5 ms·

The path to solving a culture that overincarcerates is not by incarcerating those involved in perpetuating that culture. We need to tame the impulse to throw p

• gdilla 5mo ago
  that is literally the way. these maga law breakers need accountability. They got off scott free for j6. we're still fighting the civil war and white fragility because they suffered no consequences the last time.
  • malfist 5mo ago
    Not just scott free, but they might be getting a million dollars each from tax payers due to that asinine "settlement" from Trump suing the government.
    • ikeboy 5mo ago
      This is another example of the kind of partisan thinking I'm criticizing. It's nearly impossible to get paid for malicious prosecution by the federal government. Read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment_(1997) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment_(1997) >A 2010 investigation by USA Today "found the law has left innocent people... coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases."[5] The investigation "documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Still, USA Today found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded."[5] The case in OP would never have settled if it was against the federal government rather than a state. Also, the feds cap the amount paid for wrongful imprisonment at $50k/year, by statute. We need a way to make the federal government pay out for malicious prosecution cases, just as OP got paid. See e.g. Douglass Mackey. He posted some misleading memes on Twitter about the election, falsely claiming that people could vote by text, and got arrested and found guilty at trial until eventually the 2nd circuit said that what he did wasn't a crime. Should he be compensated? Should the prosecutor and judge in his case face their own criminal prosecutions?
      • ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > It's nearly impossible to get paid for malicious prosecution by the federal government. We'll see. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-anti-weaponization-fund https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... > See e.g. Douglass Mackey. He posted some misleading memes on Twitter about the election, falsely claiming that people could vote by text, and got arrested and found guilty at trial until eventually the 2nd circuit said that what he did wasn't a crime. Should he be compensated? Should the prosecutor and judge in his case face their own criminal prosecutions? "falsely claiming" is a pretty big distinction between these cases, yes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey says he got off, in part, because no one provably fell for his trick, not that the behavior was legal.
        • ikeboy 5mo ago
          I've read the second circuit opinion and saying that it was legal is a fair takeaway. They didn't reach the 1st amendment grounds though because they didn't need to once determining that he didn't conspire as required (technically, they didn't prove he conspired.) Of course any two cases are going to be different, and the guy posting memes on your side is going to be more sympathetic to you than the guy posting memes that you don't like. That's part of my point. If you create a criminal statute that applies to OP, someone is going to try applying it in a case like Mackey's. If you don't think it should be applied in Mackey's case, how would you word it to cover just the cases you like and not those you don't?
          • ceejayoz 5mo ago
            That doesn't seem so hard. Per this article: > That meme — which Larry didn’t create or alter... > Weems admitted in a later interview that he knew at the time of the arrest that Larry’s Facebook post was a pre-existing meme that referred to an actual shooting that took place in a different state, over 500 miles away… He didn't create it, the meme was accurate, and the cops knew that. Every bit of the conduct they attempted to punish was clearly legal, and they knew it. The opinion you reference is at https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf. "cannot alone establish Mackey’s knowing agreement" clearly indicates that things would have been different if they could have established that conduct.
    • amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      Was there an actual judge in this case? If so, that judge should never have approved this settlement. Of all the horrifying things this administration has done, this one is near the top of the list.
      • QuercusMax 5mo ago
        The judge in the case in fact put out a statement that there WAS no settlement. > Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the lawsuit, dismissed the case on Monday and, in her filing, admonished the government agencies, notably the Justice Department, for failing to be transparent about the settlement. > She said no agency "submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed." https://www.npr.org/2026/05/19/g-s1-122938/irs-trump-settlement-tax-returns-audit https://www.npr.org/2026/05/19/g-s1-122938/irs-trump-settlem...
  • d-cc 5mo ago
    The people involved in January 6th were manipulated by external intelligence influences, and really had no choice in committing their crimes. Much of our legal system is based on the incarceration or individuals who are deeply compromised and have zero choice in their actions, pardons need to become more commonplace until a more mature approach is taken here.
• ceejayoz 5mo ago
  We have overincarceration and underincarceration simultaneously. Some who are in jail should not be. Some who aren't in jail should be. If I locked you up for a month over a meme, I'd go to jail for years.
