|
ActusRhesus posted:not sure how it's a work around. they had authority to make the arrest. they had authority to take prints. they now have authority to use prints for other issues. in that case, they just lucked out. Well I may be misunderstanding how you're using placeholder, but if you're using a violation to get information that you couldn't get probable cause for the actual reason you want it, that seems like a workaround - I mean, if they just luck out they just luck out, but if hunting for a violation is a pretext for a suspicion they can't get to a level where they could get the information for that crime, that's a gray area for me.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:(PS...per state law, a PD in CT gets EXACTLY the same pay as a prosecutor of commensurate seniority. So if we're just all out of touch rich people...) You don't have to be stinkin' rich to be out of touch. If you have always lived in the middle middle class, you simply may have never been exposed to anything comparable to the sort of thing people with little means have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well this is the thing - the people who are arrested and prosecuted are flouting the law to the same extent and with the same knowledge as their peers who are not arrested or prosecuted or are just told "put it out"/"throw it away"/whatever (I am obviously a huge square in this department). If both groups are at fault for the consequences they experience, it stands to reason that they are fully blameworthy in spite of the difference of their consequences. If the former group bears responsibility for the consequences of being arrested and prosecuted - the life-ruining aspect - they are then blameworthy because of the aspect that results in that consequence. This is a fair point...and why I think all simple possession cases (excluding those that are the result of deals for lesser charges etc. just purely simple possession) should be sent to diversionary programs. I also don't think most drugs should be illegal at all. Not my cup of tea, but whatever. More crime is due to the drug trade than most other causes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well I may be misunderstanding how you're using placeholder, but if you're using a violation to get information that you couldn't get probable cause for the actual reason you want it, that seems like a workaround - I mean, if they just luck out they just luck out, but if hunting for a violation is a pretext for a suspicion they can't get to a level where they could get the information for that crime, that's a gray area for me. I think there's a spectrum. "We're pretty sure that's our guy...oh hey look, he did something illegal, get his prints" doesn't bother me. "maybe that guy has something in his car because he's the wrong skin color. Pull him over for some bullshit and impound his car so we can take an "inventory" of his property" does. But then I also think SCOTUS was right to say get a drat warrant if you want to look through someone's phone data. Lucking out because a suspect screwed up happens all the time. Circumventing the 4th amendment...yeah, I'm not down with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so your issue seems to be with the laws themselves. Because prosecutors as a whole disproportionately enforce those laws based on the skin color of the defendants. I'm sure you'll point out that you're not racist, and neither are any of your coworkers, but the outcome of your collective efforts is demonstrably, undeniably, racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I'm not seeing an answer You're an idiot, thats more of an answer then that question deserves. The Warszawa posted:Well this is the thing - the people who are arrested and prosecuted are flouting the law to the same extent and with the same knowledge as their peers who are not arrested or prosecuted or are just told "put it out"/"throw it away"/whatever (I am obviously a huge square in this department). If both groups are at fault for the consequences they experience, it stands to reason that they are fully blameworthy in spite of the difference of their consequences. If the former group bears responsibility for the consequences of being arrested and prosecuted - the life-ruining aspect - they are then blameworthy because of the aspect that results in that consequence. I can really only see that as a moral argument if the case is that the unequal treatment of the less prosecuted group caused the more prosecuted group to have a false expectation that there were no consequences for the act. In this case I think instead of relieving of the more prosecuted group of responsibility in this case it just makes the fact that certain groups are getting away with flouting the law more reprehensible because they're breaking the law then relying on privileged status to get away with that. If that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think there's a spectrum. "We're pretty sure that's our guy...oh hey look, he did something illegal, get his prints" doesn't bother me. "maybe that guy has something in his car because he's the wrong skin color. Pull him over for some bullshit and impound his car so we can take an "inventory" of his property" does. The effect is pretty similar because "we're pretty sure that's our guy" is literally biased policing in practice. Cops are "pretty sure" every black male between 14 and 40 is "their guy" if they see him walking down the street:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:How is people people in jail for smoking weed helping society? Doesn't, should be legalized
