Privatizing Poverty(thebaffler.com)
thebaffler.com
Privatizing Poverty
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/privatizing-poverty-phillips-fein
198 comments
> That is the most logical as a fine is supoosed to be a deterrent and it does not deter if you are super rich.
That is why that system doesn't work. For most things the required amount of deterrent doesn't depend on your income. For example, if it costs $100 to dispose of motor oil properly but $0 to dump it in the sewer then the fine has to be at least $100. But that means it needs to be at least $100 for everybody, or there will be people who find it profitable -- even to the point of setting up a "motor oil disposal" company where they dump everyone's motor oil in the sewer and then just pay the fines. But if you set the amount high enough that it deters the lowest income person and then scale it with income, you end up with unnecessarily draconian penalties on ordinary people.
It also becomes an obvious arbitrage opportunity. For example, if a rich person wants to travel fast by car then they get a low-income chauffeur so that the speeding fine is less. Income-based systems are always susceptible to this, where the super rich pay the cost of doing the arbitrage and what the system really ends up doing is hammering the middle class because they can't justify the arbitrage so they end up paying higher rates than the rich. See also corporate income tax, paid by local businesses but not huge international ones.
Finland only gets away with it because they have much less income inequality, and in particular much less poverty, so the ratio typically doesn't scale to the point that it starts causing huge problems like this.
That is why that system doesn't work. For most things the required amount of deterrent doesn't depend on your income. For example, if it costs $100 to dispose of motor oil properly but $0 to dump it in the sewer then the fine has to be at least $100. But that means it needs to be at least $100 for everybody, or there will be people who find it profitable -- even to the point of setting up a "motor oil disposal" company where they dump everyone's motor oil in the sewer and then just pay the fines. But if you set the amount high enough that it deters the lowest income person and then scale it with income, you end up with unnecessarily draconian penalties on ordinary people.
It also becomes an obvious arbitrage opportunity. For example, if a rich person wants to travel fast by car then they get a low-income chauffeur so that the speeding fine is less. Income-based systems are always susceptible to this, where the super rich pay the cost of doing the arbitrage and what the system really ends up doing is hammering the middle class because they can't justify the arbitrage so they end up paying higher rates than the rich. See also corporate income tax, paid by local businesses but not huge international ones.
Finland only gets away with it because they have much less income inequality, and in particular much less poverty, so the ratio typically doesn't scale to the point that it starts causing huge problems like this.
I'm not really seeing the downside of arbitrage. Do you have a better example?
Rich people deciding not to drive and hiring professional drivers and/or using Uber, Lyft, or a taxi doesn't seem like a problem. The incentive worked. I doubt people driving as a business are all that eager to lose their license.
Rich people deciding not to drive and hiring professional drivers and/or using Uber, Lyft, or a taxi doesn't seem like a problem. The incentive worked. I doubt people driving as a business are all that eager to lose their license.
> I'm not really seeing the downside of arbitrage.
The downside is that you're failing to do the thing you set out to do. In theory the rich person (say $1,000,000 in income) places a high value on their time, so you impose a higher fine on them (say $20,000) to try to deter them. But the Uber driver only makes $20,000 total, so the fine for them is only $400. Meanwhile a middle class person making $50,000 pays $1000 -- 2.5X what the rich person incurs (assuming the fine the Uber driver pays is amortized over the fares).
> Do you have a better example?
Name basically anything that incurs a fine. A rich person who wants to do it and is "deterred" by the high fine just hires a poor person to do it for them. This is often what they do anyway because it saves them the labor independent of lowering the fine.
> I doubt people driving as a business are all that eager to lose their license.
But that has nothing to do with the fine, it's a separate penalty which doesn't exist in most other categories, apparently isn't sufficient (everybody speeds anyway), and the incentives of the driver and passenger are already aligned. They both want to get there faster, the passenger to save time, the driver so they can get another fare sooner.
The downside is that you're failing to do the thing you set out to do. In theory the rich person (say $1,000,000 in income) places a high value on their time, so you impose a higher fine on them (say $20,000) to try to deter them. But the Uber driver only makes $20,000 total, so the fine for them is only $400. Meanwhile a middle class person making $50,000 pays $1000 -- 2.5X what the rich person incurs (assuming the fine the Uber driver pays is amortized over the fares).
> Do you have a better example?
Name basically anything that incurs a fine. A rich person who wants to do it and is "deterred" by the high fine just hires a poor person to do it for them. This is often what they do anyway because it saves them the labor independent of lowering the fine.
> I doubt people driving as a business are all that eager to lose their license.
But that has nothing to do with the fine, it's a separate penalty which doesn't exist in most other categories, apparently isn't sufficient (everybody speeds anyway), and the incentives of the driver and passenger are already aligned. They both want to get there faster, the passenger to save time, the driver so they can get another fare sooner.
I think you're presuming the loophole here a bit too quickly. It shouldnt be difficult to determine when it is that a wealthy person hired a less wealthy person to do the unsavory thing in order to exploit the lower fine.
More to the point brought up about Finland's lower wealth inequality: yeah, that should be what we're shooting for. Say we return to a robust progressive income tax system where if you make over say, 10 million dollars a year, you get taxed 90%. The arbitrage loophole doesnt work because, what, are you going to split up your 10M/Year income between 20 different less wealthy people and have them spend your money for you in order to avoid the tax?
What am I saying, of course the rich would find a way to skirt taxes. It's like, their whole shtick. I loathe the whole "Of course I'll do every shady, up to and including illegal things, to pay less taxes because if theres a loophole I want to exploit it". No, in fact you are acting being an anti-social cretin who neglects to give back to the society that produced the material conditions that allows for your wealth.
More to the point brought up about Finland's lower wealth inequality: yeah, that should be what we're shooting for. Say we return to a robust progressive income tax system where if you make over say, 10 million dollars a year, you get taxed 90%. The arbitrage loophole doesnt work because, what, are you going to split up your 10M/Year income between 20 different less wealthy people and have them spend your money for you in order to avoid the tax?
What am I saying, of course the rich would find a way to skirt taxes. It's like, their whole shtick. I loathe the whole "Of course I'll do every shady, up to and including illegal things, to pay less taxes because if theres a loophole I want to exploit it". No, in fact you are acting being an anti-social cretin who neglects to give back to the society that produced the material conditions that allows for your wealth.
> It shouldnt be difficult to determine when it is that a wealthy person hired a less wealthy person to do the unsavory thing in order to exploit the lower fine.
How? You would have to prove collusion between them rather than just a normal contractor-type relationship where the contractor does something unsavory entirely of their own volition.
> Say we return to a robust progressive income tax system where if you make over say, 10 million dollars a year, you get taxed 90%. The arbitrage loophole doesnt work because, what, are you going to split up your 10M/Year income between 20 different less wealthy people and have them spend your money for you in order to avoid the tax?
Of course. That's exactly what happens in those types of situations. As soon as you hit the 90% rate, the next thing you know the spouse is on the payroll, or the kids, the parents, brothers and sisters, in-laws, cousins, friends of the family etc.
> What am I saying, of course the rich would find a way to skirt taxes. It's like, their whole shtick. I loathe the whole "Of course I'll do every shady, up to and including illegal things, to pay less taxes because if theres a loophole I want to exploit it". No, in fact you are acting being an anti-social cretin who neglects to give back to the society that produced the material conditions that allows for your wealth.
Right, which is why you need policies they can't avoid instead of ones like this which they can.
The best way to do this is a UBI funded by a flat tax. The rich can't arbitrage a flat rate and the UBI makes it progressive (meaning net transfer from rich to poor).
How? You would have to prove collusion between them rather than just a normal contractor-type relationship where the contractor does something unsavory entirely of their own volition.
> Say we return to a robust progressive income tax system where if you make over say, 10 million dollars a year, you get taxed 90%. The arbitrage loophole doesnt work because, what, are you going to split up your 10M/Year income between 20 different less wealthy people and have them spend your money for you in order to avoid the tax?
Of course. That's exactly what happens in those types of situations. As soon as you hit the 90% rate, the next thing you know the spouse is on the payroll, or the kids, the parents, brothers and sisters, in-laws, cousins, friends of the family etc.
> What am I saying, of course the rich would find a way to skirt taxes. It's like, their whole shtick. I loathe the whole "Of course I'll do every shady, up to and including illegal things, to pay less taxes because if theres a loophole I want to exploit it". No, in fact you are acting being an anti-social cretin who neglects to give back to the society that produced the material conditions that allows for your wealth.
Right, which is why you need policies they can't avoid instead of ones like this which they can.
The best way to do this is a UBI funded by a flat tax. The rich can't arbitrage a flat rate and the UBI makes it progressive (meaning net transfer from rich to poor).
To the first point, good question. I dont know how we could solve that problem writ large.
As to UBI, I am all for it but I have concerns as well. Like a super basic one being what is to stop commodity prices inflating proportionately to the new lowest possible income set by UBI. Say UBI is 20k for every human on Earth. Great, but what's to stop the rise in prices of commodities to essentially UBI adjusted income + original price of commodity? Im genuinely curious what you think.
As to UBI, I am all for it but I have concerns as well. Like a super basic one being what is to stop commodity prices inflating proportionately to the new lowest possible income set by UBI. Say UBI is 20k for every human on Earth. Great, but what's to stop the rise in prices of commodities to essentially UBI adjusted income + original price of commodity? Im genuinely curious what you think.
> Like a super basic one being what is to stop commodity prices inflating proportionately to the new lowest possible income set by UBI. Say UBI is 20k for every human on Earth. Great, but what's to stop the rise in prices of commodities to essentially UBI adjusted income + original price of commodity? Im genuinely curious what you think.
So this is always the argument people make against a UBI because it sounds plausible and the answer is complicated.
The first thing to notice is that the same concern is present for any method of reducing poverty/inequality whatsoever. If the poor have more money then they'll want to buy more stuff and by supply and demand the higher demand raises the price of certain products. It's a thing that happens.
But the only way it eats 100% of the money is if everything has zero price elasticity of supply. Which it doesn't. For example, if people want more land, well, sorry, the supply is pretty much fixed. But if people want more housing, that we know how to construct, so if more people could afford it then we could just build more. (If we have asinine laws against building more housing, well, that is an independent problem with an independent solution.)
And most of the things people want are not practically limited in supply. If more people could afford a sailboat then businesses would make more sailboats. If more people could afford new clothes then businesses would make more clothes. It's not as if there is an insufficient supply of wood or cotton -- for many products the dominant cost is the R&D or some other fixed cost and having more buyers could make the unit price come down.
So this is always the argument people make against a UBI because it sounds plausible and the answer is complicated.
The first thing to notice is that the same concern is present for any method of reducing poverty/inequality whatsoever. If the poor have more money then they'll want to buy more stuff and by supply and demand the higher demand raises the price of certain products. It's a thing that happens.
