5 ms·

>We're all obsessed with the details of SBF's bail because we're too bored [...] Nah. There was some news recently of a guy that died of dehydration while in j

>We're all obsessed with the details of SBF's bail because we're too bored [...] Nah. There was some news recently of a guy that died of dehydration while in jail [1] for I don't recall how long. During this time he was forced to drink his pee and eat his own feces routinely. He was in jail because he couldn't pay a $100 bail in time. SBF was rescued (that's the correct term) from a Bahamas prison and taken home in a private jet. He now has to wear an ankle monitor, so boo hoo :'( I guess? "We" are obsessed with this situation because of how blatantly shows the extreme hypocrisy and double standards of the prevailing system of justice. It's a whole different world for the privileged, well-connected classes. Edit: Found the news article for [1], quite a distressing read so you're warned. https://www.newsweek.com/2023/01/20/starved-death-american-jail-man-who-couldnt-pay-100-bail-1773459.html https://www.newsweek.com/2023/01/20/starved-death-american-j...

tptacek 4y ago
That is the most banal conversation you can possibly start. Obviously, the bail system is unfair. There was absolutely no reason to believe the SBF case would be the one where we finally decided to hold white collar defendants to same dismal standard as we do other defendants. If we want to get an amen chorus going about how we should fix bail for blue collar defendants, I'm right there with you. But there is a longstanding HN fantasy --- it comes up a lot! --- that the DOJ should be expected to deliberately treat white collar defendants poorly, despite the near certainty of their appearance for trial, just to equalize things with blue collar defendants. That's simply never going to happen. (There's a lot of hope that the opposite, and far more productive reform, of not randomly putting nonviolent blue collar defendants in jail because they can't pay bail, will happen --- especially in states like my own [Illinois]). The latter two paragraphs I added after some responses; also, I dialed back my first sentence; sorry, was just collecting/clarifying my thoughts.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  It may be but I didn't start it though, you did. :^)
  - braingenious 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > he must spend much time and attention explaining Boring Things Thank goodness? Since when did HN go sour grapes on someone with domain expertise sharing their knowledge and correcting misinformation?
      - abduhl 4y ago
        Nothing against the guy but how does tptacek have domain expertise on cash bail or the justice system?
        tptacek 4y ago
        I don't. I just read things.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        He's adding misinformation too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811350
- chowells 4y ago
  So when injustice is banal, we should just ignore it?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it.
    - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
      It's not about making a point. It's about equality. And I disagree directly with what you're saying anyway, because by lowering the standards for the rich we might actually see a push by influential people to raise the standards for everyone.
      - gameman144 4y ago
        But if you're pushing to lower standards for the rich for the sole purpose of then raising the standards for everyone else... why not just skip the first step and go straight to raising the standards for everyone else?
        OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        I never said or implied otherwise.
        tptacek 4y ago
        Then what are you talking about? We all agree: every nonviolent offender should be treated at least as well as SBF is. Treating SBF worse doesn't make anything better or more just. Which was the point I just made upthread.
        OnlineGladiator 4y ago
- willcipriano 4y ago
  I think it's worth noting that they aren't even bothering to give the appearance of seriousness, even in this high profile case against a fairly unimportant guy. A disgraced former billionaires opinion is still more valuable than that of the public at large.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I don't know what this means. Bail isn't a public referendum on how bad the guy is. It's a mechanism for ensuring people show up to trial. SBF is going to show up to trial. All the stories about how he won't are all predicated on elaborate schemes where all his assets are hidden, which moots the whole bail discussion anyways. It boils down to: people hate SBF, and wish he was in a jail cell. They're likely to get their wish. I'm comfortable with my "loathing SBF and people like him" bona fides, but I don't have my understanding of public policy wrapped tightly around those feelings.