2 ms·

There’s a whole lot of text without any citations. >There are absolutely better policies. The injunctions are an act of desperation in the face of a mounting d

There’s a whole lot of text without any citations. >There are absolutely better policies. The injunctions are an act of desperation in the face of a mounting death toll. My question was simple yes or no. Can you take another crack at answering this? (repeated below) > Do you support the ability of the police to impose jail time in a way that circumvents the (elected) prosecutor’s office? As for this… > Care to point out how its factually wrong. Nope, not my job. If you haven’t bothered to cite literally any sources other than walls of text about how you understand things better than everybody else, I doubt my efforts to educate you would be considered. I pointed out that you are factually wrong because you posted some factually wrong nonsense. I did not do that for your benefit. I did that for the benefit of genuinely curious people that might read your ridiculous screed and mistake verbosity with understanding or cleverness. Anyway I asked two yes or no questions and got nothing but some Dickensian-length mental gymnastics in response. 1. Yes or no, do you support the ability of the police to put people in jail in a way that circumvents the elected district attorney? 2. Yes or no, do you view yourself as somebody that could at some point —for any reason whatsoever— piss off a cop?

wahern 4y ago
> 1. Yes or no, do you support the ability of the police to put people in jail in a way that circumvents the elected district attorney? No. But an injunction doesn't put these people into jail. Let me flip it around: do you support restraining orders for abusive spouses if not part of a criminal conviction for abuse? Obviously it poses some dilemmas, but do you oppose the entire notion categorically? > 2. Yes or no, do you view yourself as somebody that could at some point —for any reason whatsoever— piss off a cop? I'm very respectful of cops, partly because I grew up in an environment where cops arrested people around me, including family, and cops were to always be avoided. I learned to 1) fear cops (e.g. avoid unnecessary contact, keep excessively polite when approached, hands at 10-2 if pulled over, etc), but also 2) avoid doing all the shit and anything tangentially related which people around me did to get arrested. On my paternal side most of the men--excepting myself, a cousin, and a nephew--have been to jail, several on convictions (i.e not merely pretrial detainment). Objectively speaking I'm not at all at the same risk as many other populations of men; OTOH, I have far more direct experience with the system than the vast majority of people otherwise in my risk cohort. More importantly, I have far more direct experience living in the types of violent environments which unfortunately necessarily require the intervention of law enforcement (regardless of whether that intervention is too heavy handed or not), and understand that there are unavoidable trade-offs to be made when it comes to maximizing the safety of communities. And the hyperbolic, metaphorically-pearl-clutching attitude regarding liberty issues, expressed at least numerically largely by activists which have no such experience--either with community or police violence--nor face even a substantial risk of that experience is... bothersome. Communities experiencing that violence tend to have more nuanced and complicated opinions, especially when they're facing concrete choices with potentially immediate consequences; when there are no direct consequences to policy choices, people tend to become more extreme and ideological.
- braingenious 4y ago
  This is a lot of words again. > No. But an injunction doesn't put these people into jail. Literally lol. What are you talking about? If the cops are able to arrest you on sight, that means they take you to jail on sight without you having to have committed an actual crime. That is literally the intent of this injunction. The SFPD huffed and puffed about their inability to secure a conviction so they tried to reduce the burden of proof to justify a “crime” has been committed to “a cop saw you on the wrong street.” It is a blatant and shameless attempt at a power grab, nothing less. Serious question: Where do you think the police take people after arrest? Anyway, so for question 1 your answer is “Yes.” As for question 2, your answer is “No.” Your entire view of this situation is that you support police power overreach because you don’t think it’ll be used against you. It’ll only be used against criminals and bad guys! And you could never even be mistaken or accused of that because you’re just so gosh darn polite to the cops (a sign that you’re more intelligent and a more productive member of society than anybody that could _ever_ be targeted by police.) Third yes or no question: Do you work in law enforcement? This sort of huffy propaganda tends to come directly from cops and the sycophants that tend to surround and idolize them.
wahern 4y ago
Starting from scratch (again), in 20 minutes of quick searching here's some sources for you. I'm documenting this just as much for my own benefit as yours. Usually I feel it's pointless to get too quantitative on HN as it's not the proper forum, and anyone seriously interested could find out for themselves, but since you accused me of lying, and in case someone else accuses me of lying in the future... Total new prison admittances (i.e. excluding parole violations) per 100000 in 2019 (pre-pandemic). Sources: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2019/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2019-and-annual-2019 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management... and https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf (TABLE 8). * England & Wales: 121.42 <- (72172 / (56286961 + 3152879)) * 100000) * United States: 120.67 <- (395827 / 328000000) * 100000 * Texas (top 10 state): 166.05 <- (48156 / 29000000) * 100000 * California: 75.35 <- (29764 / 39500000) * 100000 Incarceration rates per 1000000 in 2018/2020 (couldn't find 2019). This is basically percentage of population incarcerated (either at any one moment or at any time during the reporting year, depending on source and details), the metric almost universally used in public discourse. Sources: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html * England & Wales: 141/130 * United States: 698/664 * Texas: 891/840 * California: 581/549 Note the above admittance numbers do not include pretrial detainment AFAIU; excessive pretrial detainment is a very real problem in the U.S., at least. The U.S. numbers mostly exclude sentences served in local jails (i.e. less than 12 months), but I think do include less-than-one-year equivalent sentences in England & Wales. However, If you look at the pre-trial graph for Texas at https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/TX.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/TX.html, which incidentally also includes local jail (not prison) post-conviction confinement numbers, it could only hypothetically double the admittance numbers if we assume worst case. Not nothing, but still a far cry from the huge incarceration rate metric gap. You can find additional numbers for various European countries at http://www.elpueblodigital.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SPACE-2019.pdf http://www.elpueblodigital.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SPA... (admittance tables from page 95) and https://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2021/04/210330_FinalReport_SPACE_I_2020.pdf https://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2021/04/210330_FinalReport_SP... (admittance tables from page 97). Interestingly, the England & Wales numbers therein seem to double count pre-conviction and post-conviction admissions of the same prisoner for the same offense, which seems to be how they arrived at an almost double total admittance rate of 215/100000 in 2019, which likely accounts for England & Wales being in the top 25% of EU countries by admittance rate (see elsewhere in that report). That seems problematic--perhaps related to definitional treatment of common law vs civil law detainment procedures?--or maybe indicative of other comparison issues. There's also the issue of parole. In the U.S., "33% of all prison admissions nationwide are due to parole violations." (https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidi...) That's why total prison admittances in the U.S. are 175/100000 (see BJS source). But in England & Wales, the share of readmissions is ~20% (see SPACE report), so not dramatically different. That also might be a relevant source of inconsistency across jurisdictions generally, especially considering that it seems most EU jurisdictions don't have an equivalent concept of parole if the SPACE table is taken literally. But ultimately it can't effect my point as it couldn't remotely account for the sheer magnitude difference in incarceration rate in the US, and fundamentally is a matter of sentence severity--longer incarceration durations creating a larger total incarcerated population, which is precisely my point. (There's a scholarly argument--preexisting, not my own--regarding common law countries adopting more severe sentences to compensate for more procedurally rigorous criminal law protections, whereas punishment in civil law jurisdictions tends to be swift and short, but there's no reason to go there.)

