Officials put the wrong man in a mental facility for two years(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Officials put the wrong man in a mental facility for two years
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/05/hawaii-mistaken-identity-arrest/
263 comments
https://archive.is/Rg64w
Nevertheless, the officer insisted that Spriestersbach was actually Castleberry and took him to jail. He was fingerprinted and had his photo taken, generating records that could have been used to prove he wasn’t Castleberry, the Innocence Project asserts.
It's beyond me how anyone has one iota of faith in the US judicial system anymore.
It's beyond me how anyone has one iota of faith in the US judicial system anymore.
This could have happened anywhere in the world, the US is hardly unique.
The US is definitely unique in that it confines the largest number people against their will in the world, in terms of both per capita and raw population numbers. That context cannot be lost when examining the cruelty of the system. It's obviously at an extreme end of the spectrum, so treating it like "any other country" doesn't hold up.
The system is designed to target and exploit vulnerable, poor people and turn them into productive assets. Once it has them, getting them out can be incredibly difficult because they become so profitable. Our penal system is not designed for rehabilitation but for profit generation.
The system is designed to target and exploit vulnerable, poor people and turn them into productive assets. Once it has them, getting them out can be incredibly difficult because they become so profitable. Our penal system is not designed for rehabilitation but for profit generation.
Here's, among others, one of the absolutely wild examples from Canada: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/Resear...
Multiple people convicted by evidence provided by a quack of a doctor used as an Expert Witness by the crown.
Multiple people convicted by evidence provided by a quack of a doctor used as an Expert Witness by the crown.
Therefore what? Bad thing happens in the US, yes that's true, but well, that same bad thing happens in other places too, so therefore.... what?
Don't get me wrong, i find this story outrageous, but whether our system is doing comparatively well or comparatively poor seems like useful empirical information.
For one thing, if another country handles things better, that shows humans are capable of improving their system.
For one thing, if another country handles things better, that shows humans are capable of improving their system.
Ah yes, that does help. Too often I see people make statements like that and it just comes across as fatalistic, like an attempt to dissipate the will of others to do anything about it at all.
I wonder what the other countries are that do better, and what they do differently. Maybe there should be a mandated evidence review every x years, irrespective of sentence.
I wonder what the other countries are that do better, and what they do differently. Maybe there should be a mandated evidence review every x years, irrespective of sentence.
I love this attitude. In life, so many people are happy to reference themselves to a very poor standard. For mang Dominicans, it’s OK in the case of Dominican Republic to be the third country in Latin America for so many statistic—automobile accidents, coronavirus deaths, you name it. This is unacceptable to me. Pick the highest bar—and if the highest bar isn’t good enough—set a new standard.
Sure, we will have failures—but we need to push the envelope and do “good” not “better than worse”.
Sure, we will have failures—but we need to push the envelope and do “good” not “better than worse”.
So therefore humans are humans.
If it was unique you can point to what makes it unique - but if it happens everywhere, then it's because humans are humans.
If you don't understand the source of the problem you have no change of fixing it.
If it was unique you can point to what makes it unique - but if it happens everywhere, then it's because humans are humans.
If you don't understand the source of the problem you have no change of fixing it.
Then really its a global problem we need to figure out.
Every day on HN we have debates about the trading of privacy for data for a more secure world. This is an indication that our efforts are broken, because people. But also that those people held a lot of different roles, in a diversity of offices across our judicial system.
Every day on HN we have debates about the trading of privacy for data for a more secure world. This is an indication that our efforts are broken, because people. But also that those people held a lot of different roles, in a diversity of offices across our judicial system.
How can you possibly make such a claim with any supporting evidence that it could be "anywhere"?
EDIT: Confused "anywhere" with "everywhere". I'll take my F in logic today and show myself out.
EDIT: Confused "anywhere" with "everywhere". I'll take my F in logic today and show myself out.
Does someone need to provide a source proving that mistakes happen outside the United States?
Actually, I think your doubt needs some sources. The foundational principle is that there exists at least one of:
* a human that has never once made any mistake whatsoever
* a system composed of humans who are mistake capable but the system itself actually makes no mistakes.
Such a thing seems impossible - if you can point to the existence of such a thing, your doubt is worth entertaining, otherwise it's just contrarianism.
* a human that has never once made any mistake whatsoever
* a system composed of humans who are mistake capable but the system itself actually makes no mistakes.
Such a thing seems impossible - if you can point to the existence of such a thing, your doubt is worth entertaining, otherwise it's just contrarianism.
Here's one (sort of) from the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
Hundreds jailed or fined due to a faulty computer system blaming them - no other evidence - Post Office covered it up repeatedly - victims still not fully compensated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
Hundreds jailed or fined due to a faulty computer system blaming them - no other evidence - Post Office covered it up repeatedly - victims still not fully compensated.
I have faith in a situation like this being far less likely to occur in Australia.
https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/893326/imprisoning-th...
There isn't a large Innocence Project (though a small one has popped up and should be supported) in Australia and there are overzealous prosecutors in Australia, just as in a lot of places (though the competition in America seems to be exceptionally strong). Faith is nice and all, but it doesn't free the innocent. There's a link to support Australia's innocence project, maybe tithe.
There isn't a large Innocence Project (though a small one has popped up and should be supported) in Australia and there are overzealous prosecutors in Australia, just as in a lot of places (though the competition in America seems to be exceptionally strong). Faith is nice and all, but it doesn't free the innocent. There's a link to support Australia's innocence project, maybe tithe.
It's not yet as bad but it's becoming more and more like the US every day. Australian politicians rarely create original law, they either ape laws from elsewhere or are forced into copying laws from the country they're trying to do trade deals with. Thus Australian law is becoming more and more like that of the US.
For that matter, things won't improve in any anglophone country until they ditch the adversarial system for the inquisitorial one that has a better chance of getting to the truth of a case. But don't hold your breath, that won't happen anytime soon.
For that matter, things won't improve in any anglophone country until they ditch the adversarial system for the inquisitorial one that has a better chance of getting to the truth of a case. But don't hold your breath, that won't happen anytime soon.
Don't be too sure. Very similar things have happened in Australia before, and no doubt will again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Rau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Rau
Here you go. IIRC Australia hasn’t been side kind to it’s Indigenous population.
https://obriensolicitors.com.au/case-studies-unlawful-impris...
https://obriensolicitors.com.au/case-studies-unlawful-impris...
With the current lockdown and incoming martial law, it seems that you already live in a dystopian universe.
Why? I see no reason to believe Australia’s social problems aren’t as bad as as the US.
It's a legal system, not a justice system.
As one is taught in philosophy 101 the Law and Justice are not the same and it's always been thus.
One way of at least improving the situation would be for laws that would allow for the victim to sue both the State and public officials separately. If police and other public servants could not hide behind the protection of State and could easily be sued for negligence then they'd be much more diligent. It wouldn't make things perfect but it'd only take a few instances of public servants finding themselves out of pocket to the tune of their life savings for things to improve significantly for the better.
There's no doubt that democracy is badly impacted by such events, and it's little wonder that people continue to lose faith in their governance whenever this happens. Anyway, I hope some smart lawyer will make the State pay very early for its irresponsible and horrendous error and that Spriestersbach is awarded the large compensation that he deserves.
One way of at least improving the situation would be for laws that would allow for the victim to sue both the State and public officials separately. If police and other public servants could not hide behind the protection of State and could easily be sued for negligence then they'd be much more diligent. It wouldn't make things perfect but it'd only take a few instances of public servants finding themselves out of pocket to the tune of their life savings for things to improve significantly for the better.
There's no doubt that democracy is badly impacted by such events, and it's little wonder that people continue to lose faith in their governance whenever this happens. Anyway, I hope some smart lawyer will make the State pay very early for its irresponsible and horrendous error and that Spriestersbach is awarded the large compensation that he deserves.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that statement.
I think justice should be considered the entire purpose of a legal system. And if it isn't working, it should be fixed.
Accountability sounds like a good place to start. If an official causes harm to another person through negligence or otherwise they should be held accountable to the same standards as anyone else.
I think justice should be considered the entire purpose of a legal system. And if it isn't working, it should be fixed.
Accountability sounds like a good place to start. If an official causes harm to another person through negligence or otherwise they should be held accountable to the same standards as anyone else.
I think that's the point of the above comment.
They're just saying our legal system doesn't try to consistently create justice.
It definintely tries (that's sort of the point of it).
... but it doesn't always succeed for multiple reasons. One of the most common being that it's not always possible to grant all parties justice. Sometimes, courts have to evaluate a zero-sum situation and decide how cost will be shared, so there's no way to move forward without constraining someone's rights. And people's definitions of "justice" vary, and are far more often grounded in emotion than coherent philosophy... It's not always even logically possible to grant all parties justice.
The useful distinction to keep in mind is that the legal system will follow the law, but whether the outcome of that is "justice" is a subjective evaluation more than a measurable concept.
... but it doesn't always succeed for multiple reasons. One of the most common being that it's not always possible to grant all parties justice. Sometimes, courts have to evaluate a zero-sum situation and decide how cost will be shared, so there's no way to move forward without constraining someone's rights. And people's definitions of "justice" vary, and are far more often grounded in emotion than coherent philosophy... It's not always even logically possible to grant all parties justice.
The useful distinction to keep in mind is that the legal system will follow the law, but whether the outcome of that is "justice" is a subjective evaluation more than a measurable concept.
> It definintely tries (that's sort of the point of it)
This is probably argument from definition (unclear) but in any case, it's a statement which needs backing up.
To cite a usual boogeyman for such discussions, the Soviet court system under Stalin wasn't at all interested in justice.
It's not clear to me that the incentives in the US court system align with justice more than accidentally. As in, sometimes the guilty go to prison, as a side effect of the prosecutor's office needing to clear their docket and present good numbers to keep their budget up. Very occasionally, the innocent are cleared of crimes, and even more occasionally than that their lives aren't ruined in the process; defense attorneys want to look good as well.
This is probably argument from definition (unclear) but in any case, it's a statement which needs backing up.
To cite a usual boogeyman for such discussions, the Soviet court system under Stalin wasn't at all interested in justice.
It's not clear to me that the incentives in the US court system align with justice more than accidentally. As in, sometimes the guilty go to prison, as a side effect of the prosecutor's office needing to clear their docket and present good numbers to keep their budget up. Very occasionally, the innocent are cleared of crimes, and even more occasionally than that their lives aren't ruined in the process; defense attorneys want to look good as well.
> the Soviet court system under Stalin wasn't at all interested in justice.
And, to play Devil's advocate, most of those in power under Stalin would likely have claimed and honestly believed that it was a justice system and that it was using its might for the greater good.
Outright sociopaths who simply don't care about harm are rare. When systems cause more harm than good, it's usually because well-intentioned participants fall prey to other human flaws:
* Dehumanizing and believing that some groups are simply less worthy of care than others.
* Biased data or beliefs about who is harmed and who is helped.
* Principle-agent problems where the ones making the decisions don't see or own the consequences of them.
* Emergent properties where no individual member of the system wants a result, but the system as a whole ends up producing it because of its structure. Sort of the beauracratic equivalent of crowd crush.
The reason I'm pointing this out is because I think when non-totalitarian systems fail to help, it's usually for the same reasons. It's not because of psychopathic monsters. It's mostly that primate brains were never designed to operate at the organizational and power scale we have created. The fact that it works at all is a miracle.
And, to play Devil's advocate, most of those in power under Stalin would likely have claimed and honestly believed that it was a justice system and that it was using its might for the greater good.
Outright sociopaths who simply don't care about harm are rare. When systems cause more harm than good, it's usually because well-intentioned participants fall prey to other human flaws:
* Dehumanizing and believing that some groups are simply less worthy of care than others.
* Biased data or beliefs about who is harmed and who is helped.
* Principle-agent problems where the ones making the decisions don't see or own the consequences of them.
* Emergent properties where no individual member of the system wants a result, but the system as a whole ends up producing it because of its structure. Sort of the beauracratic equivalent of crowd crush.
The reason I'm pointing this out is because I think when non-totalitarian systems fail to help, it's usually for the same reasons. It's not because of psychopathic monsters. It's mostly that primate brains were never designed to operate at the organizational and power scale we have created. The fact that it works at all is a miracle.
I think it's more valid than an argument from definition. At its most cynical, a legal system is at least an attempt to disguise brute power as reason. So even then there's an allowance that reason and fairness should have precedence over brute power - they just try to dress it up. So if that concept of reason and fairness being important didn't exist, they would just do away with the song and dance.
Mostly because these stories are incredibly rare. The Innocence Project does excellent work to try and prevent people like this from falling through the cracks.
The stories are rare. We don't know how rare the events are. What percentage of people do the Innocence Project manage to review? It's certainly not everyone.
