“An Odd, Almost Senseless Series of Events” (2018) | Hacker News Reader

“An Odd, Almost Senseless Series of Events” (2018)

themarshallproject.org

47 pointssamclemens25 comments

>Only toward the mid-20th century did that view begin to shift, with courts sometimes noting that a prosecutor’s job should be to seek justice, not just win convictions.

Has the US justice system regressed? As an outsider prosecutors seems fixated on 'wins' and quotas.

I have known several prosecutors, and none of them want to convict an innocent person.

None of the drivers want to get in accidents either!

But the question was about what prosecutors are trying to do.

I wonder why people don't look at death sentence as more favorable. Modern ways of euthansizing people seems peaceful compared to the prisons in most parts of the world. Why imprison a person for life in such places? What does anyone gain from it?

I guess a court ruling could be turned later but why not give criminals the option to choose between life imprisonment and death sentence?

If the person believed they were innocent, they can opt for life imprisonment.

A motivating factor could be giving money to the family for cost of inmate in prison up to his life expectancy or re-shifting the savings back into societal reforms to stop these crimes by working on to remove poverty.

Another plan that could work is building a separate island for prisoners with life time sentences.

Maybe watch [0]. Mistakes are made, people change, the death penalty is also murder.

[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/

>I guess a court ruling could be turned later but why not give criminals the option to choose between life imprisonment and death sentence?

Why not just let any depressed person commit suicide efficiently so they're not around bringing us down!

>A motivating factor could be giving money to the family for cost of inmate in prison up to his life expectancy or re-shifting the savings back into societal reforms to stop these crimes by working on to remove poverty.

yeah, so when it turns out that a poor person who was innocent opted for death to give his starving family some money (remember, we're talking about America here) what's the clever response going to be then?

I have a hard time believing you're not joking, because these ideas seem monstrous enough I must assume they are meant to be taken in the Swiftian manner.

> Why not just let any depressed person commit suicide efficiently so they're not around bringing us down!

Criminals who would get life sentences are an order of magnitude different than average person who attempts suicide. They are net negative in almost all cases. if person A kills person B and C, the society will end up net negative no matter how you spin it. They destroyed many families, decreased economical output of the state, caused moral panic, and health issues among public on top of forcing people who took the most damage to pay for their prisons.

Additionally, I am not opposed to improved assistive suicide laws allowing for more use cases with focus on preventive measures.

> yeah, so when it turns out that a poor person who was innocent opted for death to give his starving family some money (remember, we're talking about America here) what's the clever response going to be then

A judge would be responsible for the final decision on matters related to money. We could simply remove giving money to the family but introduce it back into budget at the end of the day. Specifics of policy can be changed but for me, the most important question is whether society gains more or loose more in either scenario.

I don't believe letting a person rot in prison for life is better than giving them more options to choose from. I would definitely pick up death sentence if I were in that position. Many people would if given the choice.

> if person A kills person B and C, the society will end up net negative no matter how you spin it.

Well, person B and C could be worse than person A.

I think that in an aspirational justice system, where you truly believe that justice is equally meted out and verdicts are consistent. Maybe there are arguments to be heard. Even if you assume 1/1000 will be falsely convicted, if the distribution of that false conviction is fair... maybe.

When you know, not think, know that your criminal justice system is biased and flawed in a myriad of ways - it just feels like a bad foundation to be absolutist upon

> so when it turns out that a poor person who was innocent opted for death to give his starving family some money (remember, we're talking about America here)

America, where the poor people are... much richer than anywhere else in the world?

> what's the clever response going to be then?

What was the response when we saw a spike in deaths right before the inheritance tax came back into effect?

>America, where the poor people are... much richer than anywhere else in the world?

I've been poor in America and poor in Denmark.

You are definitely misinformed on this matter.

Well, I can't say much for the tone of the piece, but compare https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-ric... .

Yikes. This heavily slanted article is tailor made to suit the worldview of the "smug Young Republican" set.

>>The OECD data is particularly flawed because it is based on “income,” which excludes a host of non-cash government benefits and private charity that are abundant in the United States. Examples include but are not limited to:

- Health care provided by Medicaid, free clinics, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program

- Nourishment provided by food stamps, school lunches, school breakfasts, soup kitchens, food pantries, and the Women’s, Infants’ & Children’s program

-Housing and amenities provided through rent subsidies, utility assistance, and homeless shelters

Yes, of course, because no European nation provides these. What an idiotic article.

> Yes, of course, because no European nation provides these. What an idiotic article.

The finding is that average consumption for the bottom 20% of US households exceeds average consumption for the bottom 100% of e.g. Spanish households.

This is a comparison that automatically includes welfare benefits provided on both sides. What do you think is getting left out?

So now it's poor people in America are richer than some poor people in some nations? That seems like a more reasonable assertion, albeit much less meaningful.

What the hell man? That sounds so soulless and dystopian.

I am deeply empathetic to both society and prisoners. I don't think a life imprisonment make any sense for either. I would be for removing it or replacing it with anything else.

Money that use to rot people in prisons for life could be saving people who are systematically pushed towards the criminal path.

You have 100% chances of being raped and abused in all sort of ways in prison with a lifetime sentence. Even if someday we get it to Norway standards everywhere in the world, why put a person in cage for life?

Another plan I have is to build an island where everyone with life sentence get sent and live.

> Another plan I have is to build an island where everyone with life sentence get sent and live.

That's been tried, it's called Australia.

Woah, I didn't know that.

For anyone else: https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/why-gr...

So the idea doesn't seem that crazy.

It's not 1840 anymore. Also, colonialism has plenty more problems then whatever it is you're solving by just shipping people away.

Fun fact - before Australia was the destination... the USA was the destination !

Apart from the question about weather a government should have the right to kill people when they are not immediately threatening someone else, I suspect that this would be an all too attractive option for disturbed individuals. Suicide by cop is already a thing. Commit and confess to some horrible act of violence, get all the attention that vulture media can give, and then die peacefully - allomst as a hero because of the money donated. I don't know, seems like it could backfire.

It is interesting that all of the principles that I thought were fundamental to justice (like parties to a criminal investigation having access to all the facts, and not being able to hide them for their agendas) only really came about in the 60s. Really makes you think about how easy it would be for them to go the other way in the hands of a less understanding supreme court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com