4 ms·

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/constitutio

by 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.
    - ikeboy 5mo ago
      If you're going to change the system, which you need to do to make it possible to bring charges in a case like this, the other changes I suggested would be more effective and harder to weaponize. The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. No; the system got the innocent person out of jail and a hefty settlement for their trouble. The system is now, unfortunately, allowing the guilty parties to stay employed as cops after performing a kidnapping. > That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. An accidental positive on a drug test is a bad outcome. Locking someone up for more than a month because they posted a photo of the President and a quote he actually said is a crime.
        ikeboy 5mo ago
        See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success. It's a failure but it could have been worse. I also think every party involved in that failure should be fired and rendered unemployable in the field.
        kyleee 5mo ago
        You may want to explain a bit better, as stated it sounds like you’d prefer he’d still be in jail: “ See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success”
        ikeboy 5mo ago
        The case shouldn't have been brought, but even if brought he should have had a prompt bond hearing and been let out within 24 hours.
        kyleee 4mo ago
        I do agree
      - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
        What could a systemic solution to this possibly look like? He didn't stay in jail for 37 days because the system left no room for any other possible outcome. There were a number of points at which he could have been released had the system worked correctly. But Sheriff Nick Weems, an official in a key position of authority administrating the local justice system, decided that he'd like to subvert the system and steal this man's freedom. So he used his authority and expertise to ensure the system did not work correctly.
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    > Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact. At a certain point, punishing abuse of power after the fact is the only way to discourage the potential abuse of power. Like there is nothing that actually stops you or me from going and kidnapping someone. And that same dynamic applies to someone who happens to also be a sheriff who controls a jail due to his employment. There is no magic wand for the system to wave that makes it so that the individuals employed by that system can't simply break the law.
    - ikeboy 5mo ago
      The warrant here was approved by a magistrate judge, and I would suggest making the process for approval more robust to reduce this kind of abuse. Personal civil liability and firing can also help.
      - mindslight 5mo ago
        I don't think magistrates rule on questions of law (maybe you were implying this, but maybe not). But in general the whole legal/justice system is basically blind to the harm it itself causes, so I don't think an actual judge looking at the merits of a warrant would be terribly adversarial to a sheriff either - they work together all the time, and most of the warrants presented by the sheriff are legitimate. I do agree with you in general that we should aim to split system functions between multiple people. But this merely raises the bar, it doesn't make corrupt actions impossible. Which means we should be focusing on both avenues of reform, rather than emphasizing one to downplay another. Especially as when you do this, the entrenched system seems to takes advantage of the downplaying while resisting the solution being emphasized.
        ikeboy 5mo ago
        Magistrates are supposed to verify that the warrant contains probable cause and reject ones that don't. You could make the system more adversarial at that point, although I think enforcing bail hearings where a public defender can argue would help in this and many other cases.
postflopclarity 5mo ago
> each side trying to imprison the other, you're implying that the two sides are morally and legally equivalent, and both are just engaging in retaliatory squabbling. that is a ridiculous implication one "side" routinely flaunts the law, steals from the public, abuses and ignores the courts, and has a complete disregard for civil rights, legal procedure, and credibility. it uses the DoJ as a personal henchman, stringing up frivolous charges targeted at political enemies. the other "side" is trying to enforce the law.
- ikeboy 5mo ago
  The thing is, each side will think you're talking about the other side. I view it differently. To me there's the pro incarceration side and the anti incarceration side. Both parties institutionally are pro prosecution and have failed to reign in abuses. Both sides have abused the courts. Instead of arguing over which side has abused them worse (I may not even disagree with you on that!) I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse.
  - mckn1ght 5mo ago
    > I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse. Sounds great in theory but at the end of the day the backstop to bad behavior is force, one avenue of which is incarceration. This is just the paradox of tolerance.
  - postflopclarity 5mo ago
    > each side will think you're talking about the other side. no. one side will say it, and think it. the other side will say it, but know they're lying.
caconym_ 5mo ago
I don't think both-sidesing this is particularly appropriate. Law enforcement officers who abuse their position to harm people under false pretenses should be prosecuted as criminals, because that's what they are. This is true in any political environment and entirely distinct from the Trump administration's malicious and baseless abuse of the legal system against Trump's perceived enemies. You are demonstrating what I think will be one of the most pernicious outcomes of the Trump administration's transformation of the Justice Department: the blurring of lines between law enforcement, criminality, and corruption as the institution is debased and public trust is lost.
- ikeboy 5mo ago
  Public trust should be lost, because these institutions were never trustworthy. I am not both sidesing. I'm saying that there are better reform options than adding additional criminal statutes that are likely to be abused. Put simply, do you want the Trump administration to be able to bring criminal charges against any prosecutor or judge that they can argue brought a bad case?
  - caconym_ 5mo ago
    You could make this argument about anything. We should have no laws, because they might be abused by a malicious prosecutor. Utter nonsense.
    - ikeboy 5mo ago
      We should indeed get rid of many laws because the benefit is outweighed by the abuse. America has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (used to be #1) but suggest that maybe we're overcriminalized and you must be talking nonsense.
      - caconym_ 5mo ago
        You are not suggesting that "maybe we're overcriminalized". You are suggesting that we should not hold law enforcement accountable for egregious abuses of power that do real harm to real people. You think it should not be considered criminal for a police officer to put somebody in prison (under threat of bodily harm or death, by default) just because they feel like it, or whatever. You think police officers should be able to rape innocent travelers on the side of the road and face no consequences for it. You think police officers should be able to scream conflicting orders at somebody and then shoot them in the head because "they were reaching for a weapon". Or do you not? All these things happen in America, and the officers involved almost never face meaningful consequences. Where do you draw the line, if at all?

