After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit.html
218 comments
There is no requirement that Oberlin learn anything here. The law pretty severely limits the extent to which civil damages can be used to teach lessons, as we just learned from the Alex Jones case: punitive damages are capped, constitutionally, at some low multiple of economic damages.
It is an enormous defamation award, regardless of how you feel about where it leaves Oberlin.
It is an enormous defamation award, regardless of how you feel about where it leaves Oberlin.
Note that these are state laws. The Alex Jones judgment still has to wind its way through appeals, but like you say there's a good chance the cap will be protected by the Texas Constitution.
Ohio (Oberlin) has a similar cap, but not necessarily the same protection for it. Missouri for example also had a cap, but it was held to violate the Missouri Constitution in 2014.
The Missouri case[1] came up last month post-Alex Jones, and its "separation of powers" argument is interesting. There's a professor at Georgetown who thinks a similar argument could succeed in Texas[2], but Texas at least tried to amend their Constitution to allow the cap[3].
1. https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=77893
2. https://twitter.com/HeidiLiFeldman/status/155561806384372121...
3. https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1555919948807028736, but the seven replies at https://twitter.com/HeidiLiFeldman/status/155594159820624691... find some flaws in the implementation
Ohio (Oberlin) has a similar cap, but not necessarily the same protection for it. Missouri for example also had a cap, but it was held to violate the Missouri Constitution in 2014.
The Missouri case[1] came up last month post-Alex Jones, and its "separation of powers" argument is interesting. There's a professor at Georgetown who thinks a similar argument could succeed in Texas[2], but Texas at least tried to amend their Constitution to allow the cap[3].
1. https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=77893
2. https://twitter.com/HeidiLiFeldman/status/155561806384372121...
3. https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1555919948807028736, but the seven replies at https://twitter.com/HeidiLiFeldman/status/155594159820624691... find some flaws in the implementation
Maybe we could hold Oberlin to a higher standard than Alex Jones?
If their goal is to make a total joke of the movements they support, they're doing a bang-up job. If their goal us anything else, maybe they should try and learn something.
If their goal is to make a total joke of the movements they support, they're doing a bang-up job. If their goal us anything else, maybe they should try and learn something.
It has nothing to do with the relative standards, and everything to do with the idea of not allowing the courts to impose arbitrary punishments, a capability that would with absolute and perfect certainty be abused to target disfavored people and organizations.
I was more on the "what has Oberlin learned" part of it.
Nobody was talking about the law. The law also doesn't say they need to release a statement, yet they did, and naturally they are judges by its contents.
> So what has Oberlin really learned?
That their insurance premium will rise only marginally next year.
That their insurance premium will rise only marginally next year.
I would suspect that they learned their premium will rise substantially unless they take a few mitigating actions to not make thislevel of payment a regular reoccurrence. Insurance company as conscience seems like society reaching the anarcho-capatalist rock bottom to me, but there's the "learning".
[deleted]
One lesson potentially learned...
Oberlin and its students must comply with local "speech codes" or face being sued into non existence.
And people think "woke" political correctness is bad, at least the snowflakes use speech to counter speech, rather than courts.
Oberlin and its students must comply with local "speech codes" or face being sued into non existence.
And people think "woke" political correctness is bad, at least the snowflakes use speech to counter speech, rather than courts.
"local speech codes" = not slandering? Pretty sure that applies everywhere.
Who speaks for Oberlin, how can a college slander?
"local speech codes" = whatever offends the sensibilities of small town Ohioans.
"local speech codes" = whatever offends the sensibilities of small town Ohioans.
> Who speaks for Oberlin,
Employees acting in their official capacities, just like any organization.
> how can a college slander?
Same as any newspaper or corporation can slander. In this case a dean acting in her official capacity (she was at the protest for her job) distributed a libelous flyer.
> "local speech codes" = whatever offends the sensibilities of small town Ohioans.
The appeals were not decided by small town Ohioans.
Employees acting in their official capacities, just like any organization.
> how can a college slander?
Same as any newspaper or corporation can slander. In this case a dean acting in her official capacity (she was at the protest for her job) distributed a libelous flyer.
> "local speech codes" = whatever offends the sensibilities of small town Ohioans.
The appeals were not decided by small town Ohioans.
Seeing how as...
1: speech is the primary weapon of the identity-obsessed ideologues who are behind this whole debacle
2: those same ideologues claim that speech is violence, silence is violence
3: a simple refusal to use a made-up term - the can of worms called pronouns is a good example - can lead to loss of employment, imprisonment (now in Canada and Ireland, possibly elsewhere)
4: the 'speech codes' imposed by these ideologues is a constantly moving target with the above named consequences for violations of those codes
...it is clear that the ideologues in control of Oberlin have fallen on their own sword.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Will they learn anything from this debacle? No, probably not, they'll just chalk it up as another instance of systemic racism by the patriarchy or some such nonsense.
The solution would be to take control away from these ideologues but this is up to whatever institutions hold the reins of this college, the donors, alumni etc. If they do not take action the college will sink deeper and deeper into the bottomless pit of ideological strife where the scientific method and reason are abandoned for ideological zeal.
1: speech is the primary weapon of the identity-obsessed ideologues who are behind this whole debacle
2: those same ideologues claim that speech is violence, silence is violence
3: a simple refusal to use a made-up term - the can of worms called pronouns is a good example - can lead to loss of employment, imprisonment (now in Canada and Ireland, possibly elsewhere)
4: the 'speech codes' imposed by these ideologues is a constantly moving target with the above named consequences for violations of those codes
...it is clear that the ideologues in control of Oberlin have fallen on their own sword.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Will they learn anything from this debacle? No, probably not, they'll just chalk it up as another instance of systemic racism by the patriarchy or some such nonsense.
The solution would be to take control away from these ideologues but this is up to whatever institutions hold the reins of this college, the donors, alumni etc. If they do not take action the college will sink deeper and deeper into the bottomless pit of ideological strife where the scientific method and reason are abandoned for ideological zeal.
Even if it were to come out of the endowment, it's what, 2-3% total? I don't know how much universities typically pull out of an endowment each year but a 3% total drop can't impact yearly budgets in any meaningful way.
Almost all endowment money is restricted, meaning it is earmarked for a specific purpose by donors. They can’t just pay out of the endowment. They would have to pay out of their operating revenue, which is probably not a reality because that is budgeted to the dollar.
So my guess is insurance may have paid the bill, but Oberlin will pay over time in the form of high premiums or something else. The biggest punishment to Oberlin will be the embarrassment of the actions. Heads should have already rolled for this.
So my guess is insurance may have paid the bill, but Oberlin will pay over time in the form of high premiums or something else. The biggest punishment to Oberlin will be the embarrassment of the actions. Heads should have already rolled for this.
> Almost all endowment money is restricted, meaning it is earmarked for a specific purpose by donors. They can’t just pay out of the endowment.
I doubt that distinction protects the funds from a judgment creditor. The endowment money belongs to the university. Even though the university can only spend it in a certain way, that is an internal matter between the university and its donors. If the university did not have other funds from which to pay the judgment, I doubt the endowment money is protected just because it wasn't earmarked for "in case you lose a lawsuit."
I doubt that distinction protects the funds from a judgment creditor. The endowment money belongs to the university. Even though the university can only spend it in a certain way, that is an internal matter between the university and its donors. If the university did not have other funds from which to pay the judgment, I doubt the endowment money is protected just because it wasn't earmarked for "in case you lose a lawsuit."
> Even though the university can only spend it in a certain way, that is an internal matter between the university and its donors.
An earmarked donation may legally constitute a trust. If an asset forms part of a trust, the university can only spend it in accordance with the terms of the trust, unless they have permission of a court to vary them (the cy-près doctrine). Creditors generally can’t claim assets held as part of a trust, unless the debt/tort/etc has some direct connection to the trust
An earmarked donation may legally constitute a trust. If an asset forms part of a trust, the university can only spend it in accordance with the terms of the trust, unless they have permission of a court to vary them (the cy-près doctrine). Creditors generally can’t claim assets held as part of a trust, unless the debt/tort/etc has some direct connection to the trust
> The college said then that the bakery’s “archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.”
IIRC, the employee tried to take a photo of the shoplifter with his phone. The shoplifter took/smashed the phone or something. This makes it much more reasonable for the employee to try to stop the shoplifter from getting away. It wasn't like he tried to cuff the guy off the bat. He started with taking a photo but was thwarted.
IIRC, the employee tried to take a photo of the shoplifter with his phone. The shoplifter took/smashed the phone or something. This makes it much more reasonable for the employee to try to stop the shoplifter from getting away. It wasn't like he tried to cuff the guy off the bat. He started with taking a photo but was thwarted.
Yep. From wikipedia:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, an underage African-American Oberlin College student and Student Assistant Treasurer,[9] Jonathan Aladin (aka Elijah Aladin), attempted to purchase a bottle of wine using a fake identification card.[8] The store clerk, Allyn D. Gibson, a son and grandson of the owners,[6] rejected the fake ID. Gibson noticed that the student was concealing two other bottles of wine inside his jacket.[10][6] According to a police report, Gibson told the student he was contacting the police, and when Gibson pulled out his phone to take a photo of the student, the student slapped it away, striking Gibson's face.[11] The student ran out of the store. Gibson followed and then grabbed and held onto the shoplifter outside the store after the shoplifter had also assaulted the store owner, David Gibson.[6] Two other students, Cecelia Whettstone and Endia Lawrence, friends of the shoplifter, joined the scuffle.[6] When the police arrived, they witnessed Gibson lying on the ground with the three students punching and kicking him.[11] The police report stated that Gibson sustained a swollen lip, several cuts, and other minor injuries.[7][12] The police arrested the students, charging all three with assault and the shoplifter with robbery as well. In August 2017, the three students pleaded guilty, stating that they believed Gibson's actions were justified and were not racially motivated.[11][13][14] Their plea deals carried no jail time in exchange for restitution, the public statement, and a promise of future good behavior.[13][15] From their trial courtroom, Assistant Dean of Students Antoinette Myers sent Raimondo a text message: "I hope we rain fire and brimstone on that store."[16]
That's not really an example of a "chase-and-detain policy", nor was it a "suspected shoplifter"; by the time anyone was chasing anyone else, it was a matter of assault.
