government labor relations authorities.
Any of them, because:
(1) The manager is more likely to know their legal rights,
(2) The manager is more likely to be able to afford the cost of litigation in a dispute,
(3) The manager is more likely to have a contract beyond at-will employment,
(4) Determining whether the manager is a problem or the employee is malingering has a cost, plus risks creating evidence of corporate liability
Etc.
Except in the most clear and egregious cases, HR is naturally aligned with management against the human resources that management manages; that's kind of the point of HR, whose function is to assist management in efficiently (i.e., at minimum cost per unit value produced) managing those the human resources.
HR is not a neutral referee; the closest there is to that is government labor relations authorities.
An HR department whose mandate is to limit legal damage to the company at the lowest possible cost. That is to say, all of them. Unfortunately, it's usually easier and less legally dangerous to push a low level employee who has a grievance than it is to terminate a higher-level one who's misbehaving.
That is a high risk strategy.
Sure, it might work most of the time. But the one time it doesn't work, could cause billions of dollars in damages.
Just look at what happened to Uber after they retaliated against the wrong "low level" employee.
Sure, it might work most of the time. But the one time it doesn't work, could cause billions of dollars in damages.
Just look at what happened to Uber after they retaliated against the wrong "low level" employee.
HR doesn’t see it that way; they only see current situation: the immediate two-person conflict between employee and manager. In this isolated case, it’s always less politically risky to stand with the manager against the lowly employee. Now copy and repeat this process for every single subsequent case, even against the same manager; it’s always less politically risky in each isolated case to rule against the employee. This is therefore a sufficient explanation for why the HR department behaves like it does.
Basically every single one. Best recent example is probably the shit Uber got into a few years back.
I don't think a lot of people realize that HR is never there to defend you--its sole purpose is protect the company from legal liability.
Abusive managers are a significant legal liability. In what way are the people who report them a liability?
If you have an abusive manager, the best thing you can do is find out if the behavior is illegal, and change jobs. You could hire an attorney to see if any laws were broken, and if they were, likely receive some respite through the legal system. If the behavior was not illegal, there's not much else that you can really do. A few rare companies might have systems in place that rectify the behavior of abusive managers, but that's probably incredibly rare. HR is never there to help you. It's likely best to keep them out of the loop in all these matters.
> In what way are the people who report them a liability?
Because they reported them. The rest of the employees are not reporting anything, and are therefore not a problem for HR to be dealt with. The conflict is between the reporting employee and the manager, who has more political capital. Therefore, HR sides with the manager to minimize risks to itself.
Because they reported them. The rest of the employees are not reporting anything, and are therefore not a problem for HR to be dealt with. The conflict is between the reporting employee and the manager, who has more political capital. Therefore, HR sides with the manager to minimize risks to itself.
I absolutely agree. I think we need laws that hold those working in the public sector to extremely high standards, and moreover we need laws that allow private individuals and groups to take action (incl. lawsuits) against corrupt agencies and officials, and have changes in the agency enforced upon it by the courts, and corrupt individuals fired and subject to punishment.
> I'm sure her absence will make it easier for prosecutors
The whole police and prosecution system is need of major reform. Most importantly, eliminate rewards for catching offenders and putting them in jail -- instead: (1) ensure job security, while (2) awarding the lack of crime / low crime rates. At the same time, the agency that crimes are reported to is separate and independent, so that there is no incentive to not record crimes / under-report.
> I'm sure her absence will make it easier for prosecutors
The whole police and prosecution system is need of major reform. Most importantly, eliminate rewards for catching offenders and putting them in jail -- instead: (1) ensure job security, while (2) awarding the lack of crime / low crime rates. At the same time, the agency that crimes are reported to is separate and independent, so that there is no incentive to not record crimes / under-report.
So the city claimed that a study had been done but refused to release it. When pressed to release it, they fired those involved. How is this not career ending for anyone who knew the study didn't exist but claimed it did?