Absolutely not. The high imprisonment rate and the number of people imprisoned without a process is a clear symptom.
And if everyone who dropped the ball on this got a year in prison for it, they'd be even more rare.
Once you start punishing players for dropping the ball, the game becomes to not receive the pass.
We never seem to have this problem for any field other than law enforcement or military. In other professions, if you mess up aggressively, there are repercussions professionally.
There are? Like when Goldman Sachs needed a bailout ... and then used half of it to pay bonuses to their execs that had gotten them into the mess in the first place? Or politicians mismanaging things, only to be re-elected or, worst case, switch to a cushy job on the board of some corporation?
I'm not sure there are that many professions where you get exiled or go to jail for failure.
I'm not sure there are that many professions where you get exiled or go to jail for failure.
If doctors or lawyers fuck up bad enough, losing their license is one possible, if rare, outcome. Those professions are still very popular.
I hear you but I also feel like this is already happening. Not only did everyone in this chain, for 2 years, say "its not my problem, I'll push it forward", when it had to be reviewed they did it secretly without recompense for the harm caused.
They received the pass and then pretended it never happened
They received the pass and then pretended it never happened
thats a good way to gum up the system so nothing ever gets done.
Then people will be empowered to enforce community standards instead of being held back by a State force that doesn't do its job but prevents them from doing theirs.
There are organizations dedicated to handling the repeated abuse of mental health facilities in similar ways here -- not the legal aspect, but the mental health. "Incredibly rare" feels like it's playing into the narrative of "oops, this is rare".
So, I would argue, "one of many": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
So, I would argue, "one of many": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
The worst part is it took 2 years and outside lawyers to rectify the situation. It's as if the justice system doesn't even care if it gets it right or wrong, it's just a mindless machine. "I don't care, not my job."
If you read the article, it wasn't outside lawyers. He was freed because one of the doctors in the mental facility (who originally declared him incompetent) had a change of opinion and actually tried to verify his claims and realized he was telling the truth.
The innocence project is just trying to clear his name, after he went to live with his sister in Vermont.
The innocence project is just trying to clear his name, after he went to live with his sister in Vermont.
>If you read the article, it wasn't outside lawyers. He was freed because one of the doctors...
I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall. I said he needed outside lawyers to rectify the situation. Just because he was freed doesn't mean his life is back in order. I suspect he has an arrest record, criminal conviction and a record of time served to contend with. Not to mention he hasn't worked in 2+ years. I'm sure his credit is toast. What happened to the place he used to live? I don't know if his voting rights have been restored. I would imagine a google search for his name would bring up at least one article on his conviction for employers to be deterred. Imagine what your life would look like if you just vanished from civilization for 2 years. The punishment is a lot more than just the incarceration.
I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall. I said he needed outside lawyers to rectify the situation. Just because he was freed doesn't mean his life is back in order. I suspect he has an arrest record, criminal conviction and a record of time served to contend with. Not to mention he hasn't worked in 2+ years. I'm sure his credit is toast. What happened to the place he used to live? I don't know if his voting rights have been restored. I would imagine a google search for his name would bring up at least one article on his conviction for employers to be deterred. Imagine what your life would look like if you just vanished from civilization for 2 years. The punishment is a lot more than just the incarceration.
He was homeless with mental health issues. Obviously not the mental health BS the state said he had.
This does not change the crux of your post, just some of the points.
This does not change the crux of your post, just some of the points.
This could be fixed with punishment for the responsible party.
because it's the only one we got
[deleted]
It is beyond me how people intelligent enough to hang around HN can pretend to have no understanding of how systems work.
The justice system mostly works (relative to what its designed to do and the system it evolved out of, which you might both disagree with, but let's not complicate this). By the nature of what it handles (humans) and what you are (human) it will look abhorrently cruel when it fails. And, as with any system, it will definitely continue to fail as long as it is in place.
Assessing an acceptable failure rate is kinda hard – but realistically there has to be one or you will just have to do without any system at all.
So, more interestingly, the thing to look out for is whether a) there are institutions that report on system failures and b) we learn from those failures and correct them at all. As far as I can tell that generally happens in democratic countries.
The next thing to look at is the speed in which we do those corrections. Could they be quicker? Sure. However, it seems like democracies are a tad slow about everything to people everywhere. Or, put differently, we are all wired a little bit too impatiently for how our democracies are currently designed.
I feel that's good thing, constantly scrutinising our systems, keeping them on their toes and improving as we go.
The justice system mostly works (relative to what its designed to do and the system it evolved out of, which you might both disagree with, but let's not complicate this). By the nature of what it handles (humans) and what you are (human) it will look abhorrently cruel when it fails. And, as with any system, it will definitely continue to fail as long as it is in place.
Assessing an acceptable failure rate is kinda hard – but realistically there has to be one or you will just have to do without any system at all.
So, more interestingly, the thing to look out for is whether a) there are institutions that report on system failures and b) we learn from those failures and correct them at all. As far as I can tell that generally happens in democratic countries.
The next thing to look at is the speed in which we do those corrections. Could they be quicker? Sure. However, it seems like democracies are a tad slow about everything to people everywhere. Or, put differently, we are all wired a little bit too impatiently for how our democracies are currently designed.
I feel that's good thing, constantly scrutinising our systems, keeping them on their toes and improving as we go.
the issue for me isn't that a mistake was made, the issue is that the parties responsible for the mistake conspired in secret without official record to cover up their error, and left the man dumped in a homeless shelter with fifty cents.
Agreed. What happened here is absolutely horrific.
This happens "all the time". Taking responsibility is not 'in vogue' nowadays. (Prime examples are the lasts president. Obama was big on cracking down on whistleblowers. Orange explicitly claimed many times that managing stuff is not his responsibility, he has people for that.)
They failed him repeatedly. This wasn't a one-time screwup, this was a systemic failure across multiple organizations.
And when they realized they had wronged this man, they did whatever they could to sweep it under the rug and avoid consequences, or reparations for their actions.
The system doesn't just "look abhorrently cruel", it IS abhorrently cruel, and this incident is a clear example of that.
And when they realized they had wronged this man, they did whatever they could to sweep it under the rug and avoid consequences, or reparations for their actions.
The system doesn't just "look abhorrently cruel", it IS abhorrently cruel, and this incident is a clear example of that.
So let's look at this. There were people who screwed up. Then they covered it up.
The key question is "what sort of system makes it harder to cover things up?" because the people element of people not wanting to get in trouble or have their mistakes visible isn't going to go anywhere.
You also need to have the non-mistake, non-cruel cases visible, to see if things are changing for the better or worse, rate-wise.
A "less cruel" system isn't a particularly specific or well-defined thing to strive for if it's not specifically trying to address those human failings, since people can still be cruel.
The key question is "what sort of system makes it harder to cover things up?" because the people element of people not wanting to get in trouble or have their mistakes visible isn't going to go anywhere.
You also need to have the non-mistake, non-cruel cases visible, to see if things are changing for the better or worse, rate-wise.
A "less cruel" system isn't a particularly specific or well-defined thing to strive for if it's not specifically trying to address those human failings, since people can still be cruel.
The US uniquely shields officials in these cases which promotes coverups. That’s a specific, systematic, and correctable failing of the US justice system not simply normal human issues.
How hard it is for the coverup to work is largely irrelevant IMO.
How hard it is for the coverup to work is largely irrelevant IMO.
Not uniquely. It's not uncommon for people in official capacity to have immunity from lawsuits relating to their work.
Usually it’s protection from the initial mistake not the coverup, the US protects both.
Though I am interested if you have some other examples.
Though I am interested if you have some other examples.
Does it? I mean if the coverup becomes proven in criminal court, then are they still protected? I thought the problem with coverups is that they are very hard to prove, and when some of them eventually get uncovered, then the department simply treats it as some small irrelevant internal affair. Hence legally QI still stands.
Though of course it's strange that these half admissions of coverups are not treated sufficiently seriously by the courts.
Though of course it's strange that these half admissions of coverups are not treated sufficiently seriously by the courts.
We don't have a US justice system.
We have a US legal system.
We have a US legal system.
Or a "punishment" system, given the elected sheriff/DA motivation to be "tough on crime".
Well, it goes both ways, depending on circumstances and resources.
The US legal system is a commercial system. By that, I don't mean to say it is corrupt. Rather, the participants in the system require representation i.e. lawyers, and lawyers charge for their time, by design. Consequently, access to outcomes of the legal system is a function of the financial and social resources of the participants.
The US legal system is a commercial system. By that, I don't mean to say it is corrupt. Rather, the participants in the system require representation i.e. lawyers, and lawyers charge for their time, by design. Consequently, access to outcomes of the legal system is a function of the financial and social resources of the participants.
What's unique about it?
The incentive also seems backward here: if there's a shield protecting you even in case of screwup, you are incentivized to cover things up less than otherwise.
Protection from initial mistakes, like "blame free retros," is generally heralded as a way to promote fixing root causes and reduce political coverups.
The incentive also seems backward here: if there's a shield protecting you even in case of screwup, you are incentivized to cover things up less than otherwise.
Protection from initial mistakes, like "blame free retros," is generally heralded as a way to promote fixing root causes and reduce political coverups.
Protecting an initial screwup is fine, protecting the coverup is what I take issue with.
I assume the shame would be proportional to the cruelty inflicted to the wrongly incarcerated, and in the US public figures love to show how cruel they are with deviant people.
Maybe a better fix would to make admitting and fixing mistakes was cheap and relatively cheerful?
[deleted]
>It is beyond me how people intelligent enough to hang around HN can pretend to have no understanding of how systems work.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his cheap internet virtue points depend on his not understanding it.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his cheap internet virtue points depend on his not understanding it.
> It is beyond me how people intelligent enough to hang around HN can pretend to have no understanding of how systems work
I think this is my largest hatred. People's first action after something bad happens is not to discover why it happened, but rather to express outrage that it happened. In my ideal society they would be excluded.
I think this is my largest hatred. People's first action after something bad happens is not to discover why it happened, but rather to express outrage that it happened. In my ideal society they would be excluded.
> That led the state hospital’s attorney to have a police detective take Spriestersbach’s fingerprints. They didn’t match the ones they had on file for Castleberry. Officials also compared photos of the two men — again, not a match.
This is more than infuriating, that in the two years that Spriestersbach was wrongfully held, they never thought of matching fingerprints, or even photos? IANAL but the lack of such a basic level of background check like this is criminal.
This is more than infuriating, that in the two years that Spriestersbach was wrongfully held, they never thought of matching fingerprints, or even photos? IANAL but the lack of such a basic level of background check like this is criminal.
This is also peculiar because they could have rubbed his nose in it after hearing him saying he was the wrong guy for the hundredth time with, “See this photo, this is you!” “Oh, wait. Shit!”
I’m guessing this did occur at some point behind the scenes and it caused them to cover it up even more.
I’m guessing this did occur at some point behind the scenes and it caused them to cover it up even more.
Kind of thing that happens when you let people do what they want without reprecussions.
We need to take away qualified immunity (which incorrectly protects the police officer involved from any kind of prosecution).
Next, the police officer needs to face charges for his role in this. He failed in his duty to the community.
Finally, the police department needs to be held accountable for their role and pay damages to this man.
Next, the police officer needs to face charges for his role in this. He failed in his duty to the community.
Finally, the police department needs to be held accountable for their role and pay damages to this man.
> We need to take away qualified immunity (which incorrectly protects the police officer involved from any kind of prosecution).
Not a lawyer, but I thought qualified immunity gave protection from civil liability, not criminal.
Not a lawyer, but I thought qualified immunity gave protection from civil liability, not criminal.
Qualified immunity does only give protection from civil liability, not criminal.
However civil lawsuits can be brought by the victim. Criminal lawsuits have to be brought by the state. Which usually will mean the District Attorney. Who normally has a close relationship with the police and should be assumed to be reluctant to bring cases against them.
Therefore, in practice, civil law is the only meaningful remedy. So qualified immunity has been a huge civil rights problem since it was invented in 1982.
(Not a lawyer, but I like to read. BTW it could be worse - look up judicial immunity some time. Corrupt judges truly have nothing to fear from their corruption.)
However civil lawsuits can be brought by the victim. Criminal lawsuits have to be brought by the state. Which usually will mean the District Attorney. Who normally has a close relationship with the police and should be assumed to be reluctant to bring cases against them.
Therefore, in practice, civil law is the only meaningful remedy. So qualified immunity has been a huge civil rights problem since it was invented in 1982.
(Not a lawyer, but I like to read. BTW it could be worse - look up judicial immunity some time. Corrupt judges truly have nothing to fear from their corruption.)
Civil is a lower bar than criminal so removing QI and and making the officers personally (in reality they'll all just buy insurance like doctors do, some do this already) is simply a step in the right direction (equality under law being said direction).