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, an underage African-American Oberlin College student and Student Assistant Treasurer,[9] Jonathan Aladin (aka Elijah Aladin), attempted to purchase a bottle of wine using a fake identification card.[8] The store clerk, Allyn D. Gibson, a son and grandson of the owners,[6] rejected the fake ID. Gibson noticed that the student was concealing two other bottles of wine inside his jacket.[10][6] According to a police report, Gibson told the student he was contacting the police, and when Gibson pulled out his phone to take a photo of the student, the student slapped it away, striking Gibson's face.[11] The student ran out of the store. Gibson followed and then grabbed and held onto the shoplifter outside the store after the shoplifter had also assaulted the store owner, David Gibson.[6] Two other students, Cecelia Whettstone and Endia Lawrence, friends of the shoplifter, joined the scuffle.[6] When the police arrived, they witnessed Gibson lying on the ground with the three students punching and kicking him.[11] The police report stated that Gibson sustained a swollen lip, several cuts, and other minor injuries.[7][12] The police arrested the students, charging all three with assault and the shoplifter with robbery as well. In August 2017, the three students pleaded guilty, stating that they believed Gibson's actions were justified and were not racially motivated.[11][13][14] Their plea deals carried no jail time in exchange for restitution, the public statement, and a promise of future good behavior.[13][15] From their trial courtroom, Assistant Dean of Students Antoinette Myers sent Raimondo a text message: "I hope we rain fire and brimstone on that store."[16]
That's not really an example of a "chase-and-detain policy", nor was it a "suspected shoplifter"; by the time anyone was chasing anyone else, it was a matter of assault.
That whole scenario make me sad. And just show how broken the system is. Assault a person and get away with not spending years in prison. That if something is massive privilege... Disgusting.
It pisses me off that a person smoking weed and not harming anyone can be thrown in jail, fined for all kinds of things (court costs, etc), and there is no victim to show mercy on them like the store did for these 3 students behaving like thugs. Yet these thugs get off with an apology, a statement, and a promise.
I don't smoke weed, but we sure have our priorities wrong.
I don't smoke weed, but we sure have our priorities wrong.
> Their plea deals carried no jail time in exchange for restitution, the public statement, and a promise of future good behavior.
people say the US has a strict justice system, but in some cases it seems completely loony.
people say the US has a strict justice system, but in some cases it seems completely loony.
> That's not really an example of a "chase-and-detain policy", nor was it a "suspected shoplifter"; by the time anyone was chasing anyone else, it was a matter of assault.
I was under the impression that punching and kicking turns shoplifting into a robbery, no?
I was under the impression that punching and kicking turns shoplifting into a robbery, no?
Thus this part of OP's quote 'The police arrested the students, charging all three with assault and the shoplifter with robbery as well'.
Oberlin was in the wrong, as was the Assistant Dean of Students, yet there were no real repercussions.
Oberlin was in the wrong, as was the Assistant Dean of Students, yet there were no real repercussions.
It doesn't even qualify in this instance, but in what universe is thinking that people who commit crimes should be detained so they can be arrested an archaic thing?
You don't need to have a Blue Lives bumper sticker on your car to think that people being punished for committing crimes is a good thing.
You don't need to have a Blue Lives bumper sticker on your car to think that people being punished for committing crimes is a good thing.
There's your first mistake - thinking logically and rationally about the issue. Anymore, these kinds of issues have become religion.
I've worked retail and in no universe would I ever try to physically detain anybody. This has been the explicit policy of the companies I worked for.
Losing a little merchandise is no big deal, especially if you can identify the person to police in a report later.
Attempting to detain a person is dangerous all around. The risk of escalation and injury to the parties involved is high, and a simple shoplifting can turn into something much worse (as happened here). You never know what drugs a shoplifter might be on, or what weapons they might have.
I'm sympathetic to the person being robbed, and this is no defense of the actions of the robber in any way, but it's always the smarter play to let the cops deal with it.
Losing a little merchandise is no big deal, especially if you can identify the person to police in a report later.
Attempting to detain a person is dangerous all around. The risk of escalation and injury to the parties involved is high, and a simple shoplifting can turn into something much worse (as happened here). You never know what drugs a shoplifter might be on, or what weapons they might have.
I'm sympathetic to the person being robbed, and this is no defense of the actions of the robber in any way, but it's always the smarter play to let the cops deal with it.
One, it wasn't just shoplifting, they were also assaulted by the student. Two, there's a big difference between saying "it's risky, I wouldn't do, company policy is not to," etc. and "detaining criminals is archaic and if you do it and the criminal happens to be black, that makes you a racist."
I probably wouldn't do anything either. But I also wouldn't begrudge anyone who who has spent years building that business who decides they're not going to let people just walk in and steal stuff.
I probably wouldn't do anything either. But I also wouldn't begrudge anyone who who has spent years building that business who decides they're not going to let people just walk in and steal stuff.
It is a family business, the detainer was a member of the family.
Hard to compare with a min wage employee at Target or whatever.
Hard to compare with a min wage employee at Target or whatever.
Why? Is the business so hard up that they need to risk physical violence for $25 worth of merchandise should the police not track them down?
I understand why the shopkeeper would make this decision in the heat of the moment, but it's always a mistake to try and physically confront somebody committing a petty crime directly. They were even outnumbered!
Ultimately the confrontation actually was a huge boon to the shopkeeper, due to Oberlin's bungling of the situation, but that's not in any way repeatable. It's simply not worth the risk of being forced to commit violence and/or have violence inflicted upon your person for a few bucks.
I understand why the shopkeeper would make this decision in the heat of the moment, but it's always a mistake to try and physically confront somebody committing a petty crime directly. They were even outnumbered!
Ultimately the confrontation actually was a huge boon to the shopkeeper, due to Oberlin's bungling of the situation, but that's not in any way repeatable. It's simply not worth the risk of being forced to commit violence and/or have violence inflicted upon your person for a few bucks.
Except that's not what happened. The shop owner was attacked in store by the singular robber, and the robbers friends were waiting outside.
The fictional account you've constructed you're probably right about, but it has little to do with reality.
> Gibson noticed that the student was concealing two other bottles of wine inside his jacket.[10][6] According to a police report, Gibson told the student he was contacting the police, and when Gibson pulled out his phone to take a photo of the student, the student slapped it away, striking Gibson's face.[11] The student ran out of the store. Gibson followed and then grabbed and held onto the shoplifter outside the store after the shoplifter had also assaulted the store owner, David Gibson.[6] Two other students, Cecelia Whettstone and Endia Lawrence, friends of the shoplifter, joined the scuffle.[6] When the police arrived, they witnessed Gibson lying on the ground with the three students punching and kicking him.
The fictional account you've constructed you're probably right about, but it has little to do with reality.
> Gibson noticed that the student was concealing two other bottles of wine inside his jacket.[10][6] According to a police report, Gibson told the student he was contacting the police, and when Gibson pulled out his phone to take a photo of the student, the student slapped it away, striking Gibson's face.[11] The student ran out of the store. Gibson followed and then grabbed and held onto the shoplifter outside the store after the shoplifter had also assaulted the store owner, David Gibson.[6] Two other students, Cecelia Whettstone and Endia Lawrence, friends of the shoplifter, joined the scuffle.[6] When the police arrived, they witnessed Gibson lying on the ground with the three students punching and kicking him.
“ The message to other colleges is to have the intestinal fortitude to be the adult in the room”
That seems to be the most apt conclusion. Being an educational institution should involve more than just indulging the students. It should also challenge them and be measured in their responses to events, even if that means being unpopular with students.
That seems to be the most apt conclusion. Being an educational institution should involve more than just indulging the students. It should also challenge them and be measured in their responses to events, even if that means being unpopular with students.
Being an educational institution should involve more than just indulging the students
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) free-speech rankings seem like a good proxy for this: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/student-survey...
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) free-speech rankings seem like a good proxy for this: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/student-survey...
I can't find the link, but I read recently that FIRE came out against this verdict because they believe it infringes free speech.
I agree the FIRE rankings are a good resource. But it's worth pointing out that FIRE opposes this verdict.
I agree the FIRE rankings are a good resource. But it's worth pointing out that FIRE opposes this verdict.
That doesn't sound right. It doesn't match up with what I know of FIRE. I couldn't find anything to suggest that FIRE opposed the verdict in my searches. Please try to find the link - I'd like to see it.
I did find one document [0] that was a legal filing that references some FIRE documents discussing speech codes, but that was it. FIRE didn't sign it, and as far as I can tell FIRE had nothing to do with the filing supporting Oberlin.
Some of the attorneys signing the filing identified themselves as "Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Coalition Against Censorship, and Defending Rights & Dissent." NCAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_Against_Cen...) and DRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Rights_%26_Dissent) are not the same thing as FIRE.
[0] https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/amicus-ncac_osc.pd...
I did find one document [0] that was a legal filing that references some FIRE documents discussing speech codes, but that was it. FIRE didn't sign it, and as far as I can tell FIRE had nothing to do with the filing supporting Oberlin.
Some of the attorneys signing the filing identified themselves as "Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Coalition Against Censorship, and Defending Rights & Dissent." NCAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_Against_Cen...) and DRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Rights_%26_Dissent) are not the same thing as FIRE.
[0] https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/amicus-ncac_osc.pd...
I tried searching again but failed. I think I probably heard a mention of it on a podcast since I can't find a link. Maybe the Reason Roundtable? I am 90% certain this was FIRE I'm recalling.
I was caught off-guard because I generally agree with FIRE, and my first reaction was that this was an exception. It made me rethink about my reaction to the verdict. I can't think of another organization that fits this description in my mind. But I could be wrong!
I will continue thinking about where I saw or heard this and leave a link if I can find it.
I was caught off-guard because I generally agree with FIRE, and my first reaction was that this was an exception. It made me rethink about my reaction to the verdict. I can't think of another organization that fits this description in my mind. But I could be wrong!
I will continue thinking about where I saw or heard this and leave a link if I can find it.
It does make sense that it targets a people’s speech though. Even if the circumstances are ridiculous.
This crosses into the territory of defamation though so it’s not merely their progressive political opinions being challenged by the courts.
This crosses into the territory of defamation though so it’s not merely their progressive political opinions being challenged by the courts.
Whose free speech? This verdict doesn't have anything to do with the students protesting, does it? I thought it was based [almost?] entirely on the fact that the Dean of Students was handing out these ridiculous flyers.
From TFA:
> In its ruling, the Court of Appeals agreed that students had a right to protest. But the court said that the flier and a related student senate resolution — which said that the store had a history of racial profiling — were not constitutionally protected opinion.
So the fliers and the student senate resolution are not free speech.
> In its ruling, the Court of Appeals agreed that students had a right to protest. But the court said that the flier and a related student senate resolution — which said that the store had a history of racial profiling — were not constitutionally protected opinion.
So the fliers and the student senate resolution are not free speech.
I just spent some time looking around that site.
most of the example complaints they highlight are just students saying they don't feel comfortable speaking up or they had dorm mate issues.
Does not feel like a good way to rank a school's actions to hinder speech (as an institution/administration).
