11 ms·

> Men like him lived a paradox. The penal system was supposed to shape them up. But its tentacles had become so invasive that the opposite happened. Goffman arg

by spodek 13y ago

> Men like him lived a paradox. The penal system was supposed to shape them up. But its tentacles had become so invasive that the opposite happened. Goffman argues that the system encourages young men to act shady—"I got to move like a shadow," one of Mike's friends told her—because a stable public routine could land them back behind bars. > Take work. Once, after Mike was released on parole to a halfway house, he found employment at a Taco Bell. But he soon grew fed up with his crowded house and decided to sleep at his girlfriend's. That resulted in a parole violation. When Mike went back to the Taco Bell to pick up his paycheck, two parole officers arrested him. He had to spend another year upstate. This passage described a poor black man in Philadelphia -- the tip of the iceberg in the story. Today I happened to read about Toronto's mayor and couldn't help compare the two. Toronto's mayor is on video smoking crack, is drunk and disorderly in public, shoves (assaults?) a grandmother, more, and isn't even removed from office, let alone arrested. How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? The differences in cities and countries pale in comparison to the differences in treatment between the two people. EDIT: a couple comments point out the differences between the U.S. and Canada police forces. Fair enough, but as different as Toronto and Philadelphia may be and as different as Canada and the U.S. may be, I can't imagine those differences are lost on the men jailed for smaller infractions, asking "What does it take for a rich, white guy to have to go to jail? ... Why should I bother trying to stay out if nothing I can do can keep me out?" I'm sure we could just look at police on Philadelphia's Main Line, maybe ten minutes away, to find similar effects to avoid the U.S./Canada comparison.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Canadian and US law enforcement are pretty different... Edit - response to your edit: The US white incarceration rate is ~5-7x the total incarceration rate in Canada.
- bediger4000 13y ago
  Great, I did not know that. Which one works better? That is, which style of law enforcement produces a safer civil society?
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    I'd put my money on Canada, but the truth is probably hard to distill.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    My guess would be that law enforcement doesn't do much at all for public safety and the level of violence in any given area is probably driven by economic or other factors.
  - AYBABTME 13y ago
    I'd say, experimental results show that the canadian way produces safer civil society. But then, I'm completely biased, being Canadian. Anyhow, I do feel much safer in any Canadian city than in the places I've been to in the US. Just compare crime rates for major cities and you'll see for yourself.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Actually... Crime rates (homicide rates) are starkly similar across the border: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/images//MurderRate2007.jpg http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/images//MurderRate2007.jpg The dangerous US cities in some other border states throw off the perception, but there is a heck of a lot of difference between Detroit and Toronto other than law enforcement! In general, it's the rust belt and deep south and Mexican border states which skew US homicide rates; the parts which border Canada have similar homicide rates to Canada (again aside from rust best + Illinois). It's actually a bit funny - states near Canada have similar homicide rates to Canada. States near Mexico have similar homicide rates to Mexico (much lower than Mexico, but higher than some other states). States near the Caribbean have rates like the Caribbean (again much lower than the Caribbean, but again higher than other states). Not sure how the mid Atlantic states work into that analogy, haha :)
      - AYBABTME 13y ago
        If you compare the population density instead of a map, the situation is different. Québec, British Columbia and Ontario are the most populous areas yet they have to lowest murder rate. Compare that with Texas, California, New York, Florida, ... I think simply looking at this map is misleading.
tobyjsullivan 13y ago
Not to downplay the inequalities that exist on both sides of the border, but don't underestimate the differences between the United States and Canada - especially when it comes to things like drug enforcement and the prevalence and nature of ghettos.
janj 13y ago
I've noticed many airports have HSBC plastered all over the walls. This has been amusing to me after it came out that HSBC runs the world's largest money laundering operation for drug cartels. It's surreal thinking about how TSA and customs will put away recreational drug users for life but the bank that funds the largest drug cartels operates out in the open. Our system is broken at every level.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  (For those interested in more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering) Never mind the fundamental fact that if your fine was less than the profit you gained from your illegal activity, you can just write it off as a business expense. Fines have to be punitive or they will have no effect; it's simple math.
  - wozniacki 13y ago