Look up a book called Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure
It's produced by the Federal Government as a way to show people the 'grave consequences' of misbehaving as a government employee.
I'm not a government employee, but it was recommended to me and it floored me. The amount of shit you can get away with if you are a government employee is mind boggling.
I think this book should be read by every school child so they know the type of double standard and corruption that is rampant in government.
It's produced by the Federal Government as a way to show people the 'grave consequences' of misbehaving as a government employee.
I'm not a government employee, but it was recommended to me and it floored me. The amount of shit you can get away with if you are a government employee is mind boggling.
I think this book should be read by every school child so they know the type of double standard and corruption that is rampant in government.
> I think this book should be read by every school child so they know the type of double standard and corruption that is rampant in government.
As anyone who has ever spent any time working in a private sector job knows, corruption and double standards are the status quo in life.
Unlike with the government, you rarely have any recourse when your manager, your director, your landlord, your bank, your utility, your grocery store, your accounting firm, or any of the other organizations that have power over you succumb to it.
(You can sue them, but you can also sue the government.)
As anyone who has ever spent any time working in a private sector job knows, corruption and double standards are the status quo in life.
Unlike with the government, you rarely have any recourse when your manager, your director, your landlord, your bank, your utility, your grocery store, your accounting firm, or any of the other organizations that have power over you succumb to it.
(You can sue them, but you can also sue the government.)
Damn straight. Thirty years of moving things out of government because of perceived inefficiency has put us in a place where our lives are governed by systems which are both inefficient and unaccountable, or - worse - efficient at the /wrong things/ and unaccountable.
It sounds like the book had the exact opposite effect on you as was intended. Why do you think that was?
Perspective. This is what I feel the book was trying to tell government employees:
'This is a great job. You will move up and never get fired, just don't do anything too bad or we will whip you with a wet noodle... it will be oh so horribly humiliating... you might even get a suspension (read paid vacation) or worse'
Here's how I was reading it: 'oh my god, if I did that as a small business owner I would be jailed, sued and have a criminal record... my business assets would be frozen, I'd possibly be charged with money laundering or wire fraud or some other vague laws... what do you mean 'possible suspension' for government employees doing that?
Here's how I was reading it: 'oh my god, if I did that as a small business owner I would be jailed, sued and have a criminal record... my business assets would be frozen, I'd possibly be charged with money laundering or wire fraud or some other vague laws... what do you mean 'possible suspension' for government employees doing that?
Having worked for the federal government as an employee and a contractor, my experience is that while there are certainly people leaning on their shovels all day collecting a paycheck for doing almost nothing, the vast, vast majority of people are ethical and honest and trying to do the right thing.
Sure there are good apples. It’s the system we ought to concern ourselves with. Does the system incentivize the shovel-leaners?
Is there an example that stands out?
Example 1: Military captain gives contracts to companies which he is 'affiliated' with in addition to getting direct kick back commissions from them.
After investigation, he was 'forced into retirement'. So basically he accepted bribery (which I'm sure he didn't classify correctly on his bank statements, meaning money laundering and wire fraud) and didn't have to pay anything back, didn't get charged with anything and kept his career. His 'punishment' is having to continue to get paid... while keeping the money.
Example 2: Naval director extorts money from subordinates: he faced a single 'letter of counseling' telling him his failures. He didn't pay back the money he received and faced no financial, career or other punishments. And that is AFTER being caught.
And to be clear, these two examples are taken from a document produced by the US Government to warn employees of the dangers of misbehaving. Imagine the cases they felt were too lenient to include in the book!
After investigation, he was 'forced into retirement'. So basically he accepted bribery (which I'm sure he didn't classify correctly on his bank statements, meaning money laundering and wire fraud) and didn't have to pay anything back, didn't get charged with anything and kept his career. His 'punishment' is having to continue to get paid... while keeping the money.
Example 2: Naval director extorts money from subordinates: he faced a single 'letter of counseling' telling him his failures. He didn't pay back the money he received and faced no financial, career or other punishments. And that is AFTER being caught.