If you aren't found to be on the hook by a civil court you basically can't be found guilty by a criminal one (barring very specific statutes or legal precedents that are relevant to the facts in question).
If you aren't found to be on the hook by a civil court you basically can't be found guilty by a criminal one (barring very specific statutes or legal precedents that are relevant to the facts in question).
You're talking about two different things. QI has nothing to do with the level of proof needed (preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt.) Qualified Immunity only exists in civil litigation and has no bearing on criminal cases.
Correct. But if you can't even take someone to civil court you have no chance of criminal charges sticking (barring some specific statute or precedent to the contrary)
They are completely different things.
People can sue each other for things that are not crimes, and you can go to criminal court over things you can't be sued for. Qualified immunity has no bearing on criminal proceedings. For example, if George Floyd's estate sued Chauvin directly I wouldn't be surprised if they lost because of QI, even though Chauvin was charged and convicted for murder.
People can sue each other for things that are not crimes, and you can go to criminal court over things you can't be sued for. Qualified immunity has no bearing on criminal proceedings. For example, if George Floyd's estate sued Chauvin directly I wouldn't be surprised if they lost because of QI, even though Chauvin was charged and convicted for murder.
And his lawyer, the judge, the mental institution and doctors in it.
I’m less keen on prosecuting the police here; they are, in this case, just cogs taught to follow small parts of a very complex multi-person process for arresting/booking/jailing someone—a process where no single person has the sort of full top-down view that would allow them to realize that their output is causing a bad overall result.
I’d be more keen here in prosecuting the people who devised the flowchart that the police are following, for not engineering it to be robust against this failure mode. We shouldn’t expect humans to do an extra non-obvious step (checking the criminal’s file against the fingerprints they took) if the flowchart doesn’t require it, especially under time-pressure to “get the job done”; instead, we should make the flowchart require it.
When you’ve devised a system such that the human “components” of your system don’t have the necessary information from their vantage-point to correct the behaviour of the system, the system itself must be designed to be self-correcting. Because, at that point, that’s the only kind of correction it can have.
This is how we do modern medicine: a given doctor or nurse or specialist has no idea who you are or what your story is, outside of the small window they are told to see you in. They’re also just cogs in their machine. But the process itself — run mostly through medical charts — drives patients toward the treatment they need nevertheless; and there are many checks and fallback cases built into both the trained human processes, and the automated processes, to get patients who fall through one crack back on track toward treatment/good health outcomes.
—————
Also, a tangent re: prosecuting those responsible for engineering the process:
Back in Ancient Greece, the Lottery system of electing a leader had one important feature not oft-mentioned in modern discourse, but which was perhaps the keystone to understanding the Lottery system as a whole: if the polity didn’t like a leader’s policies, they’d drag them out and lynch them (or whatever the Ancient Greek equivalent of lynching was.) There was no concept of “impeachment”; it was just a question of surviving your term, by doing things that don’t anger your polity too much. (And as such, probably the whole reason for electing a leader by sortition in the first place, would have been that nobody wants to go into politics if you’re only one misstep away from a lynching at all times. So you have to force people to do the job; and if you’re forcing people to do a job that’s net-negative for them, you should at least be fair in your selection process by making it random.)
In modern times, capital-E Engineers already have to sign off on the designs that pass through their hands; and they can then be held criminally liable if those things fail for reasons they should have been able to foresee. This rarely happens, though, because Engineers, out of equal parts conscientiousness and self-interest, have built up a large body of best-practices, of meta rules and guidelines to follow when defining domain rules and guidelines, that either avoid failures, or at least outright reject “impossible to make sound” designs.
What I’m saying is: legislators and (especially) regulators really need to hold the burden of ultimate responsibility — criminal liability, even — when a defined-by-regulation process fails. They should be “signing off on” processes and workflows they define, the same way a civil Engineer would sign off on a bridge design. We probably shouldn’t be lynching them, but we should at least be taking all those civil suits over wrongful imprisonment, and targeting them directly at these policy-makers. Being a policy-maker should be a duty, not a privilege: something with perhaps more down-side than up-side.
I’d be more keen here in prosecuting the people who devised the flowchart that the police are following, for not engineering it to be robust against this failure mode. We shouldn’t expect humans to do an extra non-obvious step (checking the criminal’s file against the fingerprints they took) if the flowchart doesn’t require it, especially under time-pressure to “get the job done”; instead, we should make the flowchart require it.
When you’ve devised a system such that the human “components” of your system don’t have the necessary information from their vantage-point to correct the behaviour of the system, the system itself must be designed to be self-correcting. Because, at that point, that’s the only kind of correction it can have.
This is how we do modern medicine: a given doctor or nurse or specialist has no idea who you are or what your story is, outside of the small window they are told to see you in. They’re also just cogs in their machine. But the process itself — run mostly through medical charts — drives patients toward the treatment they need nevertheless; and there are many checks and fallback cases built into both the trained human processes, and the automated processes, to get patients who fall through one crack back on track toward treatment/good health outcomes.
—————
Also, a tangent re: prosecuting those responsible for engineering the process:
Back in Ancient Greece, the Lottery system of electing a leader had one important feature not oft-mentioned in modern discourse, but which was perhaps the keystone to understanding the Lottery system as a whole: if the polity didn’t like a leader’s policies, they’d drag them out and lynch them (or whatever the Ancient Greek equivalent of lynching was.) There was no concept of “impeachment”; it was just a question of surviving your term, by doing things that don’t anger your polity too much. (And as such, probably the whole reason for electing a leader by sortition in the first place, would have been that nobody wants to go into politics if you’re only one misstep away from a lynching at all times. So you have to force people to do the job; and if you’re forcing people to do a job that’s net-negative for them, you should at least be fair in your selection process by making it random.)
In modern times, capital-E Engineers already have to sign off on the designs that pass through their hands; and they can then be held criminally liable if those things fail for reasons they should have been able to foresee. This rarely happens, though, because Engineers, out of equal parts conscientiousness and self-interest, have built up a large body of best-practices, of meta rules and guidelines to follow when defining domain rules and guidelines, that either avoid failures, or at least outright reject “impossible to make sound” designs.
What I’m saying is: legislators and (especially) regulators really need to hold the burden of ultimate responsibility — criminal liability, even — when a defined-by-regulation process fails. They should be “signing off on” processes and workflows they define, the same way a civil Engineer would sign off on a bridge design. We probably shouldn’t be lynching them, but we should at least be taking all those civil suits over wrongful imprisonment, and targeting them directly at these policy-makers. Being a policy-maker should be a duty, not a privilege: something with perhaps more down-side than up-side.
"I’d be more keen here in prosecuting the people who devised the flowchart that the police are following, for not engineering it to be robust against this failure mode."
In my post above I've suggested that police and public officials be prosecuted but I'll nuance that by saying that ought to be in cases of exceptional negligence. Moreover, if the granularity isn't right the law wouldn't be effective, either it would be ignored and the status quo remain, or public servants would become too timid to do their work effectively.
You are right, much of the problem lies with those hidden and unknown gnomes who draft the laws that politicians often blindly pass and also those who 'engineer' the way the police work (and/or the way the law is administered). As I've said in my post it's time these people were brought to account. For starters, their names ought to adorn all draft laws, briefing/organizational documents, etc. Unfortunately, there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening.
In my post above I've suggested that police and public officials be prosecuted but I'll nuance that by saying that ought to be in cases of exceptional negligence. Moreover, if the granularity isn't right the law wouldn't be effective, either it would be ignored and the status quo remain, or public servants would become too timid to do their work effectively.
You are right, much of the problem lies with those hidden and unknown gnomes who draft the laws that politicians often blindly pass and also those who 'engineer' the way the police work (and/or the way the law is administered). As I've said in my post it's time these people were brought to account. For starters, their names ought to adorn all draft laws, briefing/organizational documents, etc. Unfortunately, there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening.
ANY time a supposedly insane person claims they were misidentified, it should AUTOMATICALLY trigger a detailed investigation, and I don't care at all if that is burdensome to the hospitals or police.
How easy it is to not care about things when they don't affect you.
But what if 100% of criminally-insane people realize the “trick” and claim to be misidentified? There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them.
(To be clear, even without such a policy in place, a large number of criminally-insane people already do claim to be misidentified because “they’re not John Smith, they’re Jesus Christ!” And these people do tend to really believe that, to the point where their behaviour isn’t all that different from someone who’s been misidentified. It’d be very hard to define a policy that would precisely delineate which stories should be looked into, vs. which are balderdash.)
We need more simple automated cross-checks to decrease false-positive rates. We need scalable solutions.
(To be clear, even without such a policy in place, a large number of criminally-insane people already do claim to be misidentified because “they’re not John Smith, they’re Jesus Christ!” And these people do tend to really believe that, to the point where their behaviour isn’t all that different from someone who’s been misidentified. It’d be very hard to define a policy that would precisely delineate which stories should be looked into, vs. which are balderdash.)
We need more simple automated cross-checks to decrease false-positive rates. We need scalable solutions.
> There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them.
I think you're overestimating the number of people incarcerated for criminal insanity and underestimating the number of resources available.
I think you're overestimating the number of people incarcerated for criminal insanity and underestimating the number of resources available.
I think you’re underestimating the meaning of “detailed investigation.” A single “detailed investigation” can tie up one or more detectives’ entire careers. (If you watch a lot of true-crime, there’s frequent mentions of how the case was solved because one detective pursued the same cold case, day-in, day-out, for literal decades, as their only case.)
But maybe the GP meant a not-so-detailed investigation. A regular investigation, per se. A cursory investigation, even.
But maybe the GP meant a not-so-detailed investigation. A regular investigation, per se. A cursory investigation, even.
I assumed GP meant the amount of investigation that would have been necessary to exonerate the subject of this story (which would have been less than a security-clearance-style background check).
... but we have the resources to do a security-clearance-style background check on every individual that is incarcerated against their will for reason of mental illness. I'd consider that sufficient.
... but we have the resources to do a security-clearance-style background check on every individual that is incarcerated against their will for reason of mental illness. I'd consider that sufficient.
Fingerprinting a person takes only minutes. Also, I think you're wildly overestimating the number of criminally-insane people.
> There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them.
If the state (or other organization) doesn't have enough resources to do a detailed investigation, then it should not be taking away freedoms for whomever it is unable to perform the detailed investigation for.
If the state (or other organization) doesn't have enough resources to do a detailed investigation, then it should not be taking away freedoms for whomever it is unable to perform the detailed investigation for.
I would worry that penalising policy makers would lead to a curtailing of the power of the political system, and a corresponding transfer of power to private interests without popular oversight.
I’d expect a system where people are forced into roles of political power and punished for failing to perform to degenerate into a bunch of corrupt policymakers doing what their rich patrons tell them to, in exchange for protection and wealth.
I’d expect a system where people are forced into roles of political power and punished for failing to perform to degenerate into a bunch of corrupt policymakers doing what their rich patrons tell them to, in exchange for protection and wealth.
>I’m less keen on prosecuting the police here
It is the police officer's job and duty to do the investigation. He was negligent at that duty to the point of costing someone dearly. He should be prosecuted. What if a truck driver was negligent in driving, causing someone to spend 2 years in the hospital, wouldn't they be worthy of prosecution?
It is the police officer's job and duty to do the investigation. He was negligent at that duty to the point of costing someone dearly. He should be prosecuted. What if a truck driver was negligent in driving, causing someone to spend 2 years in the hospital, wouldn't they be worthy of prosecution?
I thought this stuff stopped happening in the 1960s.
Surely this happened in some third world country. right ? No. It happened in Hawaii. And the actual person was already in prison in Alaska.
Although this could happen elsewhere in the US, as it has before, people should really take a closer look at Hawaii. The standards of legal review are primitive, along side many other administrative aspects, no matter how much residents will try to convince you otherwise. One should also not discount prejudice as a factor here in the treatment, specifically towards the dominant groups from US/Asia mainlands.
Kevin Strickland has been in prison for 43 years for a crime he didn’t commit. Our justice system is simply broken.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/11/man-imprisoned-43-years-for-tr...
https://nypost.com/2021/05/11/man-imprisoned-43-years-for-tr...
I don't think individual cases like these prove anything about the American justice system at large. In any system run by humans that is large enough, there will be mistakes or abuses committed by individuals or small groups, but this doesn't make any strong implications about the design of the system overall.
(Of course, it may really be broken like you're saying, it's just that I don't think a few cases like these prove it.)
(Of course, it may really be broken like you're saying, it's just that I don't think a few cases like these prove it.)
If it was an isolated incident, mistake, or abuse surely the powers that be would want it corrected immediately when brought to light?
Well, look here [0], it isn't a priority. The people in charge of the system have no interest in fixing anything.