    I am always in constant bewilderment at how galling some of these corporate crimes are. How does one even go about planning these? Do the chief executives [1] [2] sit with the board members and discuss the tradeoffs of turning a blind eye to some hanky-panky stuff going on in Mexico? [3] I know that they have legal counsels and all. But do they really sit down and weigh the legal ramifications and discuss who shall be thrown under the bus, if things should flare up? Whether its a Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial [4] or a Maurice R. Greenberg[5] of AIG or even a Calisto Tanzi of Parmalat [6] [7]; do these people even have a good pulse of the prosecution climate of a given administration, the likelihood of getting caught and the possible fines and sentences before they choose to set these financially murky things in motion? Or are they more like hot-shot, fledgling politicians [8] who think they are invincible and can never possibly get caught, in a scandal? If anything, the public has come to be struck in awe of these people and their mettle, rather than find their actions, reprobatory. The slap on the wrist fines and sentences ( if any at all ) that major executives and their houses have received, only reaffirms the notion that one -above all other skills and qualifications - has to be a skilled manipulator of fact, circumstance and public opinion, to head a large and highly profitable enterprise, these days. After all the cake and watermelon, I am loath to admit that deviousness and calculated deceit has become sexy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Geoghegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Geoghegan [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Gulliver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Gulliver [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-laundering-by-iran-drug-cartels-probe-shows.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-la... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg#Legal_issu... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat_bankruptcy_timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat_bankruptcy_timeline [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat#Financial_fraud_.282002.E2.80.932005.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat#Financial_fraud_.28200... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Indictment_and_trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Indictment_and_tri... Edit: Citations
rdtsc 13y ago
Not sure what Canada's crack smoking, grandmother-shoving mayors have to do with this. I am sure African warlords do worse, and Russian mafia is in bed with their government. The story is about the US justice system.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Wait, Canada isn't a US state?
pandaman 13y ago
A rich black guy, Eric Holder, had been found in criminal contempt of Congress (I have a vague idea what it is but it sounds more serious than grandma-showing), he is still free and keeps his job. So it takes as much for a rich white guy to go to jail as takes for a rich black guy to go to jail.
- thebooktocome 13y ago
  Criminal contempt of Congress carries a jail term between one and twelve months, and a fine between $100 and $1000. Suffice it to say, it isn't very serious. Holder is still free because it's unclear from a constitutional standpoint where Congress got the authority to hold anyone in contempt, let alone a member of the Executive.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Congress certainly has the authority: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress >Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment. Holder is free because he's the head of the agency that's supposed to prosecute these kinds of crimes. The only way forward for Congress is to impeach him, and that's not going to happen as long as the Democrats control the Senate.
    - wwweston 13y ago
      > Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938 ... by Congress, presumably? If so, it seems to me there might be questions about whether Congress can give itself increased authority when it comes to compelling the executive branch. > who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" Hmm. 5th amendment?
JonFish85 13y ago
"Why should I bother trying to stay out if nothing I can do can keep me out?" Well, for starters, living by the conditions of the parole... I'm not trying to be too snarky about it, but given the choice of "fed up with a crowded house" and the chance of going back to prison for a year, the choice seems evident. The question is whether the person really cares. Stuck in a crowded apartment, maybe it was a calculated risk: I can either get away with it, or I'll go back to the big house. In the end, maybe he doesn't feel that he lost that much.
- angersock 13y ago
  "living by the conditions of the parole" That's well and good, but there are numerous shit luck things that can happen that might result in a technical parole violation, right?
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    "My neighbor asked me to walk their dog..."
- girvo 13y ago
  If only it was that simple. Life isn't, unfortunately, but parole expects it to be.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Could you explain the relevant complexity, particularly as it applies to this example? "It isn't that simple" is an utterly vacuous assertion that, while trivially true, is not even wrong. Of course life is more complicated, something on the order of 10^30 atoms were involved! Is JonFish85 incorrect that the person in question could have chosen to abide by the terms of his parole?
    - sbuk 13y ago
      Or you could use your imagination and empathy to try and try to understand how "It isn't that simple". Both are important engineering, design and entrepreneurial skills.
rangibaby 13y ago
I've come to a realization that rules and laws only apply to the "little people".
squozzer 13y ago
>"What does it take for a rich, white guy to have to go to jail?" Ripping off other rich white guys, e.g. Bernie Madoff.
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? The system is working as designed and as intended. I think people need to rid themselves of this romantic notion that the government serves "the people" and cops in particular are supposed to protect the innocent. Both of them are ridiculously childish beliefs. The reality is much harsher. Adam Smith laid it out more than two centuries ago in his book Wealth of Nations: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems" as big and complex as societies and economies. I doubt that the results the US is seeing were indeed foreseen and designed by anyone. And I would like to add that civil governments also protect the poor from the rich. Just look at undemocratic systems to see who needs protection from whom.
  - ajslater 13y ago
    > Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems" Everyone does. The comfort of the loonier conspiracy theories is that someone, somewhere, however evil, has a plan and is in control. And you can blame 'them' and their competence for your misfortune. Denying that conspiracies exist by people who do have some influence and leverage over systems is the other wrong extreme. There are plenty of good and evil intentions and plenty of conspiracies. Some of them kind of work out, rarely exactly as intended, and there's also lots of chaos.
