10 ms·

Consider the restrictions that US law places on convicted felons. Millions of Americans have been stripped of constitutional rights, often for infractions as mi

Consider the restrictions that US law places on convicted felons. Millions of Americans have been stripped of constitutional rights, often for infractions as minor as stealing a coat or possessing half an ounce of marijuana. Felons often face considerable difficulties in finding employment and housing. "Once untrustworthy, always restricted" is a practical reality in the US.

DamnYuppie 9y ago
Stealing a coat or possessing 1/2 and ounce of marijuana are generally not felonies. Stealing would be larceny and there are cost thresholds associated with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony
- jamesblonde 9y ago
  What about 3 strikes in many States?
  - thathappened 9y ago
    Sympathy for habitual criminals?
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    I understand your point. But I think the problem actually arises long before strike number three. In most cases, it's ONE strike and you're out as far as "bad social credit score" goes. It's just going to be VERY difficult for you to secure employment, or even decent housing, with that conviction on your record. Just one of the hard realities of the legal system.
  - DamnYuppie 9y ago
    I am not sure I follow your question as it is very open ended. Are you asking if I am in favor of incarcerating criminals who continually commit violent felonies?
  - vondur 9y ago
    Originally, the 3 strikes laws were to be used only against violent felonies. I'm not sure how they were able to include non violent offenses to the list.
    - labster 9y ago
      Easy. Find one example of someone who stole something three times, then later murdered someone. Scare people with this fact. Make up a theory about how larceny is a gateway to violence. This is, exactly, how the immigration debate is being held in DC. One undocumented shot and killed a citizen by accident, and now we're supposed to kick all immigrants out. Visceral emotion is a great tool to optimize society for corner cases.
- mikeash 9y ago
  In Virginia, felony larceny starts at $200, easily within coat range. I once had jury duty and was faced with the prospect of sentencing the defendant to up to 20 years in prison for the crime of receiving stolen goods valued at least $200. I got rejected from the jury, probably because I said I couldn’t possibly consider 20 years in prison for that.
  - lxmorj 9y ago
    I feel like at that point, it'd be morally correct to lie to get into the jury...
    - davrosthedalek 9y ago
      My English might fail me here, but if you think about a 20 year sentence and find it not adequate to the crime, wouldn't you have "considered" it? I can understand why the question is asked though. The jury is there to find facts, i.e. define what has happened. The judge will then find the "correct" sentence if found guilty. The jury should not be swayed to a not guilty finding if they believe a guilty would be correct, just because the possible maximum sentence is too long, even if it would not be imposed in the case at hand anyway.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Virginia is unique here. Juries perform sentencing, not just finding of guilt. That’s why they asked the question.
        davrosthedalek 9y ago
        Interesting. It certainly brings the risk of vengeful sentencing. But that brings me back to my original question: Would they have lied if they would have said "I would consider 20 years", already having made up their mind about it?
        mikeash 9y ago
- jdietrich 9y ago
  Virginia and New Jersey have felony larceny thresholds of $200; Massachusetts draws the line at $250. Arizona, Oklahoma and Tennessee all class possession of half an ounce of marijuana as a felony. Several states make possession of any amount within proximity of a school, church or park a felony. There are countless examples of misdemeanour possession being trumped-up to felony possession with intent based on very flimsy grounds. This is all nitpicky and arbitrary, which is largely my point. The line between misdemeanour and felony is thin, but the consequences of crossing it are severe. In one state, you might get a $50 fine; in the next, you might be barred from voting or lose your green card.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    I think you're missing the overall point. It doesn't matter whether the demarcation is $200, $250, or $3000 between a misdemeanor and a felony. It is more important that a person has trafficked in stolen goods. For that reason, lowering the limit of a misdemeanor is far more likely than raising it. Besides, different states have different laws. This isn't arbitrary but how our country was designed to work.
- jhayward 9y ago
  A state employee in Texas was charged with a felony for making a $0.25 personal call on a state owned telephone.
- somecontext 9y ago
  The threshold was $100 in Louisiana in 1996 for the case referenced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16607471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16607471
desireco42 9y ago
I was about to say the same, they are copying US because US did some great work in suppressing dissent.
ams6110 9y ago
> Felons often face considerable difficulties in finding employment and housing. This is the marketplace at work. It's not a government-imposed ban on access to public services.
- nkrisc 9y ago
  What's the difference if the effect is the same?
  - alexbeloi 9y ago
    It's the same as the difference between societal discrimination and government legislated discrimination. Both terrible, the latter seems more so.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    There are landlords who will rent to felons and employers who will hire them. It's not a blanket ban.
    - johan_larson 9y ago
      People with felony convictions are barred by law from many professions in many states, including surprisingly innocuous ones like dentistry and massage therapy.
- sgift 9y ago
  The only way the marketplace can do this is with the support of the government. The government provides felony records after all.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    So you think what, the courts should be secret?
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
throwawayjava 9y ago
(edit: oy, this is a controversial comment? karma score is swinging wildly. I don't mean to suggest that China's social credit system is a good idea or that it has an equivalent in the USA. It's just worth pointing out that China's own characterization of the system is pretty similar to how things work in the US...) From the article: > People who would be put on the restricted lists included those found to have committed acts like spreading false information about terrorism and causing trouble on flights, as well as those who used expired tickets or smoked on trains, according to two statements issued on the National Development and Reform Commission’s website on Friday. The US may ban you from flying if you are politically controversial [1]+, get kicked off a flight [2, edit: 4], or sneak onto planes without a ticket [3]. Likewise, people who trespass on public transit are often barred from its use. And of course people who break traffic laws are (eventually) kicked off the roads. I won't comment on whether the Chinese government's characterization of its laws is accurate or not (I don't speak any relevant language and don't know much about the culture, so all I have to go off of is western media). But at least according to the Chinese government, these rules are mostly in-line with how things often work in the