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The effect is pretty similar because "we're pretty sure that's our guy" is literally biased policing in practice. Cops are "pretty sure" every black male between 14 and 40 is "their guy" if they see him walking down the street: the fact pattern I gave was from an actual case. If a witness describes a particular suspect, height, weight, race, hair length etc., should that be ignored in the name of equality? I know the victim clearly said "latino" but let's arrest a black and a white guy too. we can have a united colors of beneton add as our photo array!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Doesn't, should be legalized Then I really don't understand your reply to SedanChair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:Because prosecutors as a whole disproportionately enforce those laws based on the skin color of the defendants. I'm sure you'll point out that you're not racist, and neither are any of your coworkers, but the outcome of your collective efforts is demonstrably, undeniably, racist. so which of my murder cases should I have *not* prosecuted, and which white murderers were given a pass?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're an idiot, thats more of an answer then that question deserves. How so? Can you acknowledge that those who followed escaped slave laws were ruining lives?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're an idiot, thats more of an answer then that question deserves. I'm not trying to play gotcha, I just want to make sure I'm understanding: the more prosecuted group is blameworthy for the greater consequences as the less prosecuted group is, provided that the more prosecuted is aware of the discrepancy in treatment? ActusRhesus posted:the fact pattern I gave was from an actual case. If a witness describes a particular suspect, height, weight, race, hair length etc., should that be ignored in the name of equality? Actually a description of "Latino" encompasses virtually every racial phenotype there is so we pretty much should have a United Colors of Beneton photo array because Yasiel Puig, Melissa Fumero, Andy Garcia and motherfuckin' Pitbull look nothing alike but they're not just latino their national origin is the same country. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Then I really don't understand your reply to SedanChair. Just world fallacy. ActusRhesus posted:the fact pattern I gave was from an actual case. If a witness describes a particular suspect, height, weight, race, hair length etc., should that be ignored in the name of equality? Sure, height, weight, race. Height, weight, race. Height, weight, race. Height, weight, race, over and over again, in a vaccuum, no sense looking at the stats for harrassment of innocent black males. Height, weight, race.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm not trying to play gotcha, I just want to make sure I'm understanding: the more prosecuted group is blameworthy for the greater consequences as the less prosecuted group is, provided that the more prosecuted is aware of the discrepancy in treatment? fair point. I oversimplified somewhat, but you know what I was getting at. And that can be true of a lot of descriptions. Best testimony ever: Defense counsel: You say it was my client, but in your statement to the police, you said the shooter "might" have been black. So clearly you weren't sure then, were you. Witness: No. It's him. Defense counsel: Well you weren't sure then. Witness: Yes I was. Defense Counsel: But you said he "might" be black. Witness: Yes. We black people come in all shades. So I don't know if he was "black" or not. But I know that's him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Then I really don't understand your reply to SedanChair. I actually try to think of the consequences of the mechanisms through which I obtain a desired outcome rather than just the outcome and what other results those mechanisms produce when applied to other situations. "I don't like this law so we should ignore it" is not a good mechanism and can produce lots of bad results. There's obviously times when laws are immoral to the point where disobeying them is the correct course of action, "bad policy" is not the breaking point there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:fair point. I oversimplified somewhat, but you know what I was getting at. And that can be true of a lot of descriptions. Best testimony ever: Yeah as a strict tactical consideration asking about race is asking for trouble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just world fallacy. hey, you know if someone called in a robbery and described a 5'6" black haired latina or middle eastern woman, and I was walking nearby I'd get stopped too, and I'm neither of the above...but close enough to be mistaken. Stopping someone who fits the actual description of a suspect for a crime in that particular area is not harassment. Stopping someone for no goddamn reason is. Now, you will have a lot more luck changing the latter, which I think we can agree is hosed up, if you stop trying to insist that the former is also wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Then I really don't understand your reply to SedanChair. This issue reminds me of the Heinz Problem, which is basically, "Dude steal medicine for wife. He can't afford it and the druggist is charging 10x cost." There's no wrong answer. Answers are merely rated according to what kind of moral reasoning is used. As pertains to this, it sounds like Jarmok and SedanChair (and you) just differ on the degree to which Stage 4 (law-and-order) is superseded by Stage 5 (human rights) or Stage 6 (universal human ethics) on this issue. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm not trying to play gotcha, I just want to make sure I'm understanding: the more prosecuted group is blameworthy for the greater consequences as the less prosecuted group is, provided that the more prosecuted is aware of the discrepancy in treatment? Yes, assuming the greater consequences are actually in keeping with the law. The second group getting away with flouting the law due to privileged status is the actual problem that should be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, assuming the greater consequences are actually in keeping with the law. Well because of the discretion afforded to cops, prosecutors and judges, both outcomes are well in keeping with the law. Very rarely does a kid straight up say "do you know who my daddy is?" - there are just assumptions both conscious and unconscious that guide the decisionmaking process. There are different perceptions of behavior as compliance or noncompliance based on these assumptions, and that affects things too. The problem is that when we put the onus on the individuals to account for this in their decisionmaking, we are effectively saying "okay, we are legitimizing that you have to be twice as good and will still be held to account for only getting half as far. Systemic inequity is Your Problem." I'm not sure what the system can do to account for this on a case by case basis - you can't just put up all the cases with a black defendant and all the cases with a white defendant and start dismissing black defendant cases until the numbers even out - but we really have to avoid translating an unfortunate reality into an ethical principle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Honest Answer: none. Here's the rundown of my cases this year: Do you get all the big crimes in your district or is this only a list of your cases that are actually going to trial?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, assuming the greater consequences are actually in keeping with the law. I usually see people saying the solution to disparity in the legal system is to stop the counterproductive and disproportionate punishment of less privileged people instead of throwing the book at white people (or cops, or whoever) for the same crime. Regardless, people don't make decisions rationally all the time, and it's profoundly stupid to just say they deserved it when they get punished for a crime that only has victims due to bad laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Do you get all the big crimes in your district or is this only a list of your cases that are actually going to trial? no. we just have a lot of murders. It's pretty much all gunshots all the time. I do primarily appellate work, so a lot of these are older cases that are working their way through the habeas and appellate system. The 2 cases I was involved with at the trial level were a murder and the drug factory one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well because of the discretion afforded to cops, prosecutors and judges, both outcomes are well in keeping with the law. Very rarely does a kid straight up say "do you know who my daddy is?" - there are just assumptions both conscious and unconscious that guide the decisionmaking process. There are different perceptions of behavior as compliance or noncompliance based on these assumptions, and that affects things too. Ahh, I think I see your point more clearly now, I was translating your earlier post mostly into a objection based on the principle of the law being predictable. That problem exists for all laws though, and I think speaks more to the ugly side of discretion then it does with the ethical considerations of enforcing specifically drug laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so your issue seems to be with the laws themselves. You weren't drafted hoss. You do this of your own will. Your (read: prosecutors) enforcement of unjust laws is assent and complicity in unjust laws. Men (and to a lesser extent, women) are sent to prison for non-violent (or even some minor violent ones, such as some cases of assault & battery) crimes, and are unemployable for the rest of their lives. Their lives are over. You can all jeer at them, and "nyah nyah, you did it to yourself" all you want, but it doesn't make it right. People make mistakes, and the only difference between you and a first time offender, is opportunity and circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no. we just have a lot of murders. It's pretty much all gunshots all the time. I do primarily appellate work, so a lot of these are older cases that are working their way through the habeas and appellate system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well I may be misunderstanding how you're using placeholder, but if you're using a violation to get information that you couldn't get probable cause for the actual reason you want it, that seems like a workaround - I mean, if they just luck out they just luck out, but if hunting for a violation is a pretext for a suspicion they can't get to a level where they could get the information for that crime, that's a gray area for me. I'd think it'd be a little more than a gray area for me, considering that those kinds of workarounds are how we got parallel construction. Not that I'm trying to argue with you (far from it), just pointing out the greater cost of "use violation X to gain evidence for Y".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