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  I think that romantic notion is just a part of childish naivety. When most people grow up they realise the government doesn't serve the public's interests. However, I don't think we should abandon the romantic notion that the government SHOULD serve the people. It's not entirely clear how to make that happen (or if it is possible), but I think along with social change, technology could help (e.g. crowdsourced political debate, security for whistleblowers, personal surveillance, etc.) So I'm all for hackers being a bit idealistic :)
grecy 13y ago
>Toronto's mayor is on video smoking crack, is drunk and disorderly in public, shoves (assaults?) a grandmother, more, and isn't even removed from office, let alone arrested. How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? I couldn't agree with you more. Every time I see a celebrity, or politician, or insanely rich person breaking the law it disgusts me. Not only are they not arrested and punished for their crimes as everyone else would be, but the media actually celebrates their flouting the law. I'm only 31 and I honestly think the system is too far broken. I personally believe we're heading for some massive, massive upheaval.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  They are the often singled out for harsh punishment, actually. See: Celebrities Lohan & Hilton & Martha Stewart, all singled out for harsher punishment than normal. Politicians Cunningham, Spitzer both given harsher punishment (or more ink) than a typical person would get. Rich people like the entire Enron board, telecom CEOs, numerous lawyers and execs you've never heard of charged with insider trading, trivial securities infractions, trivial tax infractions, and hounded.
  - declan 13y ago
    And Mark Cuban. See this week's WSJ oped: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303289904579196454016836522 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230328990...
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    And how many more rich people commit similar crimes and get away scot-free? How many poor minorities get the book thrown at them for far lesser crimes? "Getting tough" on the rich and powerful is very much the exception rather than the rule, and we play right along with it by eating up headline after headline about Martha Stewart while ignoring the thousands and thousands of people who are rightfully afraid of the police on a day-to-day basis. By the way, you mention "more ink" as if it's comparable. Being hounded by the media is certainly unpleasant, but it's not any part of the operation of the justice system, or shouldn't be.
saraid216 13y ago
> How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? Keep in mind that you only consider these to be travesties because you're in the 21st century. You've had the benefit of hundreds of years of philosophy and public discussion, now passed onto you as an obvious truth. That would seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to someone three hundred years ago, who wouldn't. It would also seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to a lot of people today. These are the same people who will back tough-on-crime bills and political platforms. Not politicians, who are taking up their vote. Find these people. Talk to them. Figure out how to convince them. Show them the human faces and human stories. Explain the systemic problems that are causing this. Bring them over. Break the support for these policies.
- likeclockwork 13y ago
  > That would seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to someone three hundred years ago, who wouldn't. That would depend on which side of the inequality they were on, would it not?
  - geoka9 13y ago
    They are more likely to be on the "wrong" end. However, for many such people it's the lack of imagination that defines their opinions; they just can't imagine themselves on the short end of the stick. It's like arguing with Stalin apologists which are now abundant in Russia. "OK, many innocent people were prosecuted. But we can forgive him for that, because he made us a superpower!" - that's how their logic usually goes. When you ask them what if they were among those wrongly prosecuted - would that change their opinion - they are usually genuinely incredulous: "Why would they come for me?"
    - saraid216 13y ago
      It's partly that. It's also worth noting how many ways you can be on the wrong end. "I'm not black," is a legitimate form of reasoning on how you wouldn't be hurt by American slavery, but that doesn't actually express how you're still on the short end of the stick because it turns out you're Chinese or Irish.
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
> isn't even removed from office Canadian here. I know this isn't the point of your post but I feel obliged to make excuses for the fact that Toronto's mayor has not been removed from office. The reason Toronto City Council and the Ontario Provincial Government don't have the power to do this is that under the parliamentary traditions on which the Canadian political system is based, it is inconceivable that a politician could behave in so utterly disgraceful a manner and not have the basic human decency and shame to resign on his own volition. Also, for what it's worth, Canada's record of judicial fairness with respect to race is not much better than America's, and our Conservative Federal Government has adopted an American-style tough-on-crime stance that has embraced mandatory minimum sentences and so on - some of which has already been declared unconstitutional. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/minimum-gun-sentence-ruled-unconstitutional-1.2423693 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/minimum-gun-sentence-ruled-unc...
rayiner 13y ago
> This passage described a poor black man in Philadelphia -- the tip of the iceberg It's not the tip of the iceberg, it's the base of the pyramid.
rayiner 13y ago
> This passage described a poor black man in Philadelphia -- the tip of the iceberg It's not the tip of the iceberg, it's the base of the pyramid.