And to be clear, these two examples are taken from a document produced by the US Government to warn employees of the dangers of misbehaving. Imagine the cases they felt were too lenient to include in the book!
https://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/EncylopediaofE...
- what page?
(EDIT) page 5: 5brother-in-law as contractors. Colonel 2 even attempted to get his own son hired as a contractor, but Colonel 2’s supervisor correctly thought it would be inappropriate. Each colonel was issued a letter of caution to avoid an appearance of a conflictand they were required to take an annual ethics training course. Chief AuthorityA military service Chief Master Sergeant abused her authority and improperly used a government vehicle when she employed a government vehicle and three non-commissioned officers under her supervision to move personal property in a government rental vehicle. The soldiers helped her for 3 hours. The Chief Master Sergeant was given a verbal warning and advised of the improper use of government vehicles and the abuse of authority. Abuse of Position and BriberyA military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain contracts for private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the Captain accepted a “finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in helping thecompany obtain government contract work. For his significant ethical failure, the Captain was “allowed” to retire at the grade of Commander, though he had been selected to be an Admiral. In addition, the Captain was debarred for one year, while two of the affiliated companies entered into administrative agreements (for 3 years) with the military service.
-- what's the pay difference between commander and admiral? This looks like a standard white collar slap on the wrist.
- what page?
(EDIT) page 5: 5brother-in-law as contractors. Colonel 2 even attempted to get his own son hired as a contractor, but Colonel 2’s supervisor correctly thought it would be inappropriate. Each colonel was issued a letter of caution to avoid an appearance of a conflictand they were required to take an annual ethics training course. Chief AuthorityA military service Chief Master Sergeant abused her authority and improperly used a government vehicle when she employed a government vehicle and three non-commissioned officers under her supervision to move personal property in a government rental vehicle. The soldiers helped her for 3 hours. The Chief Master Sergeant was given a verbal warning and advised of the improper use of government vehicles and the abuse of authority. Abuse of Position and BriberyA military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain contracts for private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the Captain accepted a “finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in helping thecompany obtain government contract work. For his significant ethical failure, the Captain was “allowed” to retire at the grade of Commander, though he had been selected to be an Admiral. In addition, the Captain was debarred for one year, while two of the affiliated companies entered into administrative agreements (for 3 years) with the military service.
-- what's the pay difference between commander and admiral? This looks like a standard white collar slap on the wrist.
Your statement: 'standard white collar slap on the wrist' is so self evidently disconnected from an objective reality... that all I can state is I wish you well in your subjective reality.
I truly wonder though what leads a person to believe that corporate employees getting caught in bribery and kick backs leads to them 'getting demoted'. It's a 'standard' story of a 'slap on the wrist'. Yeah, because courts order that all the time: this executive bribed the government? He will now be a junior executive. So has the court commanded... I don't even know how this could be a thing someone could imagine... to me it's hilarious. It's so evidently false.
I'm also totally shocked at how some people will deny something, and when proven wrong, they pick at the proof by trying to diminish it without challenging it or acknowledging that they had the oposite view just a minute ago.
It's like there is a percentage of the population incapable of admitting being in the wrong.
I truly wonder though what leads a person to believe that corporate employees getting caught in bribery and kick backs leads to them 'getting demoted'. It's a 'standard' story of a 'slap on the wrist'. Yeah, because courts order that all the time: this executive bribed the government? He will now be a junior executive. So has the court commanded... I don't even know how this could be a thing someone could imagine... to me it's hilarious. It's so evidently false.
I'm also totally shocked at how some people will deny something, and when proven wrong, they pick at the proof by trying to diminish it without challenging it or acknowledging that they had the oposite view just a minute ago.
It's like there is a percentage of the population incapable of admitting being in the wrong.
Most white collar crime isn’t even prosecuted let alone punished.
Again, pure sophism. You could say the same about government employee misconduct. It has no factual basis, it's just a generic statement designed to not address the topic while seeming to contradict the point.
