5 ms·

I agree it's not about doing justice. But I still think we need the overall system to be just. I don't object to pretrial people getting home confinement genera

I agree it's not about doing justice. But I still think we need the overall system to be just. I don't object to pretrial people getting home confinement generally, and I can grudgingly accept it here on the theory that the Feds must be pretty sure he's not going to pull a Ghosn. [1] But I have real questions about exactly who isn't getting this kind of generous treatment. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/carlos-ghosn-inside-the-rise-fall-former-nissan-ceo-2022-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/carlos-ghosn-inside-the-rise...

jbm 4y ago
I am not sure if you are implying this, but Ghosn's case is far from clear-cut in the way that SBF's is.The hilarious implication that all the bad apples at Nissan were non-Japanese foreigners was far too convenient to be true.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  And the Japanese criminal system is fairly suspect.
  - jquery 4y ago
    Yeah, they have an over 99% conviction rate…
    - tzs 4y ago
      That's not a very useful bit of information, is it? We'd expect a very high conviction rate in very bad systems because of corruption and because such systems might be meant just for show. However, we'd also expect a very high conviction rate in very good systems. Before a case gets to trial in a very good system first it would be investigated by police. Only if the police think there is a worthwhile case would it go to prosecutors. Then some prosecutor has to decide they have enough evidence to stand a good chance of conviction. There would probably be more review taking into account overall prosecutorial load to make sure they won't be devoting limited resources to a case they might lose. The only cases that reach trial should be cases that the prosecutor is very sure they will win, so of course we should see a high conviction rate if the prosecutors are competent.
      - jquery 4y ago
        It’s actually 99.8%. Yes, prosecutorial discretion can account for much of that, but you don’t get to 99.8% without something in the system being broken. Not all cases are cut and dry, some cases should go to trial and fail. 99.8% stretches credulity beyond reason. Japan is under criticism from human rights organizations for forced confessions, due to being able to interrogate suspects for weeks without them allowed to contact family or a lawyer. There is no right to remain silent. Even with the rights granted to suspects in the USA, forced confessions are common. In comparison, Japanese suspects don’t have a chance.
- twelve40 4y ago
  I love the guy but he is officially pursued by more countries than Japan, so your theory must be bigger than just nissan, because facts
- wpietri 4y ago
  What's definitely clear cut is that via an elaborate plan he fled the country to avoid getting any of those questions answered definitively, which is the part that concerns me in relation to SBF. As many people have mentioned, pretrial detention can't be about actual guilt, just the likelihood to show up to trial.
throwaway123--4 4y ago
Even the Netflix documentary showed a short section on Ghosn's misuse of funds and not even on a large enough scale (Billions) to get such strong reaction by the Japanese justice system. Plus I believe that any justice system that traces its roots on a past hierarchical system (ex: monarchy, dictatorship, communism) without any revolutions to change it is heavily biased & distorted from reality for other political inclinations.
- wpietri 4y ago
  The Ghosn thing is an aside; the relevant part is that he indisputably committed more crimes to avoid facing a trial. As to the latter bit, I think that's all current justice systems. Certainly the one here in the US, which inherited English common law and then added on a two-tiered justice system for race-based slavery.
Sebb767 4y ago
Serious question: Would you like to increase the systems overreach by incarcerating people which can post a reasonable bond, but therefore make the system more fair? People who have nothing have nothing to loose when dodging bond. Rich people have something to loose, so they can held by posting a bond. There's a tradeoff between making the system fair (nobody gets out of jail) and making the system as lenient as possible (people who can post bond get out - but be aware that quite a few innocent people await trial, which would then be jailed as well).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  Poor people don't have money to go on the run to Costa Rica and live on a beach for the rest of their lives. Is this even a real problem? It's not 1920 anymore you can't do anything without papers.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > People who have nothing have nothing to loose when dodging bond. SBF posted no money here, so by your logic he should be locked up right now.
fisherjeff 4y ago
This is exactly the right way to look at it. Especially when pretrial incarceration is maybe the single most effective tool for extracting a plea agreement (even from the wrongfully accused!)
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Objective of the justice system is to give defendants who are presumed innocent as much Freedom as possible. The chances of I'm alleged white collars Criminal spinning up a new Ponzi scheme before their trial date is low. The chance of a alleged drug Smuggler or violent Criminal reoffending before trial is higher. While the justice system should be blind to the economic situation of the defendant, that doesn't mean it has to be blind to common sense
- ayemiller 4y ago
  Not sure that “spinning up a new Ponzi scheme” covers the magnitude of the potential for new crimes here. Somewhat ironic call out of common sense…
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Im curious what new crimes you think SBF could commit to the detriment of the public before trial
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Literal billions of dollars are missing. Anything he might do relating to that money would be a new crime. He could have handed some of that money to unknown criminal associates. Anything done with them could be more and possibly new crimes.
    - djbusby 4y ago
      Wash more money out via connection he has?
  - noduerme 4y ago
    [flagged]
- hackernewds 4y ago
  applied in the sentiments here and in general also seems to the fact that everyone just believes that Sam Bankman Fried is guilty. he hasn't been proven as such yet, and the system exists as such for good reason. there are ample examples of people who have also been incarcerated while innocent
ramesh31 4y ago
>But I have real questions about exactly who isn't getting this kind of generous treatment. You've uncovered the unjust nature of the cash bail system as a whole. The efforts being made to get rid of it in California are a huge step forward toward making the system more equitable.
- lazide 4y ago
  CAlifornia is a poster child for how cash bail is bad, but the other options are far worse. It’s gotten to the point that non-felony offenses mostly just get ignored by police, and theft is skyrocketing everywhere.
  - djur 4y ago
    There was a nationwide increase in crime and I've seen zero evidence that bail reform was a cause of increased crime anywhere.
    - jcampbell1 4y ago
      Covid was the biggest bail reform experiment in history. Typically for any non-violent crime in the US, people get ROR'd (released on own recognizance) so long as they don't have any outstanding warrants. Bail is for people that have a history of skipping court (outstanding warrants). During Covid, everyone got ROR'd regardless of outstanding warrants, because getting caught shoplifting and the cops find 3 points of meth in their pocket shouldn't be death sentence. Normally that type of person would be given a $5000 bail if this was their second time getting caught. If they were unemployed, they would dry out in jail and hopefully come out the other side on a better path. During covid everyone was released on zero bail. Homelessness and crime spiked across the US. There are places that think it is a good idea to make covid bail policies permanent. The experiment is running now.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    Sigh... Theft is not 'skyrocketing everywhere.' it's been steadily decreasing for years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191247/reported-larceny-theft-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/#statisticContainer https://www.statista.com/statistics/191247/reported-larceny-... Polls before the last election said everyone thought crime was going up... Somewhere else.
closeparen 4y ago
People with something to lose can be controlled through it. People with nothing to lose can only be controlled through violence. If you wish your use of violence to be limited by necessity and proportionality then you will be gentler with the rich. If you wish to treat everyone the same then you must either use excessive violence in some cases, or accept that others are not going to be controlled.
- dtgriscom 4y ago
  I'm trying to parse this, but the best I can do is "controlling poor people requires violence."
  - closeparen 4y ago
    It’s good that the courts use the more peaceful option of going after the defendant’s property instead of his person, when available. But obviously it’s only available when there’s property to go after.
- wpietri 4y ago
  The idea that only rich people have something to lose is a) ridiculously classist, and b) not applicable here: SBF supposedly doesn't have any money to lose, so by your logic we should be controlling him with violence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > SBF supposedly doesn't have any money to lose, SBF, regardless of the truth of his claim that he only has $100k in a particular bank account, almost certainly has anywhere from some to quite a lot of wealth to lose [0] (whether any of it is likely to remain after fines, forfeitures, etc. in the current criminal case is another story.) [0] e.g., there is currently a legal dispute between SBF, FTX, and others over who owns a $400+ million stake in Robinhood.