by spodek 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Canadian and US law enforcement are pretty different... Edit - response to your edit: The US white incarceration rate is ~5-7x the total incarceration rate in Canada.

bediger4000 13y ago
Great, I did not know that. Which one works better? That is, which style of law enforcement produces a safer civil society?
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  I'd put my money on Canada, but the truth is probably hard to distill.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  My guess would be that law enforcement doesn't do much at all for public safety and the level of violence in any given area is probably driven by economic or other factors.
- AYBABTME 13y ago
  I'd say, experimental results show that the canadian way produces safer civil society. But then, I'm completely biased, being Canadian. Anyhow, I do feel much safer in any Canadian city than in the places I've been to in the US. Just compare crime rates for major cities and you'll see for yourself.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Actually... Crime rates (homicide rates) are starkly similar across the border: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/images//MurderRate2007.jpg http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/images//MurderRate2007.jpg The dangerous US cities in some other border states throw off the perception, but there is a heck of a lot of difference between Detroit and Toronto other than law enforcement! In general, it's the rust belt and deep south and Mexican border states which skew US homicide rates; the parts which border Canada have similar homicide rates to Canada (again aside from rust best + Illinois). It's actually a bit funny - states near Canada have similar homicide rates to Canada. States near Mexico have similar homicide rates to Mexico (much lower than Mexico, but higher than some other states). States near the Caribbean have rates like the Caribbean (again much lower than the Caribbean, but again higher than other states). Not sure how the mid Atlantic states work into that analogy, haha :)
    - AYBABTME 13y ago
      If you compare the population density instead of a map, the situation is different. Québec, British Columbia and Ontario are the most populous areas yet they have to lowest murder rate. Compare that with Texas, California, New York, Florida, ... I think simply looking at this map is misleading.

tobyjsullivan 13y ago

Not to downplay the inequalities that exist on both sides of the border, but don't underestimate the differences between the United States and Canada - especially when it comes to things like drug enforcement and the prevalence and nature of ghettos.

janj 13y ago

I've noticed many airports have HSBC plastered all over the walls. This has been amusing to me after it came out that HSBC runs the world's largest money laundering operation for drug cartels. It's surreal thinking about how TSA and customs will put away recreational drug users for life but the bank that funds the largest drug cartels operates out in the open. Our system is broken at every level.

Wingman4l7 13y ago
(For those interested in more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Money_laundering) Never mind the fundamental fact that if your fine was less than the profit you gained from your illegal activity, you can just write it off as a business expense. Fines have to be punitive or they will have no effect; it's simple math.
- wozniacki 13y ago
  I am always in constant bewilderment at how galling some of these corporate crimes are. How does one even go about planning these? Do the chief executives [1] [2] sit with the board members and discuss the tradeoffs of turning a blind eye to some hanky-panky stuff going on in Mexico? [3] I know that they have legal counsels and all. But do they really sit down and weigh the legal ramifications and discuss who shall be thrown under the bus, if things should flare up? Whether its a Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial [4] or a Maurice R. Greenberg[5] of AIG or even a Calisto Tanzi of Parmalat [6] [7]; do these people even have a good pulse of the prosecution climate of a given administration, the likelihood of getting caught and the possible fines and sentences before they choose to set these financially murky things in motion? Or are they more like hot-shot, fledgling politicians [8] who think they are invincible and can never possibly get caught, in a scandal? If anything, the public has come to be struck in awe of these people and their mettle, rather than find their actions, reprobatory. The slap on the wrist fines and sentences ( if any at all ) that major executives and their houses have received, only reaffirms the notion that one -above all other skills and qualifications - has to be a skilled manipulator of fact, circumstance and public opinion, to head a large and highly profitable enterprise, these days. After all the cake and watermelon, I am loath to admit that deviousness and calculated deceit has become sexy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Geoghegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Geoghegan [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Gulliver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Gulliver [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-laundering-by-iran-drug-cartels-probe-shows.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-la... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg#Legal_issu... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat_bankruptcy_timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat_bankruptcy_timeline [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat#Financial_fraud_.282002.E2.80.932005.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat#Financial_fraud_.28200... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Indictment_and_trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Indictment_and_tri... Edit: Citations

