2 ms·

Good points. Secrecy was once used so that people wouldn't destroy the evidence the warrant sought. But now it's easy to tell the third party to retain the ev

Good points. Secrecy was once used so that people wouldn't destroy the evidence the warrant sought. But now it's easy to tell the third party to retain the evidence; even if you delete it, they can still keep a copy. So there is no reason not to tell the target; they can't change the outcome, but they can begin the counter legal process to ensure their rights are preserved. Sometimes I wonder if they want secrecy so that criminals don't know they're being investigated, and commit a crime that's easier to prosecute. If they just stop committing crimes, then there's no fancy press release saying how great the DA is or whatever.

mlb_hn 5y ago
An alternative of that is as Oppenheimer once said, sometimes things are secret because a man doesn't like to know what he's up to if he can avoid it
Stratoscope 5y ago
> If they just stop committing crimes, then there's no fancy press release saying how great the DA is or whatever. That's an interesting observation on how people respond to their incentives. If I'm a DA, my job description is probably not to reduce crime. It is to successfully prosecute crimes that have already been committed. Of course, as a thoughtful and honorable person, I will naturally want to see if I can also reduce crime, not just prosecute it. But that is not the direct incentive I'm given. As a software developer on various mid-size teams, I've often found that I don't get much of a boost in my performance reviews when I find a way to make the entire team more productive, e.g. by solving a nagging problem that is affecting everyone. Instead, I get more highly rated by just making sure I knock out all of my own Jira tickets for the current sprint, and ignore those more global problems.
- roenxi 5y ago
  As a thoughtful and honourable person ... my guess is that there would be probably 6-12 months fighting the incentive then a process something like: * Develop a philosophy that there are bad people out there. * Greatest good strategy is to identify and incarcerate/re-educate these bad people through punishment. * Therefore preemptive crime reduction measures don't really get to the root problem - they provide cover for the bad people to operate. * Anyone talking about how all people are made up of shades of grey doesn't understand the situation and should be ignored. People providing legal support to the bad people are troublemakers. * Bad people are the ones least able to resist prosecution. This is a mystery the DA never really sits down to rationalise. That transformation isn't a new thing. Incentives and a smart mind can rationalise much harder situations.
- eru 5y ago
  > If I'm a DA, my job description is probably not to reduce crime. It is to successfully prosecute crimes that have already been committed. Well, it gets worse. Look beyond the job description to the actual incentives people face. If you are a DA with political ambitions, you might want to prosecute some very specific things, whether they are crimes or not. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice (And also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law for empire building.)
throwaway29834 5y ago
> Sometimes I wonder if they want secrecy so that criminals don't know they're being investigated, and commit a crime that's easier to prosecute. This is idiotic. When I worked murder investigations that used wiretaps, we didn't want the suspect to commit another murder. We wanted to gain enough evidence to see the suspect convicted. It defeats the purpose of the wiretap if they know we're listening to them.

mlb_hn 5y ago

An alternative of that is as Oppenheimer once said, sometimes things are secret because a man doesn't like to know what he's up to if he can avoid it

Stratoscope 5y ago

> If they just stop committing crimes, then there's no fancy press release saying how great the DA is or whatever. That's an interesting observation on how people respond to their incentives. If I'm a DA, my job description is probably not to reduce crime. It is to successfully prosecute crimes that have already been committed. Of course, as a thoughtful and honorable person, I will naturally want to see if I can also reduce crime, not just prosecute it. But that is not the direct incentive I'm given. As a software developer on various mid-size teams, I've often found that I don't get much of a boost in my performance reviews when I find a way to make the entire team more productive, e.g. by solving a nagging problem that is affecting everyone. Instead, I get more highly rated by just making sure I knock out all of my own Jira tickets for the current sprint, and ignore those more global problems.

roenxi 5y ago
As a thoughtful and honourable person ... my guess is that there would be probably 6-12 months fighting the incentive then a process something like: * Develop a philosophy that there are bad people out there. * Greatest good strategy is to identify and incarcerate/re-educate these bad people through punishment. * Therefore preemptive crime reduction measures don't really get to the root problem - they provide cover for the bad people to operate. * Anyone talking about how all people are made up of shades of grey doesn't understand the situation and should be ignored. People providing legal support to the bad people are troublemakers. * Bad people are the ones least able to resist prosecution. This is a mystery the DA never really sits down to rationalise. That transformation isn't a new thing. Incentives and a smart mind can rationalise much harder situations.
eru 5y ago
> If I'm a DA, my job description is probably not to reduce crime. It is to successfully prosecute crimes that have already been committed. Well, it gets worse. Look beyond the job description to the actual incentives people face. If you are a DA with political ambitions, you might want to prosecute some very specific things, whether they are crimes or not. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice (And also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law for empire building.)

throwaway29834 5y ago

> Sometimes I wonder if they want secrecy so that criminals don't know they're being investigated, and commit a crime that's easier to prosecute. This is idiotic. When I worked murder investigations that used wiretaps, we didn't want the suspect to commit another murder. We wanted to gain enough evidence to see the suspect convicted. It defeats the purpose of the wiretap if they know we're listening to them.