wahern 4y ago

> 1. Yes or no, do you support the ability of the police to put people in jail in a way that circumvents the elected district attorney? No. But an injunction doesn't put these people into jail. Let me flip it around: do you support restraining orders for abusive spouses if not part of a criminal conviction for abuse? Obviously it poses some dilemmas, but do you oppose the entire notion categorically? > 2. Yes or no, do you view yourself as somebody that could at some point —for any reason whatsoever— piss off a cop? I'm very respectful of cops, partly because I grew up in an environment where cops arrested people around me, including family, and cops were to always be avoided. I learned to 1) fear cops (e.g. avoid unnecessary contact, keep excessively polite when approached, hands at 10-2 if pulled over, etc), but also 2) avoid doing all the shit and anything tangentially related which people around me did to get arrested. On my paternal side most of the men--excepting myself, a cousin, and a nephew--have been to jail, several on convictions (i.e not merely pretrial detainment). Objectively speaking I'm not at all at the same risk as many other populations of men; OTOH, I have far more direct experience with the system than the vast majority of people otherwise in my risk cohort. More importantly, I have far more direct experience living in the types of violent environments which unfortunately necessarily require the intervention of law enforcement (regardless of whether that intervention is too heavy handed or not), and understand that there are unavoidable trade-offs to be made when it comes to maximizing the safety of communities. And the hyperbolic, metaphorically-pearl-clutching attitude regarding liberty issues, expressed at least numerically largely by activists which have no such experience--either with community or police violence--nor face even a substantial risk of that experience is... bothersome. Communities experiencing that violence tend to have more nuanced and complicated opinions, especially when they're facing concrete choices with potentially immediate consequences; when there are no direct consequences to policy choices, people tend to become more extreme and ideological.

