8 ms·

This is only one part of a system that the rich have their rules, and the rest have "their rules". It also goes along with the idea: pay for a bigshot attorney

This is only one part of a system that the rich have their rules, and the rest have "their rules". It also goes along with the idea: pay for a bigshot attorney, get out of murder charge. Be poor accused, get public defender and a guilty charge. In Indiana, you can even expunge felonies up to a certain criminal threshold. Do you know what the primary criteria is? You have to PAY for them to expunge. The USA has always been pay-for-play. Now, its being called out for what it is. This country, the legal system, elections; you name it. The more money you have, the more influence you have, and the "better" the system is for you. How do we fix this? The simple answer is to elect people who have more liberal mindsets that try to get rid of these poor=disenfranchised laws. That's a long term, and not even guaranteed to work. What do we have short term? I have no clue.

rectang 8y ago
The ideology underpinning such unequal treatment ferments in places like HN. How often do we see the argument around here that unlimited inequality is fine so long as everyone improves in absolute terms? That argument is bogus because political power closely tracks wealth -- and thus unlimited inequality facilitates a society where we are not equal under the law.
- IanDrake 8y ago
  For the sake of argument, can you name a current law that treats people unequally by some immutable quality of the individual?
  - rectang 8y ago
    "Immutable", eh? That would exclude wealth. But disparities of wealth are a fountainhead of unequal treatment under US bail laws.
    - IanDrake 8y ago
      I wouldn’t consider wealth to be immutable, but I think your example is clear, so let’s roll it forward. So you would rather see bail set at a percentage of net worth? That would make things equal?
      - maym86 8y ago
        This, from a explaination of the UK system in a comment below. > Police can only hold you for up to 96 hours without charging you with a crime. Once you are charged with something and awaiting trial, you have to be tried within 56 days. If you are not tried within those 56 days you have to be released on unconditional bail. Police can set up bail before the trail, but it cannot involve money - frequently it involves staying at a particular address, reporting to the police station daily, not contacting certain people etc - it depends on the severity of the crime, you cannot be released on bail for acts of violence or armed robbery for example.
        IanDrake 8y ago
        Is this what you’re advocating? Police get to optionally, at their discretion, set bail? That seems ripe for abuse. At this point in history, I would NEVER look to the UK as a model for anything state related. It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days.
        maym86 8y ago
        > It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days. Care to explain?
        IanDrake 8y ago
        There seems to be an assault on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to self defense (life). Freedom of the press: The Tommy Robinson episode which is the first time I had heard of the broad government ability to ban news stories from being reported. You don’t have to agree with Robinson’s politics, you just need to realize the precedent it sets. Freedom of speech: Chelsea Russell - https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh... Mark Meechan - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotlan... I’m not defending these people, but think about the chilling effect this has on speech. Right to self defense: U.K. took away the right to legally own hand guns in 1996. Since then knife violence has been on the rise. London is now considering “common sense knife control”. There is no longer any legal weapon you can carry that will give you a force multiplier over an attacker. This is especially dangerous for women. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/feb/11/knife-police-liberty-clinic https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...
  - lexs 8y ago
    You bring up an important point with that question, what exactly is an immutable quality of the individual. Is the upbringing, cultural influences etc also immutable qualities or are you only talking about actual physical properties such as age, gender, skincolour etc.
    - IanDrake 8y ago
      I would say the latter. People have escaped their upbringing, culture, and socioeconomic position. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s not immutable either. But I’ve never seen a woman become a man or a white person become a POC. So that’s pretty immutable. I’ll take examples from either category though.
      - smt88 8y ago