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > If we want to get an amen chorus going about how we should fix bail for blue collar defendants, I'm right there with you I'm generally in favor of the argument that we should fix disparities by bringing up the disfavored group rather than bringing down the favored group. I think that's generally right. But, I do think there's a serious risk of allowing a two-tier system of justice to exist (and we do have a two-tier justice system, I think at this point there's pretty little argument over that; the rich are treated very differently from the legislature, the prosecutors, the police, and the judges). Allowing them to continue to have a separate system where they don't experience the same injustices that poor defendants regularly experience means the people with political power are very disinclined to actually cause meaningful change. So the injustices will perpetuate. For that reason, I'm inclined to call for exactly that: white collar defendants to get the exact same treatment as blue collar defendants. No worse, but no better. Because when those white collar defendants experience those horrific injustices, the system is more likely to change for the better. I suspect this is just a difference of expectations. I think it's more likely we can treat white collar defendants worse, and then improve the system for everyone, than it is to convince those in power to just start treating blue collar defendants better. But I understand you probably don't agree with that. Ultimately, I think we must continually work to eliminate the discrepancies in the justice system, because those discrepancies allow people with power to completely disregard this as a significant issue. And I think we probably will always need to be working at this from both ends.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    We obviously have a 2-tier system. We didn't need SBF to show us that; we knew long before, decades before. The expectation that SBF would be the breaking point where we fix that system is irrational, which is what makes this a banal conversation. There's nothing for anybody to learn from it. I'm not the only one making this point; I'm shoplifting it from Ken White, who has spent his career working on and advocating for some of these issues, and who is loudly sighing and complaining about the coverage of SBF's bail on the Serious Trouble podcast. There is interesting stuff going on in this case! But white collar bail treatment isn't one of those things.
    - 4y ago
darth_avocado 4y ago
Exactly. It’s also absurd to call it a $250M bail if you’re only depositing around a 100k to get out. I bet a lot of poor people cannot get out of their 10k bail by paying 10 bucks.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It’s also absurd to call it a $250M bail if you’re only depositing around a 100k to get out. Bail amount is the penalty for you if you fail to comply. The amount you deposit (or other property which you give, either physically or as an interest via a lien) is security. Surety is other people accepting a penalty (which may be equal or less than the full bail amount) if you fail to comply. Lots of states have formulaic relations between these that are designed to (1) keep people, especially poor people, in jail, and (2) support the bail bonds industry, but they are conceptually and historically separate levers for achieving compliance.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> “We” are obsessed with this situation because of how blatantly shows the extreme hypocrisy and double standards of the prevailing system of justice. I would take people more seriously if they were advocating for just treatment of others, rather than for unjust treatment of SBF, just because his treatment by the (on this point more just) federal system is better than the experience of many people in the (far more unjust) systems used by most US states. Equal injustice is not the same thing as justice.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >Equal injustice is not the same thing as justice. No, but it is better than the unequal injustice we have now. People are rightfully upset that SBF is getting a cakewalk compared to countless people charged with crimes that are vastly less serious.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > No, but it is better than the unequal injustice we have now. No, more people being treated unjustly isn’t better, ever, full stop.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Norway's top court has declined to even extradite to the US because of stories like this. I know of developed nations accepting asylum requests from Americans facing no specific threat due to stories like this, I know the individuals that got it.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> There was some news recently of a guy that died of dehydration while in jail [1] for I don't recall how long. During this time he was forced to drink his pee and eat his own feces routinely. This was in the news because it was a travesty. Comparing SBF to this is pointless. The previous poster didn't say SBF's treatment was bad, just that it was appropriate.
watwut 4y ago
It would 100% makes sense to call for end of qualified immunity and for uncritical acceptance of everything police or jail guards do. It would 100% makes sense to start being suspicious every time there is supposed crime spike as supposed consequence of even unsuccessful attempts to make police and jails accountable. It does not make sense to demand SBF does not have bail, because someone else was murdered by police.