Talk equal to equal.
The example provided is what happens to government officials when they are caught AND punished. I the frequency of getting caught was never mentioned, it's something you brought up.
The topic here is leniency.
Do you really think a small demotion within a company is the reaction of the legal team of say, facebook, to such things?
I mean imagine the Director of Marketing getting kick backs from companies he recommends to the board. And when caught, he is not fired, doesn't have to pay back anything and only suffers a 30% paycut.
It is my understanding that when a large corporation has an officer unjust enriching himself by securing kick backs from companies, they engage in a civil lawsuit.
This would result in an amount considerably larger than the amount received from enrichment being placed in judgement against a defendant.
It would also create a discovery process which would basically mean a made case for a DA, who may and likely will prosecute. A first time offender will likely have minimal if any jail, but they would have a criminal record.
The employee in question would undoubtedly lose his job and all benefits.
How could you compare these two?
The fact that white collar crime is unjustly lenient vs street crime has no bearing on the unjust lenience of private vs public sector employee misconduct. This reddit style 'whatabboutism' is really tiring.
Talk equal to equal.
The example provided is what happens to government officials when they are caught AND punished. I the frequency of getting caught was never mentioned, it's something you brought up.
The topic here is leniency.
Do you really think a small demotion within a company is the reaction of the legal team of say, facebook, to such things?
I mean imagine the Director of Marketing getting kick backs from companies he recommends to the board. And when caught, he is not fired, doesn't have to pay back anything and only suffers a 30% paycut.
It is my understanding that when a large corporation has an officer unjust enriching himself by securing kick backs from companies, they engage in a civil lawsuit.
This would result in an amount considerably larger than the amount received from enrichment being placed in judgement against a defendant.
It would also create a discovery process which would basically mean a made case for a DA, who may and likely will prosecute. A first time offender will likely have minimal if any jail, but they would have a criminal record.
The employee in question would undoubtedly lose his job and all benefits.
How could you compare these two?
The fact that white collar crime is unjustly lenient vs street crime has no bearing on the unjust lenience of private vs public sector employee misconduct. This reddit style 'whatabboutism' is really tiring.
You seem really defensive in this conversation.
So you've got a book that's convinced you that it's easy to be unethical and not get punished for it in government positions. My point is that corruption and nepotism are not a "government" problem so much as a "human institutions" problem.
Whether you believe it's a human problem or a government problem has major implications for policy response: Do you reduce government function, or try to install better safeguards? My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem, and that 30 years of responding as though it WERE just a government problem has in fact just hidden the issues in the (far more opaque) private sector.
I interpret "Whattaboutism" as an argument that it's OK for Group A to engage in an unethical action because Group B does as well (perhaps even while overlooking differences of scale or context). This is not my point, nor is it a position I condone.
So you've got a book that's convinced you that it's easy to be unethical and not get punished for it in government positions. My point is that corruption and nepotism are not a "government" problem so much as a "human institutions" problem.
Whether you believe it's a human problem or a government problem has major implications for policy response: Do you reduce government function, or try to install better safeguards? My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem, and that 30 years of responding as though it WERE just a government problem has in fact just hidden the issues in the (far more opaque) private sector.
I interpret "Whattaboutism" as an argument that it's OK for Group A to engage in an unethical action because Group B does as well (perhaps even while overlooking differences of scale or context). This is not my point, nor is it a position I condone.
> My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem
Sure. But no one said anything to the contrary.
I said: Government employees get unjust leniency compared to private enterprise when caught in unethical behavior. I then gave an example to back up my claim (with examples and high trust references)
You posted, and continue to post: "But WHAT ABOUT private sector misheavior, private sector does bad too!" And: "But WHAT ABOUT the good government employees, most are good" "But WHAT ABOUT the privatization of things that are going wrong"
Which are excellent statements to be made on their own. I actually happen to agree with you, I dislike a lot of privatization that is happening. But they are a poor reply to a point that doesn't mention anything about private vs public.