Does have some better real examples but large majority I read were not.
Just because you don't feel comfortable doesn't mean someone is stopping you from speaking.
You can't force someone to live with or listen to ones ___ whatever religion, hate speech, crazy liberal ideas etc.
And yes.. Most young people are pretty open minded and fairly liberal.
If you hold views outside that box you should speak them! But you can't be made if people judge you or the majority speak themselves against those beliefs.
I don't see how those common complaints are a school forcing someone to be silent or punishing them for their viewpoints.
Maybe I'm being too emotional given recent court rulings/direction of my country; Which is probably why I took so much time on that site and commenting.
But your speech !== that I will listen, or not judge you, or allow you to be around me.
A lot of the religious court rulings (PrEP most recent) feel like these complaints. Freedom to speak/express your religion does not go so far as to control my choices and my body or force me to listen to you.
most of the example complaints they highlight are just students saying they don't feel comfortable speaking up or they had dorm mate issues.
Does not feel like a good way to rank a school's actions to hinder speech (as an institution/administration).
Does have some better real examples but large majority I read were not.
Just because you don't feel comfortable doesn't mean someone is stopping you from speaking.
You can't force someone to live with or listen to ones ___ whatever religion, hate speech, crazy liberal ideas etc.
And yes.. Most young people are pretty open minded and fairly liberal.
If you hold views outside that box you should speak them! But you can't be made if people judge you or the majority speak themselves against those beliefs.
I don't see how those common complaints are a school forcing someone to be silent or punishing them for their viewpoints.
Maybe I'm being too emotional given recent court rulings/direction of my country; Which is probably why I took so much time on that site and commenting.
But your speech !== that I will listen, or not judge you, or allow you to be around me.
A lot of the religious court rulings (PrEP most recent) feel like these complaints. Freedom to speak/express your religion does not go so far as to control my choices and my body or force me to listen to you.
https://rankings.thefire.org/rank/school/oberlin-college:
Ranking #135, Speech Climate: Slightly Below Average
A few things:
1. The total ranking is wholistic, it includes pressure felt both by peers and by faculty. Given "being the adult in the room" might include reigning in peer-pressure that's probably fine.
2. FWIW, It was ranked much better on "Administrative support"
3. Tolerance for conservative speakers: #197/203 (obviously there is a lot of self-selection of liberal students going to Oberlin, so it would be very easy to be the only person with a particular conservative viewpoint, and even easier to think you are).
Disclosure: My sister graduated from Oberlin 20 years ago. She was an avid line-dancer at the time and would change out of her boots before going back on campus.
1. The total ranking is wholistic, it includes pressure felt both by peers and by faculty. Given "being the adult in the room" might include reigning in peer-pressure that's probably fine.
2. FWIW, It was ranked much better on "Administrative support"
3. Tolerance for conservative speakers: #197/203 (obviously there is a lot of self-selection of liberal students going to Oberlin, so it would be very easy to be the only person with a particular conservative viewpoint, and even easier to think you are).
Disclosure: My sister graduated from Oberlin 20 years ago. She was an avid line-dancer at the time and would change out of her boots before going back on campus.
Out of 208; Speech Code: Yellow
Hmmm... pretty normal and barely passing.
Hmmm... pretty normal and barely passing.
> even if that means being unpopular with students.
The problem is that, at the end of the day, the students are your customers for institutions like this.
The problem is that, at the end of the day, the students are your customers for institutions like this.
> Carmen Twillie Ambar: archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.
If you witness a crime you can arrest the criminal. It's basic civics. Something you might find about in an institution of higher learning. Don't know if they have one of those in Oberlin.
If you witness a crime you can arrest the criminal. It's basic civics. Something you might find about in an institution of higher learning. Don't know if they have one of those in Oberlin.
Statements like “archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests” is why a lot of people think the left has lost their collective minds. They are making perpetrators into victims and blame the real victims for any bad consequences.
I think (I'm pretty far away from all of this so this is just my impression) the point of these people, often poorly made and sometimes exaggerated, is that petty crimes (especially in a world where everyone is insured anyways so the actual damage is minimal) are not worth ruining human lives over. The American justice system is atrocious, with for profit prisons and extremely high recidivism rates, not to mention racial bias at many levels. Is it worth it to throw away a human life in that black whole over a bottle of wine?
In abstract both arguments (strict enforcement of all laws; and that the system's results are inhumane so lesser laws should be ignored) make surface level sense. A middle ground sounds best (some laws are loosened, leniency is used on first offenses, prison system reform to rehabilitate instead of punish, etc.).
In abstract both arguments (strict enforcement of all laws; and that the system's results are inhumane so lesser laws should be ignored) make surface level sense. A middle ground sounds best (some laws are loosened, leniency is used on first offenses, prison system reform to rehabilitate instead of punish, etc.).
That's not really how insurance works. Everything gets paid for by someone, it's not magic money. A systemic increase in insurance payouts causes a proportional systemic increase in insurance premiums which are ultimately passed onto the customer.
One person is more culpable in the life ruining than the person who contacts the police.
One person is more culpable in the life ruining than the person who contacts the police.
See the wikipedia article to learn what actually happened, the Oberlin statement and the NYT article are misleading:
An employee took a photo of the shoplifter in the act of stealing, the shoplifter got angry and assaulted the employee for this. That's when then the employee tried apprehending the shoplifter.
Assault, not petty theft. Also, doesn't violence turn theft into robbery?
An employee took a photo of the shoplifter in the act of stealing, the shoplifter got angry and assaulted the employee for this. That's when then the employee tried apprehending the shoplifter.
Assault, not petty theft. Also, doesn't violence turn theft into robbery?
Theft is a crime. It warrants the same response as an assault.
> Is it worth it to throw away a human life in that black whole over a bottle of wine?
Except that's not what happened. The shopkeeper was assaulted and another shopkeeper (a member of their family) also assaulted before they pursued the assailant.
Except that's not what happened. The shopkeeper was assaulted and another shopkeeper (a member of their family) also assaulted before they pursued the assailant.
[deleted]
Really is unfortunate, both sides of the political spectrum suffer from this principal agent dilemma. The media finds the craziest instances of the ideology gone to far and everyone believes places like oberlin speak for the left as a whole.
When you look at the situation with shoplifters not being prosecuted in San Francisco I don’t think the perception is too far off. Here in Albuquerque it seems they also have given up on going after people who break into cars or steal them.
I totally agree that the “tough on crime” strategy doesn’t work. But the solution can’t be to let people get away with petty crimes or even make the perpetrators into victims. Law abiding citizens need to be protected.
I totally agree that the “tough on crime” strategy doesn’t work. But the solution can’t be to let people get away with petty crimes or even make the perpetrators into victims. Law abiding citizens need to be protected.
Unfortunately a certain segment of people reject the agency of individuals, and see things only in terms of "identity". If someone who is considered part of a "marginalized" group commits a crime, this segment of the population doesn't put the responsibility for the crime on the individual, but on social and historical grievances suffered by whatever "marginalized" demographic the criminal has been arbitrarily assigned. Ironically (but unsurprisingly) it is is lost on this segment that it is incredibly demeaning to treat people like they have no agency or autonomy, and are simply agents of their environment.
If the individual involved hadn’t broken the phone of the worker, the chase never even would have occurred. The culpability being placed 100% on the bakery is illogical no matter how I look at it.
I really wonder how they would react to if someone tried to rob their premises. Get a unmarked van and just start carrying stuff out. Surely they wouldn't try to stop it?
Yes, what could possibly go wrong giving private citizens the right to detain other private citizens
https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georg...
https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georg...
Not what happened here at all.
> If you witness a crime you can arrest the criminal
He did not say “if you witness a crime you can call the police”. I don’t want a society where any random yokel thinks he can detain someone.
He did not say “if you witness a crime you can call the police”. I don’t want a society where any random yokel thinks he can detain someone.
Hate to break it to you, but that society has existed for centuries - it’s an accepted rule in most common-law countries.
For example, from Wikipedia:
“In the United States, a private person may arrest another without a warrant for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted vary by state.”
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
For example, from Wikipedia:
“In the United States, a private person may arrest another without a warrant for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted vary by state.”
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
[deleted]
Then you will have to essentially leave the civilised world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States
Georgia just outlawed that practice after the very yokels who tried to make a citizens arrest because someone committed a crime of “looking like they don’t belong”
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States
> Georgia just outlawed that practice
Not exactly; they clarified the circumstances under which a citizen's arrest can be made[0], "including shopkeepers who witness shoplifters and restaurant owners and employees who witness 'dine and dash' customers."
[0] https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995835333/in-ahmaud-arberys-n...
> Georgia just outlawed that practice
Not exactly; they clarified the circumstances under which a citizen's arrest can be made[0], "including shopkeepers who witness shoplifters and restaurant owners and employees who witness 'dine and dash' customers."
[0] https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995835333/in-ahmaud-arberys-n...
You can't argue with the law.
The old Dixiecrats said the same thing about Jim Crow laws, laws against miscegenation, etc.
But that law was in fact “argued against” in the very red Georgia and it was repealed by a Republican legislation and Republican governor
But that law was in fact “argued against” in the very red Georgia and it was repealed by a Republican legislation and Republican governor
The only reason police can detain people is because they are citizens. They don't have any special status that other Americans don't enjoy.
That is false. The police can detain people on reasonable suspicion. You cannot legally conduct a Terry stop if you are not a police officer.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what...
You really think any random person can detain someone? Do you also think you can force someone to stop for speeding? You can arrest someone for smoking weed as an ordinary citizen?
Do you think you can sleep with a prostitute and then arrest them?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/c...
You really think any random person can detain someone? Do you also think you can force someone to stop for speeding? You can arrest someone for smoking weed as an ordinary citizen?
Do you think you can sleep with a prostitute and then arrest them?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/c...
A police officer has better legal protections, and in practice can get away with a lot more.
But in theory, what they are supposed to be able to do is surprisingly similar.
On detaining a random person, quoting https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizen%27s_arrest, In general, the ability to perform a citizen’s arrest is the same for a regular person as it is for a police officer without a warrant.
But in theory, what they are supposed to be able to do is surprisingly similar.
On detaining a random person, quoting https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizen%27s_arrest, In general, the ability to perform a citizen’s arrest is the same for a regular person as it is for a police officer without a warrant.
So let’s say that I was going 80 miles per hour in a 55. I stopped at the gas station and you tried to detain me when I got out of the car. Let’s also say I have a licensed firearm. Also let’s say it was caught on camera that I was minding my business pumping my gas when you tried to detain me. How do you think that’s going to end up both right then and in a court of law?
This is completely hypothetical, I don’t own a gun.