But the only way it eats 100% of the money is if everything has zero price elasticity of supply. Which it doesn't. For example, if people want more land, well, sorry, the supply is pretty much fixed. But if people want more housing, that we know how to construct, so if more people could afford it then we could just build more. (If we have asinine laws against building more housing, well, that is an independent problem with an independent solution.)
And most of the things people want are not practically limited in supply. If more people could afford a sailboat then businesses would make more sailboats. If more people could afford new clothes then businesses would make more clothes. It's not as if there is an insufficient supply of wood or cotton -- for many products the dominant cost is the R&D or some other fixed cost and having more buyers could make the unit price come down.
It does create jobs. And I didn't think the goal was to eliminate speeding, but rather to not do worse than average.
A progressive fine isn't going to solve inequality.
A progressive fine isn't going to solve inequality.
> It does create jobs.
Poverty-level jobs, by definition, because the prerequisite to being a good fine-sink is having a low income.
> A progressive fine isn't going to solve inequality.
The problem is that it makes it worse by effectively imposing higher fines on middle income people than the super rich.
Poverty-level jobs, by definition, because the prerequisite to being a good fine-sink is having a low income.
> A progressive fine isn't going to solve inequality.
The problem is that it makes it worse by effectively imposing higher fines on middle income people than the super rich.
This is not an insurmountable hurdle. For people too poor to afford even the lowest fine, you can do something like community service at an effective pay rate of minimum wage in lieu of the fine.
In the case of breaking the law for hire, you can make the employer jointly liable, as is already the case for most crimes.
In the case of breaking the law for hire, you can make the employer jointly liable, as is already the case for most crimes.
> For people too poor to afford even the lowest fine, you can do something like community service at an effective pay rate of minimum wage in lieu of the fine.
The problem is the opposite of that -- it isn't that the fine on low income people is too high, it's that it's too low to be a deterrent unless you make it high enough that scaling it makes is unnecessarily harsh for middle class people.
> In the case of breaking the law for hire, you can make the employer jointly liable, as is already the case for most crimes.
At which point you might as well just disband all large enterprises immediately because you've set up a system where you multiply the base rate of misbehavior by both the number of employees and the company's total revenue, which are both just proxies for size and so the penalty isn't just proportional, it's N-squared.
You also can't avoid the problem unless you go all the way to the root of ownership or people will just outsource the activity to a shell company, but then you end up imposing a billion dollar fine for littering because the offender works for a company which is owned by a mutual fund.
The problem is the opposite of that -- it isn't that the fine on low income people is too high, it's that it's too low to be a deterrent unless you make it high enough that scaling it makes is unnecessarily harsh for middle class people.
> In the case of breaking the law for hire, you can make the employer jointly liable, as is already the case for most crimes.
At which point you might as well just disband all large enterprises immediately because you've set up a system where you multiply the base rate of misbehavior by both the number of employees and the company's total revenue, which are both just proxies for size and so the penalty isn't just proportional, it's N-squared.
You also can't avoid the problem unless you go all the way to the root of ownership or people will just outsource the activity to a shell company, but then you end up imposing a billion dollar fine for littering because the offender works for a company which is owned by a mutual fund.
> [The problem is when the fine is] too low to be a deterrent unless you make it high enough that scaling it makes is unnecessarily harsh for middle class people.
Easy fix: Set the fine as "N times daily wage, but at least X".
Easy fix: Set the fine as "N times daily wage, but at least X".
> Easy fix: Set the fine as "N times daily wage, but at least X".
At which point low and middle income people all pay the same fine or as close to it as makes no difference, rich people avoid it through arbitrage and you have a system with no significant effect (except maybe that the super rich still pay less than the upper middle class).
At which point low and middle income people all pay the same fine or as close to it as makes no difference, rich people avoid it through arbitrage and you have a system with no significant effect (except maybe that the super rich still pay less than the upper middle class).
There is actually a constitutional right to be free of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the U.S. Judges just have to start ruling that $250 is cruel when someone is in poverty.
There is also a right to a "fair and speedy trial". Judges just have to start ruling that sitting in county jail for six months waiting for trial is unconstitutional.
There is also a right to a "fair and speedy trial". Judges just have to start ruling that sitting in county jail for six months waiting for trial is unconstitutional.
SCOTUS has already ruled that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment - more specifically, that since it is not unusual, it is not a Constitutional violation despite where you feel it falls on the cruelty spectrum. A common pleas or even circuit court judge can't simply say "lol whatever I'm going to ignore that." Only SCOTUS can reverse its position on the Constitutionality of the death penalty.
SCOTUS has ruled that the death penalty _is_ cruel and unusual punishment in many circumstances.
For example, in 1980 they ruled that it could only be applied only if it involves a precise and aggravating factor[0].
Louisiana had a law that made the rape of a child punishable by death and SCOTUS overturned that law in 2008[1].
SCOTUS has consistent narrowed the crimes punishable by death in the past 50 years using the Eighth Amendment as a justification.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana
For example, in 1980 they ruled that it could only be applied only if it involves a precise and aggravating factor[0].
Louisiana had a law that made the rape of a child punishable by death and SCOTUS overturned that law in 2008[1].
SCOTUS has consistent narrowed the crimes punishable by death in the past 50 years using the Eighth Amendment as a justification.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana
Just look at the number of executions of people with mental handicaps and tell me the current justice system is capable of acting in a just fashion.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/list-defendants-mental-retardat...
The parent has not made such a claim.
s/"in many"/"in certain, very specific"
That does not change the fact that SCOTUS has upheld the death penalty generally as being a Constitutional punishment.
That does not change the fact that SCOTUS has upheld the death penalty generally as being a Constitutional punishment.
Your substitution is inaccurate. The rulings effectively mean that the death penalty is cruel and unusual except in certain, very specific circumstances. Only the most extreme crimes qualify. Even the rape of a child is not extreme enough unless done multiple times. It might seem applicable to only a few cases, but that is only because few states attempt to apply the death penalty except in the most extreme circumstances.
A lower level court judge can make a ruling, like finding a $250 fine for a poor person cruel, that stands, because it's not a SCOTUS issue. The death penatly sure, and the legality of it has already been decided in the U.S., and is usually for serious crimes. But for low-level offenses, the likes of which are rarely — or basically never — brought before SCOTUS or higher level courts, a judge can rule in any way he sees fair, as that's his job.
> Only SCOTUS can reverse its position on the Constitutionality of the death penalty.
Yes, although there are many things that SCOTUS ruled constitutional that are just unpopular in this day and age that nobody treads in that territory.
So we and all the states have the choice to just not practice that, for example. Yes, in this case that is unlikely. Still an option.
Yes, although there are many things that SCOTUS ruled constitutional that are just unpopular in this day and age that nobody treads in that territory.
So we and all the states have the choice to just not practice that, for example. Yes, in this case that is unlikely. Still an option.
Of course the states are free to outlaw the death penalty, that doesn't address whether or not it is Constitutional. There are plenty of things that are completely Constitutional but which are outlawed in the majority of states.
As far as popularity goes though, the death penalty has been more popular than not for all but a brief time in the 60's[0], and I think it's dangerous to conflate popularity with Constitutionality, or to suggest even implicitly that they should have any bearing on each other.
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
As far as popularity goes though, the death penalty has been more popular than not for all but a brief time in the 60's[0], and I think it's dangerous to conflate popularity with Constitutionality, or to suggest even implicitly that they should have any bearing on each other.
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
But SCOTUS can only reverse what is brought to it, right ? So a circuit court judge has to ignore that so that SCOTUS can have the occasion to reverse its position ?
Bear with me, I am not from the US.
Bear with me, I am not from the US.
That's not quite how it works. The lower court would be expected to uphold SCOTUS's rulings, though there is some wiggle room.
The main way things get before SCOTUS is through the parties appealing the lower court decisions and then SCOTUS deciding to hear it.
The main way things get before SCOTUS is through the parties appealing the lower court decisions and then SCOTUS deciding to hear it.
Most of the time it is not the judge that delays the trial, but the lawyers. The first hearing is generally in a few days.
Ok, so for the latter do you then just release people? You can't fix a judicial system by mere declaration.
Well, look at the alternative. Under the current system, besides the destructiveness of incarcerating often innocent people for months for trivial charges, you wind up with people pleading guilty to crimes they never committed, just to avoid being locked up for months.
A basic principle of common law and the American justice system is that it's better to free the guilty than imprison the innocent. So just on American principles, letting poor people go on the assumption that they'll return for trial is better than keeping them in jail for lack of bail.
A basic principle of common law and the American justice system is that it's better to free the guilty than imprison the innocent. So just on American principles, letting poor people go on the assumption that they'll return for trial is better than keeping them in jail for lack of bail.
This is a misrepresentation of the legal system in the US. There's an immense amount of information on this topic available from the Bureaeu of Justice Statistics. This [1] paper in particular is highly relevant.
Bail tends to be set in relation to the criminal record of an individual, the seriousness of an offense, how much of a flight risk they are, and whether or not they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others if released. It's not the 'norm'. So for instance of all individuals (arrested for any offense) 77% of those with no priors end up being released without financial condition. For those with misdemeanor priors it's 63% and 46% for those with felony priors.
And there are excellent test cases that can experimentally show whether these release conditions are reasonable. For instance there are occasional emergency releases caused by things such as prison overcrowding. And this is where people that would not normally be released without condition, are. Of these individuals 52% end up being charged with pretrial misconduct! For the general population of people intentionally released that figure ranges from 27%-36% depending on the release type.
And when somebody is forced to pay bail, they have numerous options. Generally they only have to pay 10% of the cost of the bail. In some cases that can be paid directly to the court who will then refund that 10% once they return for and complete their trial. If that's not an option the way bail bondsmen work is that an individual pays the bail bondsmen 10%. The bail bondsmen then go to the court and pay 100% of the bail on behalf of the individual. They get that 100% back once the individual returns and completes their trial, so the 10% is their profit margin. This is also where modern day 'bounting hunting' tends to come into play -- the bail bondsmen have a very strong incentive to ensure that their clients do not flee.
---
So the point of this all is that in the vast majority of cases we do simply let people go on the assumption they'll return to trial. For those that we don't let go, there tends to be a pretty good reason. That article from the BJS I linked has a great table at the bottom that offers some regression figures for release/return rates of various groups helping to determine how justified various decisions are. In most cases they are, in some cases they are not. It's pretty reasonable to conclude that it's a system that does well, but could be made to do better. But it's quite different from what you would portray it as.
[1] - https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf
Bail tends to be set in relation to the criminal record of an individual, the seriousness of an offense, how much of a flight risk they are, and whether or not they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others if released. It's not the 'norm'. So for instance of all individuals (arrested for any offense) 77% of those with no priors end up being released without financial condition. For those with misdemeanor priors it's 63% and 46% for those with felony priors.
