5 ms·

I think people are going to find way to criticize Chesa here, and there probably are some valid ones, but at the core I think he's right. It seems obvious to me

I think people are going to find way to criticize Chesa here, and there probably are some valid ones, but at the core I think he's right. It seems obvious to me that you need to get to the root of the problem if you care about solving the problem at all. Just prosecuting people won't prevent the next criminal, we need to meet people where they are and make sure they have skin in the game too.

nfw2 5y ago
"Prosecuting people won't prevent the next criminal" What makes you say that? Is fear of punishment not a reasonable deterrent from crime?
torstenvl 5y ago
> we need to meet people where they are and make sure they have skin in the game Some people simply will not get invested in a cooperative endeavor, no matter what. There is no way to "make sure they have skin in the game." Those people need to be incapacitated from causing further harm to society until such time as they pose no such threat.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  > Those people need to be incapacitated from causing further harm to society until such time as they pose no such threat. Who are "those people", though? There is a wildly disproportionate amount of attention focused on a very small sliver of theft. Consider that amount of stolen wages by employers recovered dwarfs retail theft by a factor of 3 to 1 [1]. The total amount taken is likely significantly higher. Walgreens — the very company for which people cite store closures as a consequence of shoplifting — just paid out a $4.5m settlement for stealing from thousands of employees in California from 2000 to 2017 [2]. Consider that over the past 20 years, police have stolen $68 billion from people without due process [3]. Since 2014, they've stolen more money than burglars [4]. As a society, we've actually chosen to make this legal via civil asset forfeiture. And yet no one is calling for crackdowns on employers who steal from their employees. No one is calling for police to be "incapacitated from causing further harm to society". Indeed, the goal of the activists pushing to recall Chesa Boudin want to give the police more power — even though they steal more than shoplifters! [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-forms-theft-workers/ https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo... [2] https://popular.info/p/a-tale-of-two-thefts https://popular.info/p/a-tale-of-two-thefts [3] https://boingboing.net/2020/12/21/us-police-have-stolen-68-billion-in-the-past-20-years-from-american-citizens-without-due-process.html https://boingboing.net/2020/12/21/us-police-have-stolen-68-b... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    I agree with you entirely about individual actors within corporate structures being prosecuted way too infrequently. Every manager who deliberately undercounted employees hours should be in prison, and it's an injustice that there's a disparity that favors structural crime over personal crime. (I don't necessarily agree about civil forfeiture, in that the police are acting on behalf of the state - the structure itself is what is taking property without due process. That's more harmful to individuals because there's no recourse, but the fault is primarily with the law rather than with individual officers.)
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      Thanks. I guess it's hyperbolic to say "no one" is calling for these things. But it's frustrating to see so many people frantically pointing to the visible tip of the problem, and seemingly indifferent to the structural issues lurking beneath the surface. Re: civil asset forfeiture, I don't understand the distinction you're making. Why do you support accountability for individual actors within corporate structures (managers underpaying employees) but not within carceral structures (police confiscating from civilians)? In both cases, the theft is enacted by individual agents and protected by the overarching structures. That said, I don't even agree that it's solely a structural problem! The median amounts taken can be as low as a few hundred dollars [1]. I can't find the link, but the last time civil forfeiture came up on HN there was a story saying that police routinely shake down pedestrians for small amounts, knowing that the cost to get their money back would exceed the amount taken. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-property-without-trial-helps-keep-crime-down-a-new-study-shows-theyre-wrong https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-proper...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        > In both cases, the theft is enacted by individual agents and protected by the overarching structures. No. Civil forfeiture is unfortunately the law of the land. Individual police officers are not responsible for domestic law or department policy. Employee wage theft is emphatically not the law of the land. Managers and employers who do this are committing a crime. They are responsible for their own actions because those actions are not sanctioned by law or required by policy. Additionally, in the case of wage theft, the bad actor often benefits directly if they are the owner of the establishment or, as a manager, they receive a bonus related to cost savings. By contrast, civil forfeiture benefits the government, not the individual officer.
t0suj4 5y ago
If you say that you stop punishing certain crimes don't get surprised that some people will go because they won't get punished for that crime. From this example alone it's clear that the threat of punishment works. If you want a better way to deter crime, you have my full support. But if you cease an effective measure and delay months before implementing another one, your transition process is none. Imagine if a bank would freeze all your funds just because they're transitioning to a new "better" system. Even for a single week.