But, because of the incident I posted. Even the very red GA and the Republican governor thought that it might not be a good idea to let any random yokel detain someone
https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-georgia-arrests-gov...
This is completely hypothetical, I don’t own a gun.
But, because of the incident I posted. Even the very red GA and the Republican governor thought that it might not be a good idea to let any random yokel detain someone
https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-georgia-arrests-gov...
Driving 80 in a 55 isn’t an arrestable offense, so a Citizens Arrest wouldn’t really be appropriate would it?
Let’s say 85 in a 55 then that could qualify as reckless driving.
Qualified Immunity would have a large word with you.
If an Officer makes a wrongful arrest in the line of duty, Qualified Immunity will go a long way to shielding them, whereas a citizen without Qualified Immunity would be subject to wrongful arrest lawsuits and kidnapping charges.
If an Officer makes a wrongful arrest in the line of duty, Qualified Immunity will go a long way to shielding them, whereas a citizen without Qualified Immunity would be subject to wrongful arrest lawsuits and kidnapping charges.
This is an excellent argument for getting rid of qualified immunity, but not a very good argument against citizens' right to detain those they see committing crimes.
I don't think there's much chance the cashier here grabbed the wrong person.
I don't think there's much chance the cashier here grabbed the wrong person.
I was responding to this statement: “They don't have any special status that other Americans don't enjoy.”
That’s false, for the reasons I’ve outlined. The courts have created a specific special legal status that applies to police, but not to ordinary people.
That’s false, for the reasons I’ve outlined. The courts have created a specific special legal status that applies to police, but not to ordinary people.
So you would rather give more people the right to take away your freedom?
Out of its three comma endowment, it will pay a settlement of about six hundred student's annual tuition, which is a little less than a quarter of their undergrad population. After a six year smear campaign, sounds like money well spent!
Apparently, Oberlin's President sent out the following email which states their insurance will pay
> Dear Obies,
> Today, Oberlin College and Conservatory initiated payment in full of the $36.59 million judgment in the Gibson’s Bakery case, an amount that represents the awarded damages and interest owed. Please see the college’s public statement below.
> While this outcome is a disappointment, our financial plans for this possibility, which included insurance coverage, mean that this payment will not impact or diminish our academic or student life experience, or require us to draw down Oberlin’s endowment.
> Like me, the majority of the campus was not here at the beginning of this matter in 2016. But it is also true that this case has been difficult for all of us who love this institution and its hometown. I am looking forward to all that is ahead, and remain focused on Oberlin’s core mission of providing a truly excellent liberal arts and musical education.
> Carmen Twillie Ambar > President
> Dear Obies,
> Today, Oberlin College and Conservatory initiated payment in full of the $36.59 million judgment in the Gibson’s Bakery case, an amount that represents the awarded damages and interest owed. Please see the college’s public statement below.
> While this outcome is a disappointment, our financial plans for this possibility, which included insurance coverage, mean that this payment will not impact or diminish our academic or student life experience, or require us to draw down Oberlin’s endowment.
> Like me, the majority of the campus was not here at the beginning of this matter in 2016. But it is also true that this case has been difficult for all of us who love this institution and its hometown. I am looking forward to all that is ahead, and remain focused on Oberlin’s core mission of providing a truly excellent liberal arts and musical education.
> Carmen Twillie Ambar > President
> Like me, the majority of the campus was not here at the beginning of this matter in 2016.
The buck stops with my predecessor. Delightful executive engineering of the slimiest sort. One gets paid to own the past at that level. Accepting the job requires due diligence on the past and being paid to own any uncertainty. That is one disgustingly cowardly sentence meriting immediate action by the board to throw this bum out.
Notice, I don't care about the outcome but only the integrity that such an exec should show.
The buck stops with my predecessor. Delightful executive engineering of the slimiest sort. One gets paid to own the past at that level. Accepting the job requires due diligence on the past and being paid to own any uncertainty. That is one disgustingly cowardly sentence meriting immediate action by the board to throw this bum out.
Notice, I don't care about the outcome but only the integrity that such an exec should show.
It is a poor public statement but the leader also probably needs to distance themselves from it in this official letter for the very reason of this discussion. They use some phrases that are particularly poor. Really their PR team and crisis communication team should do better, but I have seen worse.
“I was not here. The reason I am here has something to do with what happened.”
I would guess most of Oberlin’s leadership from the time of the incident has moved in. At least those who would be seen as culpable, fair or not.
Edit: yes, basically all new leadership since the incident: https://www.oberlin.edu/president. It may seem like they are distancing themselves, but, well, they are distant from it. They have probably spent their time at Oberlin cleaning up other people’s messes and are fairly exhausted by it. Not an excuse, but you can imagine it has lingered over their tenure.
“I was not here. The reason I am here has something to do with what happened.”
I would guess most of Oberlin’s leadership from the time of the incident has moved in. At least those who would be seen as culpable, fair or not.
Edit: yes, basically all new leadership since the incident: https://www.oberlin.edu/president. It may seem like they are distancing themselves, but, well, they are distant from it. They have probably spent their time at Oberlin cleaning up other people’s messes and are fairly exhausted by it. Not an excuse, but you can imagine it has lingered over their tenure.
Can I ask why you’re so upset about something that apparently does not involve you at all?
> Can I ask why you’re so upset about something that apparently does not involve you at all?
We’re in the same society, this is bad precedent, and I’d prefer for it not to happen where I am.
We’re in the same society, this is bad precedent, and I’d prefer for it not to happen where I am.
Isn't this basically the same as asking "why do you care about people other than yourself?"
Some folks have standards and principles.
I'm surprised the insurance will pay for this. The judgment, and actions by Oberlin's administration, strongly suggest they were acting in bad faith. The college's behavior exceed negligence, the typical threshold in these sort of insurance contracts.
Pretty incredible Oberlin can get out of this considering what other insurers will do to avoid paying for incidents with cause.
Pretty incredible Oberlin can get out of this considering what other insurers will do to avoid paying for incidents with cause.
> I'm surprised the insurance will pay for this.
Yeah I'm a bit surprised by that, too. The negotiations with their insurer must have been really something. Only thing I can imagine is that they cut some sort of deal that makes it worth the insurance company not trying to fight with them over it. Maybe they have to basically pay it back over time with interest..?
Yeah I'm a bit surprised by that, too. The negotiations with their insurer must have been really something. Only thing I can imagine is that they cut some sort of deal that makes it worth the insurance company not trying to fight with them over it. Maybe they have to basically pay it back over time with interest..?
My guess is Oberlin pays them a whole lot of money every year. And will pay increased premiums moving forward. For the insurance company it may be a no brainer to keep their business. It will pay for itself in 5-10 years.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. I would expect that, at a minimum, the insurer would raise Oberlin’s rates and/or required them to make changes in policy.
I wonder if their insurance premiums have gone up though.
Once again: in a civil suit, Gibson's can sue to establish economic damages, and then ask for punitive damages on top of that. But the constitution doesn't allow civil courts to assess arbitrarily high punitive damages; punitive damages have to connect in some way to economic damages, often as a low integer multiple of them. Since Oberlin didn't do an amount of damage material to their endowment, there was no outcome here where their endowment was going to be threatened.
Hopefully, it also costs them in plummeting enrollment as students realize that getting an education from an institution that willfully ignores facts might not be a great idea.
One can dream, anyway.
One can dream, anyway.
"Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery"
It's not a magnanimous concession by Oberlin, it's a court-ordered amount. If they didn't pay, the bailiffs would arrive.
It's not a magnanimous concession by Oberlin, it's a court-ordered amount. If they didn't pay, the bailiffs would arrive.
> it said that “with careful financial planning,” including insurance, it could be paid “without impacting our academic and student experience.” Oberlin has a robust endowment of nearly $1 billion
So insurance is gonna pony up for them, they won’t have to touch their BILLION dollars, the my don’t have to apologize, and aren’t admitting any wrongdoing.
At least the Gibson family will get something out of it. Not sure it’s justice, but $36Mil would go far…
So insurance is gonna pony up for them, they won’t have to touch their BILLION dollars, the my don’t have to apologize, and aren’t admitting any wrongdoing.
At least the Gibson family will get something out of it. Not sure it’s justice, but $36Mil would go far…
At a guess, "with careful financial planning" means after negotiation our insurers, we agreed to pay increased premiums sufficient to reimburse the insurer for damages paid, allowing us to announce that the endowment is untouched and avoiding another lawsuit over whether our behaviour was covered by our insurance policy or not.
The college still hasn’t admitted it has done anything wrong, and to my knowledge has not fired anyone for fabricating a hate crime, or doubling and tripling down on the fabrication.
I'm still processing the $6.5 Million the lawyers made.
The hourly rate used to calculate the award for fees was under $300. This case could have gone either way. The lawyers took this case on contingency, i.e. no win no fee.
22% is bit much. But if I were in for 30 million payday I might be able to live with it.
They probably didn't have to live with it either way. If you win then Oberlin pays, if you lose then hopefully the lawyers were on contingency and you're out nothing. Hell, the lawyers might have even funded the appeal based on winning below.
This case is so egregious, in a just world there would be a criminal case too. 2 members of the bakery family have died as Oberlin has dragged this out.
The family members dying isn't oberlin's fault. They're allowed to appeal.
Died of what? Emotional stress? Financial hardship? (Just asking)
Cancer and old age, IIRC. The author of this story implies that the drawn out saga may have contributed to the cancer death. [1]
1: https://www.commonsense.news/p/will-i-ever-see-the-36-millio...
1: https://www.commonsense.news/p/will-i-ever-see-the-36-millio...
It's impossible to say; I have personally experienced how stress can significantly deteriorate one's health, so I believe it.
Thanks.
Age.
is this considered taxable income?
yes, but they probably have a lot of losses from the past two years they can use to offset some of the taxes
This is such a strange reply.
If the business is running at a loss (including legal fees) then yes that loss can be used to reduce the tax burden this year.
But since the loss burden is 100% [1],and the tax burden say 50% this is worse, not better. Sure the 5 million accumulated loss means 2.5 million less tax, but it also means 5 million gone to cover the losses..
[1] losses are funded from somewhere, and those funds typically have to be replaced sooner or later (or bankruptcy). Working capital, reserves, loans etc. Unless they're like listed on the stock exchange.
If the business is running at a loss (including legal fees) then yes that loss can be used to reduce the tax burden this year.
But since the loss burden is 100% [1],and the tax burden say 50% this is worse, not better. Sure the 5 million accumulated loss means 2.5 million less tax, but it also means 5 million gone to cover the losses..
[1] losses are funded from somewhere, and those funds typically have to be replaced sooner or later (or bankruptcy). Working capital, reserves, loans etc. Unless they're like listed on the stock exchange.
define “strange” - perhaps by identifying something in my statement that is factually incorrect? Or do you agree with the statement and wish the world was different somehow?