And there are excellent test cases that can experimentally show whether these release conditions are reasonable. For instance there are occasional emergency releases caused by things such as prison overcrowding. And this is where people that would not normally be released without condition, are. Of these individuals 52% end up being charged with pretrial misconduct! For the general population of people intentionally released that figure ranges from 27%-36% depending on the release type.
And when somebody is forced to pay bail, they have numerous options. Generally they only have to pay 10% of the cost of the bail. In some cases that can be paid directly to the court who will then refund that 10% once they return for and complete their trial. If that's not an option the way bail bondsmen work is that an individual pays the bail bondsmen 10%. The bail bondsmen then go to the court and pay 100% of the bail on behalf of the individual. They get that 100% back once the individual returns and completes their trial, so the 10% is their profit margin. This is also where modern day 'bounting hunting' tends to come into play -- the bail bondsmen have a very strong incentive to ensure that their clients do not flee.
---
So the point of this all is that in the vast majority of cases we do simply let people go on the assumption they'll return to trial. For those that we don't let go, there tends to be a pretty good reason. That article from the BJS I linked has a great table at the bottom that offers some regression figures for release/return rates of various groups helping to determine how justified various decisions are. In most cases they are, in some cases they are not. It's pretty reasonable to conclude that it's a system that does well, but could be made to do better. But it's quite different from what you would portray it as.
[1] - https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf
"Pre-trial misconduct" is not the same as something that is actually dangerous to society. People released prior to trial are held to a much higher standard than the rest of the population. Most of the pre-trial misconduct is just technical violations, like failing to maintain employment or not reporting in at the scheduled times. Of all people released pre-trial, 17% commit a technical violation while only 4% commit a new crime[1].
[1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prmfdc0810.pdf
[1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prmfdc0810.pdf
You're making the same mistake I did. Unfortunately something that's easy to gloss over is that these PDFs are broken up into groups that seem somewhat arbitrary, making comparison and extrapolation difficult. For instance the one you're mentioning is only for cases in federal district courts which is a very different demographic than arrestees at large. Similarly, my original source only was considering state level felony offenses (though that makes the 77% ending up released even more remarkable, but that 77% was not exclusively for no financial condition).
I'm trying to find a more comprehensive article containing data across both misdemeanors/felonies and state/federal courts, but running up short. Their data seems to be heavily segmented in not so useful ways. If you find something along these lines I'd very much appreciate if you'd ping it regardless of its direct relevance.
I'm trying to find a more comprehensive article containing data across both misdemeanors/felonies and state/federal courts, but running up short. Their data seems to be heavily segmented in not so useful ways. If you find something along these lines I'd very much appreciate if you'd ping it regardless of its direct relevance.
Do you have evidence that the breakdown of technical violations vs new crime is different across different segments?
I think it'd be pretty intuitive that there would be radically different rates for things among different groups, but sure check out page 7/8 of the felony document I originally linked. The rate of individuals being arrested for a new offense ranged from 13%-21%, felony rearrest rates ranged from 10%-13%, and so on.
One other thing you have to look at as well is the time frame. As time goes on you get closer to the real 'risk' rates. That's also detailed at the top of page 7. For instance only 8% of those those that would be rearrested were rearrested within a week, which goes to 29% in a month, 62% in 3 months, and 85% in 6 months.
Again it's very disappointing that the data aren't more clearly quantified and classified across documents.
One other thing you have to look at as well is the time frame. As time goes on you get closer to the real 'risk' rates. That's also detailed at the top of page 7. For instance only 8% of those those that would be rearrested were rearrested within a week, which goes to 29% in a month, 62% in 3 months, and 85% in 6 months.
Again it's very disappointing that the data aren't more clearly quantified and classified across documents.
I think it'd be pretty intuitive that there would be radically different rates for things among different groups, but sure check out page 7/8 of the felony document I originally linked. The rate of individuals being arrested for a new offense ranged from 13%-21%, felony rearrest rates ranged from 10%-13%, and so on.
I'll observe that none of the statistics you offer covers the demographic of the article. I would be willing to wager that if you look at the same statistics split across income levels, you'll see a noticeable difference in rates.
If you accept for the sake of argument that a six month jail sentence waiting for trial is a violation of your Constitutional right to a speedy trial (it's not[0], particularly if you're waiving a jury trial and are being tried by a judge), the person whose rights were violated would need to sue and appeal on those grounds. It's very unlikely that on day 121 the judge dismisses the case, but they're certainly free to do that if they feel it was a violation.
[0] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/right-to-a-sp...
[0] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/right-to-a-sp...
I'm not sure it would be unlikely given the narratives of the article. At least it shouldn't be. Judges exist, partly, to prevent Kafkaesque application of rules from causing injustice.
Sure. That's already basically how it works with rules for gathering evidence, for example. If you improperly gather evidence, it becomes inadmissible, and if it was critical to making your case then the accused will go free.
Once criminals start going free because of easily fixed procedural problems, those problems will be fixed quickly.
Once criminals start going free because of easily fixed procedural problems, those problems will be fixed quickly.
Sounds good. It would provide an incentive to prioritize cases that really matter.
It has to be cruel and unusual. Fines may or may not be cruel but they're definitely not unusual.
Fines in general aren't. Fines so big that the individual cannot realistically pay them are up for discussion, IMHO.
I admit there's a Catch 22 logic here though. Once a punishment starts being handed so often that it becomes a problem for society, it becomes "usual".
I admit there's a Catch 22 logic here though. Once a punishment starts being handed so often that it becomes a problem for society, it becomes "usual".
This is a great idea. Is it actually written in terms of percent of income, or is it a specific sliding scale for every infraction?
Most countries in western europe have a concept of day-fines. It's averaged income minus essential expenses multiplied by some amount of time.
Fictional example: speeding 20km/h above the limit gets 30 day-fines. So they'll calculate how much you'd earn in 30 days, subtract essentials and that's your fine.
Fictional example: speeding 20km/h above the limit gets 30 day-fines. So they'll calculate how much you'd earn in 30 days, subtract essentials and that's your fine.
I think it would be a good idea to reduce the fines of those in or close to poverty and subsidize that by increasing fines for the wealthy. That said, what Finland is doing is ridiculous. A fine for speeding shouldn't cost several times the cost of an accident. It also gives police the wrong incentives. Why bother pulling over a beater car when they aren't going pay a fine? Might as well tailgate a Rolls Royce and cite them when they inevitably make a minor infraction.
> A fine for speeding shouldn't cost several times the cost of an accident.
Why not, assuming that laws against speeding exist for public safety? (That's a dubious assumption, but if it's untrue then the speed limits need to be changed until it is.)
The cost of an accident can end up being lives, not just money, so it's hard to talk about "the cost of an accident." Even if you take a hard-nosed economically rational position and assign a monetary value to each life, the typical value is something like $10 million.
The point of these fines is to deter the behavior. If you put a cap on the amount of the fine, then sufficiently wealthy people are no longer deterred. You're essentially making it so that they can break this law with impunity because they're rich.
As for giving the police the wrong incentives, if they have any incentives related to the amount of money they bring in through fines, they already have the wrong incentives. Money from traffic tickets should never end up anywhere near the police budget.
Why not, assuming that laws against speeding exist for public safety? (That's a dubious assumption, but if it's untrue then the speed limits need to be changed until it is.)
The cost of an accident can end up being lives, not just money, so it's hard to talk about "the cost of an accident." Even if you take a hard-nosed economically rational position and assign a monetary value to each life, the typical value is something like $10 million.
The point of these fines is to deter the behavior. If you put a cap on the amount of the fine, then sufficiently wealthy people are no longer deterred. You're essentially making it so that they can break this law with impunity because they're rich.
As for giving the police the wrong incentives, if they have any incentives related to the amount of money they bring in through fines, they already have the wrong incentives. Money from traffic tickets should never end up anywhere near the police budget.
[deleted]
Should the same be done with time based fines (prison sentences)?
expertentipp(4)
So now that I've "made it" I can get screwed back to square one because I rolled a stop sign at 1am and the cop doesn't like my attitude during the following game of 20 questions they always want to play when they're fishing. Screw that.
Edit:
I would be less not ok with fines that scaled by income if they were reasonable for the infraction. Fines in the US are not reasonable (with a few state by state exceptions) unless you're upper middle class. If we scaled fines in the US so everyone got screwed as hard as poor people get screwed that would be very, very bad. If we were to scale fines by income then the middle or upper middle should be the point where there's not much difference (i.e. those people pay the same under the current system and some hypothetical income based system) because that's the point you need to be at for fines to be roughly proportional to the offense. I have zero faith that that could be implemented. What would likely happen is that the poor would still get screwed and everyone else would get just as screwed which is worse than the current situation.
Edit:
I would be less not ok with fines that scaled by income if they were reasonable for the infraction. Fines in the US are not reasonable (with a few state by state exceptions) unless you're upper middle class. If we scaled fines in the US so everyone got screwed as hard as poor people get screwed that would be very, very bad. If we were to scale fines by income then the middle or upper middle should be the point where there's not much difference (i.e. those people pay the same under the current system and some hypothetical income based system) because that's the point you need to be at for fines to be roughly proportional to the offense. I have zero faith that that could be implemented. What would likely happen is that the poor would still get screwed and everyone else would get just as screwed which is worse than the current situation.
Are you implying that having "made it" grants you the right of "rolling a stop sign at 1 am"?
If not, I don't see how this would be a problem. If your income is X times higher than mine, you will be fined X times more. Given your income, you can afford it, but it is still a deterrent (I, on the other hand, would go back to square "minus one" if I had to pay the same amount as you).
If not, I don't see how this would be a problem. If your income is X times higher than mine, you will be fined X times more. Given your income, you can afford it, but it is still a deterrent (I, on the other hand, would go back to square "minus one" if I had to pay the same amount as you).
>If not, I don't see how this would be a problem. If your income is X times higher than mine, you will be fined X times more. Given your income, you can afford it, but it is still a deterrent (I, on the other hand, would go back to square "minus one" if I had to pay the same amount as you).
The way this is likely to work in reality if that you go to square minus one if you get fined and I go to square minus one if I get fined. So we've gained nothing except screwing more people and making the state more dependent on revenue from fines. Fines never go down, only up. An income based system would mean we all get screwed.
I have no problem with income based fines on paper. I have zero faith in their ability to be used properly in the US. Better to just lower fines across the board. It's not like the threat of a fine is what's keeping the vast majority of people from driving at triple digit speeds or littering.
The way this is likely to work in reality if that you go to square minus one if you get fined and I go to square minus one if I get fined. So we've gained nothing except screwing more people and making the state more dependent on revenue from fines. Fines never go down, only up. An income based system would mean we all get screwed.
I have no problem with income based fines on paper. I have zero faith in their ability to be used properly in the US. Better to just lower fines across the board. It's not like the threat of a fine is what's keeping the vast majority of people from driving at triple digit speeds or littering.