  • ikeboy 5mo ago
    The system needs to change so pursuing frivolous or weak charges doesn't work. We also need to reform bail, which has gone way outside of historical/constitutional norms. Turning it into an escalating back and forth of each side trying to imprison the other, is not conducive to the kind of change we need. To take a recent example, while I don't particularly like James Comey or Letitia James, I don't think they should have been targeted. That kind of stuff is what happens when it escalates to each side calling for the other side to be locked up.
    • ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > The system needs to change so pursuing frivolous or weak charges doesn't work. Agreed. Cases this knowingly frivolous, for example, should be treated as the criminal kidnapping or false imprisonment it would be if any other citizen perpetrated it.
      • ikeboy 5mo ago
        How is that an example? Whatever you do now doesn't work retroactively. Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact.
        • ceejayoz 5mo ago
          > Whatever you do now doesn't work retroactively. The point of such a thing is to deter similar conduct in the future. The fact that this isn't a crime, and that qualified immunity typically means they can't even be held responsible civily, is part of what encourages police to commit misconduct like this. The only folks punished here were the local taxpayers footing the bill.
• BoggleOhYeah 5mo ago
  Sure. Let’s start pushing back against over-incarceration by not punishing people that knowingly did something wrong and flies in the face of the country’s supposed values. Makes sense.
  • ikeboy 5mo ago
    We should start by removing the ability of prosecutors and police to bring such cases in the first place.
    • ceejayoz 5mo ago
      What does that look like here? They falsely claimed he'd made an actionable threat. We can't remove their power to request warrants and arrest people for legitimately threatening others, right? They misused power.
      • ikeboy 5mo ago
        The magistrate judge is supposed to be a check on that power. Unfortunately, they've become rubber stamps for the most part. In a functioning system, the judge would block the warrant and arrest. I think there are ways to have a system where judges do that, without having to criminally prosecute either cops or judges.
        • ceejayoz 5mo ago
          > In a functioning system, the judge would block the warrant and arrest. But they lied to obtain the warrant.
          • ikeboy 5mo ago
            OP says that they left out information (which cops do all the time) but that the warrant shouldn't have been granted either way because of SCOTUS precedent. Would welcome reform that makes it harder to lie on warrant affidavits, although again, that should be civil in nature.
• archonis 5mo ago
  If you don't hold people accountable for removing the liberty of others without just cause, those who abuse their power will continue to run rampant.
  • ikeboy 5mo ago
    Where does this idea come from that we somehow can't take power away from people without criminal punishment after the fact? Nobody should have this power, and then abuse of power wouldn't be an issue.
    • archonis 5mo ago
      If you want to reform the justice system, more power to you, but while it exists the last people who should be exempt from its reach are those who wield its power in criminal ways.
• digdugdirk 5mo ago
  Indeed. Thankfully - as has been proven time and time again in America - if leniency is given to those who abuse their power, they will absolutely never ever decide to abuse their power again.
  • ikeboy 5mo ago
    Nobody should have that power. What kind of mindset do you need to have where you think the only way to prevent someone from doing something is via the threat of imprisonment after the fact? The vast majority of people don't do this, and that's because they don't have the power to do it, not because they don't want to.
• dfxm12 5mo ago
  This is a grossly disingenuous strawman. The top comment as of posting clearly states "The sheriff that arrested him should face criminal charges for misuse of authority." False imprisonment is against the law, this situation is far from merely doing something we dislike.
  • ikeboy 5mo ago
    False imprisonment generally doesn't apply when due process is followed, like getting a warrant. You'd have to change the law to allow for prosecutions in cases like this, and that change would likely be weaponized in other cases.
    • dfxm12 5mo ago
      Your comment spoke to the commenter's motivation, not about how likely any proposed charges were to stick from a technical standpoint in this particular jurisdiction. So, you have abandoned defending your original claim and moved the goalposts elsewhere.
      • ikeboy 5mo ago
        What? My original comment says that we need to reform in a different way.
        • dfxm12 5mo ago
          Your original comment is different from "we need to reform in a different way". If that's what you meant, that's not what you posted.
          • ikeboy 5mo ago
            >We need to tame the impulse to throw people in jail for doing things we dislike And in comments I expanded on this and gave several specific reforms. Not sure what your understanding was.