        People have sex changes. Since race is a social construct and has no provable scientific reality, lots of people "pass" as other races depending on where/when they are being observed. Mixed-race people have always done this, sometimes by accident and sometimes on purpose.
        IanDrake 8y ago
        Having a sex change doesn’t turn a man into a woman. There is no basis in science for that. If that were true, I could paint a tennis ball orange and eat it like a fruit. Race is not a “social construct”. If that were true, I wouldn’t be able to blindly tell your race via a dna test. Where does all this anti-science rhetoric come from? I guess global warming and evolution is a myth too?
        sincerely 8y ago
        "race is a social construct" refers to the fact that the racial categories we place people in as a society do not have a strong relationship to the type of racial information available through biological testing.
  - smt88 8y ago
    All laws based on age, ability/disability, the place someone (or their parent) was born, gender, prior criminal status, and sexuality. I'm only talking about the US, though. I can give examples of each if you don't believe me.
    - IanDrake 8y ago
      Yes, examples are exactly what I was asking for.
nervousvarun 8y ago
Another possible factor here...what percentage of US politicians are attorneys? Whether it's lobbies, tort-reform, whatever we always sortof seem to be expecting reforms to come from people with incentive for these systems to stay the way are.
IanDrake 8y ago
Why are you so sure a conservative mindset wouldn’t be more helpful? In practice, it was liberals who enacted heavy sentences on crack usage. California, an extremely liberal state, voted in a 72% majority referendum for the three strikes policy. So, I’m just curious why liberals have some sort of lock in the minds of people as being on the “side of the poor”.
- frockington 8y ago
  I'm not sure the Dems are focused on the poor anymore. One of Trumps main pushes was that he would represent the working class Americans who are working but still struggling. I think the GOP has been targeting the working poor away from the Dems in recent years
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    They are focused on the poor - the decline of unions and lack of traction of economic issues has lead to the drift - or more specifically general refusal to adopt views or stances held which they find unacceptable for other reasons. Typically this is referred to as "voting against their interests" but that depends upon personal priorities be they wise or foolish. Tech workers refusing to work on abuseable projects are technically acting against their interests fiscally. I will try to abstain from judgement here. Also they do have a large portion of the working class - just not definitively over the white part who traditionally bear the name. Perhaps related to their strong hold on minorities that made them not stand out as a distinct bloc. Parts of their other coalition having views at odds with theirs and friction related is not new (see the Hard Hat Riots for one and environmentalists vs industrial workers). Similarly Republicans have long been reaching them on social issues as well - pre civil rights act related inversion even arguably. Regardless of one's moral opinions facing their overtures largely rejected and power diminished why should the democrats try to serve them at the cost of others strategically? They aren't special or numerous enough which makes the political capital better spent elsewhere. Blue-dogs exist and are run where locally favorable but they aren't nationally prominent for a reason.
- pmwhite 8y ago
  "California, an extremely liberal state, voted in a 72% majority referendum for the three strikes policy." Incorrect. In 1994, when the three strikes legislation passed, CA was a purple state with a moderate Republican governor. It is the anti-immigrant rhetoric around Prop 208 in 1996 that undermined the GOP in the state, by driving the majority of the young and non-white into the arms of the Democrats.
rayiner 8y ago
> It also goes along with the idea: pay for a bigshot attorney, get out of murder charge. Be poor accused, get public defender and a guilty charge. Fun fact: the government wins almost all of its cases against the "bigshot attorneys" too. The DOJ secures a conviction in 90%+ of white collar, official corruption, and organized crime cases, comparable to the conviction rate for narcotics convictions: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2011/09/01/10statrpt.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2011....
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  Isn't this a selection problem though? I've heard criticism of the 'chickenshit club' variety - basically that the government only pursues the most slam-dunk easy win cases at all. If that's true, certainly bigshot attorneys still work, just in that they induce the government to never go to court in the first place as opposed to going to court and then losing.