> An income based system would mean we all get screwed.
You forget that the people who have "made it" hold disproportionate political influence. If you think a 0.1% fine on your annual income is too high because it is $100+, then you would fight to reverse this policy.
Meanwhile the people who are living paycheck to paycheck and have very little influence don't have to worry. 1% is very little for them, maybe $20 or so.
You forget that the people who have "made it" hold disproportionate political influence. If you think a 0.1% fine on your annual income is too high because it is $100+, then you would fight to reverse this policy.
Meanwhile the people who are living paycheck to paycheck and have very little influence don't have to worry. 1% is very little for them, maybe $20 or so.
Yes, deliberate abuse of the laws would be the main problem and nobody could be trusted to run such a lucrative fine program. It would just be another excuse to treat people like piggy banks and to rob them as often as possible.
With the exception of Denmark, social mobility is low in Scandinavian countries, but wealth inequality is also low, so the idea of getting screwed back to square one is very American. Breaking the law should hurt equally for the rich and poor - unless you think the poor are inherently worth less.
Fact check - Mobility is actually high in nordic countries:
https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobi... shows that sweden, finland, norway also have good mobility (behind denmark though).
edit: see also https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf - it's in the 1st page abstract.
https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobi... shows that sweden, finland, norway also have good mobility (behind denmark though).
edit: see also https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf - it's in the 1st page abstract.
Will check these out, but I was basing my comment on this.
https://gavinkellyblog.com/where-has-income-mobility-been-ri...
https://gavinkellyblog.com/where-has-income-mobility-been-ri...
So this picks the short term income mobility, the picture is titled "Share of people remaining in the bottom fifth of incomes after four years". It's interesting for sure, but it takes some thinking to interpret in relation to usual intergenerational mobility measure. For example: UK is known for its thin social safety net, so income drops and hikes are hard and steep, and Denmark is known for its short but generous unemployment compensation - again leading to steep short term income changes.
(Also, the OECD's own press release on the article's source publication doesn't raise the same points and points at the Nordic countries as good models: https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/action-needed-to-tackle-stalle... - maybe economists, or OECD economists in particular, think that inter-generational mobility is a better measure?)
(Also, the OECD's own press release on the article's source publication doesn't raise the same points and points at the Nordic countries as good models: https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/action-needed-to-tackle-stalle... - maybe economists, or OECD economists in particular, think that inter-generational mobility is a better measure?)
The whole point is that the fine scales with income to be fair. It doesn't impact people who have "made it" more.
Awareness of this issue, the criminalization of poverty, is growing in America. For example, Equal Justice Under Law (https://equaljusticeunderlaw.org) is focused solely on this problem, and has won _all_ of the 18 cases it has tried so far on behalf of victims of wealth-based discrimination.
Anyone who went through the US visa process, even for the basic visitor visa B1/2, got a taste of this. One needs to set up the appointment, appointment system is handled by the subcontractor, the contractor charges you for setting up the appointment. If someone told me I have to pay for queueing in front of the embassy on the day of the appointment I wouldn't be able to say whether it's some fraudsters, or a policy of US embassy. Yeah yeah, I know - no one is entitled to visit the glorious US of A. I don't pity Americans having hardships over here in EU, because no pity is given in reciprocal situation.
If the costs are unreasonable, it's one thing, but I don't see a problem with paying administrative costs to get a visa.
Life in the USA is all about paying extraordinary amounts for absolutely everything except things you don't really need.
> In one case, a homeless man in Sacramento, California, living under a bridge received 190 citations from police (almost all related to sleeping outside and camping) and wound up being assessed $104,000 in unpayable fines. When he died of cancer in 2016, there were thirty-seven warrants out for his arrest. Whose definition of public safety does any of this serve?
On the flip side, the government is powerless to address chronic mental health issues without a paper trail. We all know that poverty and mental health issues are deeply entwined. The government can't just compel mental health care on a whim. They need evidence. Evidence like trespassing citations, public intoxication arrests, and citations for defacating in public. Evidence like 911 calls when a senile resident continues to forget to turn off the oven.
On the flip side, the government is powerless to address chronic mental health issues without a paper trail. We all know that poverty and mental health issues are deeply entwined. The government can't just compel mental health care on a whim. They need evidence. Evidence like trespassing citations, public intoxication arrests, and citations for defacating in public. Evidence like 911 calls when a senile resident continues to forget to turn off the oven.
>On the flip side, the government is powerless to address chronic mental health issues without a paper trail. We all know that poverty and mental health issues are deeply entwined.
Only in the absence of a civilized public welfare system.
Only in the absence of a civilized public welfare system.
I'm arguing for one of those, actually. But even though I'd like to see more resources focused on these problems, we can't just spend our way into good mental health care. When people are in danger or harming others, care and treatment sometimes has to be compelled. People have a right to their day in court, so some amount of evidence has to be gathered so judges can objectively rule on the relevant questions.
I don’t think camping and sleeping under bridges are dangerous or harming others. I’m confused how this example shows your point, since your point is about dangerous people, and I’m not sure if people who sleep under bridges are necessarily dangerous.
Camping and sleeping under bridges harms everyone because of all the waste that ends up in watersheds. I've helped out with cleaning up riverbanks a couple times after illegal encampments were removed. Those places were like disaster areas and toxic waste dumps.
There's no trash removal for these people, and they're shut out of all public bathrooms. What do we really expect?
i-5 in Seattle is absolutely trashed from Northgate to Downtown because Jenny Durkan and previous mayors have raided homeless encampments out of view, away from other homes, spending millions of dollars to displace them instead of just giving them garbage cans and a few porta potties. They end up on i5 and in tent camps downtown and it looks like a dump.
i-5 in Seattle is absolutely trashed from Northgate to Downtown because Jenny Durkan and previous mayors have raided homeless encampments out of view, away from other homes, spending millions of dollars to displace them instead of just giving them garbage cans and a few porta potties. They end up on i5 and in tent camps downtown and it looks like a dump.
I'm not familiar with the situation in Seattle, but in areas where homeless shelters have open beds then I really expect people to use them instead of wrecking ecologically sensitive areas. And in the cleanups I helped with, there were multiple public garbage cans within a couple blocks.
If we did a profiling we'd see that companies (from factories to hotels) do 99% of the pollution of rivers.
Humans have been living camping-like near rivers for millennia. It's not as homeless people shit is toxic...
Humans have been living camping-like near rivers for millennia. It's not as homeless people shit is toxic...
Yes, it's not the camping, it's the lack of services that is toxic.
I live in Michigan, where PFAS are being found in water supplies all over the state. Companies did and still do dump poisonous chemicals into the environment, and day by day certain alphabet soup agencies give them more and more license to do so. We can talk about some garbage along a river bank after we prosecute large companies for knowingly poisoning entire swaths of land and bodies of water for decades, considering the scale on which they can harm people and the resources they have to avoid doing so.
But its only poor peoples' communities that get the brunt of the pollution. That's because their local governments can't fight against it, whereas richer communities can delay, fight, and stop.
Do poor communities deserve this?
Do poor communities deserve this?
Missing the point? My point is that a little trash on a riverbank pales in comparison to the large-scale environment destruction being committed every day by giant companies. Provide the homeless with food and shelter instead of worrying about some minimal pollution.
My point is about helping sick people. Some of them are dangerous and should get extra attention for that reason. Many are just too sick to pay bills, show up to work reliably, get hired, etc. The government could decriminalize lots of things, but it's hard to show that someone is a danger to themselves if the government refuses to keep certain kinds of records for reasons of privacy and compassion.
In my (American) experience, few governments show any sign of wanting to address mental health in a serious way. They seem to care more about appearing to address mental health than actually getting anything done. It's easy to end up with bullshit like "resilience training" for schoolchildren when there's a critical shortage of psychiatrists and hospital beds.
Given the constant flow of mental health scandals, I'm not entirely sure what is worse: no mental health or mental health.
Just a few days ago an institution for mentally ill women got convicted for recording (and then discussing with the "patients" on their "evalution") what was said when they met with a lawyer.
Ok. So an investigation that was done earlier on the year was made public that already complained about this. When the press read that they published another few details:
* one patient was isolated and "fixated" (tied spread eagle to a bed) for 13 days because she bit her nails
* another patient had that done to her for over 2 months. The reason ? Nobody bothered to write anything down.
* several patients died without a clear reason
And ... no worries, the government agency responsible for it will "do a thorough review" of the system. Comments by the management on the issue are expected by the end of the year ...
Also, I seem to have no problem finding desperate pleas of patients on fora and on youtube about how they get incarcerated in such institutions for idiotically small reasons.
Mental health, when it does exist, seems like it's more a way for government employees to torture people who make a dumb legal mistake (like asking for help from a government psychiatrist) than it was ever meant to help anyone.
The people working there were on TV. Maybe it's just me but the impression I got was that these were incredibly dumb and definitely not the sort of people that can be trusted with the care over others. And, in case you're wondering, the psychiatrist on staff ? There is no psychiatrist on staff, one comes for 2 days per month. I'm sure it saved the government some money.
Is this really what you want to do to the homeless ? It does not seem like an improvement to me.
Just a few days ago an institution for mentally ill women got convicted for recording (and then discussing with the "patients" on their "evalution") what was said when they met with a lawyer.
Ok. So an investigation that was done earlier on the year was made public that already complained about this. When the press read that they published another few details:
* one patient was isolated and "fixated" (tied spread eagle to a bed) for 13 days because she bit her nails
* another patient had that done to her for over 2 months. The reason ? Nobody bothered to write anything down.
* several patients died without a clear reason
And ... no worries, the government agency responsible for it will "do a thorough review" of the system. Comments by the management on the issue are expected by the end of the year ...
Also, I seem to have no problem finding desperate pleas of patients on fora and on youtube about how they get incarcerated in such institutions for idiotically small reasons.
Mental health, when it does exist, seems like it's more a way for government employees to torture people who make a dumb legal mistake (like asking for help from a government psychiatrist) than it was ever meant to help anyone.
The people working there were on TV. Maybe it's just me but the impression I got was that these were incredibly dumb and definitely not the sort of people that can be trusted with the care over others. And, in case you're wondering, the psychiatrist on staff ? There is no psychiatrist on staff, one comes for 2 days per month. I'm sure it saved the government some money.
Is this really what you want to do to the homeless ? It does not seem like an improvement to me.
Yeah, there's a whole other dimension of this where facilities and processes become oriented toward controlling and containing patients rather than empowering them. But I think it has the same root causes as the broader lack of motivation among authorities to seriously engage:
1) Mental health treatment represents a legitimately difficult set of problems with no known recipe for success in the general case.
2) Mentally ill people are routinely dehumanized and otherwise marginalized.
1) Mental health treatment represents a legitimately difficult set of problems with no known recipe for success in the general case.
2) Mentally ill people are routinely dehumanized and otherwise marginalized.