Whataboutism has the following pattern:
Person 1 posts a fact: leniency toward government official misbehavior.
Person 2 posts a fact: private enterprise is less transparent than government enterprise.
The fact doesn't contradict the first directly, but it came across as a rebuttal.
It's throwing true facts out there that sort of contradict a point without having to actually address the point being made or take a stance or define a clear point which could then receive a counterpoint.
A counter point to be made could be: Well, I believe government employee misconduct is more easily spotted and therefore a lenient treatment might be justified.
See? That's an actual counter point. I can then say: 'Well, let's look at the statistics of corruption in each and convictions and we can prove the point one way or another'.
But what you posted... can never be answered in a way that furthers the finding of the truth. It is 'anti government people' vs 'pro government people'. It's tribalistic, many people here seem to have placed me in the anti government field because I posted 1 thing that reflects badly on public servants.
I'm neither pro gov nor anti gov and I'd appreciate it both parties could find a place to battle it out that wasn't my point, which neither supports nor disproves either side. My point is that this (unjust sector leniency) is an issue and it should be more widely known. You are welcome to answer with a counter point. I'm pro-dialectics and will change my mind if given good points with proper references or logical constructs.
Sure. But no one said anything to the contrary.
I said: Government employees get unjust leniency compared to private enterprise when caught in unethical behavior. I then gave an example to back up my claim (with examples and high trust references)
You posted, and continue to post: "But WHAT ABOUT private sector misheavior, private sector does bad too!" And: "But WHAT ABOUT the good government employees, most are good" "But WHAT ABOUT the privatization of things that are going wrong"
Which are excellent statements to be made on their own. I actually happen to agree with you, I dislike a lot of privatization that is happening. But they are a poor reply to a point that doesn't mention anything about private vs public.
Whataboutism has the following pattern:
Person 1 posts a fact: leniency toward government official misbehavior.
Person 2 posts a fact: private enterprise is less transparent than government enterprise.
The fact doesn't contradict the first directly, but it came across as a rebuttal.
It's throwing true facts out there that sort of contradict a point without having to actually address the point being made or take a stance or define a clear point which could then receive a counterpoint.
A counter point to be made could be: Well, I believe government employee misconduct is more easily spotted and therefore a lenient treatment might be justified.
See? That's an actual counter point. I can then say: 'Well, let's look at the statistics of corruption in each and convictions and we can prove the point one way or another'.
But what you posted... can never be answered in a way that furthers the finding of the truth. It is 'anti government people' vs 'pro government people'. It's tribalistic, many people here seem to have placed me in the anti government field because I posted 1 thing that reflects badly on public servants.
I'm neither pro gov nor anti gov and I'd appreciate it both parties could find a place to battle it out that wasn't my point, which neither supports nor disproves either side. My point is that this (unjust sector leniency) is an issue and it should be more widely known. You are welcome to answer with a counter point. I'm pro-dialectics and will change my mind if given good points with proper references or logical constructs.
My guess is that it's about a 30% difference in retirement pay. I used: https://militarypay.defense.gov/Calculators/Active-Duty-Reti.... For those curious, the active duty difference is about the same: https://www.navy.com/sites/default/files/2019-02/MilPayTable...
Notice his 'loss' isn't even a demotion. It's just the negation of a promotion.
I'll re-post the text as the egrecious stuff was mixed in with other non egregious stuff by pnutjam, who stated this case is 'standard for white collar crime' in private enterprise:
>> Abuse of Position and BriberyA military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain contracts for private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the Captain accepted a “finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in helping the company obtain government contract work. For his significant ethical failure, the Captain was “allowed” to retire at the grade of Commander, though he had been selected to be an Admiral.
No fees. No restitution. No jail. No charges even.
He had to endure the 'horrors' of retirement with full benefits. Though he was 'severely punish' with not getting his promotion.