DARPA posted:You could have acknowledged the fact that your job filters out people too poor to appeal or had to plead to lesser sentences for reduced jail time when trying to claim the system isn't destroying their lives. our state has a right to appeal, which includes a right to appointed counsel. no one is "too poor to appeal."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You weren't drafted hoss. You do this of your own will. Your (read: prosecutors) enforcement of unjust laws is assent and complicity in unjust laws. Men (and to a lesser extent, women) are sent to prison for non-violent (or even some minor violent ones, such as some cases of assault & battery) crimes, and are unemployable for the rest of their lives. Their lives are over. OMG I COMMITTED AN ASSAULT AND WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY ACTIONS. MY LIFE IS OVER!!!!!!! Also...unjust...I don't think that word means what you think it does. I think weed being illegal is foolish. But it's not "unjust." So...non-violent crimes don't count? How do you feel about Jeff Skilling?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:OMG I COMMITTED AN ASSAULT AND WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY ACTIONS. MY LIFE IS OVER!!!!!!! Surely getting in a fist fight should mean the end of your livlihood. Surely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Surely getting in a fist fight should mean the end of your livlihood. Surely. I suppose he should get...what? A hug and a cookie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I suppose he should get...what? A hug and a cookie? Thank you for continuing to demonstrate why people see your kind as monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Thank you for continuing to demonstrate why people see your kind as monstrous. so we've gone from "don't punish people for weed" to "don't punish people for assault, either". what's next?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:I'd think it'd be a little more than a gray area for me, considering that those kinds of workarounds are how we got parallel construction. Not that I'm trying to argue with you (far from it), just pointing out the greater cost of "use violation X to gain evidence for Y". You should definitely feel free to argue with me or anyone else about it because this is not well-charted territory and also everyone has a stake in what the law is and what the law should be from a policy perspective. It's a gray area for me because I'm not sure how we actually establish what is "oh poo poo we got lucky when running this guy's prints" and "we were using this as a pretext to get at his poo poo," because extensive documentation of investigatory decisionmaking isn't always available and may not be feasible - I mean down to the detail of "we then decided to charge him with X and here is a comprehensive list of everyone who knew that he was suspected for crime Y at the time the decision to charge on X was made."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Not sending people to prison and not punishing (glad to see your aims in law laid bare here  ) them are two different things. There are plenty of other means to rehabilitate people who make mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so we've gone from "don't punish people for weed" to "don't punish people for assault, either". Why are you being disingenuous? He never at any point said or implied there should be no punishment for assault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You should definitely feel free to argue with me or anyone else about it because this is not well-charted territory and also everyone has a stake in what the law is and what the law should be from a policy perspective. It's a gray area for me because I'm not sure how we actually establish what is "oh poo poo we got lucky when running this guy's prints" and "we were using this as a pretext to get at his poo poo," because extensive documentation of investigatory decisionmaking isn't always available and may not be feasible - I mean down to the detail of "we then decided to charge him with X and here is a comprehensive list of everyone who knew that he was suspected for crime Y at the time the decision to charge on X was made." It's certainly a valid concern, and discussing how to strike the balance between the need to recognize that law enforcement needs to be able to...you know...investigate and the need to respect the constitution is a much more worthwhile way to discuss possible police reform than what's going on in this thread generally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Not sending people to prison and not punishing (glad to see your aims in law laid bare here Assault is a mistake?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I suppose he should get...what? A hug and a cookie? Yes, surely there is no middle ground between complete destruction of your future prospects, and having everything be all smiles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:39
|
|