First of all, NO. I DO NOT understand. Nothing justifies treating people like this, and certainly not what was used at this facility. Week-long solitary confinement for nail biting ...
And let's not pretend this facility is a huge negative exception. It's not. It just got caught recording client-lawyer confidential conversations because they boasted about it in court. Yes, they actually boasted in court that they did this and used it in the case. That's how they got caught. Then the inspection report fell into the hands of the press and this patient treatment stuff leaked. In other words, this is a random sample.
And what does the government do about this ? They ask the management to come up with ideas by year-end. Clearly nobody cares or wants to see improvements.
So the problem that this is exactly what is being proposed here as the solution to mental health problems ... I feel like it would be more humane to just round up all mentally ill patients and shoot them.
Let's please not pretend that torturing them for a decade or two before they accidentally die in such a "fixation" is more humane, because it's not, it's far, far worse. Solitary confinement for weeks is torture, constantly living under that thread is also torture.
Needless to say, when you check your find the same ("internment") is done to their kids, even if the only thing against them is that one of their parents has some mental health problems. Doesn't matter if the parent recovers. Doesn't matter if they are 16 or even 18 years old (mental health "care" lasts until 25). There was a story of a 21 year old student ripped out of independent living (well, a student dorm she paid for herself) and studying at university because her mother got interned.
Leaving them to rot on the streets, again, is a far more humane approach than mental health care.
We cannot seriously suggest this as a solution until massive improvements are made to the system, starting with a minimum complement of actual mental health professionals. The system doesn't have that, nor are there any plans to change it, so ... it is not humane or reasonable to suggest mental health services as a replacement to letting them live on the streets.
And let's not pretend this facility is a huge negative exception. It's not. It just got caught recording client-lawyer confidential conversations because they boasted about it in court. Yes, they actually boasted in court that they did this and used it in the case. That's how they got caught. Then the inspection report fell into the hands of the press and this patient treatment stuff leaked. In other words, this is a random sample.
And what does the government do about this ? They ask the management to come up with ideas by year-end. Clearly nobody cares or wants to see improvements.
So the problem that this is exactly what is being proposed here as the solution to mental health problems ... I feel like it would be more humane to just round up all mentally ill patients and shoot them.
Let's please not pretend that torturing them for a decade or two before they accidentally die in such a "fixation" is more humane, because it's not, it's far, far worse. Solitary confinement for weeks is torture, constantly living under that thread is also torture.
Needless to say, when you check your find the same ("internment") is done to their kids, even if the only thing against them is that one of their parents has some mental health problems. Doesn't matter if the parent recovers. Doesn't matter if they are 16 or even 18 years old (mental health "care" lasts until 25). There was a story of a 21 year old student ripped out of independent living (well, a student dorm she paid for herself) and studying at university because her mother got interned.
Leaving them to rot on the streets, again, is a far more humane approach than mental health care.
We cannot seriously suggest this as a solution until massive improvements are made to the system, starting with a minimum complement of actual mental health professionals. The system doesn't have that, nor are there any plans to change it, so ... it is not humane or reasonable to suggest mental health services as a replacement to letting them live on the streets.
I'm not saying it's justified at all. I'm not saying that I know what the solution is. I'm saying that these are all expressions of the same underlying set of attitudes rather than merely being poor policy. The reason there aren't 24/7 protests outside mental hospitals and politicians of every stripe calling for radical reform of the mental health system is the same reason that city councils pass "sit-lie" and "anti-camping" laws instead of providing needed services to the homeless. At a societal level, the desire is largely to make these people just go away, or at least to approximate that by keeping them so beaten down that they're afraid to engage in any noticeable behavior. Lip service is sometimes given to fundamental rights and humane treatment, but the attitude expressed by the behavior of our institutions is often closer to animal control than to a welfare system. When it comes to the mentally ill, the average person seemingly doesn't know the difference between treatment and abuse, and might not even care to know. As long as there's any room for doubt and someone with the right letters after their name says "it's for their own good", the conscience goes back to sleep.
>The government can't just compel mental health care on a whim. They need evidence. Evidence like trespassing citations, public intoxication arrests, and citations for defacating in public
These are not signs of mental illness, and should not be considered reasons to imprison someone in a mental health facility and/or forcibly drug them.
These are not signs of mental illness, and should not be considered reasons to imprison someone in a mental health facility and/or forcibly drug them.
I agree with you, but couldn't they be indicators of mental issues? In the same way that me stumbling doesn't mean I'm drunk, but the likelihood of someone stumbling goes up when they are drunk.
[deleted]
>In what might seem a clear violation of the right to a public defender, forty-three states bill clients for their lawyers—in South Dakota, the charge is $92 an hour. Even if found innocent, clients still have to pay—and not having the money is itself breaking the law.
There is zero chance this survives 4th Amendment scrutiny at the Supreme Court
There is zero chance this survives 4th Amendment scrutiny at the Supreme Court
which has 0 chance of happening because they can't even afford a trial lawyer
And the SC is looking like it will be stacked with "Originalists" before too much longer.
How is that relevant?
People are afraid of rightwing ideologues on the Supreme Court because it means that certain cases might be reasoned from a point of view that is based less on sound legal philosophy and more on personal beliefs from the 1800s.
Not even just the Supreme Court. Federal judgeships are being handed out left and right to (often unqualified but ideological) members of the Federalist Society. It's probably the biggest thing that Trump will have done that'll affect us our entire lifetimes.
There is a proper mechanism for revising the constitution: constitutional amendment. If you want to be angry at someone for what the constitution says, then be angry at the legislators who have neglected their duty to update it.
I mean, I’m angry at a lot of people, legislators included. There’s plenty of anger to around..
Wouldn't that be good for 4th Amendment enforcement? It's very clear and in the original Bill of Rights
I put originalist in quotation marks for a reason.
Lochner Era 2.0!
Interesting. While I live in the UK, I had never really thought about the link between wealth and privacy, and the potential for the state to discriminate in this way.
A thought-provoking read. Thanks for sharing
A thought-provoking read. Thanks for sharing
I live in the UK too and every day I am grateful we don't have the absolutely idiotic concept of paid bail - the police can only hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a crime, and then you have to be tried within 51 days or released on unconditional bail, so idiotic situation like the one here where someone in the article was held for 3 years without a trial can't happen.
But yes, having read the article it just reinforces the impression I have of USA - that it's the "land of the free but only if you have money"
But yes, having read the article it just reinforces the impression I have of USA - that it's the "land of the free but only if you have money"
I'm glad too, but some of your numbers are a bit off;
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-...
Also its worth noting our anti-terror laws seem to allow indefinite detention without charge. And ant-immigration laws allow for long (months even years) detention of migrants, without even suspicion of a crime.
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-...
Also its worth noting our anti-terror laws seem to allow indefinite detention without charge. And ant-immigration laws allow for long (months even years) detention of migrants, without even suspicion of a crime.
According to your link, the longest you can be held without charge is 14 days under the terrorism act.
The longest ever proposed was 90 days (proposed in 2006), and the longest implemented was 28 days (between 2006 - 2011).
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/counterin...
The longest ever proposed was 90 days (proposed in 2006), and the longest implemented was 28 days (between 2006 - 2011).
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/counterin...
Terrorism Act 2000 (which was partially ruled unlawful by the House of Lords for what its worth) allows for theoretically infinite extensions to the detention period with only a police superintendent needed to sign off on it.
as for imigration 'Just over one fifth of immigration detainees are held for at least two months' :
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/im...
as for imigration 'Just over one fifth of immigration detainees are held for at least two months' :
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/im...
Have you got a source on that part of the terrorism act, it's not something I've heard of.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents
more specifically section 29, 1, (d):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8/part/...
Though F1 seems to have been edited since i last looked.. still its in theory, unlimited detention without trial.
There is also the Terrorism Act 2006, which i think extended the standard limit to 26 days.. Not sure if this was ever repealed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006
more specifically section 29, 1, (d):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8/part/...
Though F1 seems to have been edited since i last looked.. still its in theory, unlimited detention without trial.
There is also the Terrorism Act 2006, which i think extended the standard limit to 26 days.. Not sure if this was ever repealed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006
Surely migrants are "guilty" of not having proper immigration documents, not having a lawful right to remain, and similar crimes?
One may not agree with long term detention, nor even with the law in this area but this assertion (that immigrants are being held without due process) appears to be unfounded?
What would you change?
One may not agree with long term detention, nor even with the law in this area but this assertion (that immigrants are being held without due process) appears to be unfounded?
What would you change?
>What would you change?
I would like the presumption of innocence before due process and i would like the due process to involve a British jury. I would like an absolute time limit on detention of innocent people. And if these things made policing or managing immigration more difficult then i can live with that.
I would like the presumption of innocence before due process and i would like the due process to involve a British jury. I would like an absolute time limit on detention of innocent people. And if these things made policing or managing immigration more difficult then i can live with that.
Presumption of innocence in the face of absolute proof? If you're a foreign national in the UK without proper documentation you are guilty of a crime; we could change that of course, but you don't appear to want that? I'm not sure restricted immigration can work without that assumption of guilt; the alternative seems like open borders with no controls?
If they're innocent then they'll be able to prove it easily ... if they have a valid reason for immigration than despite their crime they'll be released in good time. It seems a small price to pay for freedom if you're fleeing certain harm?
If they're innocent then they'll be able to prove it easily ... if they have a valid reason for immigration than despite their crime they'll be released in good time. It seems a small price to pay for freedom if you're fleeing certain harm?
> innocence in the face of absolute proof?
this is just childish, you can only establish the existence of 'absolute proof' in a court of law. If you really want some jobsworth to sit in their office and dispense justice, then you don't want justice.
this is just childish, you can only establish the existence of 'absolute proof' in a court of law. If you really want some jobsworth to sit in their office and dispense justice, then you don't want justice.
If you're interested in how the UK criminal justice system has its own set of problems and biased outcomes, you might enjoy (or at least be interested by) this book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0753GBC5Z
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0753GBC5Z
So they can hold you for 51 days and you just have to sit in jail until your trial?
No, you can be released on conditional bail, but it cannot be tied to money. Commonly the conditions include reporting to the police station every day, not contacting certain people, staying at home except for certain hours etc.
In the US, bail is used to make sure people show up for their court date. How does this work in the UK?
If someone is a flight risk, they are not given any bail and just sit tight for those 51 days. But being given bail and not showing up to court results in far harsher sentence, so it's a shit game to play.
You do get reimbursed if you sat in jail for no reason. Right?
Not for the time spent waiting for trial. You only get compensation if you were wrongly convicted.
So you can be waiting for trial, not get convicted (for whatever reason), and not get reimbursed for being wrongfully in jail?
Roughly yes. The rationale is that you were not "wrongfully" in jail. You were held in the jail because prosecutors believed you'd be found guilty of a crime (which you subsequently were found innocent of) and the court believed that you were either too dangerous or too likely to abscond if you weren't held against your will.