jbm 4y ago

I am not sure if you are implying this, but Ghosn's case is far from clear-cut in the way that SBF's is.The hilarious implication that all the bad apples at Nissan were non-Japanese foreigners was far too convenient to be true.

kasey_junk 4y ago
And the Japanese criminal system is fairly suspect.
- jquery 4y ago
  Yeah, they have an over 99% conviction rate…
  - tzs 4y ago
    That's not a very useful bit of information, is it? We'd expect a very high conviction rate in very bad systems because of corruption and because such systems might be meant just for show. However, we'd also expect a very high conviction rate in very good systems. Before a case gets to trial in a very good system first it would be investigated by police. Only if the police think there is a worthwhile case would it go to prosecutors. Then some prosecutor has to decide they have enough evidence to stand a good chance of conviction. There would probably be more review taking into account overall prosecutorial load to make sure they won't be devoting limited resources to a case they might lose. The only cases that reach trial should be cases that the prosecutor is very sure they will win, so of course we should see a high conviction rate if the prosecutors are competent.
    - jquery 4y ago
      It’s actually 99.8%. Yes, prosecutorial discretion can account for much of that, but you don’t get to 99.8% without something in the system being broken. Not all cases are cut and dry, some cases should go to trial and fail. 99.8% stretches credulity beyond reason. Japan is under criticism from human rights organizations for forced confessions, due to being able to interrogate suspects for weeks without them allowed to contact family or a lawyer. There is no right to remain silent. Even with the rights granted to suspects in the USA, forced confessions are common. In comparison, Japanese suspects don’t have a chance.
twelve40 4y ago
I love the guy but he is officially pursued by more countries than Japan, so your theory must be bigger than just nissan, because facts
wpietri 4y ago
What's definitely clear cut is that via an elaborate plan he fled the country to avoid getting any of those questions answered definitively, which is the part that concerns me in relation to SBF. As many people have mentioned, pretrial detention can't be about actual guilt, just the likelihood to show up to trial.

throwaway123--4 4y ago

Even the Netflix documentary showed a short section on Ghosn's misuse of funds and not even on a large enough scale (Billions) to get such strong reaction by the Japanese justice system. Plus I believe that any justice system that traces its roots on a past hierarchical system (ex: monarchy, dictatorship, communism) without any revolutions to change it is heavily biased & distorted from reality for other political inclinations.

wpietri 4y ago
The Ghosn thing is an aside; the relevant part is that he indisputably committed more crimes to avoid facing a trial. As to the latter bit, I think that's all current justice systems. Certainly the one here in the US, which inherited English common law and then added on a two-tiered justice system for race-based slavery.