tptacek 4y ago

That is the most banal conversation you can possibly start. Obviously, the bail system is unfair. There was absolutely no reason to believe the SBF case would be the one where we finally decided to hold white collar defendants to same dismal standard as we do other defendants. If we want to get an amen chorus going about how we should fix bail for blue collar defendants, I'm right there with you. But there is a longstanding HN fantasy --- it comes up a lot! --- that the DOJ should be expected to deliberately treat white collar defendants poorly, despite the near certainty of their appearance for trial, just to equalize things with blue collar defendants. That's simply never going to happen. (There's a lot of hope that the opposite, and far more productive reform, of not randomly putting nonviolent blue collar defendants in jail because they can't pay bail, will happen --- especially in states like my own [Illinois]). The latter two paragraphs I added after some responses; also, I dialed back my first sentence; sorry, was just collecting/clarifying my thoughts.

moralestapia 4y ago
It may be but I didn't start it though, you did. :^)
- braingenious 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > he must spend much time and attention explaining Boring Things Thank goodness? Since when did HN go sour grapes on someone with domain expertise sharing their knowledge and correcting misinformation?
    - abduhl 4y ago
      Nothing against the guy but how does tptacek have domain expertise on cash bail or the justice system?
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I don't. I just read things.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      He's adding misinformation too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34811350
chowells 4y ago
So when injustice is banal, we should just ignore it?
- tptacek 4y ago
  No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it.
  - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
    It's not about making a point. It's about equality. And I disagree directly with what you're saying anyway, because by lowering the standards for the rich we might actually see a push by influential people to raise the standards for everyone.
    - gameman144 4y ago
      But if you're pushing to lower standards for the rich for the sole purpose of then raising the standards for everyone else... why not just skip the first step and go straight to raising the standards for everyone else?
      - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        I never said or implied otherwise.
        tptacek 4y ago
        Then what are you talking about? We all agree: every nonviolent offender should be treated at least as well as SBF is. Treating SBF worse doesn't make anything better or more just. Which was the point I just made upthread.
        OnlineGladiator 4y ago
willcipriano 4y ago
I think it's worth noting that they aren't even bothering to give the appearance of seriousness, even in this high profile case against a fairly unimportant guy. A disgraced former billionaires opinion is still more valuable than that of the public at large.
- tptacek 4y ago
  I don't know what this means. Bail isn't a public referendum on how bad the guy is. It's a mechanism for ensuring people show up to trial. SBF is going to show up to trial. All the stories about how he won't are all predicated on elaborate schemes where all his assets are hidden, which moots the whole bail discussion anyways. It boils down to: people hate SBF, and wish he was in a jail cell. They're likely to get their wish. I'm comfortable with my "loathing SBF and people like him" bona fides, but I don't have my understanding of public policy wrapped tightly around those feelings.
ncallaway 4y ago
> If we want to get an amen chorus going about how we should fix bail for blue collar defendants, I'm right there with you I'm generally in favor of the argument that we should fix disparities by bringing up the disfavored group rather than bringing down the favored group. I think that's generally right. But, I do think there's a serious risk of allowing a two-tier system of justice to exist (and we do have a two-tier justice system, I think at this point there's pretty little argument over that; the rich are treated very differently from the legislature, the prosecutors, the police, and the judges). Allowing them to continue to have a separate system where they don't experience the same injustices that poor defendants regularly experience means the people with political power are very disinclined to actually cause meaningful change. So the injustices will perpetuate. For that reason, I'm inclined to call for exactly that: white collar defendants to get the exact same treatment as blue collar defendants. No worse, but no better. Because when those white collar defendants experience those horrific injustices, the system is more likely to change for the better. I suspect this is just a difference of expectations. I think it's more likely we can treat white collar defendants worse, and then improve the system for everyone, than it is to convince those in power to just start treating blue collar defendants better. But I understand you probably don't agree with that. Ultimately, I think we must continually work to eliminate the discrepancies in the justice system, because those discrepancies allow people with power to completely disregard this as a significant issue. And I think we probably will always need to be working at this from both ends.
- tptacek 4y ago
  We obviously have a 2-tier system. We didn't need SBF to show us that; we knew long before, decades before. The expectation that SBF would be the breaking point where we fix that system is irrational, which is what makes this a banal conversation. There's nothing for anybody to learn from it. I'm not the only one making this point; I'm shoplifting it from Ken White, who has spent his career working on and advocating for some of these issues, and who is loudly sighing and complaining about the coverage of SBF's bail on the Serious Trouble podcast. There is interesting stuff going on in this case! But white collar bail treatment isn't one of those things.
  - 4y ago

darth_avocado 4y ago

Exactly. It’s also absurd to call it a $250M bail if you’re only depositing around a 100k to get out. I bet a lot of poor people cannot get out of their 10k bail by paying 10 bucks.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> It’s also absurd to call it a $250M bail if you’re only depositing around a 100k to get out. Bail amount is the penalty for you if you fail to comply. The amount you deposit (or other property which you give, either physically or as an interest via a lien) is security. Surety is other people accepting a penalty (which may be equal or less than the full bail amount) if you fail to comply. Lots of states have formulaic relations between these that are designed to (1) keep people, especially poor people, in jail, and (2) support the bail bonds industry, but they are conceptually and historically separate levers for achieving compliance.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> “We” are obsessed with this situation because of how blatantly shows the extreme hypocrisy and double standards of the prevailing system of justice. I would take people more seriously if they were advocating for just treatment of others, rather than for unjust treatment of SBF, just because his treatment by the (on this point more just) federal system is better than the experience of many people in the (far more unjust) systems used by most US states. Equal injustice is not the same thing as justice.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>Equal injustice is not the same thing as justice. No, but it is better than the unequal injustice we have now. People are rightfully upset that SBF is getting a cakewalk compared to countless people charged with crimes that are vastly less serious.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > No, but it is better than the unequal injustice we have now. No, more people being treated unjustly isn’t better, ever, full stop.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Norway's top court has declined to even extradite to the US because of stories like this. I know of developed nations accepting asylum requests from Americans facing no specific threat due to stories like this, I know the individuals that got it.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> There was some news recently of a guy that died of dehydration while in jail [1] for I don't recall how long. During this time he was forced to drink his pee and eat his own feces routinely. This was in the news because it was a travesty. Comparing SBF to this is pointless. The previous poster didn't say SBF's treatment was bad, just that it was appropriate.

watwut 4y ago

It would 100% makes sense to call for end of qualified immunity and for uncritical acceptance of everything police or jail guards do. It would 100% makes sense to start being suspicious every time there is supposed crime spike as supposed consequence of even unsuccessful attempts to make police and jails accountable. It does not make sense to demand SBF does not have bail, because someone else was murdered by police.