In principle if you can show that these beliefs were unreasonable (not just wrong, but not even reasonable beliefs for the court officials to hold) you might be able to get somewhere, but I suspect a decent lawyer would tell you that this bar is too high.
Conviction rate for people who go to trial in the UK is very high, because the "Full Code Test" for prosecutors tells them to never prosecute people unless they're convinced the evidence they have will support a conviction for each charge they specify.
In principle if you can show that these beliefs were unreasonable (not just wrong, but not even reasonable beliefs for the court officials to hold) you might be able to get somewhere, but I suspect a decent lawyer would tell you that this bar is too high.
Conviction rate for people who go to trial in the UK is very high, because the "Full Code Test" for prosecutors tells them to never prosecute people unless they're convinced the evidence they have will support a conviction for each charge they specify.
Unfortunately, yes. It's the same in both US and UK. You can sue the state for loss of income/whatever, but those cases are not always successful - all they need to prove is that they had reasonable reason to keep you in jail, even if you were found innocent at the end.
Thank you for the information. Do you know how this works in the rest of the world?
wow so if you lose your job because of that, bad luck I guess?
Maybe, don't do things that a reasonable person would consider makes you likely beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a serious crime? Or is that too great an expectation?
Would be interesting to read some real life info and stats on this.
Would be interesting to read some real life info and stats on this.
What do you mean by "serious crime"?
If we draw a line at "felony", well... how many people wind up in jail for inability to make bail for misdemeanors? And for how long? I'm pretty sure you can google that kind of thing.
Also, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the legal grounds for conviction, not arrest. "Probable cause" is the grounds for arrest, a far lower standard.
If we draw a line at "felony", well... how many people wind up in jail for inability to make bail for misdemeanors? And for how long? I'm pretty sure you can google that kind of thing.
Also, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the legal grounds for conviction, not arrest. "Probable cause" is the grounds for arrest, a far lower standard.
This subthread is UK specific, so the number in jail for non-payment of bail is zero.
Probable cause isn't a UK test -- we use [reasonable] suspicion -- but one needs far more evidence than that to retain someone in prison. CPS don't take cases to trial without an expectation of success; non serious crimes (and some serious ones) don't result in prison so aren't pertinent.
Suspicion is an even lower bar, but the charge officer won't even admit someone into custody without evidence (though that evidence has a far lower bar than is required for conviction).
So you get out 24 hrs later, the police caught the perp who just happened to match your description and locality. Surely the downside is just part of society functioning, do you really need compensating? Legal protection for your job, seems like it should be in place though.
Probable cause isn't a UK test -- we use [reasonable] suspicion -- but one needs far more evidence than that to retain someone in prison. CPS don't take cases to trial without an expectation of success; non serious crimes (and some serious ones) don't result in prison so aren't pertinent.
Suspicion is an even lower bar, but the charge officer won't even admit someone into custody without evidence (though that evidence has a far lower bar than is required for conviction).
So you get out 24 hrs later, the police caught the perp who just happened to match your description and locality. Surely the downside is just part of society functioning, do you really need compensating? Legal protection for your job, seems like it should be in place though.
Not to mention that it would be illegal for your employer to fire you over it, especially if you were only detained for 24-96 hours.
> Do you really need compensating?
I'd say the answer to that is a resounding "yes", but I get it that there's no consensus here on that one.
I'd say the answer to that is a resounding "yes", but I get it that there's no consensus here on that one.
Your "compensation" is a functioning legal system.
You might lose a job by police stopping traffic after a RTA and so being delayed by several hours. Should you get compensation for that, or should you just accept it as part of a functioning road network/emergency service?
You might lose a job by police stopping traffic after a RTA and so being delayed by several hours. Should you get compensation for that, or should you just accept it as part of a functioning road network/emergency service?
Because people are always arrested for things they've done, not by mistake? Heck, why not do away with trials? If the police think someone did it, lock them up for good!
Are you seriously suggesting that people just avoid being falsely arrested? I'm pretty sure that everyone already tries to do that.
If you're locked away for an extended period for a serious crime then, presently in the UK, my conjecture is that you're probably close to the crime -- I mean you're an associate of the criminals without necessarily being an accomplice; or an already convicted criminal; or guilty of minor crimes if you're being held on remand (https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/remand) in most cases?
In the UK IIUC there's a 85% arrest-to-conviction rate across all crimes.
[I realise I'm pushing my luck somewhat.]
In the UK IIUC there's a 85% arrest-to-conviction rate across all crimes.
[I realise I'm pushing my luck somewhat.]
> ...my conjecture is that you're probably close to the crime...
So you are OK with people's lives being fucked up just because they've been accused of something? You do realize that anyone can accuse anyone of anything anytime, right? There's a reason we go through investigations and trials.
So you are OK with people's lives being fucked up just because they've been accused of something? You do realize that anyone can accuse anyone of anything anytime, right? There's a reason we go through investigations and trials.
You don't get locked up on remand just because someone made an accusation against you. People making specious accusations do get locked up sometimes.
To your question: obviously not. That statement discredits you as a genuine enquirer. Strawmen and incredulity don't really help us make progress here.
Or, you have statistics to show that's true?
To your question: obviously not. That statement discredits you as a genuine enquirer. Strawmen and incredulity don't really help us make progress here.
Or, you have statistics to show that's true?
Please point out the strawman in my argument. I currently do not see one, and your statement discredits you as a genuine enquirer. False claims and incredulity don't really help us make progress here.
> You don't get locked up on remand just because someone made an accusation against you.
Yes, you can. Once accused, you then go to trial to see if the accusation is correct.
What statistics do you want to see? How many people make false accusations? How many people are arrested on false accusations? How many people use "guilty by association" logic because they can't be arsed to figure out the real story? How many lives are ruined because you would rather we just bypass the judicial system?
> You don't get locked up on remand just because someone made an accusation against you.
Yes, you can. Once accused, you then go to trial to see if the accusation is correct.
What statistics do you want to see? How many people make false accusations? How many people are arrested on false accusations? How many people use "guilty by association" logic because they can't be arsed to figure out the real story? How many lives are ruined because you would rather we just bypass the judicial system?
In the US you have a right to a speedy trial. Most sign away this right while being processed. The excuse given was the lawyers needed time to prepare for trial.
> she suggests that poor mothers lose their privacy altogether if they accept public assistance,
I'm not sure about the altogether part, but if I don't want people to know how much money I have, going to the government and saying "I need money from other people because I'm not capable of providing for myself and my kids" is kind of the start of a process of telling people about your life in exchange for getting money from other people.
The article makes some good points on bail and fines, but the idea that getting other people to pay for your living expenses should somehow be possible without giving up up any information about yourself is pretty silly.
I'm not sure about the altogether part, but if I don't want people to know how much money I have, going to the government and saying "I need money from other people because I'm not capable of providing for myself and my kids" is kind of the start of a process of telling people about your life in exchange for getting money from other people.
The article makes some good points on bail and fines, but the idea that getting other people to pay for your living expenses should somehow be possible without giving up up any information about yourself is pretty silly.
It's not that they have to give information, like name, age, SSN, address, etc., it's that they have to answer very private questions about their lives, like who they are dating, how often they have sex, do they use condoms, do they have medical conditions, etc. It's not right to make someone answer these questions just to survive and help their kids survive, because they have literally zero other options.
Especially with the rise of austerity welfare, some states want to prevent single mothers from receiving benefits if they are sexually active. It's incredibly intrusive.
I can totally see that.
But the other side is that they money they are asking for has to be taken from people who were responsible and can afford their families. Shouldn't we at a minimum require that if you seek help for family members you can't afford, that you take the same steps others take to not get any more kids you can't afford?
Because unless you have a good counter argument to that, you won't get anywhere politically.
But the other side is that they money they are asking for has to be taken from people who were responsible and can afford their families. Shouldn't we at a minimum require that if you seek help for family members you can't afford, that you take the same steps others take to not get any more kids you can't afford?
Because unless you have a good counter argument to that, you won't get anywhere politically.
It does sound quite reasonable when you put it that way. On the other hand, you could also describe it as, "we should starve poor families to death if the mother is sexually active and doesn't use approved birth control." Which sounds decidedly less reasonable to me.
But ultimately my counterargument would be that we should focus on helping people who need it, rather than on not helping people who we think don't deserve it. This country has a puritanical mindset about public help, where we're outraged at any person who receives it who we see as being in any way unworthy. For a pervasive recent example, look at drug testing for welfare recipients. It's more expensive than not doing it, but people love it because we see drug addicts as being evil and therefore unworthy of help.
We need to teach compassion, or at the very least rationality, rather than a punishment mentality.
But ultimately my counterargument would be that we should focus on helping people who need it, rather than on not helping people who we think don't deserve it. This country has a puritanical mindset about public help, where we're outraged at any person who receives it who we see as being in any way unworthy. For a pervasive recent example, look at drug testing for welfare recipients. It's more expensive than not doing it, but people love it because we see drug addicts as being evil and therefore unworthy of help.
We need to teach compassion, or at the very least rationality, rather than a punishment mentality.
>we should starve poor families to death if the mother is sexually active and doesn't use approved birth control.
We also murder people who have expired tags, as long as they don't pay the fine, don't show up in court, resist the police officers enough to get them to shoot them.
In reality essentially everybody stops before it gets to that point, and in your example the women buys (or ideally gets) a bunch of condoms, use them and no more children nobody can afford is brought into the world, and maybe she also avoids some STDs.
Look I don't want to compel her to do it, but at the very least make sure that she understands that the people who pay for her children have certain justifiable expectations.
>people love it because we see drug addicts as being evil and therefore unworthy of help.
If you work hard at a crap job that pays say 22 usd/hr, you don't want to pay for somebodies meth bill.
If you want a system that can help people then you need it so that it is politically palatable enough -- or you won't be able to focus on it at all.
We also murder people who have expired tags, as long as they don't pay the fine, don't show up in court, resist the police officers enough to get them to shoot them.
In reality essentially everybody stops before it gets to that point, and in your example the women buys (or ideally gets) a bunch of condoms, use them and no more children nobody can afford is brought into the world, and maybe she also avoids some STDs.
Look I don't want to compel her to do it, but at the very least make sure that she understands that the people who pay for her children have certain justifiable expectations.
>people love it because we see drug addicts as being evil and therefore unworthy of help.
If you work hard at a crap job that pays say 22 usd/hr, you don't want to pay for somebodies meth bill.
If you want a system that can help people then you need it so that it is politically palatable enough -- or you won't be able to focus on it at all.
The solution needs to be long term viable, which means that voting tax payers have to find the people who receive help sympathetic enough they don't vote to change the system. It's a hard balance to strike.
On my application for food stamps, they ask for my bank account number as well as the service provider for my cell phone. So far I've left both blank, though I may have provided the latter the last time.
