5 ms·
They failed him repeatedly. This wasn't a one-time screwup, this was a systemic failure across multiple organizations. And when they realized they had wronged
by RIMR 5y ago
They failed him repeatedly. This wasn't a one-time screwup, this was a systemic failure across multiple organizations.
And when they realized they had wronged this man, they did whatever they could to sweep it under the rug and avoid consequences, or reparations for their actions.
The system doesn't just "look abhorrently cruel", it IS abhorrently cruel, and this incident is a clear example of that.
- majormajor 5y agoSo let's look at this. There were people who screwed up. Then they covered it up. The key question is "what sort of system makes it harder to cover things up?" because the people element of people not wanting to get in trouble or have their mistakes visible isn't going to go anywhere. You also need to have the non-mistake, non-cruel cases visible, to see if things are changing for the better or worse, rate-wise. A "less cruel" system isn't a particularly specific or well-defined thing to strive for if it's not specifically trying to address those human failings, since people can still be cruel.
- Retric 5y agoThe US uniquely shields officials in these cases which promotes coverups. That’s a specific, systematic, and correctable failing of the US justice system not simply normal human issues. How hard it is for the coverup to work is largely irrelevant IMO.
- pas 5y agoNot uniquely. It's not uncommon for people in official capacity to have immunity from lawsuits relating to their work.
- Retric 5y agoUsually it’s protection from the initial mistake not the coverup, the US protects both. Though I am interested if you have some other examples.
- pas 5y agoDoes it? I mean if the coverup becomes proven in criminal court, then are they still protected? I thought the problem with coverups is that they are very hard to prove, and when some of them eventually get uncovered, then the department simply treats it as some small irrelevant internal affair. Hence legally QI still stands. Though of course it's strange that these half admissions of coverups are not treated sufficiently seriously by the courts.
- wombatmobile 5y agoWe don't have a US justice system. We have a US legal system.
- FireBeyond 5y agoOr a "punishment" system, given the elected sheriff/DA motivation to be "tough on crime".
- wombatmobile 5y agoWell, it goes both ways, depending on circumstances and resources. The US legal system is a commercial system. By that, I don't mean to say it is corrupt. Rather, the participants in the system require representation i.e. lawyers, and lawyers charge for their time, by design. Consequently, access to outcomes of the legal system is a function of the financial and social resources of the participants.
- 8note 5y agoWouldn't a lack of shield promote coverups? The only loss for the officials here is embarassment
- Retric 5y agoYou can shield people from a mistake without also shielding them from a coverup.
- majormajor 5y agoWhat's unique about it? The incentive also seems backward here: if there's a shield protecting you even in case of screwup, you are incentivized to cover things up less than otherwise. Protection from initial mistakes, like "blame free retros," is generally heralded as a way to promote fixing root causes and reduce political coverups.
- Retric 5y agoProtecting an initial screwup is fine, protecting the coverup is what I take issue with.
- satellite2 5y agoI assume the shame would be proportional to the cruelty inflicted to the wrongly incarcerated, and in the US public figures love to show how cruel they are with deviant people.
- eptcyka 5y agoMaybe a better fix would to make admitting and fixing mistakes was cheap and relatively cheerful?