3 ms·
From Alec Karakatsanis's excellent Usual Cruelty on plea bargains: > “the Constitution requires that every guilty plea waiving the constitutional right to tria
by SirensOfTitan 5y ago
From Alec Karakatsanis's excellent Usual Cruelty on plea bargains:
> “the Constitution requires that every guilty plea waiving the constitutional right to trial by a jury of one’s peers be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.69 But no one who works in the criminal system thinks that contemporary plea bargaining produces voluntary agreements. The vast majority of plea bargains are accepted by people who are told that they will be imprisoned for longer if they do not give up their right to a jury trial. Many of these people are in jail and are told that pleading guilty is the only immediate way out of jail. In no other cultural context would the word “voluntary” describe this arrangement. Should my coworker ask a person out on a dinner date but tell the person that, if he does not accept, he will be placed in a cage, no one would view the person’s agreement to dine with my coworker as voluntary. That’s not how we understand “voluntary” actions.”
Plea bargains are a totally different world, I'm not trying to compare this decision with plea bargains. What I would like to illustrate, through the author's example, is the process by which modern governments reduce the individual's agency in a de-facto manner, while de-jure asserting that individual's rights are upheld. People have been stuck inside for so, so long, keeping them out of restaurants if they don't get vaccinated is surely just manipulating their decision making toward getting a vaccine they may be uncomfortable getting.
I suppose I don't really get what good this does. If a person decides to not get vaccinated and then decides to dine indoors, who are they harming, other than potentially themselves, by making that decision? I wish they would get the vaccine, but I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives.
- alonmower 5y agoWho are they harming? Literally everyone else in the space that is now more likely to be exposed to someone with the virus (and who has taken fewer precautions to avoid being contagious) People’s rights to swing their fists around wildly end at my face
- ysavir 5y ago> I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives. Can you expand on how being required to dine outside instead of dining inside is a severe restriction on someone's ability to live their life?
- busymom0 5y agoMinority communities have the lowest vaccination rates. They were also discriminated against in the past. Your argument is same as justifying segregation by saying "how being required to dine separately from another race is a severe restriction on someone's ability to live their life?"
- hunter2_ 5y ago> Minority communities have the lowest vaccination rates. Do we know if this has more to do with unethical bosses not allowing paid time off to get vaccinated, or more to do with echo chambers about vaccine safety, or something else? There's definitely overlap between these, of course (an anti-vax boss might create both of these problems in their workplace).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]