I don't know if they can find out about my bank account or not, but I'm guessing they can, so I am effectively discouraged from saving any money from side jobs (yard work, that sort of thing). I know for a fact they have access to any employment, so that is a big disincentive to pick up a job unless I really think it's going to work out.
As you have pointed out, there is a feeling that this kind of intrusion is justified since I am apparently getting something I don't deserve anyway ("other people's money").
I don't know if they can find out about my bank account or not, but I'm guessing they can, so I am effectively discouraged from saving any money from side jobs (yard work, that sort of thing). I know for a fact they have access to any employment, so that is a big disincentive to pick up a job unless I really think it's going to work out.
As you have pointed out, there is a feeling that this kind of intrusion is justified since I am apparently getting something I don't deserve anyway ("other people's money").
If food stamps are helping you get out of a tough spot, I'm glad it is helping you.
> there is a feeling that this kind of intrusion is justified since I am apparently getting something I don't deserve anyway
The idea that you deserve food stamps implies that you some how earned it. Keep in mind that what you get in food stamps effectively comes from someone else who would earned that money and might rather use it to pay off their college debt or put their kid through school.
If you are not listing your bank account because you don't want them to know that you DO have enough money to provide for yourself, then you are highlighting why they ask for that information. I'm glad if you are getting temporary help if you need it. If you think you somehow deserve and are trying to hide the fact that you actually do have resources you could use for food, you are making a good case for the fact that the government needs to do a better job of requiring that type of information.
> there is a feeling that this kind of intrusion is justified since I am apparently getting something I don't deserve anyway
The idea that you deserve food stamps implies that you some how earned it. Keep in mind that what you get in food stamps effectively comes from someone else who would earned that money and might rather use it to pay off their college debt or put their kid through school.
If you are not listing your bank account because you don't want them to know that you DO have enough money to provide for yourself, then you are highlighting why they ask for that information. I'm glad if you are getting temporary help if you need it. If you think you somehow deserve and are trying to hide the fact that you actually do have resources you could use for food, you are making a good case for the fact that the government needs to do a better job of requiring that type of information.
How about land? Who created it? If god or nature, then doesn't that make it a common inheritance? Perhaps I deserve some sort of compensation?
People make things so complicated, they'll do anything to avoid doing the right thing. It's not that complicated.
The law isn't right by virtue of being the law, it's right in virtue of being in accordance with what's truly right. Ignoring this for generations doesn't change it.
You would think a nation that has the sins of taking the land and labor of others would have the respectability to make sure everybody has a place to be with no work requirement. Alas, this nation knows no shame.
People make things so complicated, they'll do anything to avoid doing the right thing. It's not that complicated.
The law isn't right by virtue of being the law, it's right in virtue of being in accordance with what's truly right. Ignoring this for generations doesn't change it.
You would think a nation that has the sins of taking the land and labor of others would have the respectability to make sure everybody has a place to be with no work requirement. Alas, this nation knows no shame.
UBI would have this feature. (Though any kind of collective redistribution system needs accurate identification of recipients, so that goes somewhat against privacy, and if it is implemented as Negative Income Tax, then of course accurate income and tax assessment is a hard requirement.)
the privatizing portion of the the article time and such is a bit out of place. the poor are subject to abuse by those in positions of power and it all has to do with insufficient laws to protect everyone from the abuse of government officials.
A recent story on Reason (yes I know their leanings) pointed to a suburb of Atlanta with excessive fines for issues that harmed no one except of course those who could not afford it [1]
the poor are not just hit by the justice system but they are hit by all sorts of government fees and regulatory policies that can force them into expensive schools just to do simple jobs like braid hair. Occupational licensing costs can keep many from productive jobs to get themselves out of the poor house.
so if you want to fix it it has to be done at the legislative level. restrictions of how fines and fees are assessed. people joke that HOAs are bad have seen nothing when faced with over zealous county and city code enforcers.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/24/georgia-town-brags-about-...
A recent story on Reason (yes I know their leanings) pointed to a suburb of Atlanta with excessive fines for issues that harmed no one except of course those who could not afford it [1]
the poor are not just hit by the justice system but they are hit by all sorts of government fees and regulatory policies that can force them into expensive schools just to do simple jobs like braid hair. Occupational licensing costs can keep many from productive jobs to get themselves out of the poor house.
so if you want to fix it it has to be done at the legislative level. restrictions of how fines and fees are assessed. people joke that HOAs are bad have seen nothing when faced with over zealous county and city code enforcers.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/24/georgia-town-brags-about-...
What seems a bit out of place is framing occupational licensing (meant to increase consumer safety) and codes enforcement (meant to increase public safety) as some kind of war on the poor. The fact that some things cost money is not in and of itself a negative or evil thing.
How does occupational licensing to braid hair improve consumer or public safety?
There are safety and sanitations concerns a hair stylist must take into consideration, and they are expected to understand how to properly use chemical treatments in both styling and sanitation.
There was a time where getting a scratch from an unsanitized blade meant an infection that could kill you.
There was a time where getting a scratch from an unsanitized blade meant an infection that could kill you.
Still could. It's unlikely to kill you from an acute bacterial infection as would have been common before, but there are still plenty of deadly blood-borne infectious diseases out there. Wouldn't want to go for a haircut and come home with hepatitis.
what if such certification could take place voluntarily and customers would select a place to get service based on their needs. If they want to safeguard themselves, they would look for certification?
Before I started taxi driving, I had limited exposure to the struggles of the underclass. I grew up at the upper end of "middle class", where my parents both worked for a living and made enough to save for retirement and go on vacations.
One of the things I came to appreciate was the harm done in the name of "justice". I blogged about some of my experiences (most were originally posted at kuro5hin.org [RIP]). America's Make-Work Sheriff: The Anachronism of Joseph Arpaio [1] examines the United States' criminal justice system as a "make-harm program", which is a jobs program where the government puts people to work making work for themselves.
[1] http://www.taxiwars.org/2017/09/americas-make-work-sheriff-a...
This submission mentions Gideon v. Wainwright, which is a rather important Supreme Court case that found the accused have a right to counsel for all criminal prosecutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright After Gideon got the Supreme Court to find that he had the right to an attorney, he was re-prosecuted and acquitted.
IMHO, the next phase in the evolution of the United States' criminal justice system is moving away from "punishments" (revenge) towards helping the convicted with their actual problems. Something like how Germany treats the people they've convicted: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-is-prison-60-minutes-goes-...
(edit: shifted order of paragraphs)
One of the things I came to appreciate was the harm done in the name of "justice". I blogged about some of my experiences (most were originally posted at kuro5hin.org [RIP]). America's Make-Work Sheriff: The Anachronism of Joseph Arpaio [1] examines the United States' criminal justice system as a "make-harm program", which is a jobs program where the government puts people to work making work for themselves.
[1] http://www.taxiwars.org/2017/09/americas-make-work-sheriff-a...
This submission mentions Gideon v. Wainwright, which is a rather important Supreme Court case that found the accused have a right to counsel for all criminal prosecutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright After Gideon got the Supreme Court to find that he had the right to an attorney, he was re-prosecuted and acquitted.
IMHO, the next phase in the evolution of the United States' criminal justice system is moving away from "punishments" (revenge) towards helping the convicted with their actual problems. Something like how Germany treats the people they've convicted: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-is-prison-60-minutes-goes-...
(edit: shifted order of paragraphs)
There are hard problems with no clear solutions and then there's the 'Vera Cheeks' case outlined in the article. That should be an easy legislative fix. Minor traffic infractions (like rolling through a stop) should never result in incarceration.
As was explicitly stated by the government in Ferguson, the poor were considered a resource to be mined so that taxes on the middle class could go down. Yet nothing has changed.
I hope this is not just "another article" for those reading it; this is the reality for poor people in general.
How did it get this way?
Why doesn't Department of Economic Security fix this?
Why doesn't Department of Economic Security fix this?
Trickle-Down Economics (Trickle-Up really), wages haven't grown in relation to inflation for lower 60% of the country since the 70's, the bottom 40% even seeing negative real wage growth since the 70's. Rent costs have gone up in most areas, security deposits and first/last months rent requirements keeps poor people out of housing.
The system has been rigged in favor of the rich for decades. Someone said it above, but it's the Land of the Free only if you are wealthy.
The system has been rigged in favor of the rich for decades. Someone said it above, but it's the Land of the Free only if you are wealthy.
edit: --clipped for correction--
>According to the bureau of justice statistics, 77% [2] of individuals are released from jail without financial condition.
Where are you getting 77%?
>Except for a decline to 57% in 2004, the percentage of defendants released each year varied only slightly, from 62% to 64%. A more pronounced trend was observed in the type of release used (figure 1). From 1990 to 1998, the percentage of released defendants under financial conditions rose from 24% to 36%, while non-financial releases dropped from 40% to 28%.
The only mention of 77% I see just says total release - not release without financial condition.
>Defendants with a prior conviction (51%, not shown in table) had a lower probability of being released than those without a conviction (77%). This was true even if the prior convictions were for misdemeanors only (63%). The effect of a conviction record on release was more pronounced if the defendant had at least one prior felony conviction (46%).
>A bail of let's say $250 for a minor offense is, in effect, a bail of $25. Though again, in the vast majority of cases a minor offense generally means you're released for free.
Why say $250 when the median of released defendants was $5,000?
>The median bail amount for detained defendants ($15,000) was 3 times that of released defendants ($5,000); the mean amount was about 5 times higher ($58,400 versus $11,600) (not shown in table). For all defendants with a bail amount set, the median bail amount was $9,000 and the mean was $35,800.
Where are you getting 77%?
>Except for a decline to 57% in 2004, the percentage of defendants released each year varied only slightly, from 62% to 64%. A more pronounced trend was observed in the type of release used (figure 1). From 1990 to 1998, the percentage of released defendants under financial conditions rose from 24% to 36%, while non-financial releases dropped from 40% to 28%.
The only mention of 77% I see just says total release - not release without financial condition.
>Defendants with a prior conviction (51%, not shown in table) had a lower probability of being released than those without a conviction (77%). This was true even if the prior convictions were for misdemeanors only (63%). The effect of a conviction record on release was more pronounced if the defendant had at least one prior felony conviction (46%).
>A bail of let's say $250 for a minor offense is, in effect, a bail of $25. Though again, in the vast majority of cases a minor offense generally means you're released for free.
Why say $250 when the median of released defendants was $5,000?
>The median bail amount for detained defendants ($15,000) was 3 times that of released defendants ($5,000); the mean amount was about 5 times higher ($58,400 versus $11,600) (not shown in table). For all defendants with a bail amount set, the median bail amount was $9,000 and the mean was $35,800.
I definitely made a mistake there. These numbers were only for people charged with felonies - as is all the information you're mentioning. I'm currently looking for the information on all arrest data, which would crucially include misdemeanors, and am unable to find it on on the BJS site.