"strange" might be the wrong word.
I mean in the sense that it feels like you're suggesting that "offsetting expenses" makes it better. When it makes it worse. [1]. So in answering the question "is this taxable income" - the answer is "yes". If you wanted to qualify it more it would be more along the lines of "not just tax, there's likely a lot of other expenses incurred as well."
[1] Yes, it's better in the pure sense that there's "less tax", but overall there's more expenses than the tax that was saved.
I mean in the sense that it feels like you're suggesting that "offsetting expenses" makes it better. When it makes it worse. [1]. So in answering the question "is this taxable income" - the answer is "yes". If you wanted to qualify it more it would be more along the lines of "not just tax, there's likely a lot of other expenses incurred as well."
[1] Yes, it's better in the pure sense that there's "less tax", but overall there's more expenses than the tax that was saved.
You're putting a lot of words in their mouth that they didn't say. Their original statement was perfectly valid; the business probably has losses they can use to offset the tax liability. That's all they said. They didn't make any further judgements about whether that was overall better or worse.
You are correct, I was inferring a lot. Perhaps too much - I apologise for that.
I guess the reply seemed strange to me because it started the thought, and then kinda didn't complete it.
The post could have just said "yes", or could have mentioned the additional costs and explained that taxes were not the only likely overhead. But (it read to me) like the thought was incomplete, or was somehow implying the expenses were a good thing.
Clearly though I misunderstood it - my bad.
I guess the reply seemed strange to me because it started the thought, and then kinda didn't complete it.
The post could have just said "yes", or could have mentioned the additional costs and explained that taxes were not the only likely overhead. But (it read to me) like the thought was incomplete, or was somehow implying the expenses were a good thing.
Clearly though I misunderstood it - my bad.
Yes. For the most part, only injury settlements / awards are not “income” and thus not taxable.
Generally yes. Some exceptions exist but nothing like this case.
fortran77(3)
I wonder if there’s a way to bait institutions into doing this to you so you can get a big payday
This seems like local news about an assault case. What makes this HN-note-worthy?
Is there more to this story? I'm honestly pretty shocked by this. The college basically got into hot water for having its Dean show up at a protest holding a flyer.
Oberlin drove the bakery out of business while knowing full well that the bakery did nothing wrong. The kid that got caught shoplifting plead guilty and he also outright stated that racism was not involved.
That's an uncharitable summary. This is an unusually huge defamation award, and I support it: Oberlin richly deserved the outcome they had in court. But the story you're telling is not accurate.
School administrators at Oberlin pretty clearly believed that Gibson's racially profiled students and victimized lower-income non-white students. And, here's the important thing about that: to some extent, Oberlin is entitled to believe that and say so, regardless of what the "facts" are. That's because, to an extent, those are subjective statements, and defamation consists of false statements of fact.
Where Oberlin screwed up royally was in recklessly presenting facts that supported their preconceived (and constitutionally protected) notions about Gibson's moral failings. But it's easy to see how someone could do that: you see it in HN arguments every day, if not every hour. People believe things that confirm the rest of their beliefs.
It turns out, if you casually do that while running a university, you can end up costing your university tens of millions of dollars. And rightly so. But the story you want to tell, about Oberlin's administrators simply manufacturing a story about Gibson's for the hell of it --- no, that's almost certainly not what happened.
School administrators at Oberlin pretty clearly believed that Gibson's racially profiled students and victimized lower-income non-white students. And, here's the important thing about that: to some extent, Oberlin is entitled to believe that and say so, regardless of what the "facts" are. That's because, to an extent, those are subjective statements, and defamation consists of false statements of fact.
Where Oberlin screwed up royally was in recklessly presenting facts that supported their preconceived (and constitutionally protected) notions about Gibson's moral failings. But it's easy to see how someone could do that: you see it in HN arguments every day, if not every hour. People believe things that confirm the rest of their beliefs.
It turns out, if you casually do that while running a university, you can end up costing your university tens of millions of dollars. And rightly so. But the story you want to tell, about Oberlin's administrators simply manufacturing a story about Gibson's for the hell of it --- no, that's almost certainly not what happened.
First, this guy was not a lower-income student -- he had attended a $50k/year private high school. Second, Oberlin did not believe that Gibson's racially profiled students. Third, the kids not only shoplifted, they then kicked and beat the fellow who tried to chase them and stop them from shoplifting.
This doesn't necessarily go against your point, but I have seen far too many innocent people coerced into pleading guilty to actually believe someone is guilty based on a guilty plea.
Sure, that happens. But it's most likely when the accused has too few resources to win at trial. Here the college was clearly in their corner. Why would they plead guilty and say racism was no part of it? Their statements seems very credible under the circumstances.
The shoplifter is also a Phillips Andover grad--yes, that Phillips Andover, the one that's often ranked #1 prep school in the nation and costs $50k/year in tuition.
The kids accused of shoplifting were charged with felonies and eventually plead down to misdemeanors.
Race is always a factor in America, especially its criminal justice system, are the students confessions genuine contrition or motivated by fear of disproportionate punishment?
A question impossible to answer.
Race is always a factor in America, especially its criminal justice system, are the students confessions genuine contrition or motivated by fear of disproportionate punishment?
A question impossible to answer.
Their guilt was definitely not in question.
They were arrested by the cops in the middle of the act of assaulting the employee (kicking him while he was on the ground) and with the shoplifted property on their possession.
A conviction was already assured, the guilty plea was an extremely rational move, whether out of contrition or fear.
They were arrested by the cops in the middle of the act of assaulting the employee (kicking him while he was on the ground) and with the shoplifted property on their possession.
A conviction was already assured, the guilty plea was an extremely rational move, whether out of contrition or fear.
True, but if you're a large institution making a public statement (this could be interpreted broadly) against a small business, you better be sure it's true. It's especially not worth it when the shoplifter was trying to use a fake ID.
This was a civil trial, not criminal. The college never plead guilty. They were found liable. The college had competent legal representation and there was no coercion.
Gp wasn't talking about the college but the shoplifter, who was a criminal defendant and whose legal representation we have no knowledge of.
Yes, there is much more to the story. This is going to be one sided, but this is a faq from the plantiffs with plenty of examples of what the dean was doing; far far beyond just handing out flyers.
https://www.lawlion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/UPDATED-F...
https://www.lawlion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/UPDATED-F...
Some more interesting context from your link:
When the author anonymously interviewed students, he gathered the following responses:
• “I totally have [taken things from a store downtown without paying for it].
I think I’ve stolen from Gibson’s twice. I took a packet of those noodles that come in boxes… It wasn’t expensive and I felt like it. I just preferred not paying for it, but I could have.”
• A female student admitted that she has stolen many things from Gibson’s Bakery and Ben Franklin’s. “I took a wine bottle. I had a large winter jacket and I put the bottle in the lining and I walked right out.” And, “I took pens from Ben Franklin because individually the pens cost $4 and I thought it was a racket.”
• “Probably [I have stolen from downtown] but let me think about it…yeah, no, I do that all the time.” The same student then talked about how they stole a one-hundred-dollar ($100) bottle of wine from Gibson’s Bakery.
• “I have stolen from Gibson’s, Kim’s, IGA. I took some dumb stuff. From Gibson’s I took some steak knives for an avocado that I also stole. I was really drunk and that was really bad.”
• “I think I’ve taken candy and just small shit from Ben Franklin’s and the Oberlin Market.”
• “[I have taken] a few pens from Ben Franklin over the years… they’re hard to resist.”
• One said she’s never paid for Chapstick while at Oberlin for four years.
• The author: “I myself have stolen from the very people I’ve interviewed for this story. I could have paid for the items easily, but I chose to steal them instead.”
This student and/or institutional attitude was supported by the statistics provided from the Oberlin Police Department of thefts at Gibson’s Bakery from January 1, 2011 to November 14, 2016. These statistics show that of the 40 adults arrested for theft during that time period, 33 of those adults (82.5%) were Oberlin College students.
When the author anonymously interviewed students, he gathered the following responses:
• “I totally have [taken things from a store downtown without paying for it].
I think I’ve stolen from Gibson’s twice. I took a packet of those noodles that come in boxes… It wasn’t expensive and I felt like it. I just preferred not paying for it, but I could have.”
• A female student admitted that she has stolen many things from Gibson’s Bakery and Ben Franklin’s. “I took a wine bottle. I had a large winter jacket and I put the bottle in the lining and I walked right out.” And, “I took pens from Ben Franklin because individually the pens cost $4 and I thought it was a racket.”
• “Probably [I have stolen from downtown] but let me think about it…yeah, no, I do that all the time.” The same student then talked about how they stole a one-hundred-dollar ($100) bottle of wine from Gibson’s Bakery.
• “I have stolen from Gibson’s, Kim’s, IGA. I took some dumb stuff. From Gibson’s I took some steak knives for an avocado that I also stole. I was really drunk and that was really bad.”
• “I think I’ve taken candy and just small shit from Ben Franklin’s and the Oberlin Market.”
• “[I have taken] a few pens from Ben Franklin over the years… they’re hard to resist.”
• One said she’s never paid for Chapstick while at Oberlin for four years.
• The author: “I myself have stolen from the very people I’ve interviewed for this story. I could have paid for the items easily, but I chose to steal them instead.”
This student and/or institutional attitude was supported by the statistics provided from the Oberlin Police Department of thefts at Gibson’s Bakery from January 1, 2011 to November 14, 2016. These statistics show that of the 40 adults arrested for theft during that time period, 33 of those adults (82.5%) were Oberlin College students.
They should do like Saudi Arabia and cut off their hands.
Whoa, please don't post like this to HN. That's the sort of thing we ban people for. I know you know this!
I don't want to ban you and have no intention to, but you create a big problem for us if we ban people for comments like this and then an account like yours does the same thing. Users expect fairness. How am I supposed to answer them when they say things like "so it's ok if rayiner does it?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't want to ban you and have no intention to, but you create a big problem for us if we ban people for comments like this and then an account like yours does the same thing. Users expect fairness. How am I supposed to answer them when they say things like "so it's ok if rayiner does it?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm going to be charitable, because I recognize the username since you usually comment with more verbose and thought-out text, and assume you meant to say "They should be thankful that Gibson's doesn't do like Saudi Arabia and cut off their hands".
I would have thought the same thing, a year ago. It's a low-effort provocation either way, though. The thread has nothing whatsoever to do with Saudi Arabia.
When someone points out a problem with healthcare in America, others always chime in with “we should have socialized healthcare like Sweden.” This is in the same thing, except the premise is that maybe Saudi Arabia and other Sharia law countries are on to something.
