4 ms·

ANY time a supposedly insane person claims they were misidentified, it should AUTOMATICALLY trigger a detailed investigation, and I don't care at all if that is

ANY time a supposedly insane person claims they were misidentified, it should AUTOMATICALLY trigger a detailed investigation, and I don't care at all if that is burdensome to the hospitals or police.

corndoge 5y ago
How easy it is to not care about things when they don't affect you.
derefr 5y ago
But what if 100% of criminally-insane people realize the “trick” and claim to be misidentified? There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them. (To be clear, even without such a policy in place, a large number of criminally-insane people already do claim to be misidentified because “they’re not John Smith, they’re Jesus Christ!” And these people do tend to really believe that, to the point where their behaviour isn’t all that different from someone who’s been misidentified. It’d be very hard to define a policy that would precisely delineate which stories should be looked into, vs. which are balderdash.) We need more simple automated cross-checks to decrease false-positive rates. We need scalable solutions.
- Verdex 5y ago
  > There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them. If the state (or other organization) doesn't have enough resources to do a detailed investigation, then it should not be taking away freedoms for whomever it is unable to perform the detailed investigation for.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  > There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them. I think you're overestimating the number of people incarcerated for criminal insanity and underestimating the number of resources available.
  - derefr 5y ago
    I think you’re underestimating the meaning of “detailed investigation.” A single “detailed investigation” can tie up one or more detectives’ entire careers. (If you watch a lot of true-crime, there’s frequent mentions of how the case was solved because one detective pursued the same cold case, day-in, day-out, for literal decades, as their only case.) But maybe the GP meant a not-so-detailed investigation. A regular investigation, per se. A cursory investigation, even.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      I assumed GP meant the amount of investigation that would have been necessary to exonerate the subject of this story (which would have been less than a security-clearance-style background check). ... but we have the resources to do a security-clearance-style background check on every individual that is incarcerated against their will for reason of mental illness. I'd consider that sufficient.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Fingerprinting a person takes only minutes. Also, I think you're wildly overestimating the number of criminally-insane people.

ANY time a supposedly insane person claims they were misidentified, it should AUTOMATICALLY trigger a detailed investigation, and I don't care at all if that is burdensome to the hospitals or police.

corndoge 5y ago

How easy it is to not care about things when they don't affect you.

derefr 5y ago

But what if 100% of criminally-insane people realize the “trick” and claim to be misidentified? There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them. (To be clear, even without such a policy in place, a large number of criminally-insane people already do claim to be misidentified because “they’re not John Smith, they’re Jesus Christ!” And these people do tend to really believe that, to the point where their behaviour isn’t all that different from someone who’s been misidentified. It’d be very hard to define a policy that would precisely delineate which stories should be looked into, vs. which are balderdash.) We need more simple automated cross-checks to decrease false-positive rates. We need scalable solutions.

Verdex 5y ago
> There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them. If the state (or other organization) doesn't have enough resources to do a detailed investigation, then it should not be taking away freedoms for whomever it is unable to perform the detailed investigation for.
shadowgovt 5y ago
> There literally aren’t all the resources on Earth to do “detailed investigations” about every one of them. I think you're overestimating the number of people incarcerated for criminal insanity and underestimating the number of resources available.
- derefr 5y ago
  I think you’re underestimating the meaning of “detailed investigation.” A single “detailed investigation” can tie up one or more detectives’ entire careers. (If you watch a lot of true-crime, there’s frequent mentions of how the case was solved because one detective pursued the same cold case, day-in, day-out, for literal decades, as their only case.) But maybe the GP meant a not-so-detailed investigation. A regular investigation, per se. A cursory investigation, even.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I assumed GP meant the amount of investigation that would have been necessary to exonerate the subject of this story (which would have been less than a security-clearance-style background check). ... but we have the resources to do a security-clearance-style background check on every individual that is incarcerated against their will for reason of mental illness. I'd consider that sufficient.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Fingerprinting a person takes only minutes. Also, I think you're wildly overestimating the number of criminally-insane people.