[0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-aud-nw-missouri-go...
Well, look here [0], it isn't a priority. The people in charge of the system have no interest in fixing anything.
[0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-aud-nw-missouri-go...
I agree, that is pretty terrible. But the system is designed so that this guy can be voted out. Again, I'd say it's the people, not the design of the system, that is the problem.
The design of the system allows people to be lax and make mistakes, the system could be designed with more accountability. However, people designed the system and people make mistakes
And another flaw in the system highlighted by this case,
>If Strickland is released, he will not be eligible for compensation from the state. Missouri compensates only inmates who are exonerated through DNA evidence
It's also worth noting that despite this issue not being a priority for the governor of missouri, he did find the time to pardon two individuals fined after pleading guilty over pointing firearms at protestors from their property.[0]
[0]https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/gov-parson-pardon...
>If Strickland is released, he will not be eligible for compensation from the state. Missouri compensates only inmates who are exonerated through DNA evidence
It's also worth noting that despite this issue not being a priority for the governor of missouri, he did find the time to pardon two individuals fined after pleading guilty over pointing firearms at protestors from their property.[0]
[0]https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/gov-parson-pardon...
It really does seem that there should be mandatory minimums for compensation, at least in cases involving prosecutorial misconduct.
The math for a bare minimum amount should be easy: How much would a person with that skill level have made hired into a position at the prosecutor's office in the year of imprisonment? Now run that out for the duration of imprisonment, including generous allowances for overtime, raises, promotions, etc. using percentages taken directly from the salary histories of the office involved.
This doesn't mean the money has to come out of the budget of the prosecutor's office, this is just a way to address arguments over "How much is fair? That's too generous! That's too cheap!" If the situation is such that the minimum amount seems unacceptably low, judges or juries can depart upward. If everyone agrees that the minimum is too high, that's easy to address as well - go claw back some of the overly-generous salaries paid to people in the prosecutor's office, then adjust the calculation using the new numbers.
The math for a bare minimum amount should be easy: How much would a person with that skill level have made hired into a position at the prosecutor's office in the year of imprisonment? Now run that out for the duration of imprisonment, including generous allowances for overtime, raises, promotions, etc. using percentages taken directly from the salary histories of the office involved.
This doesn't mean the money has to come out of the budget of the prosecutor's office, this is just a way to address arguments over "How much is fair? That's too generous! That's too cheap!" If the situation is such that the minimum amount seems unacceptably low, judges or juries can depart upward. If everyone agrees that the minimum is too high, that's easy to address as well - go claw back some of the overly-generous salaries paid to people in the prosecutor's office, then adjust the calculation using the new numbers.
The US has more people in in prison than anywhere in the world. It is broken.
The radically disproportionate ratio of blacks in prison vs whites in prison compared to their population percentage would like to have a word with you.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/30/shrinking-g...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/30/shrinking-g...
There is also a radically disproportionate amount of men imprisoned compared to their population percentage. Does this indicate the legal system is biased against men?
Yes, probably? Does not seem like such a big deal to think the legal system is biased against men? It also does not necessarily mean that means too much.
Correlation is not causation.
This unfortunately demonstrates a common misunderstanding of how to interpret data; if there are more left-handed people compared to the general population in prison, does it mean that the justice system is biased against people who are left-handed?
That may still be true, but you simply cannot draw a correct conclusion without additional data along a different axis.
This unfortunately demonstrates a common misunderstanding of how to interpret data; if there are more left-handed people compared to the general population in prison, does it mean that the justice system is biased against people who are left-handed?
That may still be true, but you simply cannot draw a correct conclusion without additional data along a different axis.
[deleted]
> does it mean that the justice system is biased against people who are left-handed?
Yes. That is literally the definition of a statistical bias.
From wikipedia:
Statistical bias is a feature of a statistical technique or of its results whereby the expected value of the results differs from the true underlying quantitative parameter being estimated.
Yes. That is literally the definition of a statistical bias.
From wikipedia:
Statistical bias is a feature of a statistical technique or of its results whereby the expected value of the results differs from the true underlying quantitative parameter being estimated.
You are misinterpreting a small slice of the data, perhaps deliberately, or perhaps based on your biases based on things you are certain are true, but might not actually be true.
There are a number of possibilities aside from the justice system being biased against these particular left-handed defendants. Note that the lefties still might be biased against within the justice system, but the incarceration statistic alone is not enough to prove that conclusion.
Here's a couple of possibilities:
1) the left-handed people are more likely to be caught, even though both right- and left- handed people are equally effective at committing crimes. It's even possible that right-handed are even MORE effective at committing crimes, but perhaps right-handed people can escape the scene faster than left-handed people.
2) even if enforcement was perfectly equal and without any bias in the justice system at all, left-handed people might come from a location or environment that offers an opportunity to commit crimes more often than the general population.
There are other possibilities, but the data that you have shared, even if it had perfect accuracy and precision, doesn't actually prove causality. It doesn't even come close, except to uncritical journalists who don't really understand data science or researchers who let their own agenda or biases drive their science.
There are a number of possibilities aside from the justice system being biased against these particular left-handed defendants. Note that the lefties still might be biased against within the justice system, but the incarceration statistic alone is not enough to prove that conclusion.
Here's a couple of possibilities:
1) the left-handed people are more likely to be caught, even though both right- and left- handed people are equally effective at committing crimes. It's even possible that right-handed are even MORE effective at committing crimes, but perhaps right-handed people can escape the scene faster than left-handed people.
2) even if enforcement was perfectly equal and without any bias in the justice system at all, left-handed people might come from a location or environment that offers an opportunity to commit crimes more often than the general population.
There are other possibilities, but the data that you have shared, even if it had perfect accuracy and precision, doesn't actually prove causality. It doesn't even come close, except to uncritical journalists who don't really understand data science or researchers who let their own agenda or biases drive their science.
[deleted]
There are more black criminals (who get caught, insert caveat about financial crime here). Why is a contentious question, personally I think economics and culture pretty much explain it, and those aren't easy things to change overnight.
There's also a higher percentage of whites vs Asians in prison, and of men vs women. I guess that proves the justice system is biased against white men.
I'd say that the laws are mostly fair, but the enforcement isn't. The fact you cite is an indictment of the people in charge, not of the system (which allows those people to be replaced by voting).
> I'd say that the laws are mostly fair, but the enforcement isn't.
Yes, exactly.
Yes, exactly.
Our “justice” system was arguably designed to allow some guilty people go free in order to prevent innocent people from wrongfully being robbed of their liberty.
Sure, but this doesn't impact my point, which is that relatively few mistakes don't impugn the design system. Other things might impugn it, but a few mistakes don't, that's all I'm saying.
(Unless you're the one robbed of your 43 years or 2 years of life while continuously claiming - correctly - your innocence).
Its beyond Kafkaesque.
Its beyond Kafkaesque.
So a system has to be perfect or else it is Kafkaesque? Isn't there a gradient between them?
You're the only one inventing a false binary. The US legal system locks up more people than any country on earth, and the majority of its prisoners did not do anything morally wrong. Most of them didn't even go to trial, and a huge number have not even been charged.
It is so blatantly corrupt and psychotic a system, it's quite honestly ignorant to even compare it to any notion of "perfect".
"Kafkaesque" is going easy on it. It's objectively the extension of chattel slavery in this country. It's a crime against humanity.
It is so blatantly corrupt and psychotic a system, it's quite honestly ignorant to even compare it to any notion of "perfect".
"Kafkaesque" is going easy on it. It's objectively the extension of chattel slavery in this country. It's a crime against humanity.
> the majority of its prisoners did not do anything morally wrong
Are you suggesting that the prisoners who did nothing morally wrong are the ones convicted of drug-related offenses?
Honestly, while the fraction is large, it hardly looks like a majority (1 in 5 apparently): https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
And it is not broken down to users vs dealers. The former may have a claim to having done nothing morally wrong, but the latter certainly do not.
> Most of them didn't even go to trial
This is arguably a problem, but not unique to the US. Other places also do a majority of convictions via plea bargain: https://www.economist.com/international/2017/11/09/the-troub...
Are you suggesting that the prisoners who did nothing morally wrong are the ones convicted of drug-related offenses?
Honestly, while the fraction is large, it hardly looks like a majority (1 in 5 apparently): https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
And it is not broken down to users vs dealers. The former may have a claim to having done nothing morally wrong, but the latter certainly do not.
> Most of them didn't even go to trial
This is arguably a problem, but not unique to the US. Other places also do a majority of convictions via plea bargain: https://www.economist.com/international/2017/11/09/the-troub...
Dealing weed or hallucinogens or even ecstasy certainly aren’t that morally wrong. I’d say not at all, but they are a far cry from actually harmful serious drugs and the addictions they can cause.
Again, I'm not arguing that the system isn't broken or defending it in any way, I'm only saying that the original post didn't offer evidence in that direction. The things you're talking about may indeed be evidence, but they're not what I was talking about.
The evidence is not exactly in short supply, but I was not writing an essay intending to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt.
What do you mean that the US legal systems has locked up a huge number that have not even been charged? That doesn't pass the sniff test. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
Most cases are pled out of court. So the dilemma is you are innocent, the prosecutor is asking 20 years for the crime you didn't commit. If you plea guilty to the crime you didn't commit, you get 5 years. Your public defender probably has 40 other ongoing cases, so he is an expert at plea deals but who knows about his trial skills. He recommends you take the plea deal. Do you trust the jury to find you rightfully innocent?
[deleted]
Kafkaesque.
That's quite the punchline in the article.
For a more malicious case, read about Adrian Schoolcraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft) who, as retaliation for blowing the whistle on NYPD malfeasance, was raided, abducted, and forcibly committed/restrained in a psychiatric facility.
For a more malicious case, read about Adrian Schoolcraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft) who, as retaliation for blowing the whistle on NYPD malfeasance, was raided, abducted, and forcibly committed/restrained in a psychiatric facility.
This whole thing is pretty depressing (and would make me pretty angry if I lived in the USA).
But I was even a bit shocked in the first paragraph:
>He woke up to a police officer arresting him for violating the city’s ban on lying down in public places.
Is that legitimately something that can happen? If so, find it mind boggling that you could be arrested in America for falling asleep on the pavement/sidewalk!?
But I was even a bit shocked in the first paragraph:
>He woke up to a police officer arresting him for violating the city’s ban on lying down in public places.
Is that legitimately something that can happen? If so, find it mind boggling that you could be arrested in America for falling asleep on the pavement/sidewalk!?
It's not really that shocking. In Austin Texas a little over two years ago the city council removed the ban on lying and camping in public places. The result was an explosion of tent encampments all over the city, so much so that just a couple months ago city voters reversed the decision in a referendum.
There are certainly valid points on all sides of the debate, and "lying in public" laws can definitely be abused to harass individuals, but there are also some valid rationale for why they exist in the first place.
There are certainly valid points on all sides of the debate, and "lying in public" laws can definitely be abused to harass individuals, but there are also some valid rationale for why they exist in the first place.
So I think the problem there is that the root causes of homelessness need addressing.
Moving all these people to a different city/town/location is not "solving" the issue.
Moving all these people to a different city/town/location is not "solving" the issue.
Encampment is quite different from falling asleep... And even then it should be enough to tell the person to move on, not to arrest them.
Move on to where?
To a different jurisdiction where it's someone else's problem.
Home, friends, family, shelter.
I mean if someone gets drunk and falls asleep they are not necessarily homeless.
I mean if someone gets drunk and falls asleep they are not necessarily homeless.
Where can people who have no home, friends, family or income shelter?
in all seriousness there is no backup beyond a few hundred beds in even the largest cities, with waiting lists, and not exactly the first thing you think of when things turn strange in your life and you end up on the street suddenly. You don't think that you are "one of them" and you just are "holding on for this or that" to happen. At some point, if you exit early enough, you can still transition to other societal levels. Left long enough, it changes you or at least you are considered differently and looked at funnily, to say nothing about the difficult in maintaining work and income to get OUT of said situation, etc.
There's probably some better and worse areas in a city for pitching a lot of tents for a long time. For example some unused parking lots could work better than streets. It would make sense for the city to provide some basic services there too, like water, toilets and a trash skiff... probably some person actually doing it would know a lot better what's important, and what would be alleviate the need to camp somewhere that causes problems for others.
It seems that there's this discussion between false alternatives like "let people do anything" and "let's punish people harshly for minor things". How about offering better alternatives, giving people instructions first before any worse consequences etc.
It seems that there's this discussion between false alternatives like "let people do anything" and "let's punish people harshly for minor things". How about offering better alternatives, giving people instructions first before any worse consequences etc.
under a bridge downtown.
I don't think there are valid points on all sides of the debate. A disturbing number of people think that homeless people should basically be exterminated.