by ikeboy 5mo ago

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.
  - ikeboy 5mo ago
    If you're going to change the system, which you need to do to make it possible to bring charges in a case like this, the other changes I suggested would be more effective and harder to weaponize. The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. No; the system got the innocent person out of jail and a hefty settlement for their trouble. The system is now, unfortunately, allowing the guilty parties to stay employed as cops after performing a kidnapping. > That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. An accidental positive on a drug test is a bad outcome. Locking someone up for more than a month because they posted a photo of the President and a quote he actually said is a crime.
      - ikeboy 5mo ago
        See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success. It's a failure but it could have been worse. I also think every party involved in that failure should be fired and rendered unemployable in the field.
        kyleee 5mo ago
        You may want to explain a bit better, as stated it sounds like you’d prefer he’d still be in jail: “ See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success”
        ikeboy 5mo ago
        The case shouldn't have been brought, but even if brought he should have had a prompt bond hearing and been let out within 24 hours.
        kyleee 4mo ago
        I do agree
    - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
      What could a systemic solution to this possibly look like? He didn't stay in jail for 37 days because the system left no room for any other possible outcome. There were a number of points at which he could have been released had the system worked correctly. But Sheriff Nick Weems, an official in a key position of authority administrating the local justice system, decided that he'd like to subvert the system and steal this man's freedom. So he used his authority and expertise to ensure the system did not work correctly.
- mindslight 5mo ago
  > Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact. At a certain point, punishing abuse of power after the fact is the only way to discourage the potential abuse of power. Like there is nothing that actually stops you or me from going and kidnapping someone. And that same dynamic applies to someone who happens to also be a sheriff who controls a jail due to his employment. There is no magic wand for the system to wave that makes it so that the individuals employed by that system can't simply break the law.
  - ikeboy 5mo ago
    The warrant here was approved by a magistrate judge, and I would suggest making the process for approval more robust to reduce this kind of abuse. Personal civil liability and firing can also help.
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      I don't think magistrates rule on questions of law (maybe you were implying this, but maybe not). But in general the whole legal/justice system is basically blind to the harm it itself causes, so I don't think an actual judge looking at the merits of a warrant would be terribly adversarial to a sheriff either - they work together all the time, and most of the warrants presented by the sheriff are legitimate. I do agree with you in general that we should aim to split system functions between multiple people. But this merely raises the bar, it doesn't make corrupt actions impossible. Which means we should be focusing on both avenues of reform, rather than emphasizing one to downplay another. Especially as when you do this, the entrenched system seems to takes advantage of the downplaying while resisting the solution being emphasized.
      - ikeboy 5mo ago
        Magistrates are supposed to verify that the warrant contains probable cause and reject ones that don't. You could make the system more adversarial at that point, although I think enforcing bail hearings where a public defender can argue would help in this and many other cases.

postflopclarity 5mo ago

> each side trying to imprison the other, you're implying that the two sides are morally and legally equivalent, and both are just engaging in retaliatory squabbling. that is a ridiculous implication one "side" routinely flaunts the law, steals from the public, abuses and ignores the courts, and has a complete disregard for civil rights, legal procedure, and credibility. it uses the DoJ as a personal henchman, stringing up frivolous charges targeted at political enemies. the other "side" is trying to enforce the law.

ikeboy 5mo ago
The thing is, each side will think you're talking about the other side. I view it differently. To me there's the pro incarceration side and the anti incarceration side. Both parties institutionally are pro prosecution and have failed to reign in abuses. Both sides have abused the courts. Instead of arguing over which side has abused them worse (I may not even disagree with you on that!) I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse.
- mckn1ght 5mo ago
  > I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse. Sounds great in theory but at the end of the day the backstop to bad behavior is force, one avenue of which is incarceration. This is just the paradox of tolerance.
- postflopclarity 5mo ago
  > each side will think you're talking about the other side. no. one side will say it, and think it. the other side will say it, but know they're lying.

caconym_ 5mo ago

I don't think both-sidesing this is particularly appropriate. Law enforcement officers who abuse their position to harm people under false pretenses should be prosecuted as criminals, because that's what they are. This is true in any political environment and entirely distinct from the Trump administration's malicious and baseless abuse of the legal system against Trump's perceived enemies. You are demonstrating what I think will be one of the most pernicious outcomes of the Trump administration's transformation of the Justice Department: the blurring of lines between law enforcement, criminality, and corruption as the institution is debased and public trust is lost.

ikeboy 5mo ago
Public trust should be lost, because these institutions were never trustworthy. I am not both sidesing. I'm saying that there are better reform options than adding additional criminal statutes that are likely to be abused. Put simply, do you want the Trump administration to be able to bring criminal charges against any prosecutor or judge that they can argue brought a bad case?
- caconym_ 5mo ago
  You could make this argument about anything. We should have no laws, because they might be abused by a malicious prosecutor. Utter nonsense.
  - ikeboy 5mo ago
    We should indeed get rid of many laws because the benefit is outweighed by the abuse. America has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (used to be #1) but suggest that maybe we're overcriminalized and you must be talking nonsense.
    - caconym_ 5mo ago
      You are not suggesting that "maybe we're overcriminalized". You are suggesting that we should not hold law enforcement accountable for egregious abuses of power that do real harm to real people. You think it should not be considered criminal for a police officer to put somebody in prison (under threat of bodily harm or death, by default) just because they feel like it, or whatever. You think police officers should be able to rape innocent travelers on the side of the road and face no consequences for it. You think police officers should be able to scream conflicting orders at somebody and then shoot them in the head because "they were reaching for a weapon". Or do you not? All these things happen in America, and the officers involved almost never face meaningful consequences. Where do you draw the line, if at all?