Sebb767 4y ago

Serious question: Would you like to increase the systems overreach by incarcerating people which can post a reasonable bond, but therefore make the system more fair? People who have nothing have nothing to loose when dodging bond. Rich people have something to loose, so they can held by posting a bond. There's a tradeoff between making the system fair (nobody gets out of jail) and making the system as lenient as possible (people who can post bond get out - but be aware that quite a few innocent people await trial, which would then be jailed as well).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Poor people don't have money to go on the run to Costa Rica and live on a beach for the rest of their lives. Is this even a real problem? It's not 1920 anymore you can't do anything without papers.
wpietri 4y ago
> People who have nothing have nothing to loose when dodging bond. SBF posted no money here, so by your logic he should be locked up right now.

fisherjeff 4y ago

This is exactly the right way to look at it. Especially when pretrial incarceration is maybe the single most effective tool for extracting a plea agreement (even from the wrongfully accused!)

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Objective of the justice system is to give defendants who are presumed innocent as much Freedom as possible. The chances of I'm alleged white collars Criminal spinning up a new Ponzi scheme before their trial date is low. The chance of a alleged drug Smuggler or violent Criminal reoffending before trial is higher. While the justice system should be blind to the economic situation of the defendant, that doesn't mean it has to be blind to common sense

ayemiller 4y ago
Not sure that “spinning up a new Ponzi scheme” covers the magnitude of the potential for new crimes here. Somewhat ironic call out of common sense…
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Im curious what new crimes you think SBF could commit to the detriment of the public before trial
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Literal billions of dollars are missing. Anything he might do relating to that money would be a new crime. He could have handed some of that money to unknown criminal associates. Anything done with them could be more and possibly new crimes.
  - djbusby 4y ago
    Wash more money out via connection he has?
- noduerme 4y ago
  [flagged]
hackernewds 4y ago
applied in the sentiments here and in general also seems to the fact that everyone just believes that Sam Bankman Fried is guilty. he hasn't been proven as such yet, and the system exists as such for good reason. there are ample examples of people who have also been incarcerated while innocent

ramesh31 4y ago

>But I have real questions about exactly who isn't getting this kind of generous treatment. You've uncovered the unjust nature of the cash bail system as a whole. The efforts being made to get rid of it in California are a huge step forward toward making the system more equitable.

lazide 4y ago
CAlifornia is a poster child for how cash bail is bad, but the other options are far worse. It’s gotten to the point that non-felony offenses mostly just get ignored by police, and theft is skyrocketing everywhere.
- djur 4y ago
  There was a nationwide increase in crime and I've seen zero evidence that bail reform was a cause of increased crime anywhere.
  - jcampbell1 4y ago
    Covid was the biggest bail reform experiment in history. Typically for any non-violent crime in the US, people get ROR'd (released on own recognizance) so long as they don't have any outstanding warrants. Bail is for people that have a history of skipping court (outstanding warrants). During Covid, everyone got ROR'd regardless of outstanding warrants, because getting caught shoplifting and the cops find 3 points of meth in their pocket shouldn't be death sentence. Normally that type of person would be given a $5000 bail if this was their second time getting caught. If they were unemployed, they would dry out in jail and hopefully come out the other side on a better path. During covid everyone was released on zero bail. Homelessness and crime spiked across the US. There are places that think it is a good idea to make covid bail policies permanent. The experiment is running now.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  Sigh... Theft is not 'skyrocketing everywhere.' it's been steadily decreasing for years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191247/reported-larceny-theft-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/#statisticContainer https://www.statista.com/statistics/191247/reported-larceny-... Polls before the last election said everyone thought crime was going up... Somewhere else.

closeparen 4y ago

People with something to lose can be controlled through it. People with nothing to lose can only be controlled through violence. If you wish your use of violence to be limited by necessity and proportionality then you will be gentler with the rich. If you wish to treat everyone the same then you must either use excessive violence in some cases, or accept that others are not going to be controlled.

dtgriscom 4y ago
I'm trying to parse this, but the best I can do is "controlling poor people requires violence."
- closeparen 4y ago
  It’s good that the courts use the more peaceful option of going after the defendant’s property instead of his person, when available. But obviously it’s only available when there’s property to go after.
wpietri 4y ago
The idea that only rich people have something to lose is a) ridiculously classist, and b) not applicable here: SBF supposedly doesn't have any money to lose, so by your logic we should be controlling him with violence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > SBF supposedly doesn't have any money to lose, SBF, regardless of the truth of his claim that he only has $100k in a particular bank account, almost certainly has anywhere from some to quite a lot of wealth to lose [0] (whether any of it is likely to remain after fines, forfeitures, etc. in the current criminal case is another story.) [0] e.g., there is currently a legal dispute between SBF, FTX, and others over who owns a $400+ million stake in Robinhood.