braingenious 4y ago
This is a lot of words again. > No. But an injunction doesn't put these people into jail. Literally lol. What are you talking about? If the cops are able to arrest you on sight, that means they take you to jail on sight without you having to have committed an actual crime. That is literally the intent of this injunction. The SFPD huffed and puffed about their inability to secure a conviction so they tried to reduce the burden of proof to justify a “crime” has been committed to “a cop saw you on the wrong street.” It is a blatant and shameless attempt at a power grab, nothing less. Serious question: Where do you think the police take people after arrest? Anyway, so for question 1 your answer is “Yes.” As for question 2, your answer is “No.” Your entire view of this situation is that you support police power overreach because you don’t think it’ll be used against you. It’ll only be used against criminals and bad guys! And you could never even be mistaken or accused of that because you’re just so gosh darn polite to the cops (a sign that you’re more intelligent and a more productive member of society than anybody that could _ever_ be targeted by police.) Third yes or no question: Do you work in law enforcement? This sort of huffy propaganda tends to come directly from cops and the sycophants that tend to surround and idolize them.

wahern 4y ago

Starting from scratch (again), in 20 minutes of quick searching here's some sources for you. I'm documenting this just as much for my own benefit as yours. Usually I feel it's pointless to get too quantitative on HN as it's not the proper forum, and anyone seriously interested could find out for themselves, but since you accused me of lying, and in case someone else accuses me of lying in the future... Total new prison admittances (i.e. excluding parole violations) per 100000 in 2019 (pre-pandemic). Sources: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2019/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2019-and-annual-2019 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management... and https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf (TABLE 8). * England & Wales: 121.42 <- (72172 / (56286961 + 3152879)) * 100000) * United States: 120.67 <- (395827 / 328000000) * 100000 * Texas (top 10 state): 166.05 <- (48156 / 29000000) * 100000 * California: 75.35 <- (29764 / 39500000) * 100000 Incarceration rates per 1000000 in 2018/2020 (couldn't find 2019). This is basically percentage of population incarcerated (either at any one moment or at any time during the reporting year, depending on source and details), the metric almost universally used in public discourse. Sources: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html * England & Wales: 141/130 * United States: 698/664 * Texas: 891/840 * California: 581/549 Note the above admittance numbers do not include pretrial detainment AFAIU; excessive pretrial detainment is a very real problem in the U.S., at least. The U.S. numbers mostly exclude sentences served in local jails (i.e. less than 12 months), but I think do include less-than-one-year equivalent sentences in England & Wales. However, If you look at the pre-trial graph for Texas at https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/TX.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/TX.html, which incidentally also includes local jail (not prison) post-conviction confinement numbers, it could only hypothetically double the admittance numbers if we assume worst case. Not nothing, but still a far cry from the huge incarceration rate metric gap. You can find additional numbers for various European countries at http://www.elpueblodigital.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SPACE-2019.pdf http://www.elpueblodigital.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SPA... (admittance tables from page 95) and https://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2021/04/210330_FinalReport_SPACE_I_2020.pdf https://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2021/04/210330_FinalReport_SP... (admittance tables from page 97). Interestingly, the England & Wales numbers therein seem to double count pre-conviction and post-conviction admissions of the same prisoner for the same offense, which seems to be how they arrived at an almost double total admittance rate of 215/100000 in 2019, which likely accounts for England & Wales being in the top 25% of EU countries by admittance rate (see elsewhere in that report). That seems problematic--perhaps related to definitional treatment of common law vs civil law detainment procedures?--or maybe indicative of other comparison issues. There's also the issue of parole. In the U.S., "33% of all prison admissions nationwide are due to parole violations." (https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidi...) That's why total prison admittances in the U.S. are 175/100000 (see BJS source). But in England & Wales, the share of readmissions is ~20% (see SPACE report), so not dramatically different. That also might be a relevant source of inconsistency across jurisdictions generally, especially considering that it seems most EU jurisdictions don't have an equivalent concept of parole if the SPACE table is taken literally. But ultimately it can't effect my point as it couldn't remotely account for the sheer magnitude difference in incarceration rate in the US, and fundamentally is a matter of sentence severity--longer incarceration durations creating a larger total incarcerated population, which is precisely my point. (There's a scholarly argument--preexisting, not my own--regarding common law countries adopting more severe sentences to compensate for more procedurally rigorous criminal law protections, whereas punishment in civil law jurisdictions tends to be swift and short, but there's no reason to go there.)