I'll re-post the text as the egrecious stuff was mixed in with other non egregious stuff by pnutjam, who stated this case is 'standard for white collar crime' in private enterprise:
>> Abuse of Position and BriberyA military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain contracts for private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the Captain accepted a “finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in helping the company obtain government contract work. For his significant ethical failure, the Captain was “allowed” to retire at the grade of Commander, though he had been selected to be an Admiral.
No fees. No restitution. No jail. No charges even.
He had to endure the 'horrors' of retirement with full benefits. Though he was 'severely punish' with not getting his promotion.
He was a Captain (O-6), he had been selected for Admiral (O-7), and was forced to retire as a Commander (O-5); it was a demotion.
I stand corrected. I'm not familiar with military ranks.
Listed among numerous other references:
http://ogc.osd.mil/defense_ethics/ethics_counselors/resource...
Direct link (PDF0);
http://ogc.osd.mil/defense_ethics/resource_library/eef_2019....
http://ogc.osd.mil/defense_ethics/ethics_counselors/resource...
Direct link (PDF0);
http://ogc.osd.mil/defense_ethics/resource_library/eef_2019....
Maybe she wanted to uncover rampant corruption, knew they'll fire her for this and guessed they'll try to settle for a high amount, because what they're trying to cover up is huge. She's 69, $1M is quite a good get out of this hornet nest ticket and this is unlikely to end here. Lawsuits from people wrongfully convicted based on DNA evidence will likely follow.
How many times are we going to let junk science poison our judicial system?
How much longer until we start investigating prosecutors for potential misconduct by an outside source that's not tied to their organization?
Edit: formatting.
Edit: formatting.
We are trying to add state-level oversight in New York. Prosecutors believe that oversight is “marred by constitutional defects.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/nyregion/ny-prosecutors-c...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/nyregion/ny-prosecutors-c...
Give her a medal! We need to get serious about celebrating whistleblowers.
>The city and the Office of Chief Medical Examiner said Monday that the settlement did not mean that Ms. Stajic was treated inappropriately.
Weird - I thought the lottery was run at the state level.
Weird - I thought the lottery was run at the state level.
Headline reads like Daily Mail clickbait.
Edit: thanks for updating the title.
Edit: thanks for updating the title.
Nah... Daily Mail headline would be 'foreigner taking away our DNA tests'
May read like that, but its actually just a good summary of the actual article.
The phrasing fits some clickbait articles, but unlike clickbait articles the story seems to fit the title.
I think that's a significant difference even if I don't like the phrasing.
I think that's a significant difference even if I don't like the phrasing.
vorhp(1)
> a novel form of DNA testing being used in criminal cases
I feel like any "novel form of" really shouldn't be evidence until it's proven.
Granted I also recognize how courts really struggle understanding the magical world of what science is proven and what isn't.
I do worry that it's up to each defendant to effectively fight these fights that are big topics and would be crazy expensive to "disprove" something the government says is proven, but isn't.
I feel like any "novel form of" really shouldn't be evidence until it's proven.
Granted I also recognize how courts really struggle understanding the magical world of what science is proven and what isn't.
I do worry that it's up to each defendant to effectively fight these fights that are big topics and would be crazy expensive to "disprove" something the government says is proven, but isn't.
A huge amount of "forensic science" is complete bunk. Scientific validity doesn't matter, you just have to be able to sell it to a jury.
Sadly that is where judges should be stepping in but the barn doors were left open so who gets to be the first to say "you can't use fingerprints that 'match' because your noob deputy thinks they kinda look alike..."?
In my experience at least with lawyers (don't know any judges), I wouldn't trust them with that sort of thing any more than anyone else. They're hyper concerned with convincing arguments, to the point where they often fail to make the distinction between something that is actually true and something that seems like it should be true. They know plenty about law and the sort of reasoning that makes the interpretation of law consistent. But it doesn't seem like they're in a position to understand scientific evidence better than your average joe. Like, programmers and folks on hacker news are great at computers and sometimes math and engineering. But I'm not sure I want hacker news giving me dating advice or gardening advice. That's not really in their wheelhouse. Unless you had specialty judges who only did something like determine the validity of certain kinds of evidence who didn't have to have the same skill set as other judges, I don't see it as being much of an improvement.