rdtsc 13y ago

Not sure what Canada's crack smoking, grandmother-shoving mayors have to do with this. I am sure African warlords do worse, and Russian mafia is in bed with their government. The story is about the US justice system.

freehunter 13y ago
Wait, Canada isn't a US state?

pandaman 13y ago

A rich black guy, Eric Holder, had been found in criminal contempt of Congress (I have a vague idea what it is but it sounds more serious than grandma-showing), he is still free and keeps his job. So it takes as much for a rich white guy to go to jail as takes for a rich black guy to go to jail.

thebooktocome 13y ago
Criminal contempt of Congress carries a jail term between one and twelve months, and a fine between $100 and $1000. Suffice it to say, it isn't very serious. Holder is still free because it's unclear from a constitutional standpoint where Congress got the authority to hold anyone in contempt, let alone a member of the Executive.
- tsotha 13y ago
  Congress certainly has the authority: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress >Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment. Holder is free because he's the head of the agency that's supposed to prosecute these kinds of crimes. The only way forward for Congress is to impeach him, and that's not going to happen as long as the Democrats control the Senate.
  - wwweston 13y ago
    > Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938 ... by Congress, presumably? If so, it seems to me there might be questions about whether Congress can give itself increased authority when it comes to compelling the executive branch. > who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" Hmm. 5th amendment?

JonFish85 13y ago

"Why should I bother trying to stay out if nothing I can do can keep me out?" Well, for starters, living by the conditions of the parole... I'm not trying to be too snarky about it, but given the choice of "fed up with a crowded house" and the chance of going back to prison for a year, the choice seems evident. The question is whether the person really cares. Stuck in a crowded apartment, maybe it was a calculated risk: I can either get away with it, or I'll go back to the big house. In the end, maybe he doesn't feel that he lost that much.

angersock 13y ago
"living by the conditions of the parole" That's well and good, but there are numerous shit luck things that can happen that might result in a technical parole violation, right?
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  "My neighbor asked me to walk their dog..."
girvo 13y ago
If only it was that simple. Life isn't, unfortunately, but parole expects it to be.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Could you explain the relevant complexity, particularly as it applies to this example? "It isn't that simple" is an utterly vacuous assertion that, while trivially true, is not even wrong. Of course life is more complicated, something on the order of 10^30 atoms were involved! Is JonFish85 incorrect that the person in question could have chosen to abide by the terms of his parole?
  - sbuk 13y ago
    Or you could use your imagination and empathy to try and try to understand how "It isn't that simple". Both are important engineering, design and entrepreneurial skills.

rangibaby 13y ago

I've come to a realization that rules and laws only apply to the "little people".

squozzer 13y ago

>"What does it take for a rich, white guy to have to go to jail?" Ripping off other rich white guys, e.g. Bernie Madoff.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? The system is working as designed and as intended. I think people need to rid themselves of this romantic notion that the government serves "the people" and cops in particular are supposed to protect the innocent. Both of them are ridiculously childish beliefs. The reality is much harsher. Adam Smith laid it out more than two centuries ago in his book Wealth of Nations: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bayesianhorse 13y ago
Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems" as big and complex as societies and economies. I doubt that the results the US is seeing were indeed foreseen and designed by anyone. And I would like to add that civil governments also protect the poor from the rich. Just look at undemocratic systems to see who needs protection from whom.
- ajslater 13y ago
  > Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems" Everyone does. The comfort of the loonier conspiracy theories is that someone, somewhere, however evil, has a plan and is in control. And you can blame 'them' and their competence for your misfortune. Denying that conspiracies exist by people who do have some influence and leverage over systems is the other wrong extreme. There are plenty of good and evil intentions and plenty of conspiracies. Some of them kind of work out, rarely exactly as intended, and there's also lots of chaos.
onetwofiveten 13y ago
I think that romantic notion is just a part of childish naivety. When most people grow up they realise the government doesn't serve the public's interests. However, I don't think we should abandon the romantic notion that the government SHOULD serve the people. It's not entirely clear how to make that happen (or if it is possible), but I think along with social change, technology could help (e.g. crowdsourced political debate, security for whistleblowers, personal surveillance, etc.) So I'm all for hackers being a bit idealistic :)