rectang 8y ago

The ideology underpinning such unequal treatment ferments in places like HN. How often do we see the argument around here that unlimited inequality is fine so long as everyone improves in absolute terms? That argument is bogus because political power closely tracks wealth -- and thus unlimited inequality facilitates a society where we are not equal under the law.

IanDrake 8y ago
For the sake of argument, can you name a current law that treats people unequally by some immutable quality of the individual?
- rectang 8y ago
  "Immutable", eh? That would exclude wealth. But disparities of wealth are a fountainhead of unequal treatment under US bail laws.
  - IanDrake 8y ago
    I wouldn’t consider wealth to be immutable, but I think your example is clear, so let’s roll it forward. So you would rather see bail set at a percentage of net worth? That would make things equal?
    - maym86 8y ago
      This, from a explaination of the UK system in a comment below. > Police can only hold you for up to 96 hours without charging you with a crime. Once you are charged with something and awaiting trial, you have to be tried within 56 days. If you are not tried within those 56 days you have to be released on unconditional bail. Police can set up bail before the trail, but it cannot involve money - frequently it involves staying at a particular address, reporting to the police station daily, not contacting certain people etc - it depends on the severity of the crime, you cannot be released on bail for acts of violence or armed robbery for example.
      - IanDrake 8y ago
        Is this what you’re advocating? Police get to optionally, at their discretion, set bail? That seems ripe for abuse. At this point in history, I would NEVER look to the UK as a model for anything state related. It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days.
        maym86 8y ago
        > It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days. Care to explain?
        IanDrake 8y ago
        There seems to be an assault on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to self defense (life). Freedom of the press: The Tommy Robinson episode which is the first time I had heard of the broad government ability to ban news stories from being reported. You don’t have to agree with Robinson’s politics, you just need to realize the precedent it sets. Freedom of speech: Chelsea Russell - https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh... Mark Meechan - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotlan... I’m not defending these people, but think about the chilling effect this has on speech. Right to self defense: U.K. took away the right to legally own hand guns in 1996. Since then knife violence has been on the rise. London is now considering “common sense knife control”. There is no longer any legal weapon you can carry that will give you a force multiplier over an attacker. This is especially dangerous for women. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/feb/11/knife-police-liberty-clinic https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...
- lexs 8y ago
  You bring up an important point with that question, what exactly is an immutable quality of the individual. Is the upbringing, cultural influences etc also immutable qualities or are you only talking about actual physical properties such as age, gender, skincolour etc.
  - IanDrake 8y ago
    I would say the latter. People have escaped their upbringing, culture, and socioeconomic position. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s not immutable either. But I’ve never seen a woman become a man or a white person become a POC. So that’s pretty immutable. I’ll take examples from either category though.
    - smt88 8y ago
      People have sex changes. Since race is a social construct and has no provable scientific reality, lots of people "pass" as other races depending on where/when they are being observed. Mixed-race people have always done this, sometimes by accident and sometimes on purpose.
      - IanDrake 8y ago
        Having a sex change doesn’t turn a man into a woman. There is no basis in science for that. If that were true, I could paint a tennis ball orange and eat it like a fruit. Race is not a “social construct”. If that were true, I wouldn’t be able to blindly tell your race via a dna test. Where does all this anti-science rhetoric come from? I guess global warming and evolution is a myth too?
        sincerely 8y ago
        "race is a social construct" refers to the fact that the racial categories we place people in as a society do not have a strong relationship to the type of racial information available through biological testing.
- smt88 8y ago
  All laws based on age, ability/disability, the place someone (or their parent) was born, gender, prior criminal status, and sexuality. I'm only talking about the US, though. I can give examples of each if you don't believe me.
  - IanDrake 8y ago
    Yes, examples are exactly what I was asking for.

nervousvarun 8y ago

Another possible factor here...what percentage of US politicians are attorneys? Whether it's lobbies, tort-reform, whatever we always sortof seem to be expecting reforms to come from people with incentive for these systems to stay the way are.

IanDrake 8y ago

Why are you so sure a conservative mindset wouldn’t be more helpful? In practice, it was liberals who enacted heavy sentences on crack usage. California, an extremely liberal state, voted in a 72% majority referendum for the three strikes policy. So, I’m just curious why liberals have some sort of lock in the minds of people as being on the “side of the poor”.

frockington 8y ago
I'm not sure the Dems are focused on the poor anymore. One of Trumps main pushes was that he would represent the working class Americans who are working but still struggling. I think the GOP has been targeting the working poor away from the Dems in recent years
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  They are focused on the poor - the decline of unions and lack of traction of economic issues has lead to the drift - or more specifically general refusal to adopt views or stances held which they find unacceptable for other reasons. Typically this is referred to as "voting against their interests" but that depends upon personal priorities be they wise or foolish. Tech workers refusing to work on abuseable projects are technically acting against their interests fiscally. I will try to abstain from judgement here. Also they do have a large portion of the working class - just not definitively over the white part who traditionally bear the name. Perhaps related to their strong hold on minorities that made them not stand out as a distinct bloc. Parts of their other coalition having views at odds with theirs and friction related is not new (see the Hard Hat Riots for one and environmentalists vs industrial workers). Similarly Republicans have long been reaching them on social issues as well - pre civil rights act related inversion even arguably. Regardless of one's moral opinions facing their overtures largely rejected and power diminished why should the democrats try to serve them at the cost of others strategically? They aren't special or numerous enough which makes the political capital better spent elsewhere. Blue-dogs exist and are run where locally favorable but they aren't nationally prominent for a reason.
pmwhite 8y ago
"California, an extremely liberal state, voted in a 72% majority referendum for the three strikes policy." Incorrect. In 1994, when the three strikes legislation passed, CA was a purple state with a moderate Republican governor. It is the anti-immigrant rhetoric around Prop 208 in 1996 that undermined the GOP in the state, by driving the majority of the young and non-white into the arms of the Democrats.

rayiner 8y ago

> It also goes along with the idea: pay for a bigshot attorney, get out of murder charge. Be poor accused, get public defender and a guilty charge. Fun fact: the government wins almost all of its cases against the "bigshot attorneys" too. The DOJ secures a conviction in 90%+ of white collar, official corruption, and organized crime cases, comparable to the conviction rate for narcotics convictions: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2011/09/01/10statrpt.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2011....

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
Isn't this a selection problem though? I've heard criticism of the 'chickenshit club' variety - basically that the government only pursues the most slam-dunk easy win cases at all. If that's true, certainly bigshot attorneys still work, just in that they induce the government to never go to court in the first place as opposed to going to court and then losing.