US. [1] https://theintercept.com/document/2014/07/23/march-2013-watchlisting-guidance/ https://theintercept.com/document/2014/07/23/march-2013-watc... (edit: changed from http://mentalfloss.com/article/68073/8-ways-you-can-end-no-fly-list http://mentalfloss.com/article/68073/8-ways-you-can-end-no-f...) [2] https://thepointsguy.com/2017/07/getting-banned-from-an-airline/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/07/getting-banned-from-an-airl... [3] e.g., http://wqad.com/2018/02/21/illinois-stowaway-woman-pleads-not-guilty-after-chicago-to-london-flight/ http://wqad.com/2018/02/21/illinois-stowaway-woman-pleads-no... [4] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39919229/ns/travel-news/t/can-bad-in-flight-behavior-land-you-no-fly-list/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39919229/ns/travel-news/t/can-bad-... + The "predictive assessments" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/10/us-no-fly-list-predictive-assessments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/10/us-no-fly-li...) used for putting people on the no-fly list are not very transparent and, IMO, reminiscent of a social credit system. It's extremely hard to imagine such a system that doesn't harshly penalize certain constitutionally protected speech (e.g., about Islam and US foreign policy in the ME).
- sgift 9y ago
  > The US will ban you from flying if you are politically controversial [1] The provided source doesn't support this claim. The only part which could even remotely be constructed as support for this claim would be 3 and the anecdata there include "He suspects" and "He thinks" - on the other, that you can end on such a list without knowing the reason (and often without recourse afair) is a real problem, but that's not what you claimed.
adventured 9y ago
The country you're countering about, China, executes people in stadiums before cheering crowds instead of going the felony route when it comes to drug policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/thousands-china-watch-executed-sport-stadium https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/thousands-chin... Meanwhile, back in the US, we've actually begun to recognize our mistake as a culture. Thus eight states have legalized marijuana, and another dozen will go that way soon. Decriminalization of drug offenses is a common point of discussion in every state. Nearly every state that puts pot legalization on the ballot sees it go through. We've begun recognizing the mistake of how we fail to treat addicts. Over a decade ago the US recognized the huge mistake of mass incarceration, as such the US prison population has peaked and has begun to decline, with both sides of the political aisle now openly discussing how to correct that broken system. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/grover-norquist/republicans-and-democrats_5_b_5460367.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/grover-norquist/republicans-a... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/prison-reform-bipartisan-congress-mass-incarceration https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/prison... http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/354288-we-must-pass-the-reverse-incarceration-act-if-we-want-prison-reform http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/354288-we-must-p... And there's China, going the other direction full speed.
- macrael 9y ago
  From the first link, China sentenced 10 people in front of a crowd but they were executed out of sight. Not that this fully detracts from your point but I appreciate the clarity.
  - adventured 9y ago
    The interesting thing, is that it's a return to the execution parades that used to be very common in decades past: [2013] "China executes 4 foreigners, televises death march" ... "China has mostly abandoned the once-common practice of parading condemned criminals before crowds in stadiums and through city streets on the way to execution grounds on the edge of cities." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-executes-4-foreigners-televises-death-march/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-executes-4-foreigners-tel...
_bxg1 9y ago
Not to imply that the American system is good, but at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions. With the "social credit system" things are much more fluid and subjective, so there's going to be a much greater culture of fear surrounding it. Granted, we have the same problems with our own credit system, but at least ours only applies to and is affected by finances. There's a boundary to keep both the fear and the effects from leaking into all corners of life.
- sambe 9y ago
  There's a discrete outcome that gets you into that status. The actions and the way they are judged seem just as fluid and subjective to me.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions You would think that, but research shows systemic biases in the justice system throughout the entire funnel: from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are. This is a sign the actions are not well-defined, and quite subjective.
  - allthenews 9y ago
    >from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are None of this detracts from the fact that these laws are ultimately relatively clear in their restrictions, compared to China's social score. Theft is theft. Drug possession is drug possession. Had these "unfairly" targeted individuals followed the law, they would not be subject to its penalties. Sure, I recognize that very few of us are perfectly law abiding citizens. But I have trouble with the notion that heavier police presence, and heavier sentencing for repeat offenders, are somehow unfair phenomena, and these alleged transgressions far too often are lumped together with actual institutional inequity. In other words, one must not conflate subjectivity in sentencing and policing with some kind of ingrained, institutional caste system, so long as laws are followed as written. If you wish to stay out of the felon caste, do not break obvious laws, like those regarding drug possession. If you do not agree with such laws, work to change them.
Slansitartop 9y ago
> Consider the restrictions that US law places on convicted felons. Millions of Americans have been stripped of constitutional rights, often for infractions as minor as stealing a coat or possessing half an ounce of marijuana. Felons often face considerable difficulties in finding employment and housing. "Once untrustworthy, always restricted" is a practical reality in the US. I understand the US isn't perfect, but I feel the real effects of comments such as yours do as much to excuse China's brand new system as they do to bring light to flaws in the US's system. I think it must be emphasized that "once untrustworthy, always restricted" is a new policy in China that's being implemented, while in the US it is a historical principle that's coming under increased skepticism and criticism.
wil421 9y ago
That is a terrible comparison. Social credit is more like a credit report or score than something criminal.
- mrhappyunhappy 9y ago
  Yeah if your credit report restricted you from flying...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
make3 9y ago
both suck and both should change, and China is worse, is the conclusion here, I think you'll agree
somecontext 9y ago
> have been stripped of constitutional rights, often for infractions as minor as stealing a coat For some context in case anyone was curious, please see the page numbered 116 (but 118 of 240 of the PDF) from this report from the ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111213a-lwop-complete-report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111213a-lwop-complete-repo...