grecy 13y ago

>Toronto's mayor is on video smoking crack, is drunk and disorderly in public, shoves (assaults?) a grandmother, more, and isn't even removed from office, let alone arrested. How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? I couldn't agree with you more. Every time I see a celebrity, or politician, or insanely rich person breaking the law it disgusts me. Not only are they not arrested and punished for their crimes as everyone else would be, but the media actually celebrates their flouting the law. I'm only 31 and I honestly think the system is too far broken. I personally believe we're heading for some massive, massive upheaval.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
They are the often singled out for harsh punishment, actually. See: Celebrities Lohan & Hilton & Martha Stewart, all singled out for harsher punishment than normal. Politicians Cunningham, Spitzer both given harsher punishment (or more ink) than a typical person would get. Rich people like the entire Enron board, telecom CEOs, numerous lawyers and execs you've never heard of charged with insider trading, trivial securities infractions, trivial tax infractions, and hounded.
- declan 13y ago
  And Mark Cuban. See this week's WSJ oped: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303289904579196454016836522 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230328990...
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  And how many more rich people commit similar crimes and get away scot-free? How many poor minorities get the book thrown at them for far lesser crimes? "Getting tough" on the rich and powerful is very much the exception rather than the rule, and we play right along with it by eating up headline after headline about Martha Stewart while ignoring the thousands and thousands of people who are rightfully afraid of the police on a day-to-day basis. By the way, you mention "more ink" as if it's comparable. Being hounded by the media is certainly unpleasant, but it's not any part of the operation of the justice system, or shouldn't be.

saraid216 13y ago

> How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? Keep in mind that you only consider these to be travesties because you're in the 21st century. You've had the benefit of hundreds of years of philosophy and public discussion, now passed onto you as an obvious truth. That would seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to someone three hundred years ago, who wouldn't. It would also seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to a lot of people today. These are the same people who will back tough-on-crime bills and political platforms. Not politicians, who are taking up their vote. Find these people. Talk to them. Figure out how to convince them. Show them the human faces and human stories. Explain the systemic problems that are causing this. Bring them over. Break the support for these policies.

likeclockwork 13y ago
> That would seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to someone three hundred years ago, who wouldn't. That would depend on which side of the inequality they were on, would it not?
- geoka9 13y ago
  They are more likely to be on the "wrong" end. However, for many such people it's the lack of imagination that defines their opinions; they just can't imagine themselves on the short end of the stick. It's like arguing with Stalin apologists which are now abundant in Russia. "OK, many innocent people were prosecuted. But we can forgive him for that, because he made us a superpower!" - that's how their logic usually goes. When you ask them what if they were among those wrongly prosecuted - would that change their opinion - they are usually genuinely incredulous: "Why would they come for me?"
  - saraid216 13y ago
    It's partly that. It's also worth noting how many ways you can be on the wrong end. "I'm not black," is a legitimate form of reasoning on how you wouldn't be hurt by American slavery, but that doesn't actually express how you're still on the short end of the stick because it turns out you're Chinese or Irish.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago

> isn't even removed from office Canadian here. I know this isn't the point of your post but I feel obliged to make excuses for the fact that Toronto's mayor has not been removed from office. The reason Toronto City Council and the Ontario Provincial Government don't have the power to do this is that under the parliamentary traditions on which the Canadian political system is based, it is inconceivable that a politician could behave in so utterly disgraceful a manner and not have the basic human decency and shame to resign on his own volition. Also, for what it's worth, Canada's record of judicial fairness with respect to race is not much better than America's, and our Conservative Federal Government has adopted an American-style tough-on-crime stance that has embraced mandatory minimum sentences and so on - some of which has already been declared unconstitutional. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/minimum-gun-sentence-ruled-unconstitutional-1.2423693 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/minimum-gun-sentence-ruled-unc...

rayiner 13y ago

> This passage described a poor black man in Philadelphia -- the tip of the iceberg It's not the tip of the iceberg, it's the base of the pyramid.

rayiner 13y ago

> This passage described a poor black man in Philadelphia -- the tip of the iceberg It's not the tip of the iceberg, it's the base of the pyramid.