That's not a welcome idea at all, and it deserves no validity.
That's not a welcome idea at all, and it deserves no validity.
The park services have a similar problem, but the solution is simple:
* No permanent structures.
* You need to move every X days.
* You cannot stay in the park/forest/etc for more than Y days/month.
Cities could forbid tents and count hours rather than days. Criminalizing the act of napping in a park seems like a huge overreaction to peoples' fear of tent cities. If you've never taken an afternoon siesta along a local greenway, you should try it sometime. Bring a blanket and a book, but don't forget to check for sharps before you lie down.
* No permanent structures.
* You need to move every X days.
* You cannot stay in the park/forest/etc for more than Y days/month.
Cities could forbid tents and count hours rather than days. Criminalizing the act of napping in a park seems like a huge overreaction to peoples' fear of tent cities. If you've never taken an afternoon siesta along a local greenway, you should try it sometime. Bring a blanket and a book, but don't forget to check for sharps before you lie down.
Yes, in most places it is effectively a crime to be homeless. It is one of the many reasons it is so hard to break out of the trap of homelessness.
> If so, find it mind boggling that you could be arrested in America for falling asleep on the pavement/sidewalk!?
Yes, but it's a little more complex/subtle than that may make it seem. Some things to consider:
* Arrested doesn't mean convicted. A cop may take someone in ("arrest" them) to get them off the streets and give them a night in jail to sober up. Then they get let out without pressing charges. In some cases, this may end up being a net benefit for the person, in others it obviously isn't. Your country probably does the same thing. I assume "drunk tanks" are pretty universal.
* Police officers have a lot of discretion on which laws they enforce. There is a downside to this in that it lets them use that discretion in biased ways, but—ignoring that for the moment—it does mean that many times cops are more lenient and compassionate than the law implies that they should be. You rarely hear about those stories on the news but talk to a cop or do a ride-along and you'll see that they spend most of their time not arresting people and instead giving them warnings.
* Honolulu has a famously bad homeless problem, while also being heavily dependent on tourism for its economy. There are a lot of "beach bums" that move to Hawaii without any plan to provide for themselves and if Honolulu doesn't do anything about them at all, they can end up harming the place's overall economy, which would then make it harder for the city to afford the services these people need. Doing nothing is not as innocuous as it might seem.
* In general, a society must do some enforcement of public spaces. Otherwise, they cease to be public spaces. I live in Seattle which also has a lot of homeless people. Some of them build encampments in public parks. This means that, de facto, those are no longer public parks. They're private property because the public no longer has access to them—the squatters in the encampment will run them off.
The name for a place where you can choose to be and no one can kick you out is "private property". If you don't want all of your public spaces to turn into private spaces, then you do have to prevent people from unilaterally privatizing them to some degree. Of course, it's not black and white and there are good discussions to have about where you draw the line. Obviously people need to be able to spend some time in a public space. Is napping OK? Sleeping overnight? In a tent? In a shelter made from pallets and tarps?
Many of the laws that draw the line harshly are driven by the observation that when you give a little, some people (not all) will try to take more and more. So it's not so entirely that lawmakers are heartless sadists who don't even want to have to see a homeless person, so much as a fear that if you let someone take a nap, they'll sleep overnight. Let them sleep overnight and they'll build a structure. Let them build a structure and they'll start fires. And at that point, it becomes really hard to keep that place available to the public.
It is a hard problem and anyone who thinks it is black and white is choosing to not see all of the complexity.
Yes, but it's a little more complex/subtle than that may make it seem. Some things to consider:
* Arrested doesn't mean convicted. A cop may take someone in ("arrest" them) to get them off the streets and give them a night in jail to sober up. Then they get let out without pressing charges. In some cases, this may end up being a net benefit for the person, in others it obviously isn't. Your country probably does the same thing. I assume "drunk tanks" are pretty universal.
* Police officers have a lot of discretion on which laws they enforce. There is a downside to this in that it lets them use that discretion in biased ways, but—ignoring that for the moment—it does mean that many times cops are more lenient and compassionate than the law implies that they should be. You rarely hear about those stories on the news but talk to a cop or do a ride-along and you'll see that they spend most of their time not arresting people and instead giving them warnings.
* Honolulu has a famously bad homeless problem, while also being heavily dependent on tourism for its economy. There are a lot of "beach bums" that move to Hawaii without any plan to provide for themselves and if Honolulu doesn't do anything about them at all, they can end up harming the place's overall economy, which would then make it harder for the city to afford the services these people need. Doing nothing is not as innocuous as it might seem.
* In general, a society must do some enforcement of public spaces. Otherwise, they cease to be public spaces. I live in Seattle which also has a lot of homeless people. Some of them build encampments in public parks. This means that, de facto, those are no longer public parks. They're private property because the public no longer has access to them—the squatters in the encampment will run them off.
The name for a place where you can choose to be and no one can kick you out is "private property". If you don't want all of your public spaces to turn into private spaces, then you do have to prevent people from unilaterally privatizing them to some degree. Of course, it's not black and white and there are good discussions to have about where you draw the line. Obviously people need to be able to spend some time in a public space. Is napping OK? Sleeping overnight? In a tent? In a shelter made from pallets and tarps?
Many of the laws that draw the line harshly are driven by the observation that when you give a little, some people (not all) will try to take more and more. So it's not so entirely that lawmakers are heartless sadists who don't even want to have to see a homeless person, so much as a fear that if you let someone take a nap, they'll sleep overnight. Let them sleep overnight and they'll build a structure. Let them build a structure and they'll start fires. And at that point, it becomes really hard to keep that place available to the public.
It is a hard problem and anyone who thinks it is black and white is choosing to not see all of the complexity.
Which sort of presumes that there are other places said people can shuffle off to. Their occupation of public parks is largely due to not having a designated place to go, or enough shelter beds, or a myriad of other problems.
One who has no home has fewer options on where to plop with all their things.
Individually, one could analyze each situation, collectively and systemically speaking, you will ALWAYS have homeless people when there is no housing safety net. there are a myriad of things can can occur in individual lives.
Homeless tourism is something that should be worked out between the desirable locations and the locations of origin that likely kick the responsibility can down the road in running homeless OUT of town, and hence to SF or wherever.
Honolulu and beach bummmery is something I've no knowledge of. Actual homelessness is something that doesn't occur much anywhere else I've seen in the world to the same level as it does in USA. I suppose that many places have folks migrating to the city from countryside regions in the hopes of a job and potentially falling on their face. I'm not sure where those folks are in many nations that I've seen (about 50, mostly Europe, South America, Asia, and North America)
One who has no home has fewer options on where to plop with all their things.
Individually, one could analyze each situation, collectively and systemically speaking, you will ALWAYS have homeless people when there is no housing safety net. there are a myriad of things can can occur in individual lives.
Homeless tourism is something that should be worked out between the desirable locations and the locations of origin that likely kick the responsibility can down the road in running homeless OUT of town, and hence to SF or wherever.
Honolulu and beach bummmery is something I've no knowledge of. Actual homelessness is something that doesn't occur much anywhere else I've seen in the world to the same level as it does in USA. I suppose that many places have folks migrating to the city from countryside regions in the hopes of a job and potentially falling on their face. I'm not sure where those folks are in many nations that I've seen (about 50, mostly Europe, South America, Asia, and North America)
> Which sort of presumes that there are other places said people can shuffle off to.
I think in general society and government does and should presume that people can figure out most solutions to their own problems. Our instutitions provide a framework for people to figure out how to live, and help them do with things that require scale, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the government needs to give everyone a "designated place to go".
> Actual homelessness is something that doesn't occur much anywhere else I've seen in the world to the same level as it does in USA.
There are a few things uniquely driving homelessness in the US:
* The opioid epidemic thanks to Purdue pharma.
* The deinstitutionalization movement was stronger here than in other countries.
* Not having free healthcare.
Outsourcing, automation, and the shift to an urban service-oriented economy is probably part of it too, but I don't think that's a huge driver. Most of the homeless stories I hear start with one of:
"I got hurt at work, and was prescribed Oxycontin. I ended up addicted and when the subscription ran out, I ended up on heroin..."
"I was mentally ill and unable to hold down a job because of it..."
"I got cancer and once all the medical bills piled up, I ended up deep in debt and couldn't afford to pay rent..."
I think in general society and government does and should presume that people can figure out most solutions to their own problems. Our instutitions provide a framework for people to figure out how to live, and help them do with things that require scale, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the government needs to give everyone a "designated place to go".
> Actual homelessness is something that doesn't occur much anywhere else I've seen in the world to the same level as it does in USA.
There are a few things uniquely driving homelessness in the US:
* The opioid epidemic thanks to Purdue pharma.
* The deinstitutionalization movement was stronger here than in other countries.
* Not having free healthcare.
Outsourcing, automation, and the shift to an urban service-oriented economy is probably part of it too, but I don't think that's a huge driver. Most of the homeless stories I hear start with one of:
"I got hurt at work, and was prescribed Oxycontin. I ended up addicted and when the subscription ran out, I ended up on heroin..."
"I was mentally ill and unable to hold down a job because of it..."
"I got cancer and once all the medical bills piled up, I ended up deep in debt and couldn't afford to pay rent..."
It's really easy to imagine: think of a neighborhood of politically engaged homeowners, whose sidewalks are covered in sleeping homeless people around the clock.
The residents of that neighborhood don't have the power to end capitalism or the money to secure homes for all who need them (bare minimum $500k each). But they do have the power to get an ordinance passed.
The residents of that neighborhood don't have the power to end capitalism or the money to secure homes for all who need them (bare minimum $500k each). But they do have the power to get an ordinance passed.
Probably. People don't like to see the homeless around their nice little neighborhoods so they come up with all sorts of weird laws to harass them with.
I find it really nasty.
I visited Los Angeles a couple of years back, one of the first places we went was a McDonalds. Some guy was dozing sat at a table (with a coffee in front of him). A cop came up to him and told him he'd be reprimanded if he caught him napping like that again.
In all my life living in the UK I've honestly never witnessed something like that. It may seem minor, but seeing an armed cop come up to someone and reprimand them for dozing off? I have no idea why a waiter couldn't have dealt with that. It's not like the McDonalds was even full or anything.
On top of this, the advertising boards saying stuff like "No homeless shelter in our community, keep it safe!" was just completely lacking in compassion.
I think a lot of people out there just don't see homeless people as deserving of empathy. At least, that's the impression I get.
I also find it profoundly ironic that America is supposedly the "land of the free", but you can get arrested/in trouble for:
- Drinking in public (even in parks or at the beach) - Sleeping in public (apparently) - Jaywalking - Eating on public transport
I just don't understand all these weird and arbitrary rules they have out there.
I visited Los Angeles a couple of years back, one of the first places we went was a McDonalds. Some guy was dozing sat at a table (with a coffee in front of him). A cop came up to him and told him he'd be reprimanded if he caught him napping like that again.
In all my life living in the UK I've honestly never witnessed something like that. It may seem minor, but seeing an armed cop come up to someone and reprimand them for dozing off? I have no idea why a waiter couldn't have dealt with that. It's not like the McDonalds was even full or anything.
On top of this, the advertising boards saying stuff like "No homeless shelter in our community, keep it safe!" was just completely lacking in compassion.
I think a lot of people out there just don't see homeless people as deserving of empathy. At least, that's the impression I get.
I also find it profoundly ironic that America is supposedly the "land of the free", but you can get arrested/in trouble for:
- Drinking in public (even in parks or at the beach) - Sleeping in public (apparently) - Jaywalking - Eating on public transport
I just don't understand all these weird and arbitrary rules they have out there.
> I just don't understand all these weird and arbitrary rules they have out there.
But you live in the nation that invented the ASBO.
> - Drinking in public (even in parks or at the beach) - Sleeping in public (apparently) - Jaywalking - Eating on public transport
These are local laws, not federal, so not universal across the US. And in all of the places around the US that I have lived, these sorts of laws are rarely enforced (at least not as a primary offense).
But you live in the nation that invented the ASBO.
> - Drinking in public (even in parks or at the beach) - Sleeping in public (apparently) - Jaywalking - Eating on public transport
These are local laws, not federal, so not universal across the US. And in all of the places around the US that I have lived, these sorts of laws are rarely enforced (at least not as a primary offense).
The "land of the free, home of the brave" quote came from a lawyer moonlighting as a poet watching actual brave people fighting in a war. It was catchy enough to become the national anthem 120 years later (after being used in the military for 30 years or so prior), but don't confuse that opportunistic indoctrination with reality.
It has nothing to do with anything, nothing to do with any legal reality, nothing to do with the constitution, the structure of the government, the declaration of independence from the UK, life in practice within the US, or any comparison to any other developed nation at the time it was written (1812) or now (2021). American exceptionalism relies on completely ignoring countries with Human Development Index or rights that are at parity or better, and relies on hyperbolic comparisons to the worst countries in the world.