DamnYuppie 9y ago

Stealing a coat or possessing 1/2 and ounce of marijuana are generally not felonies. Stealing would be larceny and there are cost thresholds associated with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

jamesblonde 9y ago
What about 3 strikes in many States?
- thathappened 9y ago
  Sympathy for habitual criminals?
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  I understand your point. But I think the problem actually arises long before strike number three. In most cases, it's ONE strike and you're out as far as "bad social credit score" goes. It's just going to be VERY difficult for you to secure employment, or even decent housing, with that conviction on your record. Just one of the hard realities of the legal system.
- DamnYuppie 9y ago
  I am not sure I follow your question as it is very open ended. Are you asking if I am in favor of incarcerating criminals who continually commit violent felonies?
- vondur 9y ago
  Originally, the 3 strikes laws were to be used only against violent felonies. I'm not sure how they were able to include non violent offenses to the list.
  - labster 9y ago
    Easy. Find one example of someone who stole something three times, then later murdered someone. Scare people with this fact. Make up a theory about how larceny is a gateway to violence. This is, exactly, how the immigration debate is being held in DC. One undocumented shot and killed a citizen by accident, and now we're supposed to kick all immigrants out. Visceral emotion is a great tool to optimize society for corner cases.
mikeash 9y ago
In Virginia, felony larceny starts at $200, easily within coat range. I once had jury duty and was faced with the prospect of sentencing the defendant to up to 20 years in prison for the crime of receiving stolen goods valued at least $200. I got rejected from the jury, probably because I said I couldn’t possibly consider 20 years in prison for that.
- lxmorj 9y ago
  I feel like at that point, it'd be morally correct to lie to get into the jury...
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    My English might fail me here, but if you think about a 20 year sentence and find it not adequate to the crime, wouldn't you have "considered" it? I can understand why the question is asked though. The jury is there to find facts, i.e. define what has happened. The judge will then find the "correct" sentence if found guilty. The jury should not be swayed to a not guilty finding if they believe a guilty would be correct, just because the possible maximum sentence is too long, even if it would not be imposed in the case at hand anyway.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Virginia is unique here. Juries perform sentencing, not just finding of guilt. That’s why they asked the question.
      - davrosthedalek 9y ago
        Interesting. It certainly brings the risk of vengeful sentencing. But that brings me back to my original question: Would they have lied if they would have said "I would consider 20 years", already having made up their mind about it?
        mikeash 9y ago
jdietrich 9y ago
Virginia and New Jersey have felony larceny thresholds of $200; Massachusetts draws the line at $250. Arizona, Oklahoma and Tennessee all class possession of half an ounce of marijuana as a felony. Several states make possession of any amount within proximity of a school, church or park a felony. There are countless examples of misdemeanour possession being trumped-up to felony possession with intent based on very flimsy grounds. This is all nitpicky and arbitrary, which is largely my point. The line between misdemeanour and felony is thin, but the consequences of crossing it are severe. In one state, you might get a $50 fine; in the next, you might be barred from voting or lose your green card.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  I think you're missing the overall point. It doesn't matter whether the demarcation is $200, $250, or $3000 between a misdemeanor and a felony. It is more important that a person has trafficked in stolen goods. For that reason, lowering the limit of a misdemeanor is far more likely than raising it. Besides, different states have different laws. This isn't arbitrary but how our country was designed to work.
jhayward 9y ago
A state employee in Texas was charged with a felony for making a $0.25 personal call on a state owned telephone.
somecontext 9y ago
The threshold was $100 in Louisiana in 1996 for the case referenced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16607471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16607471

