6 ms·

It's amazing. Absolutely insane that people are incarcerated so long for non-violent drug crimes, though. Turso also looks really neat for small Payload sites.

CobrastanJorji 1y ago
Oh absolutely. Voters always favor harsher punishments or making things worse for those already convicted of crimes. You never get any more votes by pushing for lower punishments for any crime or by doing anything to reduce recidivism. I suspect that a pretty solid litmus test for "politician who is actually trying to make the world a better place" based just on how they vote for lowering recidivism.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rustcleaner 1y ago
  Justification to abolish democracy, and because everything else is worse I guess we're going to have to go to a voluntarist ancap NAP-respecting society!
tptacek 1y ago
I agree with you. This is a crazy high sentence (15-30). But worth nothing that the fact pattern behind it was also pretty crazy.
badc0ffee 1y ago
"Non-violent drug crimes" brings to mind hippies selling weed or mushrooms. But this guy was selling carfentanil. I'm not saying he's to blame for the opioid crisis turning street people into shambling zombies, clogging emergency services with overdoses, and causing death, but he certainly played a part.
- cortesoft 1y ago
  He played a lot smaller part than the Sackler family, who ran Purdue Pharma and pushed their drugs into communities. They killed a lot more people than this guy, and yet none of them are in jail.
  - tux3 1y ago
    The Sacklers are comfortably above the law and that's a bad thing, but that doesn't make small time carfentanyl operations any less bad Evil is a threshold, it's not a competition with limited spots Sometimes big crime families or notorious serial killers get away with it, but it doesn't lower the threshold for anyone else It doesn't make it any better that someone else is doing even worse. You don't get to do a little crime, as a treat
    - cess11 1y ago
      "You don't get to do a little crime, as a treat" Why not? I much prefer a society in which I can get away with some crimes to one where every crime is prosecuted.
      - rangestransform 1y ago
        Discretionary enforcement is just used as a way to disguise discrimination Perhaps our laws would be fairer and simpler if enforcement were draconian and uniform
        theoreticalmal 1y ago
        Very interesting spectrum you’re suggesting
        badc0ffee 1y ago
        The Singapore way
        deleted 1y ago
ahahs 1y ago
Say that to the people he killed selling those drugs. This isn't weed, it's highly lethal pills.
- OvidNaso 1y ago
  If he killed anyone he should be charged with murder or manslaughter.
  - nickff 1y ago
    Many dealers and addicts who are involved in extremely violent crimes are plead down to drug crimes after having been charged with both drug and violent crimes. https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2021-08/20170624.pdf https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/docu... >"On December 24, 2016, three Manchester police officers responded to an apartment following a report of a domestic dispute. The report was made by the mother of Ashley Arbogast, who advised that her daughter had called her Stating that her boyfriend had broken her arm during an argument."
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
      Ok, but we should punish people for the crimes they're convicted of, not the crimes we've decided for ourselves they committed.
      - nickff 1y ago
        He is being punished for what he was convicted of; whether you agree with the penalty or not. If we do change the penalties, the convictions will change too. I just wanted to point out that there is clear evidence that this individual was involved in at least one violent act, as is often the case with ‘non-violent drug convicts’.
- ipaddr 1y ago
  Any yet there are coke-cola machines everywhere including inside police stations which kills more people each year. And only one company is allowed to import the specific leaves/material (coca leafs). The government restricts everyone from importing them unless it's one of the biggest companies in the world.
ponector 1y ago
[flagged]
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
  Sure, some people might say that. I’d say that’s also quite cruel, and that there might be a third option that’s better than both.
- cycomanic 1y ago
  And you take personal responsibility if someone innocent is convicted? Once you have executed someone there is no coming back. Or are you saying you're OK with some innocents being killed so you can save some money (taxes)?
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >Once you have executed someone there is no coming back. Once you've taken 10 years of someone's life there is no giving that back either. As technology progresses the cost of recording evidence will go down which will help convict and prove the innocence of people.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      > As technology progresses the cost of recording evidence will go down which will help convict and prove the innocence of people. Minority Report is a counterfactual to this claim. The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed. Technology is a tool to extend one’s grasp to meet one’s reach, and vice versa, and is a tool that serves power. Those with power are best able to bend tools to their ends, just or unjust. > It is the duty of the poor to support and sustain the rich in their power and idleness. In doing so, they have to work before the laws' majestic equality, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France
  - ponector 1y ago
    It takes 5-25 years is the USA to execute a person. Someone can argue what is worse: to live 20 more years in prison or to be executed.
throw9384844i 1y ago
[flagged]