Hope that helps you understand your experiences here! Without context, the cognitive dissonance (confusion from competing ideas and observations) can be very confusing!
It has nothing to do with anything, nothing to do with any legal reality, nothing to do with the constitution, the structure of the government, the declaration of independence from the UK, life in practice within the US, or any comparison to any other developed nation at the time it was written (1812) or now (2021). American exceptionalism relies on completely ignoring countries with Human Development Index or rights that are at parity or better, and relies on hyperbolic comparisons to the worst countries in the world.
Hope that helps you understand your experiences here! Without context, the cognitive dissonance (confusion from competing ideas and observations) can be very confusing!
Also a slaveholder, which came through in the anthem as well
The UK is far from immune to this type of behavior.
"The Vagrancy Act was passed in the summer of 1824, which means it is now just shy of its 200th birthday. And if it held any relevance then, it certainly doesn’t now.
At its core, The Vagrancy Act is a way to punish people “in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon, not having any visible means of subsistence”. Essentially, it criminalises homelessness. For homeless people, both begging and rough sleeping are things out of their control, and the Act does little to get to the root of why people are homeless in the first place."
https://centrepoint.org.uk/about-us/blog/everything-you-need...
Also: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/12/new-home-off...
"The Vagrancy Act was passed in the summer of 1824, which means it is now just shy of its 200th birthday. And if it held any relevance then, it certainly doesn’t now.
At its core, The Vagrancy Act is a way to punish people “in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon, not having any visible means of subsistence”. Essentially, it criminalises homelessness. For homeless people, both begging and rough sleeping are things out of their control, and the Act does little to get to the root of why people are homeless in the first place."
https://centrepoint.org.uk/about-us/blog/everything-you-need...
Also: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/12/new-home-off...
There's obviously room for improvement here too yes.
Although I really really doubt anyone here would be arrested for having a doze on the pavement.
Although I really really doubt anyone here would be arrested for having a doze on the pavement.
> Although I really really doubt anyone here would be arrested for having a doze on the pavement.
It seems to be declining, but according to the BBC, as of a few years ago there were more than a thousand people arrested for just that.
It seems to be declining, but according to the BBC, as of a few years ago there were more than a thousand people arrested for just that.
Behind the veneer of what Hollywood wants you to believe, the US is an extremely cruel place.
The US is not a Hollywood movie, sure, but neither is it anything like how foreigners on HN portray it. And for a supposedly 'extremely cruel' place, the US has by far the highest rate of charity in the world.
Like someone already responded. How much is actually going to charity. Helping out your local church more than it needs to function does not and should not count as charity.
So here's some of the ways it's cruel. I assume you don't live here, or you are pretty well off:
1. Largest incarcerated population on earth. 2. No public health system until Medicare (60s). 3. Very difficult to discharge debt, for citizens, easy for business. 4. Impossible to discharge student loan debt. 5. Allowing of predatory loan practices to incur this debt. 6. Many public schools are absolutely horrible. 7. Mostly no recourse for violent and corrupt police. 8. Most if not all of the federal policies go to help the donor class at the expense of the citizenry. On the occasion where policies help the citizenry, it's a coincidence. 9. Systemic racism in many aspects of the government, particularly the justice system. 10. Very little social safety net for the poor. In fact, many poor are incarcerated. 11. Very strict justice system where just about anything is a felony. 12. No voting rights for felons. 13. Vicious drug war. 14. Patriot act. 15. Skyrocketing healthcare costs. 16. Skyrocketing educational costs. 17. MANY charities have a 90+% administration fee (meaning only 10% goes to the actual group in need). This is perfectly legal. 18. Many regressive taxes (gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, groceries). 19. Many instances where regulation isn't even done, or done so poorly, companies can do whatever they want (see nutrition labels for an example). 20. Not much done in anti-trust laws. 21. An insane amount of tax dollars goes to the war machine and soldiers get a minuscule amount. They are treated pretty horribly afterwards. 22. Government fully supports offshoring of jobs to slave-like conditions in China and elsewhere. 23. Loophole system where the well off pay very little taxes while the majority of the tax burden goes to the middle class (by income). 24. Massive income inequality and therefore political power and influence. 25. The amount of state funding for prosecution dwarfs the amount of funding for defense in most states.
These are just off the top of my head. I could probably do 20 more pretty easily.
Regarding charity, that's the citizenry. By and far the citizenry are decent people, it's the state that's cruel. Also we aren't "by far the most charitable country on earth," we're slightly about Myanmar, but we are still the top. In really poor states like West Virginia, the citizens are extremely charitable to each other. I would guess because they all need it desperately. Perhaps being so charitable is actually a symptom of the widespread cruelty of the state's policies.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-char...
1. Largest incarcerated population on earth. 2. No public health system until Medicare (60s). 3. Very difficult to discharge debt, for citizens, easy for business. 4. Impossible to discharge student loan debt. 5. Allowing of predatory loan practices to incur this debt. 6. Many public schools are absolutely horrible. 7. Mostly no recourse for violent and corrupt police. 8. Most if not all of the federal policies go to help the donor class at the expense of the citizenry. On the occasion where policies help the citizenry, it's a coincidence. 9. Systemic racism in many aspects of the government, particularly the justice system. 10. Very little social safety net for the poor. In fact, many poor are incarcerated. 11. Very strict justice system where just about anything is a felony. 12. No voting rights for felons. 13. Vicious drug war. 14. Patriot act. 15. Skyrocketing healthcare costs. 16. Skyrocketing educational costs. 17. MANY charities have a 90+% administration fee (meaning only 10% goes to the actual group in need). This is perfectly legal. 18. Many regressive taxes (gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, groceries). 19. Many instances where regulation isn't even done, or done so poorly, companies can do whatever they want (see nutrition labels for an example). 20. Not much done in anti-trust laws. 21. An insane amount of tax dollars goes to the war machine and soldiers get a minuscule amount. They are treated pretty horribly afterwards. 22. Government fully supports offshoring of jobs to slave-like conditions in China and elsewhere. 23. Loophole system where the well off pay very little taxes while the majority of the tax burden goes to the middle class (by income). 24. Massive income inequality and therefore political power and influence. 25. The amount of state funding for prosecution dwarfs the amount of funding for defense in most states.
These are just off the top of my head. I could probably do 20 more pretty easily.
Regarding charity, that's the citizenry. By and far the citizenry are decent people, it's the state that's cruel. Also we aren't "by far the most charitable country on earth," we're slightly about Myanmar, but we are still the top. In really poor states like West Virginia, the citizens are extremely charitable to each other. I would guess because they all need it desperately. Perhaps being so charitable is actually a symptom of the widespread cruelty of the state's policies.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-char...
I'm not discounting the other issues, but FYI #4 is incorrect.
I should have said "near impossible," there's just enough there so that impossible isn't technically correct. Looks like they included some forms of indentured servitude in there. Ah the classics.
https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation
https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation
> the US has by far the highest rate of charity in the world
How much of this comes from "tithe 10% to your church"?
How much of this comes from "tithe 10% to your church"?
I've never seen anyone do 10% of their income, I think that comes from the medieval period, or just wishful thinking. People usually drop a $10 or $20 in the plate whenever I've been.
It’s quite common in some evangelical denominations. Mormons do it as well.
Even when it’s not a formal tithe, American charity skews heavily towards giving to churches.
Even when it’s not a formal tithe, American charity skews heavily towards giving to churches.
About a third of the population claims to go to church regularly. The amount who actually do is somewhat less, surely. And anecdotally, amongst my churchgoing friends & family, especially the non-elderly ones, tithing isn't particularly common. It's pretty common with LDS, though, I understand.
You have places like ADX Florence, worst place on Earth, you have the highest absolute numbers of prisoners, you used to execute children,you still execute people, you have long sentences, there are laws like above where even if you are exonerated of a crime, you still kept in prison, you are cruel and your country home to a literal gulag. Your society is merciless, your empathy gone. Please, learn some empathy. Please, turn away from your cruelty.
> And for a supposedly 'extremely cruel' place, the US has by far the highest rate of charity in the world.
Only if you count religious giving.
And why wouldn't you, you ask?
Well, even churches themselves say that six per cent or less of religious giving goes to 'charity'. The rest goes to church upkeep and events, church childcare, etc.
In fact, an ECCU study (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that "local and national benevolence" receives 1 per cent of religious givings (2% going to church adult programs, bible study, etc, and 3% to youth programs and evangelization).
So we should probably pump the brakes on patting ourselves on the back for "highest rates of charity", considering that some of what is characterized as charity is "erecting the world's largest cross two miles down the road from the church which has the current world's largest cross".
Only if you count religious giving.
And why wouldn't you, you ask?
Well, even churches themselves say that six per cent or less of religious giving goes to 'charity'. The rest goes to church upkeep and events, church childcare, etc.
In fact, an ECCU study (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that "local and national benevolence" receives 1 per cent of religious givings (2% going to church adult programs, bible study, etc, and 3% to youth programs and evangelization).
So we should probably pump the brakes on patting ourselves on the back for "highest rates of charity", considering that some of what is characterized as charity is "erecting the world's largest cross two miles down the road from the church which has the current world's largest cross".
This entire story is so crazy it sounds like it could only be fiction.
Actually, this would make an incredible plot for an episode of 'Law and Order' or whatever today's clone of that show is.
"But how could the murder weapon have Castleberry's fingerprints on it when we know he's been in a psychiatric hospital for the last 2 years?"
"Maybe he snuck out, and in his psychotic state killed someone. He wouldn't be criminally culpable, but the hospital might be."
"What, then he crossed the entire city undetected, killed the victim, and got back into the hospital all without being noticed? I don't buy it. And besides, he's so doped up on that Haldol stuff, he doesn't even know his own name. He was catatonic when saw him."
Actually, this would make an incredible plot for an episode of 'Law and Order' or whatever today's clone of that show is.
"But how could the murder weapon have Castleberry's fingerprints on it when we know he's been in a psychiatric hospital for the last 2 years?"
"Maybe he snuck out, and in his psychotic state killed someone. He wouldn't be criminally culpable, but the hospital might be."
"What, then he crossed the entire city undetected, killed the victim, and got back into the hospital all without being noticed? I don't buy it. And besides, he's so doped up on that Haldol stuff, he doesn't even know his own name. He was catatonic when saw him."
I think these things happen more frequently than we like to imagine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Similar to the plot of the Swedish film 'The Night Visitor' with Max von Sydow
> a “secret meeting” followed. There is no court record of that meeting, which Brown said may have been because officials wanted to avoid public embarrassment.
And because we surely don't want to be embarrassed, everything will be done to forget about it, no change will be made to the process, no consequence or probation for the judge or any of the doctors.
Without admission of guilt there can be no remission, but that, the justice system seems to believe true only for criminals.
And because we surely don't want to be embarrassed, everything will be done to forget about it, no change will be made to the process, no consequence or probation for the judge or any of the doctors.
Without admission of guilt there can be no remission, but that, the justice system seems to believe true only for criminals.
For anyone saying "the system is broken" a challenge:
Provide a design for some system that is not broken and never will be. You can't stop at "at least fix it so this doesn't happen."
The most important question for you is: how will this system be staffed? Can non-college-educated people be hired? Will it be unionized? How much will the staff be paid, and can you attract the sort of staff you want with that salary? Or will you get TSA-level people?
How will disputes be adjudicated? Via civil lawsuits, arbitration boards, or what?
Will the heads of it be elected or appointed?
The point of this is that "the system" doesn't exist as pages in a textbook. It also doesn't exist in Denmark. It exists in the real US. Some systems work out better than others, but they all bear the thumbprints of actual hands.
Provide a design for some system that is not broken and never will be. You can't stop at "at least fix it so this doesn't happen."
The most important question for you is: how will this system be staffed? Can non-college-educated people be hired? Will it be unionized? How much will the staff be paid, and can you attract the sort of staff you want with that salary? Or will you get TSA-level people?
How will disputes be adjudicated? Via civil lawsuits, arbitration boards, or what?
Will the heads of it be elected or appointed?
The point of this is that "the system" doesn't exist as pages in a textbook. It also doesn't exist in Denmark. It exists in the real US. Some systems work out better than others, but they all bear the thumbprints of actual hands.
As much as it's nice to provide a solution along with evidence that something's broken, it isn't a requirement. Knowing something is broken is a different skill than fixing it. It's the reason we have mechanics, doctors, and QA to name a few. I'm willing to bet there are much more socio-political creative types that can imagine systems much better than I can. After all, I'm just a layperson in that domain. Challenging lay people is exactly as absurd as challenging them to come up with a fix for their join pain before consulting a doctor.