> Granted I also recognize how courts really struggle understanding the magical world of what science is proven and what isn't.
I don't understand how. Aren't you suppose to study logic to be a a judge ? Surely laws and argumentation are a central topic, and they all require a brain. How somebody unable to understand simple concept like probabilities can be judge ?
I don't understand how. Aren't you suppose to study logic to be a a judge ? Surely laws and argumentation are a central topic, and they all require a brain. How somebody unable to understand simple concept like probabilities can be judge ?
> How somebody unable to understand simple concept like probabilities can be judge?
How many smart people struggle with the Monty Hall problem? It's a fairly simple probability problem, overall, but it is very much unintuitive (mostly a matter of the difficulty of setting up the problem in the first place). Most people aren't very strong in mathematics, and even most scientists struggle to apply statistics correctly (see the commentary around the fMRI of a dead fish for an example). It's not surprising that judges and juries are going to have these same struggles.
How many smart people struggle with the Monty Hall problem? It's a fairly simple probability problem, overall, but it is very much unintuitive (mostly a matter of the difficulty of setting up the problem in the first place). Most people aren't very strong in mathematics, and even most scientists struggle to apply statistics correctly (see the commentary around the fMRI of a dead fish for an example). It's not surprising that judges and juries are going to have these same struggles.
Judges in many parts of the United States are elected, so there is no particular guarantee they have studied anything.
Ones that aren't elected are appointed. Typically they're appointed because they're related or friends with the elected officials doing the appointing (My dad is a court officer in NY state - he's seen over and over again that nepotism is absolutely the norm and not the exception for all appointed positions). Any merit judges have compared to a baseline lawyer is basically accidental.
I feel like citing that it's just nepotism is not entirely accurate.
Judges are lawyers, but the approval process and performance of judges who are willing to follow the rule of law and rule in ways that aren't simply in line with "nepotism" is significant.
Even existing supreme court justices appointed have not taken actions that the folks who appointed / approved them might wish... that's a good thing.
Judges are lawyers, but the approval process and performance of judges who are willing to follow the rule of law and rule in ways that aren't simply in line with "nepotism" is significant.
Even existing supreme court justices appointed have not taken actions that the folks who appointed / approved them might wish... that's a good thing.
> Typically they're appointed because they're related or friends with the elected officials doing the appointing
I don't think that's completely accurate. It's very much party politics at the local level. Party hacks are rewarded. (Which may look like friends and family, but party discipline is highly enforced AFAIK)
I don't think that's completely accurate. It's very much party politics at the local level. Party hacks are rewarded. (Which may look like friends and family, but party discipline is highly enforced AFAIK)
you still need to have at least a JD from an ABA-accredited school and admission to the state bar. There are some corner cases where this isn't true, but they're for misdemeanors and defendants have the right to have a Real Judge review their case.
This varies between municipalities. Many don't have any requirements.
Oh, wow. That explains a lot of things I couldn't understand from news I read.
Logic isn't the hard part, it's knowing what to weigh and how.
I think like diving into an actual scientific paper, it's actually quite hard to take issue with various things and understand them if you're not familiar with the science itself.
I feel like I can logic out some stuff reasonably well as say some doctor studying DNA (speaking very generally) but as far as DNA goes i'm straight ignorant as to what to weight and conclude.... the doctor presumably better, but I'd have no clue if he was wrong.
I think like diving into an actual scientific paper, it's actually quite hard to take issue with various things and understand them if you're not familiar with the science itself.
I feel like I can logic out some stuff reasonably well as say some doctor studying DNA (speaking very generally) but as far as DNA goes i'm straight ignorant as to what to weight and conclude.... the doctor presumably better, but I'd have no clue if he was wrong.