CobrastanJorji 1y ago

Oh absolutely. Voters always favor harsher punishments or making things worse for those already convicted of crimes. You never get any more votes by pushing for lower punishments for any crime or by doing anything to reduce recidivism. I suspect that a pretty solid litmus test for "politician who is actually trying to make the world a better place" based just on how they vote for lowering recidivism.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rustcleaner 1y ago
Justification to abolish democracy, and because everything else is worse I guess we're going to have to go to a voluntarist ancap NAP-respecting society!

tptacek 1y ago

I agree with you. This is a crazy high sentence (15-30). But worth nothing that the fact pattern behind it was also pretty crazy.

badc0ffee 1y ago

"Non-violent drug crimes" brings to mind hippies selling weed or mushrooms. But this guy was selling carfentanil. I'm not saying he's to blame for the opioid crisis turning street people into shambling zombies, clogging emergency services with overdoses, and causing death, but he certainly played a part.

cortesoft 1y ago
He played a lot smaller part than the Sackler family, who ran Purdue Pharma and pushed their drugs into communities. They killed a lot more people than this guy, and yet none of them are in jail.
- tux3 1y ago
  The Sacklers are comfortably above the law and that's a bad thing, but that doesn't make small time carfentanyl operations any less bad Evil is a threshold, it's not a competition with limited spots Sometimes big crime families or notorious serial killers get away with it, but it doesn't lower the threshold for anyone else It doesn't make it any better that someone else is doing even worse. You don't get to do a little crime, as a treat
  - cess11 1y ago
    "You don't get to do a little crime, as a treat" Why not? I much prefer a society in which I can get away with some crimes to one where every crime is prosecuted.
    - rangestransform 1y ago
      Discretionary enforcement is just used as a way to disguise discrimination Perhaps our laws would be fairer and simpler if enforcement were draconian and uniform
      - theoreticalmal 1y ago
        Very interesting spectrum you’re suggesting
      - badc0ffee 1y ago
        The Singapore way
        deleted 1y ago

ahahs 1y ago

Say that to the people he killed selling those drugs. This isn't weed, it's highly lethal pills.

OvidNaso 1y ago
If he killed anyone he should be charged with murder or manslaughter.
- nickff 1y ago
  Many dealers and addicts who are involved in extremely violent crimes are plead down to drug crimes after having been charged with both drug and violent crimes. https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2021-08/20170624.pdf https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/docu... >"On December 24, 2016, three Manchester police officers responded to an apartment following a report of a domestic dispute. The report was made by the mother of Ashley Arbogast, who advised that her daughter had called her Stating that her boyfriend had broken her arm during an argument."
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    Ok, but we should punish people for the crimes they're convicted of, not the crimes we've decided for ourselves they committed.
    - nickff 1y ago
      He is being punished for what he was convicted of; whether you agree with the penalty or not. If we do change the penalties, the convictions will change too. I just wanted to point out that there is clear evidence that this individual was involved in at least one violent act, as is often the case with ‘non-violent drug convicts’.
ipaddr 1y ago
Any yet there are coke-cola machines everywhere including inside police stations which kills more people each year. And only one company is allowed to import the specific leaves/material (coca leafs). The government restricts everyone from importing them unless it's one of the biggest companies in the world.

ponector 1y ago

[flagged]

BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
Sure, some people might say that. I’d say that’s also quite cruel, and that there might be a third option that’s better than both.
cycomanic 1y ago
And you take personal responsibility if someone innocent is convicted? Once you have executed someone there is no coming back. Or are you saying you're OK with some innocents being killed so you can save some money (taxes)?
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >Once you have executed someone there is no coming back. Once you've taken 10 years of someone's life there is no giving that back either. As technology progresses the cost of recording evidence will go down which will help convict and prove the innocence of people.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > As technology progresses the cost of recording evidence will go down which will help convict and prove the innocence of people. Minority Report is a counterfactual to this claim. The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed. Technology is a tool to extend one’s grasp to meet one’s reach, and vice versa, and is a tool that serves power. Those with power are best able to bend tools to their ends, just or unjust. > It is the duty of the poor to support and sustain the rich in their power and idleness. In doing so, they have to work before the laws' majestic equality, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France
- ponector 1y ago
  It takes 5-25 years is the USA to execute a person. Someone can argue what is worse: to live 20 more years in prison or to be executed.

throw9384844i 1y ago

[flagged]