> Knowing something is broken is a different skill than fixing it.
This is a fair point. But I think many people saying "the system is broken" implicitly or explicitly advocate a fix by throwing out the entire system.
Those people often don't seem to realize that "no system" is a system too, and you need to compare that system's emergent behavior to the current system before you can make a wise choice.
This is a fair point. But I think many people saying "the system is broken" implicitly or explicitly advocate a fix by throwing out the entire system.
Those people often don't seem to realize that "no system" is a system too, and you need to compare that system's emergent behavior to the current system before you can make a wise choice.
Exactly. It's fair to propose minor tweaks to a system while (implicitly) admitting that it's fine otherwise.
It's quite something else to say "the system is broken" while having no idea whatsoever how some new system would avoid all those problems.
It's quite something else to say "the system is broken" while having no idea whatsoever how some new system would avoid all those problems.
No, actually, it isn't. It's more like "I assert that my joint was badly designed by evolution and a competent human could make it better" without having any actual ideas how it might be better.
Your examples are also flawed. Mechanics and doctors fix one instance of a system. They are not charged with fixing all of them.
Your examples are also flawed. Mechanics and doctors fix one instance of a system. They are not charged with fixing all of them.
Ok, car designers, and bio medical engineers then. Hope that makes more sense for you.
No one needs all of this. The man's fingerprints didn't match and it would have been easy to verify. They chose not to.
OK. So if he gets paid a very large cash settlement, and maybe the people responsible for his case are disciplined or fired or sent to jail, then that solves the problem?
Or are you asking for something more general?
Or are you asking for something more general?
[deleted]
"The system should be better" can coexist with "the system cannot be perfect".
Lawyers of HN, what is the standard to establish a person is who they say are (or who the police say they are?). How is it possible that this guy wouldn’t be able to cash a check or get a document notarized yet is jailed on the basis of one guy going “yeah, that’s him.”
Living in California, you wouldn't know we had mental facilities...
> For speaking out, Spriestersbach was deemed “problematic” and given antipsychotic medications, including Haldol, which made him despondent and catatonic.
> The doctor concluded the amount of psychiatric medications he was on was “well beyond therapeutic levels, which is why he was acting catatonic and his expressions vacant,” Dumas-Griffith said in a sworn statement to the court.
> Spriestersbach was prescribed powerful drugs, the doctor added, in “an effort to make him ‘competent’ when in reality he had always been competent.”
This may be a bit of a tangent, but the willingness of many medical professionals to prescribe mentally altering drugs is extremely alarming to me and it only seems to be getting worse. Even outside the prison system it seems trivial to convince a doctor you have a mental disorder - especially if you're convinced of it yourself. I know several people who went through hell because they were misdiagnosed with a mental disorder or prescribed far more than what was appropriate. Pills are such a convenient solution for everyone involved; it's easy to see why they're abused. Of course I recognize that many people actually do suffer from such disorders and I want them to receive whatever treatment they need, but it's important to remember mentally altering drugs are very dangerous and their use should not be taken lightly.
> The doctor concluded the amount of psychiatric medications he was on was “well beyond therapeutic levels, which is why he was acting catatonic and his expressions vacant,” Dumas-Griffith said in a sworn statement to the court.
> Spriestersbach was prescribed powerful drugs, the doctor added, in “an effort to make him ‘competent’ when in reality he had always been competent.”
This may be a bit of a tangent, but the willingness of many medical professionals to prescribe mentally altering drugs is extremely alarming to me and it only seems to be getting worse. Even outside the prison system it seems trivial to convince a doctor you have a mental disorder - especially if you're convinced of it yourself. I know several people who went through hell because they were misdiagnosed with a mental disorder or prescribed far more than what was appropriate. Pills are such a convenient solution for everyone involved; it's easy to see why they're abused. Of course I recognize that many people actually do suffer from such disorders and I want them to receive whatever treatment they need, but it's important to remember mentally altering drugs are very dangerous and their use should not be taken lightly.
I'm surprised no one is bringing up sanctions for the psychologists involved. In the US legal system, you can be found unfit to stand trial, as this man was. Which means you are involuntarily committed to a mental facility and treated until you are deemed fit to stand trial. This is meant to prevent the state from prosecuting someone completely incapable of understanding what is going on and defending themselves. As a result, being found fit to stand trial is a very low bar to reach. It essentially means you know what a judge is, what a jury is, what a lawyer is, and what you are being charged with. You can be found fit to stand trial even with fairly serious delusions. I'm shocked he was considered unfit to stand trial simply because he claimed to be a different person.
How would "sent to jail" (with likely eve more abusive "mental health care" for "delusions") be any better than "sent to hospital"
In this case, had he not been declared mentally unfit, he might not have gone to jail either. Being declared mentally unfit basically pauses the trial and puts the defendant into treatment until they are declared fit. Your abilities to appeal the decision, try to get the charges drop, or access legal assistance is very limited. It's an extraordinary step that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Was it the drugs that made him genuinely unfit to stand trial?
Possibly, but the article wasn't clear. Haloperidol, while it is effective against schizophrenic symptoms, is basically a tranquilizer. I don't know what that could do to someone not experiencing psychotic symptoms, but it seems unlikely to make you so out of it you aren't fit to stand trial
If he has an attorney interested he might be able to pursue malpractice claims, particularly considering that they medicated him against his will.
The judge, the doctors, and everyone else that failed to do even the most basic searches or confirmations of anyone’s identity should be put in jail in this case.
I’m also surprised this happened in Hawaii. Are they so overrun with crime and cases that they couldn’t handle doing their most basic duties to confirm identities? Not that they would have any excuse.
I’m also surprised this happened in Hawaii. Are they so overrun with crime and cases that they couldn’t handle doing their most basic duties to confirm identities? Not that they would have any excuse.
> The judge, the doctors, and everyone else that failed to do even the most basic searches or confirmations of anyone’s identity should be put in jail in this case.
No, they should be put in mental institutions under the name Castleberry with strict instructions to the medical staff that they are delusional and misstating their own identity.
No, they should be put in mental institutions under the name Castleberry with strict instructions to the medical staff that they are delusional and misstating their own identity.
The last line in this article is the most insane one of them all.
> ... Bento, who did not respond to a request for comment, said officials in that office had instructed him not to hand over any documents related to Castleberry’s 2006 drug case, including all records filed after May 2017 that actually pertained to Spriestersbach.
> Spriestersbach was not entitled to the documents, officials said.
> The reason: He was not the defendant in that case. He was not Thomas Castleberry.
They are saying he is not allowed to get the documents for the case which he was the main suspect and subsequently hospitalized for since the documents for the case is for the other person. Even though it happened to him and not the other person. I'm dumbfounded.
> ... Bento, who did not respond to a request for comment, said officials in that office had instructed him not to hand over any documents related to Castleberry’s 2006 drug case, including all records filed after May 2017 that actually pertained to Spriestersbach.
> Spriestersbach was not entitled to the documents, officials said.
> The reason: He was not the defendant in that case. He was not Thomas Castleberry.
They are saying he is not allowed to get the documents for the case which he was the main suspect and subsequently hospitalized for since the documents for the case is for the other person. Even though it happened to him and not the other person. I'm dumbfounded.
Lawyers operate on the established parameters of a case as directed by a judges orders (and also the particular judge’s idiosyncratic nonsense, no matter how illogical or farfetched), not actual reality or truth..
If they can find a technicality to hide their own mistakes and general incompetency, why would they not try to influence the judge to proclaim their fantasy as the prevailing “truth”?
If they can find a technicality to hide their own mistakes and general incompetency, why would they not try to influence the judge to proclaim their fantasy as the prevailing “truth”?
Wait to have your mind blown further. In Missouri if you’re exonerated for a crime via someone else pleading guilty, DNA, etc and have used up all your appeals you still have to serve out your sentence, even if it’s life in prison https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-wrongly-convicted-peopl...
WTF.
Heartbreaking. The US criminal justice system is a shame.
I don't think it's a shame. It's intentional.
Considering the fact that the US prison population is heavily skewed in one direction, that the US has the highest per capita prison population, that prison populations are used as forced labor, I'm quite convinced it's intentional. The small number of people that are accidentally targeted unintentionally are just collateral damage nobody really cares about.
Considering the fact that the US prison population is heavily skewed in one direction, that the US has the highest per capita prison population, that prison populations are used as forced labor, I'm quite convinced it's intentional. The small number of people that are accidentally targeted unintentionally are just collateral damage nobody really cares about.
This conspiracy theory doesn't really check out. Private prisons exist, but only account for 8% of the US prison population. There's probably a larger vested interest from corrections officer unions than from private prison contractors.
Regardless, there isn't even a need to find some shadowy special interest to explain the high incarceration rates in the US, when the laws that led to those high incarceration rates were passed very publicly for very straightforward reasons: to curb the late-20th-century crime wave of the 1970's-1990's. This was a major, high-profile political issue, and the majority of voters at the time favored "tough-on-crime" measures that led to mandatory sentences, longer sentences, three-strikes laws, and fewer judicial prerogatives. That's why they elected the people who promised to pass those laws before getting elected and kept those promises after being elected. And just like every other well-intended law that's ever been passed, there were unintended consequences that we can and should fix.
Regardless, there isn't even a need to find some shadowy special interest to explain the high incarceration rates in the US, when the laws that led to those high incarceration rates were passed very publicly for very straightforward reasons: to curb the late-20th-century crime wave of the 1970's-1990's. This was a major, high-profile political issue, and the majority of voters at the time favored "tough-on-crime" measures that led to mandatory sentences, longer sentences, three-strikes laws, and fewer judicial prerogatives. That's why they elected the people who promised to pass those laws before getting elected and kept those promises after being elected. And just like every other well-intended law that's ever been passed, there were unintended consequences that we can and should fix.
It’s also intentional in that penitentiaries and prisons from the start in America were an incredibly racist endeavor. As was the response to the “crime waves” of that time period you mentioned. The early prisons, both private and public, were a Protestant method of punishment involving hard labor to cleanse you of your sins. But they were quickly co-opted as a way to make money, whether by labor for the prison itself or by the state leasing convicts to corporations. And after slavery as a way to keep African American people enslaved. If you’ve never seen documentaries on Angola, it’s horrifying the direct lineage of racism visible. Lines of black men in chains, in fields, picking cotton, under the watch of white guards on horseback…in the year 1960 and beyond. Wardens who had property on the plantation prisons of Arkansas and used black prisoners who weren’t in the fields as “house boys”. That’s always been and is today one intentional use for prisons.
The USA also has 22% of all prisoners globally
I don’t believe these were ever that well intentioned. Race and socioeconomic status was not something unseen and unknown to the politicians, voters, and every one else involved.
There’s a reason some one people like Bernie Sanders were against the 1992 crime bill. Which many republicans and democrats were for. To say the people for it were well intentioned when Bernie and others were telling them of the consequences and having already seen the negative consequences up to that point shows these were not unintended and not well intentioned.
There’s a reason some one people like Bernie Sanders were against the 1992 crime bill. Which many republicans and democrats were for. To say the people for it were well intentioned when Bernie and others were telling them of the consequences and having already seen the negative consequences up to that point shows these were not unintended and not well intentioned.
Race is usually invoked as a thought-terminating cliche these days. It might interest you to know that a lot of black people also supported the crime bill because black communities were among those most victimized by crime.
You have found a new way to spin the classic “only racists talk about race”. Also added in a “usually”.
It can interest me when parts of a [sub]group do something. However it doesn’t have to mean anything too concrete or logical or line up so perfectly and neatly as your last sentence states.
It can interest me when parts of a [sub]group do something. However it doesn’t have to mean anything too concrete or logical or line up so perfectly and neatly as your last sentence states.
It's a shame that it's intentional, and it's a failure of what a good prison system should be like.
I often hear "oh well {criminal justice system, healthcare, insert other bad industry} is not a failure because it's doing its intended purpose, which is profit". No, that's the current goal of the system running it. The actual, intended purpose, in a functioning society, is to {serve fair punishments and rehabilitate, enhance quality of health, etc}.
I often hear "oh well {criminal justice system, healthcare, insert other bad industry} is not a failure because it's doing its intended purpose, which is profit". No, that's the current goal of the system running it. The actual, intended purpose, in a functioning society, is to {serve fair punishments and rehabilitate, enhance quality of health, etc}.
> The actual, intended purpose, in a functioning society, is to {serve fair punishments and rehabilitate, enhance quality of health, etc}.