> I don't understand how. Aren't you suppose to study logic to be a a judge ? Surely laws and argumentation are a central topic, and they all require a brain. How somebody unable to understand simple concept like probabilities can be judge ?
Some of this gets solved via the use of expert witnesses- people who weren't at the scene of the crime that have expertise in a related topic, and their job is, basically, to explain some part of what happened, or how something works, under oath- for instance, a computer forensics expert, who investigated the computer of a hacker, can, during testimony, explain how something works and why that's important. Because experts are under oath, and assumed to have a knowledge of the field they're representing, the judges (and jury, too) generally place trust in them. In this case, the defendant scientist was concerned because of a lack of data:
In conclusion- yes, logic is an important part of being a judge, and a part that you more or less have to have in order to get very far. Judges also trust expert witnesses to fill them in on what they don't know (such as how this exact model of car works, or what a particular weapon's spray is like, or if shells from bullets match the defendant's gun) and generally trust them. The problem in the article is that the NYC's science department was more or less in bed with its prosecutors, which is not fair, and that the science department was using less data than it ought to to produce often-damning evidence. It's not really the fault of the judge for not understanding that the shortcuts that the science department were using weren't good, especially when they're under oath, which is a HUGE psychological part of law.
Also, if it helps, here's a good overview of how a court case works, in the form of a movie scene critique (legitimately the best primer on how a court with a jury generally functions, or at least ought to):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1I7QBCHqng
Some of this gets solved via the use of expert witnesses- people who weren't at the scene of the crime that have expertise in a related topic, and their job is, basically, to explain some part of what happened, or how something works, under oath- for instance, a computer forensics expert, who investigated the computer of a hacker, can, during testimony, explain how something works and why that's important. Because experts are under oath, and assumed to have a knowledge of the field they're representing, the judges (and jury, too) generally place trust in them. In this case, the defendant scientist was concerned because of a lack of data:
Ms. Stajic, 69, said she felt vindicated.
“As a forensic scientist, I am fully aware
of the importance of validating each study,”
she said in an interview. “My concern was if
that study was not done, there could be
wrongful convictions. And if the wrong people
were convicted, that would mean the wrong person
would be walking free.”
Low Copy Number testing involves very minute amounts of DNA —
often lifted from crime scene surfaces, such as weapon handles
or bicycle handlebars, that multiple people have touched.
The city first adopted this technique in 2006, and it is estimated
to have been used in thousands of cases before it was phased out
in January 2017. New York was the only crime lab in the country
believed to have used the method.
In conclusion- yes, logic is an important part of being a judge, and a part that you more or less have to have in order to get very far. Judges also trust expert witnesses to fill them in on what they don't know (such as how this exact model of car works, or what a particular weapon's spray is like, or if shells from bullets match the defendant's gun) and generally trust them. The problem in the article is that the NYC's science department was more or less in bed with its prosecutors, which is not fair, and that the science department was using less data than it ought to to produce often-damning evidence. It's not really the fault of the judge for not understanding that the shortcuts that the science department were using weren't good, especially when they're under oath, which is a HUGE psychological part of law.
Also, if it helps, here's a good overview of how a court case works, in the form of a movie scene critique (legitimately the best primer on how a court with a jury generally functions, or at least ought to):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1I7QBCHqng
It's a hard-line stance I know. Anything less tho is just externalizing the damage done by these fools and their "win at all costs" mentality. It's easy to have that mentality when the "costs" to the actor are - at worst - keeping ill gotten gains and some slap on the wrist, while the real consequences are borne by people who are effectively collateral damage.
Sure I'm a crazy hippie, but the fact that this woman got a settlement does nothing to help the real problem. If anything, it makes it worse - the people are distracted by the bread and circuses of a person getting a pile of money, while the NY medical examiner's office gets to purge a person fighting for actual correctness. I'm sure her absence will make it easier for prosecutors to "win" more, since there are fewer people arguing to do silly things like trying to follow the prinicple of "prosecute the actual offender".