The affluent, privileged Oberlin students profiled in the article don’t even feel shame about stealing from local small businesses. That suggests not only something about them, but the moral context they inhabit. And these are our next generation of leaders! What if we have made a mistake and ratcheting down punishments for theft had the effect of weakening social taboos against it? What if the students aren’t the product of something that can be called progress? What if the Saudis are on to something?
The affluent, privileged Oberlin students profiled in the article don’t even feel shame about stealing from local small businesses. That suggests not only something about them, but the moral context they inhabit. And these are our next generation of leaders! What if we have made a mistake and ratcheting down punishments for theft had the effect of weakening social taboos against it? What if the students aren’t the product of something that can be called progress? What if the Saudis are on to something?
I (mostly) find myself agreeing with you on this website, and I see what point you're making by referencing healthcare, but that's not at all relevant.
To steelman your argument, you're concerned about proliferation of, essentially, tomfoolery and pilferage amongst the young. Because of changing or weakening of cultural norms, or because of some other reason (maybe poverty or class divides or some such explanation). I mostly share these concerns, to be honest, because in the last 2 years I've started to see the apathy present in younger co-workers that have joined the company I'm at. The problem I have with your comparison is that ... no one wants to be like Saudi Arabia except the Saudis. Older iterations of Civilization had much more draconian enforcement of law because, and this is just my personal opinion based on my own reading of history, the stakes were a lot higher. Stealing someone's coin or robbing them of their livestock literally killed the victim (usually very slowly and very very miserably), and so, in a way that I understand, it made sense for the penalty for such a transgression to be as or nearly as extreme as the cost to the victim.
I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to bring that back, since the stakes are demonstrably not that high. I realize you're not arguing for that, and are making a broader point. I'm trying to think of constructive ways to explain to these kids that "stealing is bad", but then I just realize that the problem isn't the kids, it's the Professors and the University, and redirect my criticism toward those institutions instead.
To steelman your argument, you're concerned about proliferation of, essentially, tomfoolery and pilferage amongst the young. Because of changing or weakening of cultural norms, or because of some other reason (maybe poverty or class divides or some such explanation). I mostly share these concerns, to be honest, because in the last 2 years I've started to see the apathy present in younger co-workers that have joined the company I'm at. The problem I have with your comparison is that ... no one wants to be like Saudi Arabia except the Saudis. Older iterations of Civilization had much more draconian enforcement of law because, and this is just my personal opinion based on my own reading of history, the stakes were a lot higher. Stealing someone's coin or robbing them of their livestock literally killed the victim (usually very slowly and very very miserably), and so, in a way that I understand, it made sense for the penalty for such a transgression to be as or nearly as extreme as the cost to the victim.
I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to bring that back, since the stakes are demonstrably not that high. I realize you're not arguing for that, and are making a broader point. I'm trying to think of constructive ways to explain to these kids that "stealing is bad", but then I just realize that the problem isn't the kids, it's the Professors and the University, and redirect my criticism toward those institutions instead.
I think that stealing and cheating—by people who don’t face acute need—is a profound moral defect. In the same way that people saying “boys will be boys” when applied to quite horrible conduct says something bad about our society, normalizing theft as youthful hijinks says something bad. (Not directed at you, I’m aware most Americans anymore just don’t think it’s that big of a deal.)
You have a point about abundance changing the balance compared to earlier eras. I’ll have to think about that.
You have a point about abundance changing the balance compared to earlier eras. I’ll have to think about that.
I understand and sort of agree but this could spiral into some deontological debate. I don’t see “boys will be boys” as relevant because, well, boys will in fact be boys and do stupid stuff. You’re imo rightly pointing out that there’s a certain strain of moralism today that, mostly as a political project, excuses certain behavior - like theft. I don’t think the people you’re concerned about are actually saying “boys will be boys”, and far from it. They actually want these kinds of thefts to happen, and that’s not the same as “Johnny 16 year old crashed the car racing his friend”.
My point about scarcity and material abundance isn’t that harsher penalties weren’t morally or philosophically justified. Just that it was much easier to do so when things were scarce.
My point about scarcity and material abundance isn’t that harsher penalties weren’t morally or philosophically justified. Just that it was much easier to do so when things were scarce.
When people make stupid comments in the other ideological direction, I flag them too. This stuff is beneath you --- or, it used to be.
It’s “stupid” to suggest that hundreds of millions of other people might have a point in how they’ve structured their laws?
Are you just upset because you think corporal punishment for theft should be outside the Overton window and you assume I agree and am just being flippant? (And I’m not sure what the “ideological direction” here is. I’m pretty sure right wing people don’t think sharia gets anything right.)
Are you just upset because you think corporal punishment for theft should be outside the Overton window and you assume I agree and am just being flippant? (And I’m not sure what the “ideological direction” here is. I’m pretty sure right wing people don’t think sharia gets anything right.)
I'm not upset, but I flagged your comment because it was an unserious, low-effort attempt to provoke the thread, which is something you've been doing a lot lately.
I'm probably being too testy about this. There's been a pretty clear shift with your comments (people have emailed me about it out of the blue!) and it's been disappointing, in the sense that I have a rooting interest in people who contribute good stuff to HN continuing to do so, and not tearing the place down. But that's my problem, not yours.
I'm probably being too testy about this. There's been a pretty clear shift with your comments (people have emailed me about it out of the blue!) and it's been disappointing, in the sense that I have a rooting interest in people who contribute good stuff to HN continuing to do so, and not tearing the place down. But that's my problem, not yours.
That's what you would take away if you read Oberlin's take on the matter: https://www.oberlin.edu/news-and-events/bakery-litigation/10...
However, they don't mention any of the emails/texts that came out between administrators for some reason, which is what put the nail in the coffin for Oberlin. If you read the FAQ by the prosecution, you'll see that almost all of the fun details are in the private communications between administrators, not in what they publicly did: https://www.lawlion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/UPDATED-F...
How Meredith Raimondo has a job lined up outside of Oberlin is beyond me. I doubt she's actually learned a lesson, especially because she isn't bearing any individual culpability, and I have to imagine she will just be a little bit more discreet while planning smear campaigns and tortious interference against family businesses.
However, they don't mention any of the emails/texts that came out between administrators for some reason, which is what put the nail in the coffin for Oberlin. If you read the FAQ by the prosecution, you'll see that almost all of the fun details are in the private communications between administrators, not in what they publicly did: https://www.lawlion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/UPDATED-F...
How Meredith Raimondo has a job lined up outside of Oberlin is beyond me. I doubt she's actually learned a lesson, especially because she isn't bearing any individual culpability, and I have to imagine she will just be a little bit more discreet while planning smear campaigns and tortious interference against family businesses.
>However, they don't mention any of the emails/texts that came out between administrators for some reason, which is what put the nail in the coffin for Oberlin.
Yes, I was "amused" to see Oberlin's FAQ on the case (<https://www.oberlin.edu/news-and-events/bakery-litigation/fa...>) describe Raimondo's texts as
>Yes. Some senior administrators and faculty did use unprofessional language in a few text messages and emails well after the protest. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken in response to this behavior.
I doubt that.
Yes, I was "amused" to see Oberlin's FAQ on the case (<https://www.oberlin.edu/news-and-events/bakery-litigation/fa...>) describe Raimondo's texts as
>Yes. Some senior administrators and faculty did use unprofessional language in a few text messages and emails well after the protest. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken in response to this behavior.
I doubt that.
> The college basically got into hot water for having its Dean show up at a protest holding a flyer.
Oh wow, no-- go read the the court docs. Particularly what they obtained in discovery. Or just check out the appeals decision, which gives an okay summary (though it skips some of the schools wrongdoing that wasn't disputed): https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O...
They got in hot water because a dean was distributing flyers full of falsehoods, because the school posted in their buildings and refused to remove a resolution repeating the same falsehoods, because -- even knowing the claims were false they refused to issue any kind of retraction or reversing statement (because they thought doing so would anger the students), instead trying to extract a promise to not report shoplifters to the police anymore, and then the school barred one of their vendors from doing business with the bakery, causing a significant financial damage to it.
One could excuse the school for making some initial errors in judgement, but they aggressively refused to correct them even after the errors were abundantly clear.
Their actual award was much larger but the punitive damages were limited by damage caps to twice the compensatory damages -- too bad, because given Oberlin's wealth the ultimate cost is comparatively insignificant compared to the magnitude of their gross and sustained misconduct.
Oh wow, no-- go read the the court docs. Particularly what they obtained in discovery. Or just check out the appeals decision, which gives an okay summary (though it skips some of the schools wrongdoing that wasn't disputed): https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O...
They got in hot water because a dean was distributing flyers full of falsehoods, because the school posted in their buildings and refused to remove a resolution repeating the same falsehoods, because -- even knowing the claims were false they refused to issue any kind of retraction or reversing statement (because they thought doing so would anger the students), instead trying to extract a promise to not report shoplifters to the police anymore, and then the school barred one of their vendors from doing business with the bakery, causing a significant financial damage to it.
One could excuse the school for making some initial errors in judgement, but they aggressively refused to correct them even after the errors were abundantly clear.
Their actual award was much larger but the punitive damages were limited by damage caps to twice the compensatory damages -- too bad, because given Oberlin's wealth the ultimate cost is comparatively insignificant compared to the magnitude of their gross and sustained misconduct.
> Gibson’s also presented testimony that Oberlin had stopped ordering from the bakery but had offered to restore its business if charges were dropped against the three students or if the bakery gave students accused of shoplifting special treatment, which it refused to do
It's a lot more than that.
It's a lot more than that.
Yes, there's quite a bit more.
This judgement is problematic on so many fronts, most concerning is it chills free speech, and attaches popular moral precepts to political speech.
Oberlin is now responsible for the speech of its adult students and now must censor them in a Ministry of Truth like role to avoid civil liability. Must they also censor researchers debunking the efficacy of drugs in trials causing financial harm to Big Pharma?
Gibson's may even be right morally, they are unfairly maligned as racists, but free speech doesn't hinge on morality, but liberty.
Oberlin is now responsible for the speech of its adult students and now must censor them in a Ministry of Truth like role to avoid civil liability. Must they also censor researchers debunking the efficacy of drugs in trials causing financial harm to Big Pharma?
Gibson's may even be right morally, they are unfairly maligned as racists, but free speech doesn't hinge on morality, but liberty.
Not at all. What Oberlin isn't allowed to do is the same thing it wasn't allowed to do before - help organize a boycott of a legitimate business based on libelous accusations. The students can still do whatever they want to the extent that the institution chooses to not punish them.