All good - was just making sure I wasn't misreading it :^)
> According to the bureau of justice statistics, 77% [2] of individuals are released from jail without financial condition.
I think your source says that 28% of individuals had non-financial release. Also that the number of non-financial releases is going down (from 40% to 28% during the years in the data), but I could be misreading it.
I think your source says that 28% of individuals had non-financial release. Also that the number of non-financial releases is going down (from 40% to 28% during the years in the data), but I could be misreading it.
[deleted]
One of the ways in which the poor are isolated is through economic barriers to working and operating businesses. You can't run a food stand without a license. You can't work in many occupations without meeting minimum skill standards, which often requires undergoing an expensive licensing process.
Even minimum wage is a barrier for some. Marginalized groups (e.g. chronic drug users) can find it difficult to find an employer who values their labor at the minimum wage. The stepping stone of working below minimum wage is made illegal for them, which leaves them with bottle/can collection, squeegee-ing, panhandling and petty crime as the few other alternatives.
Overall, it's good to be aware of problems afflicting the poor, because the adverse effects of repressive government policies seem to fall disproportionately on this subset of the population.
I think where the article discredits itself is when it presumes that people are entitled to welfare:
>>If they want to get public health insurance while they are pregnant, they have to answer questions and give up information about their sex lives, their romantic histories, their medical past, their incomes, their ideas about the future of their families. In some states, if they want to receive public assistance, they must agree not to have more than a certain number of children. Their family lives are subjected to a routine scrutiny that is entirely different from the experience of middle-class families.
No one is entitled to public health insurance. It is provided at the expense of others, through the taxes they are compelled to pay. Where is the privacy for those who are required to file an income tax return? Where is the privacy for those who are audited, and forced to produce an untold number of documents to prove their reported income and deductions are accurate? Where is the individual liberty in the entire process?
The mandates imposed on the taxpayer fully justify conditioning use of public welfare on information disclosure. That the article overlooks this completely indicates an ideological narrow-mindedness, and callousness toward the other, who is forced to pay for these public benefits.
The ideological angle is seen again here:
>>It is true that the decimation of the American welfare state has helped to create a tremendous pool of people living on remarkably low incomes, who may be only tangentially connected to the labor market.
The idea of the American welfare state has been decimated is a common, and inaccurate trope, often peddled by leftists. Since the War on Poverty began, per capita social spending has rapidly grown.
It was vastly greater in the 1980s than the 1970s and it was vastly greater in 1990s than the 1980s:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
By all indications, the War on Poverty has failed, given the poverty rate was declining far faster before its institution than during the 50 years since it began. Social welfare spending's negative unintended consequences, like having a measurable effect on the proclivity of women to have children out of wedlock, appear to outweigh its positive effects.
Even minimum wage is a barrier for some. Marginalized groups (e.g. chronic drug users) can find it difficult to find an employer who values their labor at the minimum wage. The stepping stone of working below minimum wage is made illegal for them, which leaves them with bottle/can collection, squeegee-ing, panhandling and petty crime as the few other alternatives.
Overall, it's good to be aware of problems afflicting the poor, because the adverse effects of repressive government policies seem to fall disproportionately on this subset of the population.
I think where the article discredits itself is when it presumes that people are entitled to welfare:
>>If they want to get public health insurance while they are pregnant, they have to answer questions and give up information about their sex lives, their romantic histories, their medical past, their incomes, their ideas about the future of their families. In some states, if they want to receive public assistance, they must agree not to have more than a certain number of children. Their family lives are subjected to a routine scrutiny that is entirely different from the experience of middle-class families.
No one is entitled to public health insurance. It is provided at the expense of others, through the taxes they are compelled to pay. Where is the privacy for those who are required to file an income tax return? Where is the privacy for those who are audited, and forced to produce an untold number of documents to prove their reported income and deductions are accurate? Where is the individual liberty in the entire process?
The mandates imposed on the taxpayer fully justify conditioning use of public welfare on information disclosure. That the article overlooks this completely indicates an ideological narrow-mindedness, and callousness toward the other, who is forced to pay for these public benefits.
The ideological angle is seen again here:
>>It is true that the decimation of the American welfare state has helped to create a tremendous pool of people living on remarkably low incomes, who may be only tangentially connected to the labor market.
The idea of the American welfare state has been decimated is a common, and inaccurate trope, often peddled by leftists. Since the War on Poverty began, per capita social spending has rapidly grown.
It was vastly greater in the 1980s than the 1970s and it was vastly greater in 1990s than the 1980s:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/01/16/us/politics/16fiv...
By all indications, the War on Poverty has failed, given the poverty rate was declining far faster before its institution than during the 50 years since it began. Social welfare spending's negative unintended consequences, like having a measurable effect on the proclivity of women to have children out of wedlock, appear to outweigh its positive effects.
>By all indications, the War on Poverty has failed, given the poverty rate was declining far faster before its institution than during the 50 years since it began.
You might want to actually check your statistics before making proclamations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/...
The poverty rate dropped 50% from 1959 to the early 1970s, from almost 25% to around 12-13%, coinciding with the introduction of the modern welfare programs. It's held steady there ever since.
You might want to actually check your statistics before making proclamations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/...
The poverty rate dropped 50% from 1959 to the early 1970s, from almost 25% to around 12-13%, coinciding with the introduction of the modern welfare programs. It's held steady there ever since.
Repeating a comment I made before:
Poverty rates have failed to decline during almost the entire era of rapidly increasing social spending. There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, and it is all at the beginning, when the economy and populace had still not become accustomed to large social welfare programs, and when the size of these programs was much smaller than it is now. If social programs reduced poverty these aren't the stats you'd see.
Poverty rates have failed to decline during almost the entire era of rapidly increasing social spending. There is less than a decade of poverty rate reduction during the War on Poverty era, and it is all at the beginning, when the economy and populace had still not become accustomed to large social welfare programs, and when the size of these programs was much smaller than it is now. If social programs reduced poverty these aren't the stats you'd see.
> You can't run a food stand without a license.
> You can't work in many occupations without meeting minimum skill standards
Both of these are objectively good things that increase consumer confidence, public safety, etc.
> Marginalized groups (e.g. chronic drug users)
Claiming that drug addicts are "marginalized" and placing them in the same group as truly marginalized people (racial/ethnic minorities, LGBT, etc) is disingenuous. Drug use is a choice and in most jurisdictions, and federally in the US, is a crime. It's not surprising that many business owners do not want to employ someone who regularly violates the law.
I think drug testing for employees is an outdated concept and isn't going to increase your workers' productivity or the quality of your employee pool, but that doesn't mean it isn't the business owner's right to do so if they disagree.
> The stepping stone of working below minimum wage is made illegal for them
Which is probably another good thing considering you can barely feed yourself if you work for minimum wage.
> You can't work in many occupations without meeting minimum skill standards
Both of these are objectively good things that increase consumer confidence, public safety, etc.
> Marginalized groups (e.g. chronic drug users)
Claiming that drug addicts are "marginalized" and placing them in the same group as truly marginalized people (racial/ethnic minorities, LGBT, etc) is disingenuous. Drug use is a choice and in most jurisdictions, and federally in the US, is a crime. It's not surprising that many business owners do not want to employ someone who regularly violates the law.
I think drug testing for employees is an outdated concept and isn't going to increase your workers' productivity or the quality of your employee pool, but that doesn't mean it isn't the business owner's right to do so if they disagree.
> The stepping stone of working below minimum wage is made illegal for them
Which is probably another good thing considering you can barely feed yourself if you work for minimum wage.
>Both of these are objectively good things that increase consumer confidence, public safety, etc.
I haven't seen any indication that these are "objectively good things" that increase any of these public goods.
>>Drug use is a choice and in most jurisdictions, and federally in the US, is a crime.
That doesn't make drug users not marginalized.
>>but that doesn't mean it isn't the business owner's right to do so if they disagree.
Of course, I didn't suggest otherwise.
>>Which is probably another good thing considering you can barely feed yourself if you work for minimum wage.
Their alternative is working informally (e.g. bottle collection) and making below minimum wage without the benefit of gaining marketable skills, or not working, and making nothing, so I can't see how it could possibly be a good thing.
I haven't seen any indication that these are "objectively good things" that increase any of these public goods.
>>Drug use is a choice and in most jurisdictions, and federally in the US, is a crime.
That doesn't make drug users not marginalized.
>>but that doesn't mean it isn't the business owner's right to do so if they disagree.
Of course, I didn't suggest otherwise.
>>Which is probably another good thing considering you can barely feed yourself if you work for minimum wage.
Their alternative is working informally (e.g. bottle collection) and making below minimum wage without the benefit of gaining marketable skills, or not working, and making nothing, so I can't see how it could possibly be a good thing.
> Even minimum wage is a barrier for some. Marginalized groups (e.g. chronic drug users) can find it difficult to find an employer who values their labor at the minimum wage. The stepping stone of working below minimum wage is made illegal for them
I find this line of reasoning flawed, if you relaxed the constraints around minimum wage, the "stepping stone" would become the new minimum
I find this line of reasoning flawed, if you relaxed the constraints around minimum wage, the "stepping stone" would become the new minimum
You can relax barriers without lowering minimum wage, though. For example, drug tests. Drug tests are really common for low-wage jobs. So are credit checks. And so on. Many of these jobs have fairly cruel attendance policies as well, so getting to the psychiatrist once a month can be a real issue. Some of them require you to have a vehicle instead simply requiring a means of transportation - and at least outside of cities, many don't even have a safe place to lock up a bicycle.
You can require employers prove they need a credit check or drug test, for example. Most these places already have systems in place to catch theft and should be simply making sure the person does the job safely. Make sure folks can go to doctor's appointments, and have policies that mean folks can ride their bike to work without being stuck due to a stolen bicycle. This might also include making sure to have a changing room in case of incliment weather if you expect your employee to look a certain way when work starts.
You can require employers prove they need a credit check or drug test, for example. Most these places already have systems in place to catch theft and should be simply making sure the person does the job safely. Make sure folks can go to doctor's appointments, and have policies that mean folks can ride their bike to work without being stuck due to a stolen bicycle. This might also include making sure to have a changing room in case of incliment weather if you expect your employee to look a certain way when work starts.
That assumes no market rate for labor, and only government wage floors maintaining current wage levels, which given labor statistics, which show the unemployment rate being extremely low, and the vast majority of jobs paying above minimum wage, is clearly not true.
It's probably best to avoid the word "clearly" on topics where economists with PhDs can disagree widely and come to drastically different conclusions from the same data.
Economists don't disagree widely on there being a market rate for labor. This is a basic economic truism.
That is the most logical as a fine is supoosed to be a deterrent and it does not deter if you are super rich. It is also supposed to be a fairly mild punishment so if it is always so high that you can’t pay but have to go to prison then you are suddenly handing out very severe punishment for minor infractions.