desireco42 9y ago

I was about to say the same, they are copying US because US did some great work in suppressing dissent.

ams6110 9y ago

> Felons often face considerable difficulties in finding employment and housing. This is the marketplace at work. It's not a government-imposed ban on access to public services.

nkrisc 9y ago
What's the difference if the effect is the same?
- alexbeloi 9y ago
  It's the same as the difference between societal discrimination and government legislated discrimination. Both terrible, the latter seems more so.
- ams6110 9y ago
  There are landlords who will rent to felons and employers who will hire them. It's not a blanket ban.
  - johan_larson 9y ago
    People with felony convictions are barred by law from many professions in many states, including surprisingly innocuous ones like dentistry and massage therapy.
sgift 9y ago
The only way the marketplace can do this is with the support of the government. The government provides felony records after all.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  So you think what, the courts should be secret?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago

throwawayjava 9y ago

(edit: oy, this is a controversial comment? karma score is swinging wildly. I don't mean to suggest that China's social credit system is a good idea or that it has an equivalent in the USA. It's just worth pointing out that China's own characterization of the system is pretty similar to how things work in the US...) From the article: > People who would be put on the restricted lists included those found to have committed acts like spreading false information about terrorism and causing trouble on flights, as well as those who used expired tickets or smoked on trains, according to two statements issued on the National Development and Reform Commission’s website on Friday. The US may ban you from flying if you are politically controversial [1]+, get kicked off a flight [2, edit: 4], or sneak onto planes without a ticket [3]. Likewise, people who trespass on public transit are often barred from its use. And of course people who break traffic laws are (eventually) kicked off the roads. I won't comment on whether the Chinese government's characterization of its laws is accurate or not (I don't speak any relevant language and don't know much about the culture, so all I have to go off of is western media). But at least according to the Chinese government, these rules are mostly in-line with how things often work in the US. [1] https://theintercept.com/document/2014/07/23/march-2013-watchlisting-guidance/ https://theintercept.com/document/2014/07/23/march-2013-watc... (edit: changed from http://mentalfloss.com/article/68073/8-ways-you-can-end-no-fly-list http://mentalfloss.com/article/68073/8-ways-you-can-end-no-f...) [2] https://thepointsguy.com/2017/07/getting-banned-from-an-airline/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/07/getting-banned-from-an-airl... [3] e.g., http://wqad.com/2018/02/21/illinois-stowaway-woman-pleads-not-guilty-after-chicago-to-london-flight/ http://wqad.com/2018/02/21/illinois-stowaway-woman-pleads-no... [4] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39919229/ns/travel-news/t/can-bad-in-flight-behavior-land-you-no-fly-list/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39919229/ns/travel-news/t/can-bad-... + The "predictive assessments" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/10/us-no-fly-list-predictive-assessments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/10/us-no-fly-li...) used for putting people on the no-fly list are not very transparent and, IMO, reminiscent of a social credit system. It's extremely hard to imagine such a system that doesn't harshly penalize certain constitutionally protected speech (e.g., about Islam and US foreign policy in the ME).