Oberlin can arrange a boycott of a business like Gibson's for being "racist" or "pro-carceral" or any of a dozen other woke reasons. What they can't do is publish false statements of actual fact, like the assertion that an employee of Gibson's assaulted a student.
You can organize a boycott for any conceivable reason, the reason doesn't have to make logical sense, be politically correct, or moral.
Do you believe business are entitled to your money? And if they no longer earn your business they should be able to sue you?
This perversity happened during the Civil Rights movement, white business owners sued blacks who caused them financial losses for refusing to patronize their racist establishments.
Do you believe business are entitled to your money? And if they no longer earn your business they should be able to sue you?
This perversity happened during the Civil Rights movement, white business owners sued blacks who caused them financial losses for refusing to patronize their racist establishments.
I am not all sympathetic to Oberlin, but this judgement is absurd. It is many many lifetimes of income for a small bakery. Even if they were forced into bankruptcy, this is beyond the pale.
"The latest amount consists of about $5 million in compensatory damages, nearly $20 million in punitive damages, $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and almost $5 million in interest."
This only contributes to our litigious society where lawyers get rich through shakedowns, and we as citizens and consumers shoulder the price either through increased overhead that is passed on to us, or ever more absurd disclaimers and risk mitigation measures to prevent from frivolous suits.
So I am glad Oberlin lost overall, but the size of this judgement makes me very sad.
"The latest amount consists of about $5 million in compensatory damages, nearly $20 million in punitive damages, $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and almost $5 million in interest."
This only contributes to our litigious society where lawyers get rich through shakedowns, and we as citizens and consumers shoulder the price either through increased overhead that is passed on to us, or ever more absurd disclaimers and risk mitigation measures to prevent from frivolous suits.
So I am glad Oberlin lost overall, but the size of this judgement makes me very sad.
The judgment is mostly punitive damages and legal fees. Which seem warranted. A university with a billion dollar endowment manufactured claims of racism to destroy a small business. It didn’t just hurt the bakery, but the community at large. Manufacturing racism for political ends is socially harmful conduct just like the other sorts of conduct that warrants punitive damages.
Punitive damages in this case were around 2x economic damages, which came out to around $12MM. Gibson's wasn't just a bakery; they also owned a bunch of rental property in the area, and those interests were also harmed. The award does not appear tied to Oberlin's "billion dollar endowment" and, as we can see from their statement, hasn't even touched it.
Later
Nope, I'm wrong: the total punitive damages awarded to the Gibson were closer to 1x economic damages --- Oberlin got to 36MM by appealing and putting themselves on the hook for an additional 6MM in legal fees.
Also, I should be saying "compensatory" and not "economic", since there's a bunch of compensatory damage categories that aren't economic.
Later
Nope, I'm wrong: the total punitive damages awarded to the Gibson were closer to 1x economic damages --- Oberlin got to 36MM by appealing and putting themselves on the hook for an additional 6MM in legal fees.
Also, I should be saying "compensatory" and not "economic", since there's a bunch of compensatory damage categories that aren't economic.
This reporting about the depths the Gibsons were hurled into, just to serve as scapegoats without any evidence of wrongdoing, might change your mind.
The activists perpetuating the boycott were right about one thing: this is about way more than a single event or a single venue. https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/e765b3b3/oberlin...
The activists perpetuating the boycott were right about one thing: this is about way more than a single event or a single venue. https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/e765b3b3/oberlin...
> This only contributes to our litigious society where lawyers get rich through shakedowns
Even if the lawyers were to receive 100% of the payouts from these cases, we the public still benefit: the threat of these types of lawsuits prevents other similar abuses.
Even if the lawyers were to receive 100% of the payouts from these cases, we the public still benefit: the threat of these types of lawsuits prevents other similar abuses.
Indeed, and this is not in any way a shakedown. It is, in fact, an example of a victory over the mirror-image scenario, where a well-endowed entity rides roughshod over ordinary people by threatening to ruin them before, or even if, justice prevails.
The compensatory damages were based on an expert economic analysis, forward projecting 30 years of income based on the fact that the business had been operating since 1885. The damages weren't just to the bakery-- the bakers also owned two apartment buildings that were used as off campus housing by students and their income was damaged there as well.
The fact that Oberlin's misconduct has has zero serious consequences for the institution or the culpable staff shows that the punitive damages were far too small. There is little incentive to change their practices to avoid similar incidents in the future.
The fact that Oberlin's misconduct has has zero serious consequences for the institution or the culpable staff shows that the punitive damages were far too small. There is little incentive to change their practices to avoid similar incidents in the future.
That is what punitive damages are - they are not required to be connected to the size of the damage, they are meant to punish the defendant for royally (in the judge's view) fucking up, and send a message to other similar defendants to not do such things
And $5M in compensatory damages seems about right for 2 years of a successful small bakery
And $5M in compensatory damages seems about right for 2 years of a successful small bakery
Honestly I'm not very keen on pinning blame/monetary responsibility on single individuals/companies to 'prevent/deter' unknown future crimes. We shouldn't be signaling with big punishments bigger than the crimes call for. We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuing that future behavior. Not to stop others.
Why should I get 30 years for a crime that should be 5 years because they want to send a signal. Make it fair and make it equal.
Edit: Apparently this is a unpopular opinion. All I am calling for is that punishment meets the crime. Not meets the crime and exceeds it in order to prevent unrelated parties from committing the same crime. They aren't my responsibility.
Why should I get 30 years for a crime that should be 5 years because they want to send a signal. Make it fair and make it equal.
Edit: Apparently this is a unpopular opinion. All I am calling for is that punishment meets the crime. Not meets the crime and exceeds it in order to prevent unrelated parties from committing the same crime. They aren't my responsibility.
Why would we not want to stop others? Why not consider a positive side effect of deterring others? Sorry, what are you saying here does not make any sense to me at all.
It seems like that you are suggesting that we could simply not punish people at all for first offense, as long as they can credibly promise that they won’t reoffend. After all, if they won’t reoffend, under what you say, there is no point in punishing them at all. Sure, this means that people will know that they can scot-free offend one time, and so many more will likely do, especially if the risk of being caught is relatively low, but you explicitly want to ignore that. This is crazy to me. No society ever worked like that.
Additionally, deterrence function is not “virtue signaling”, this is not what the term means.
It seems like that you are suggesting that we could simply not punish people at all for first offense, as long as they can credibly promise that they won’t reoffend. After all, if they won’t reoffend, under what you say, there is no point in punishing them at all. Sure, this means that people will know that they can scot-free offend one time, and so many more will likely do, especially if the risk of being caught is relatively low, but you explicitly want to ignore that. This is crazy to me. No society ever worked like that.
Additionally, deterrence function is not “virtue signaling”, this is not what the term means.
Why should my punishment be more severe because you want to stop others from doing something in the future?
That's a disproportionate amount of punishment for the individual.
Punishment should be equal to the crime, not have an additional component to be used to deter others who I have no affiliation with.
Public prosecution is absolutely terrible way to deal with dealing out punishment. Not all individuals are the same, not all crimes are the same, but once you are given a guilty verdict judges are expected to give out sentencing guidelines that match similar tag lines/crimes regardless of circumstances.
Punishment should be more personalized and should be a performance improvement plan based on the individual and how they respond to the effective plan/action.
Public prosecution is absolutely terrible way to deal with dealing out punishment. Not all individuals are the same, not all crimes are the same, but once you are given a guilty verdict judges are expected to give out sentencing guidelines that match similar tag lines/crimes regardless of circumstances.
Punishment should be more personalized and should be a performance improvement plan based on the individual and how they respond to the effective plan/action.
I can only say that I thoroughly disagree with this, and I have every single society that has ever existed behind me.
So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime?
I really ask you to consider this from a moral standpoint.
Society isn't always right. Sometimes society just does things because it's easier, not because it's right.
I really ask you to consider this from a moral standpoint.
Society isn't always right. Sometimes society just does things because it's easier, not because it's right.
> So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime?
Exactly right. I want to send a message to potential criminals. I think that it’s highly beneficial to sacrifice the well being of a criminal in order to prevent more people from being victimized by other criminals. I think preventing crime is a strong moral imperative, and this is significantly more important consideration than the rights of criminals. In fact, I think putting the latter above the right of the people to not be victimized is morally despicable. I hope that my position is clear.
Exactly right. I want to send a message to potential criminals. I think that it’s highly beneficial to sacrifice the well being of a criminal in order to prevent more people from being victimized by other criminals. I think preventing crime is a strong moral imperative, and this is significantly more important consideration than the rights of criminals. In fact, I think putting the latter above the right of the people to not be victimized is morally despicable. I hope that my position is clear.
There's all kinds of people in this world and we can all live and have incompatible ideas.
Just as you have your position and defend it, so will I. This clash of ideals of various parties I believe helps bring out the ideal solution eventually.
The path of adding additional punishment onto the individual/company for the sake of deterrence I believe is the lazy/easy solution. I believe there are smarter/more complex solutions that require more work but are ultimately more just and fair.
We might see things differently but I believe we both want a better society and we differ on the way things may be achieved.
> We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuing that future behavior. Not to stop others.
I'd think that having your standard practice be to make sure it wasn't worth it would find the same amount as the threshhold for both deterring the current perpetrator and deterring others.
I'd think that having your standard practice be to make sure it wasn't worth it would find the same amount as the threshhold for both deterring the current perpetrator and deterring others.
There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. It's all about intentions.
And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. It's barbaric behavior.
Like cutting the hand off a thief so others know what will happen if they get caught stealing.
And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. It's barbaric behavior.
Like cutting the hand off a thief so others know what will happen if they get caught stealing.
> There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught.
That difference is not clear to me. What sort of deterrence to an individual would not also lead others to think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught? - or, to consider the contrapositive, if it does not invoke that thought in others, why would the convicted be deterred from trying again? The fact that they were caught once does not mean they will be next time.
Furthermore, I dispute the idea that deterring people from committing a harmful act, before that harm is done, is not a justifiable goal for a society (note that this does not imply that I must therefore endorse the cutting off of thieves' hands.) Quite often, the perpetrator cannot compensate fully for the harm done, and it is always better if it were not done in the first place.
We should note that what is being deterred here is Oberlin's decision to fight the case rather than accept its obvious responsibility and compensate the plaintiffs for the damage it did. Personally, I think this is a net benefit to society, and if it makes entities in similar situations think twice, so much the better.
That difference is not clear to me. What sort of deterrence to an individual would not also lead others to think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught? - or, to consider the contrapositive, if it does not invoke that thought in others, why would the convicted be deterred from trying again? The fact that they were caught once does not mean they will be next time.
Furthermore, I dispute the idea that deterring people from committing a harmful act, before that harm is done, is not a justifiable goal for a society (note that this does not imply that I must therefore endorse the cutting off of thieves' hands.) Quite often, the perpetrator cannot compensate fully for the harm done, and it is always better if it were not done in the first place.