I'm not sure which history books you've been reading, but modern police were invented in the 17th and 18th centuries as brutal forms of population control. In America, the "actual, intended purpose" was to be a genocidal force that clears the land of Amerindians, to patrol the slaves, to terrorize the workers, and so on. In the South, you can trace the history of police departments directly to Confederate troops, who, immediately after losing the war, rounded up people and threw them in prison on fabricated charges. To a lot of people, it was as if the war never happened. The fact that there was no reign of terror in the south tells you everything you need to know. And the slavery continues to this day. So I have no idea what you mean when you talk about this fantastical "intended purpose".
I'm not sure which history books you've been reading, but modern police were invented in the 17th and 18th centuries as brutal forms of population control. In America, the "actual, intended purpose" was to be a genocidal force that clears the land of Amerindians, to patrol the slaves, to terrorize the workers, and so on. In the South, you can trace the history of police departments directly to Confederate troops, who, immediately after losing the war, rounded up people and threw them in prison on fabricated charges. To a lot of people, it was as if the war never happened. The fact that there was no reign of terror in the south tells you everything you need to know. And the slavery continues to this day. So I have no idea what you mean when you talk about this fantastical "intended purpose".
There are several lines of evolution for modern policing.
The US instance is one.
Robbert Peele's "Peelian Principles" (UK) are another, which is how the UK ended up with a largely unarmed and civillian institution "policing by consent". (It also has its darker elements, but that's the thumbnail sketch.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
A French "gendarme" is literally a "man at arms", and is derived from military forces, representing a third tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie
The US instance is one.
Robbert Peele's "Peelian Principles" (UK) are another, which is how the UK ended up with a largely unarmed and civillian institution "policing by consent". (It also has its darker elements, but that's the thumbnail sketch.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
A French "gendarme" is literally a "man at arms", and is derived from military forces, representing a third tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie
There are no "lines of evolution" like carcinization for modern policing. They were caused by the same social and political necessities and they serve the same function.
Citation requested.
By "actual, intended" purpose, I do not mean original. I mean commonly agreed upon purpose, that almost all would agree is the true goal to strive for in a {criminal justice system, healthcare, etc}. I specified "current" to differentiate it between the current purpose, and a hopeful future purpose, not a past one. I don't mean to imply that these systems have been "corrupted" from a virtuous initial state (because like you say, they have some dark origins). Though they certainly are corrupt.
We can trace the history of police all the way back to vikings, neanderthals or even to single celled organisms, but all that would be of little use to deal with the today's prison system.
I'm not naturalizing organized violence, you are. I'm talking about the history of one institution and its forms of reproduction. How are you going to "deal" with today's prison system without understanding how it reproduces itself (through the law, through the indoctrination of people such as yourself, etc)?
History of institution has no bearing on actions of individuals in this institution today. What has bearing is policies that exist today. Not history of those policies, but their actual current state.
For “intended purpose” of differing sectors of society, one may start, if one chooses, with Plato’s Republic.
Hey amigo, looks like you're confusing "shame" and "unintentional" because you have a habit of conversing in the tone of disputation.
No judgements! I only mention because it was a boon when someone pointed out i had a similar habit
No judgements! I only mention because it was a boon when someone pointed out i had a similar habit
> a habit of conversing in the tone of disputation.
Thank you for putting words to this. I think it's something I've struggled with as well.
Thank you for putting words to this. I think it's something I've struggled with as well.
> that prison populations are used as forced labor
I was recently reminded of this due to a strange story having to do with covid and a shortage of license plates in Washington state, due to "social distancing" in the DOC. So that state contracted with another state whose prisoners were still incarcerated and still hard at work making license plates.
> The DOC has experienced issues since last summer, when compliance with social-distancing requirements slowed production, according to spokesperson Rachel Ericson. To address the issue, the agency has increased staffing and started outsourcing some production on July 31.
> License plates first began to be manufactured by individuals incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla in 1923. It’s now one of 43 prison factories around the country that produce plates for 40 states and the federal government.
Original: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-g...
Outline (no paywall): https://outline.com/YnDVG6
I was recently reminded of this due to a strange story having to do with covid and a shortage of license plates in Washington state, due to "social distancing" in the DOC. So that state contracted with another state whose prisoners were still incarcerated and still hard at work making license plates.
> The DOC has experienced issues since last summer, when compliance with social-distancing requirements slowed production, according to spokesperson Rachel Ericson. To address the issue, the agency has increased staffing and started outsourcing some production on July 31.
> License plates first began to be manufactured by individuals incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla in 1923. It’s now one of 43 prison factories around the country that produce plates for 40 states and the federal government.
Original: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-g...
Outline (no paywall): https://outline.com/YnDVG6
Humans deserve to go extinct.
We probably will. Obviously we don't always act in the most logical fashion. Long term, that's not a good trait.
Nobody thinks that, not even you.
I very much think that. We are absolutely evil on a macro scale. We destroy ourselves and our planet. If aliens are out there I believe they have their finger on 'the button'.
I believe to think otherwise is hubris.
Could we change? Sure. Will we? Who knows.
I believe to think otherwise is hubris.
Could we change? Sure. Will we? Who knows.
There is something called the VHEMT, Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. (Personally I'm against our extinction but this exists).
Tbf, every major conflict the warmongers seem to be dying off.
Just a few hundred years ago people were burned at the stake, impaled, cut open alive in front of a crowd.
Every war kills off the most violent and aggressive. The next big one should wipe a lot of them.
Then again, push someone hard enough and they'll turn against you. Don't even need violence and death, a miserable existence in fear and doubt can be a way better punishment. The sociopathic rich prove it works.
Just a few hundred years ago people were burned at the stake, impaled, cut open alive in front of a crowd.
Every war kills off the most violent and aggressive. The next big one should wipe a lot of them.
Then again, push someone hard enough and they'll turn against you. Don't even need violence and death, a miserable existence in fear and doubt can be a way better punishment. The sociopathic rich prove it works.
All of the neocons will die in the next few years.
Replaced by the anti-war Middle Aged and the 9/11 Generation.
Assuming this system doesn't collapse in on itself I say that the US will retreat into isolationism, so it would be a good time for some one abroad to make major political moves if it suited him.
"Right, it's outrageously absurd Moriarty asked, "How old was your daughter when you came in here?"
"Seven weeks old," he replied.
"So, you've missed watching her grow up?"
"Every bit of it."
"How old is she now?"
"She just turned 43."
But an apology, even from the prosecutor, is all he gets, Strickland is still in prison."
This is fucking terrible. It brought tears to my eyes as it's both horrific and so tragic. It's no wonder that much of the world looks on American Justice with much askance and suspicion in that its implementation of 'justice' is so hypocritically at odds with stated American values—and even the Constitution. One wonders why so many American citizens actually tolerate this situation and do so little about it.
For heaven's sake why aren't people on the streets protesting for change?
"Seven weeks old," he replied.
"So, you've missed watching her grow up?"
"Every bit of it."
"How old is she now?"
"She just turned 43."
But an apology, even from the prosecutor, is all he gets, Strickland is still in prison."
This is fucking terrible. It brought tears to my eyes as it's both horrific and so tragic. It's no wonder that much of the world looks on American Justice with much askance and suspicion in that its implementation of 'justice' is so hypocritically at odds with stated American values—and even the Constitution. One wonders why so many American citizens actually tolerate this situation and do so little about it.
For heaven's sake why aren't people on the streets protesting for change?
There’s so much to protest and so many are crushed that many Americans have resigned hope for change.
They don’t protest it because a few years later something worse was going on, and a few years later something even worse, and so on. Nothing gets fixed, it just gets concealed behind some new scandal that people worry even more about. That’s why national unity and trust in institutions is almost at rock bottom, and why groups are starting to riot more often or resort to mob justice on social media
So what do citizens do short of a revolution (no sensible person ever wants that)?
I wonder if returning soldiers from D-Day and Iwo Jima would have allowed themselves to be crushed in similar circumstances. I doubt it very much.
(Seems to me both the zeitgeist and ethics have changed greatly in the past 75 years. The question is why.)
BTW, I note this story is now here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28079154
I wonder if returning soldiers from D-Day and Iwo Jima would have allowed themselves to be crushed in similar circumstances. I doubt it very much.
(Seems to me both the zeitgeist and ethics have changed greatly in the past 75 years. The question is why.)
BTW, I note this story is now here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28079154
[deleted]
"Computer says No."
I had a Verizon identity theft issue a year ago, where someone on the other side of the country opened a wireless account at a rural Walmart store.
The number of hoops VZW made me jump through was stupefying. Multiple notarized documents, utility bills, property tax records, as well as the police report.
And then they said "Our initial review says that the account stands as-is, that we are satisfied that it was in fact you that opened the accounts, based on the documentation you provided, and the documentation that was provided on account opening".
Great (not really), I say, in that case, "I want to see the documentation 'I' used to open the account."
"We can't do that, for customer privacy reasons."
"You just told me that you determined -I- am the customer. Are you telling me it's a breach of my privacy to supply documents you've stated on the record -I- supplied you, to me?!?"
"Well, you may not have opened the account..."
Apparently, Schrodinger's cell phone account. Mine when they need the bill paid or sent to collections, and "possibly not mine" when it comes to them revealing what crap they accepted in order to open the account in the first place.
It finally got sorted out, but took a lot more back and forth.
The number of hoops VZW made me jump through was stupefying. Multiple notarized documents, utility bills, property tax records, as well as the police report.
And then they said "Our initial review says that the account stands as-is, that we are satisfied that it was in fact you that opened the accounts, based on the documentation you provided, and the documentation that was provided on account opening".
Great (not really), I say, in that case, "I want to see the documentation 'I' used to open the account."
"We can't do that, for customer privacy reasons."
"You just told me that you determined -I- am the customer. Are you telling me it's a breach of my privacy to supply documents you've stated on the record -I- supplied you, to me?!?"
"Well, you may not have opened the account..."
Apparently, Schrodinger's cell phone account. Mine when they need the bill paid or sent to collections, and "possibly not mine" when it comes to them revealing what crap they accepted in order to open the account in the first place.
It finally got sorted out, but took a lot more back and forth.
I experienced identity theft with Verizon, too. Way back in 2000. It was taken care of almost immediately with a single phone call. I had to mail in some proof of identity (photocopy of my water bill, IIRC) to verify that I did not in fact live in whatever place the account had been opened and that was that.
I get the sense that a lot of things that used to be easy to resolve, easy to deal with, easy in general, are actually quite painful and difficult today.
I get the sense that a lot of things that used to be easy to resolve, easy to deal with, easy in general, are actually quite painful and difficult today.
The most mind-boggling thing here is that they are the ones that screwed up by opening the account with bad information, but they're making it look like it's your problem to prove to them that they screwed up, and they are surely not going to make it easy to you to clean up their screw-up.
I've had the honor of knowing someone - someone rather extraordinary - once dubiously confined to Marcy State Hospital. The stories I've heard influenced a bit of feeble research on my part which chanced upon James Bailey Silkman, a prisoner of the closely related Utica Asylum. Depending on one's perception (or fetish) of one's domination over another, the story is a rare victory over such a terrible nightmare. Silkman went on, after his liberation from that hive of arbitrary illness, to apply his legal talents toward freeing others wrongfully held captive there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bailey_Silkman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bailey_Silkman
This is my biggest irrational fear. That one day I'll get locked up and everything I say and do will only convince them more that they're right. Jon Ronson meets Kafka.
Sometimes there is a trouble maker that only make petty crimes. Never anything serious enough for jail time, just someone very annoying. And when he/she get sent away for something they did not do, noone will complain. Not saying he was that guy, but it happens frequently.
This looks like an awful thing to say in this comment thread
My degree is in Psychology and I worked in the mental health field for years before switching to IT full time. The system is broken in many ways. Basically both Republican and Democrat parties fund the absolute federal bare minimums. In those jobs you are supposed to document every last minute of your 9/5 job and if you can't prove you are active 75% of the time("productivity rating") your ass is out of the door. My current IT job where I keep a business making millions of dollars running I don't have to justify my time at all.
I'm so glad I don't work in mental health anymore. Driving people out of the industry is a goal of the regulations IMO.
I'm so glad I don't work in mental health anymore. Driving people out of the industry is a goal of the regulations IMO.
"For speaking out, Spriestersbach was deemed “problematic” and given antipsychotic medications, including Haldol, which made him despondent and catatonic."
My best friend's father was a guard at Folsom prison. When I was a kid he would always remind us that the worse prisoners were the truly innocent ones. All the old timer guards knew which prisoners were innocent just based on their mannerisms.
My best friend's father was a guard at Folsom prison. When I was a kid he would always remind us that the worse prisoners were the truly innocent ones. All the old timer guards knew which prisoners were innocent just based on their mannerisms.
I remember an episode of Archer where Mallory says 'I swear, if you throw that computer on the floor one more time, you'll wake up in a mental ward with total amnesia under someone else's name!' I said out loud 'God Damn', it was terrifying. To think this is worse and actually happened.