sgift 9y ago
> The US will ban you from flying if you are politically controversial [1] The provided source doesn't support this claim. The only part which could even remotely be constructed as support for this claim would be 3 and the anecdata there include "He suspects" and "He thinks" - on the other, that you can end on such a list without knowing the reason (and often without recourse afair) is a real problem, but that's not what you claimed.

adventured 9y ago

The country you're countering about, China, executes people in stadiums before cheering crowds instead of going the felony route when it comes to drug policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/thousands-china-watch-executed-sport-stadium https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/thousands-chin... Meanwhile, back in the US, we've actually begun to recognize our mistake as a culture. Thus eight states have legalized marijuana, and another dozen will go that way soon. Decriminalization of drug offenses is a common point of discussion in every state. Nearly every state that puts pot legalization on the ballot sees it go through. We've begun recognizing the mistake of how we fail to treat addicts. Over a decade ago the US recognized the huge mistake of mass incarceration, as such the US prison population has peaked and has begun to decline, with both sides of the political aisle now openly discussing how to correct that broken system. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/grover-norquist/republicans-and-democrats_5_b_5460367.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/grover-norquist/republicans-a... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/prison-reform-bipartisan-congress-mass-incarceration https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/prison... http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/354288-we-must-pass-the-reverse-incarceration-act-if-we-want-prison-reform http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/354288-we-must-p... And there's China, going the other direction full speed.

macrael 9y ago
From the first link, China sentenced 10 people in front of a crowd but they were executed out of sight. Not that this fully detracts from your point but I appreciate the clarity.
- adventured 9y ago
  The interesting thing, is that it's a return to the execution parades that used to be very common in decades past: [2013] "China executes 4 foreigners, televises death march" ... "China has mostly abandoned the once-common practice of parading condemned criminals before crowds in stadiums and through city streets on the way to execution grounds on the edge of cities." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-executes-4-foreigners-televises-death-march/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-executes-4-foreigners-tel...

_bxg1 9y ago

Not to imply that the American system is good, but at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions. With the "social credit system" things are much more fluid and subjective, so there's going to be a much greater culture of fear surrounding it. Granted, we have the same problems with our own credit system, but at least ours only applies to and is affected by finances. There's a boundary to keep both the fear and the effects from leaking into all corners of life.

sambe 9y ago
There's a discrete outcome that gets you into that status. The actions and the way they are judged seem just as fluid and subjective to me.
sangnoir 9y ago
> at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions You would think that, but research shows systemic biases in the justice system throughout the entire funnel: from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are. This is a sign the actions are not well-defined, and quite subjective.
- allthenews 9y ago
  >from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are None of this detracts from the fact that these laws are ultimately relatively clear in their restrictions, compared to China's social score. Theft is theft. Drug possession is drug possession. Had these "unfairly" targeted individuals followed the law, they would not be subject to its penalties. Sure, I recognize that very few of us are perfectly law abiding citizens. But I have trouble with the notion that heavier police presence, and heavier sentencing for repeat offenders, are somehow unfair phenomena, and these alleged transgressions far too often are lumped together with actual institutional inequity. In other words, one must not conflate subjectivity in sentencing and policing with some kind of ingrained, institutional caste system, so long as laws are followed as written. If you wish to stay out of the felon caste, do not break obvious laws, like those regarding drug possession. If you do not agree with such laws, work to change them.

Slansitartop 9y ago

> Consider the restrictions that US law places on convicted felons. Millions of Americans have been stripped of constitutional rights, often for infractions as minor as stealing a coat or possessing half an ounce of marijuana. Felons often face considerable difficulties in finding employment and housing. "Once untrustworthy, always restricted" is a practical reality in the US. I understand the US isn't perfect, but I feel the real effects of comments such as yours do as much to excuse China's brand new system as they do to bring light to flaws in the US's system. I think it must be emphasized that "once untrustworthy, always restricted" is a new policy in China that's being implemented, while in the US it is a historical principle that's coming under increased skepticism and criticism.

wil421 9y ago

That is a terrible comparison. Social credit is more like a credit report or score than something criminal.

mrhappyunhappy 9y ago
Yeah if your credit report restricted you from flying...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

make3 9y ago

both suck and both should change, and China is worse, is the conclusion here, I think you'll agree

somecontext 9y ago

> have been stripped of constitutional rights, often for infractions as minor as stealing a coat For some context in case anyone was curious, please see the page numbered 116 (but 118 of 240 of the PDF) from this report from the ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111213a-lwop-complete-report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111213a-lwop-complete-repo...