We should note that what is being deterred here is Oberlin's decision to fight the case rather than accept its obvious responsibility and compensate the plaintiffs for the damage it did. Personally, I think this is a net benefit to society, and if it makes entities in similar situations think twice, so much the better.
> And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people.
Deterrence is the whole point of punishing crime. Every society in human history has done this. It's not "barbaric," what's "barbaric" is allowing criminals to do horrible things to innocent people without any incentive against it.
Deterrence is the whole point of punishing crime. Every society in human history has done this. It's not "barbaric," what's "barbaric" is allowing criminals to do horrible things to innocent people without any incentive against it.
Deterrence for the individual is fine only if it's made with sole intention/consideration of that individual. Additional punishment added on to deter unrelated future parties is not fine. I am not responsible for the future people and their actions.
> amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them
That's not how it works, it's about getting the accountants or lawyers or whoever to tell that person's boss "this can be expected to cost us $XXXX".
That's not how it works, it's about getting the accountants or lawyers or whoever to tell that person's boss "this can be expected to cost us $XXXX".
Lawyers are sophisticated bunch they know these amounts will garner taglines. Do you honestly believe that these lawyers/judges don't incorporate public perception into their accounts of what they think a fitting punishment is and use them as a way to lead public policy/deterrence for particular crimes?
By your logic rich organizations can purposefully commit crimes against small businesses knowing the fines will be incredibly small.
There's nothing wrong with big punishments if it meets the crimes. But I shouldn't have disproportionate punishment so that my case can be used as taglines/references on "you could get this huge big punishment so don't do it."
The magnitude of punitive damages is not to deter others. It's to deter the responsible party. They are calibrated to be large enough to catch the attention of the party being held responsible.
If they were meant to deter others, they would be pegged to the size of other potential wrongdoers. But they are not. They are pegged to the size of the actual wrongdoer.
If they were meant to deter others, they would be pegged to the size of other potential wrongdoers. But they are not. They are pegged to the size of the actual wrongdoer.
And size is already calculated in with the idea of deterring others based on sentencing guidelines.
Sentencing guidelines are for criminal convictions. This was a civil case. There are also no punitive damages in criminal convictions. This area of law is a bit nuanced, and the details matter. In the US, criminal punishments are not ratcheted up based on your wealth. I believe there are some Nordic countries where this is done, with traffic violations at least.
> All I am calling for is that punishment meets the crime. Not meets the crime and exceeds it in order to prevent unrelated parties from committing the same crime.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. The whole point of the criminal-justice system is to attempt to deter criminal behavior. It's practically definitional.
Although the systems have often been merged in recent times, many places (including some parts of the US) had two entirely separate court systems: a "court of law" for the enforcement of laws by the government, and the imposition of punitive sanctions to discourage behaviors by making them unprofitable to engage in, and "courts of equity" wherein individuals could bring suits directly against each other and where the judges had broad discretion to impose various remedies (e.g. specific performance).
An example would be if your neighbor stole one of your cows: the government (often in the form of a sheriff or magistrate or similar) could decide to go after them in a court of law, because having people stealing each others' livestock is socially corrosive, hence why it's illegal. But you as the owner of the cow could petition a court of equity for relief, independently of the government's decision to pursue action in a court of law. The court of equity's remedy might basically be "give back the cow", or if they had already eaten the cow, maybe they'd tell them to give you an equivalent cow instead.
There are a few US states that still maintain these dual systems: Delaware is the most well-known one, and its Court of Chancery deals with lots of contract disputes and such between private parties. Tennessee and a few other states are similar.
AFAICT the existence of courts of law (or their equivalents) are almost universal features of complex civilizations and probably governments generally.
If there's no punishment for breaking the law, you don't have laws, merely polite suggestions.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. The whole point of the criminal-justice system is to attempt to deter criminal behavior. It's practically definitional.
Although the systems have often been merged in recent times, many places (including some parts of the US) had two entirely separate court systems: a "court of law" for the enforcement of laws by the government, and the imposition of punitive sanctions to discourage behaviors by making them unprofitable to engage in, and "courts of equity" wherein individuals could bring suits directly against each other and where the judges had broad discretion to impose various remedies (e.g. specific performance).
An example would be if your neighbor stole one of your cows: the government (often in the form of a sheriff or magistrate or similar) could decide to go after them in a court of law, because having people stealing each others' livestock is socially corrosive, hence why it's illegal. But you as the owner of the cow could petition a court of equity for relief, independently of the government's decision to pursue action in a court of law. The court of equity's remedy might basically be "give back the cow", or if they had already eaten the cow, maybe they'd tell them to give you an equivalent cow instead.
There are a few US states that still maintain these dual systems: Delaware is the most well-known one, and its Court of Chancery deals with lots of contract disputes and such between private parties. Tennessee and a few other states are similar.
AFAICT the existence of courts of law (or their equivalents) are almost universal features of complex civilizations and probably governments generally.
If there's no punishment for breaking the law, you don't have laws, merely polite suggestions.
The four traditional functions of criminal punishment are Retribution (an eye for an eye, or the punishment meeting the crime) Deterrence (for fear of punishment, people do not commit crimes), Rehabilitation (correcting the behavior), and Incapacitation (someone in jail cannot commit crimes).
One downside to retribution only is that the odds of being caught for a crime are less than 100%, so someone stands to gain more than they stand to lose by breaking the crime. For example if the punishment for tax perjury was commensurate with my ill gotten gains, I wouldn't have any reason outside of a personal moral framework not to lie. But if instead I can go to prison for 3 years, a good chance to save a fair chunk of money is much less attractive.
One downside to retribution only is that the odds of being caught for a crime are less than 100%, so someone stands to gain more than they stand to lose by breaking the crime. For example if the punishment for tax perjury was commensurate with my ill gotten gains, I wouldn't have any reason outside of a personal moral framework not to lie. But if instead I can go to prison for 3 years, a good chance to save a fair chunk of money is much less attractive.
> Edit: Apparently this is a unpopular opinion. All I am calling for is that punishment meets the crime.
Have you heard of "treble damages"?
I think treble damages are easily within the realm of fitting the crime. And the full $30M before interest is less than 3x the $11.5M in combined bakery and legal losses.
Also, you have to factor in the chance of getting punished. If a parking meter had a fifty cent fine for not paying, nobody would ever pay.
Have you heard of "treble damages"?
I think treble damages are easily within the realm of fitting the crime. And the full $30M before interest is less than 3x the $11.5M in combined bakery and legal losses.
Also, you have to factor in the chance of getting punished. If a parking meter had a fifty cent fine for not paying, nobody would ever pay.
Because we need incentives so that egregiously bad, intentional behavior doesn’t become a business decision for the rich.
Punish those individuals when the time comes, punish them for the equal amount of crime they caused. Don't add additional punishment in order to add a deterrence for others.
You should not punish people to stop the future actions of unrelated people by giving certain ones bigger punishments than meets the crime.
You should not punish people to stop the future actions of unrelated people by giving certain ones bigger punishments than meets the crime.
When a single individual/company intentionally dors something bad why not pin it on them? The payment should be more than just making the victim whole. And it should be enough to make sure the aggressor doesn't do it again. At the same time that should also be a deterrent to others.
I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Why should the punishment for the crime be increased to be used as a deterrent for others?
Add a deterrence but only make the deterrence with the intention/scope of the individual who committed the crime.
Don't add a deterrence with the intention of stopping other unrelated parties. That is an unfair assessment of my individual crime and the harm that I caused.
That is an unequal punishment/consideration that shouldn't be included in the process.
Add a deterrence but only make the deterrence with the intention/scope of the individual who committed the crime.
Don't add a deterrence with the intention of stopping other unrelated parties. That is an unfair assessment of my individual crime and the harm that I caused.
That is an unequal punishment/consideration that shouldn't be included in the process.
This seems like an insane opinion to me. The college is extremely wealthy and made a considered choice to repeatedly slander a small business and attempt to bankrupt it. The college acted like a malevolent psychopath, not in the heat of the moment or at the end of some escalatory chain, but after plenty of time to consider and deliberate. The punishment must be a large dollar figure because the college is so rich - if it were small then it would not punish the college. As is, the punishment is much too small.
I have no opinion on whether this particular college punishment is equal to the crime. I was responding to that one poster on the merits of punishing more significantly for crimes to deter other unrelated future people who may or may not commit similar crimes.
"Punitive damages".
The problem is the power asymmetry between the powerful and the weak. You address that by making it too expensive from the powerful's perspective, not by making it equitable from the weak's perspective.
The problem is the power asymmetry between the powerful and the weak. You address that by making it too expensive from the powerful's perspective, not by making it equitable from the weak's perspective.
$5 million in compensatory damages is far from a lifetime of income for this store. They did a very good business before Oberlin drag them through the mud and were a staple for town and gown alike. It wasn’t just a cookie and cake shop.
> So I am glad Oberlin lost overall, but the size of this judgement makes me very sad.
If it had been a much smaller amount then the college would not care about losing one bit. They might even revel in losing as a way of burnishing their activist bona fides. It would be like a marketing expense if it were an order of magnitude lower.
If it had been a much smaller amount then the college would not care about losing one bit. They might even revel in losing as a way of burnishing their activist bona fides. It would be like a marketing expense if it were an order of magnitude lower.
[deleted]
Hence the punitive damages. It doesn't go nearly far enough. Even if Oberlin College had to pay the $36 million (spoiler: it does not and this will never effect it financially) it would barely notice it.
To truly deter this kind of behavior, at least 40% of their endowment should be taken as punitive damages. They should be put in a bad enough situation financially that they need a bailout.
To truly deter this kind of behavior, at least 40% of their endowment should be taken as punitive damages. They should be put in a bad enough situation financially that they need a bailout.
[deleted]
Its unfortunate you are getting down voted. Yours is a legitimate comment, people are free to disagree but down voting is for comments that are flame bait garbage, not just because one disagrees.
Meredith Raimondo, the Dean of Students at the time, who was passing out flyers and far more, nine months ago to accept a position as Vice President of Student Affairs at Oglethorpe University https://oberlinreview.org/25680/news/former-dos-meredith-rai...
From the NYTimes:
> In a statement, Oberlin said that “this matter has been painful for everyone.” It added, “We hope that the end of the litigation will begin the healing of our entire community.”
> The college acknowledged that the size of the judgment, which includes damages and interest, was “significant.” But it said that “with careful financial planning,” including insurance, it could be paid “without impacting our academic and student experience.” Oberlin has a robust endowment of nearly $1 billion.
So what has Oberlin really learned?