nfw2 5y ago

"Prosecuting people won't prevent the next criminal" What makes you say that? Is fear of punishment not a reasonable deterrent from crime?

torstenvl 5y ago

> we need to meet people where they are and make sure they have skin in the game Some people simply will not get invested in a cooperative endeavor, no matter what. There is no way to "make sure they have skin in the game." Those people need to be incapacitated from causing further harm to society until such time as they pose no such threat.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
> Those people need to be incapacitated from causing further harm to society until such time as they pose no such threat. Who are "those people", though? There is a wildly disproportionate amount of attention focused on a very small sliver of theft. Consider that amount of stolen wages by employers recovered dwarfs retail theft by a factor of 3 to 1 [1]. The total amount taken is likely significantly higher. Walgreens — the very company for which people cite store closures as a consequence of shoplifting — just paid out a $4.5m settlement for stealing from thousands of employees in California from 2000 to 2017 [2]. Consider that over the past 20 years, police have stolen $68 billion from people without due process [3]. Since 2014, they've stolen more money than burglars [4]. As a society, we've actually chosen to make this legal via civil asset forfeiture. And yet no one is calling for crackdowns on employers who steal from their employees. No one is calling for police to be "incapacitated from causing further harm to society". Indeed, the goal of the activists pushing to recall Chesa Boudin want to give the police more power — even though they steal more than shoplifters! [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-forms-theft-workers/ https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo... [2] https://popular.info/p/a-tale-of-two-thefts https://popular.info/p/a-tale-of-two-thefts [3] https://boingboing.net/2020/12/21/us-police-have-stolen-68-billion-in-the-past-20-years-from-american-citizens-without-due-process.html https://boingboing.net/2020/12/21/us-police-have-stolen-68-b... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
- torstenvl 5y ago
  I agree with you entirely about individual actors within corporate structures being prosecuted way too infrequently. Every manager who deliberately undercounted employees hours should be in prison, and it's an injustice that there's a disparity that favors structural crime over personal crime. (I don't necessarily agree about civil forfeiture, in that the police are acting on behalf of the state - the structure itself is what is taking property without due process. That's more harmful to individuals because there's no recourse, but the fault is primarily with the law rather than with individual officers.)
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Thanks. I guess it's hyperbolic to say "no one" is calling for these things. But it's frustrating to see so many people frantically pointing to the visible tip of the problem, and seemingly indifferent to the structural issues lurking beneath the surface. Re: civil asset forfeiture, I don't understand the distinction you're making. Why do you support accountability for individual actors within corporate structures (managers underpaying employees) but not within carceral structures (police confiscating from civilians)? In both cases, the theft is enacted by individual agents and protected by the overarching structures. That said, I don't even agree that it's solely a structural problem! The median amounts taken can be as low as a few hundred dollars [1]. I can't find the link, but the last time civil forfeiture came up on HN there was a story saying that police routinely shake down pedestrians for small amounts, knowing that the cost to get their money back would exceed the amount taken. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-property-without-trial-helps-keep-crime-down-a-new-study-shows-theyre-wrong https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-proper...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      > In both cases, the theft is enacted by individual agents and protected by the overarching structures. No. Civil forfeiture is unfortunately the law of the land. Individual police officers are not responsible for domestic law or department policy. Employee wage theft is emphatically not the law of the land. Managers and employers who do this are committing a crime. They are responsible for their own actions because those actions are not sanctioned by law or required by policy. Additionally, in the case of wage theft, the bad actor often benefits directly if they are the owner of the establishment or, as a manager, they receive a bonus related to cost savings. By contrast, civil forfeiture benefits the government, not the individual officer.

t0suj4 5y ago

If you say that you stop punishing certain crimes don't get surprised that some people will go because they won't get punished for that crime. From this example alone it's clear that the threat of punishment works. If you want a better way to deter crime, you have my full support. But if you cease an effective measure and delay months before implementing another one, your transition process is none. Imagine if a bank would freeze all your funds just because they're transitioning to a new "better" system. Even for a single week.