Sam Bankman-Fried's jail conditions offer a glimpse at systemic failure | Hacker News Reader

Sam Bankman-Fried's jail conditions offer a glimpse at systemic failure

newsletter.mollywhite.net

22 pointsstareatgoats65 comments

Each time the media makes a new sob story for this monster I roll my eyes. Nobody cares about the dozens of incidents of police brutality daily but every media big wig cares for this guy getting his peanut butter rations.

That’s the whole point of this article: he has it better than most, and what most people are subjected to is inhumane.

As a side point it also shits on the same narrative you decry (e.g. his lawyers complain that there isn’t enough time to review evidence but turned down an extension).

If the point of the article is that then start the article with it not with how hard Sam's life is.

Not to mention, along with the police brutalities, all the people, in the specific instance of SBF, whose lives have been financially ruined by this selfish, narcissistic asshole. Reading about them whining because he doesn't get his vegan diet and his Adderall is incredibly infuriating. Maybe don't be the way you have been? Maybe don't knowingly screw over so many people to the tune of BILLIONS? Maybe, then, don't continually break court-mandated rules?

Also, to be clear, I have no issue with vegan diet. I just think it's hilarious that that is a focus of theirs? Also, I take Adderall for ADHD so I understand how much it can help... but... MAYBE don't do what you did???? Do they expect him to live like he's in a resort?

Finally, I am a huge advocate for MUCH better treatment of prisoners on the whole. Prisoners in Texas right now with no form of cooling is absolutely awful and inhumane. You have people dying of heat stroke. The terrible medical 'care' in the prison system is so awful. The lack of rehabilitation services throughout the prison system is what keeps the rotating door rotating, and it is disgusting. The lack of support for people leaving prison and trying to reintegrate is beyond sad. BUT, this is someone who seems to have been fed from the silver spoon their whole life and clearly thought they were above it all. He wasn't raised on the streets and getting by the best way he knew how. He know what he was doing. He clearly used some of the money stolen from investors to try to hide that through the use of other politicians and their favor. So, why does anyone care about this entitled prick?

> Maybe don't be the way you have been?

He hasn’t even been tried yet

It's a literary technique, and if you would have been familiar with Molly Whites writing you would likely have expected the twist to occur further down in the article - which it did.

Well. Don’t expect your readers to be journalism majors if you want to make a point, because elaborate hidden twists lead to reactions just like this one. Being all elitist about it doesn’t work well either.

I'm reasonably certain that one does not have be a journalism major to manage to reach the 6th paragraph, about 550 words in, of a short (8 paragraph, 900 word) article to find the "elaborate hidden twist".

Especially since the article mentions in paragraph 3 that people are mocking SBF for his requests, says in paragraph 4 that it is his own fault for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the judge that he might have his house arrest rescinded and go to jail to await trial if he didn't stop abusing his privileges, and starts paragraph 5 with a "Furthermore" indicating that the criticism of his complaints continue.

Then paragraph 6 starts with "However" telling you that maybe there is more to the story than SBF's ridiculous complaints and goes on to discuss how real mistreatment of prisoners is a serious problem.

So in fact one only has to make it past paragraph 2, about 180 words, to start finding out that this is not a "sob story" for SBF, and then even a bit of casual skimming will find the upcoming "Furthermore" and "However" paragraphs.

The article only talks about SBF and the supposes that there are others needing the same or more than him. There are no anecdotes or data for this though, usually you would at least expect some of "so and so has been in prison for 5 years and has been..." type of point.

It really doesn't take a journalism major to see this is just a blog and may as well be a sob story for SBF since it does little more than that...

No need to be calling names. There is no elitism or degree in journalism required to understand the point of the article, if one actually reads it.

The main problem here is that I made an error in judgement when I thought the bulk of the people here actually read past the first paragraph, the title or even the top rated comment before firing off their comments which may or may not be related to the gist of article at all. Especially on inflamed topics.

My bad.

This level of ignorance or illiteracy is not the authors fault or problem. It's quite basic and common and reasonable. If it baffles you, it is you who is baffled by something ordinary, not the author who wrote something baffling to anyone. Charging elitism over this is pathetic.

I think the larger point is that if the prison is unable to meet the dietary and medical needs of SBF, when they know his expensive attorneys will loudly complain in court and in public, what is it like for regular people who only have a public defender? As we all know, it's abysmally poor and should be unacceptable to anyone.

100% how awful it is for normal people. But, I don't give a damn about SBF's needs. He's fine. He is just an insanely entitled narcissistic prick.

that’s the point if the article

> The American prison system desperately needs radical transformation — abolition, even — and to relish even an unlikeable person's relatively inconsequential suffering under that system is to miss the more important issue underneath.

Give me a break. He's in jail because he VIOLATED the conditions of his earlier release. If he wanted his freedom, he needed to prove he could follow the courts orders, since he cannot, he is no longer entitled to his pre-trial freedom.

The kid gloves with this guy are absolutely insane.

I just don't believe he is restricted to bread and water. This violates common sense. Common sense suggests prisons want to limit the amount of money they spend on feeding the prisoners. Meat is expensive. So I would expect there would be plenty of potatoes and other cheap vegetables, but only a limited amount of meat. But Sam's lawyers are saying the reverse is true.

Working as intended. SBF repeatedly violated his bail conditions, his situation is completely self-inflicted, and no one cares about his whining.

Man can't get adderall in jail? Abolish prisons

For various reasons I know several incarcerated prisoners and ex-convicts. Some is related to Catholic volunteering and others are people I knew from my community (none from crypto despite my user name).

To be quite frank, jail and prison in medium / low / camp is nowhere near as bad as described in my state (which I shall not reveal). It is a blue state. I think NYC is uniquely terrible.

As a practical matter, which documents does he need to personally review and can't he instruct his lawyers to find them and bring print outs?

I can imagine there is a mountain of evidence, like a transaction log for every wallet involved, but what would he accomplish by reviewing that in person? Oh, see here, this transaction on June 12 at 3:14 proves my innocence!

This post could easily be interpreted as parody.

> Sam Bankman-Fried, a vegan, has been subsisting on a diet of bread and water, with the occasional smear of peanut butter.

I think when you go to prison, in addition to giving up your freedom of movement, you give up your dietary preferences.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the article. I thought it would be about SBF getting special treatment in prison on account of his wealth and connections and that would be the failure described.

Seeing the actual article makes me feel that he is being treated justly.

Remember SBF is a psychopath and will say or do anything to manipulate people.

Ish.

A hypothetical Hindu prisoner who is forced to eat meat is definitely a religious objection that is related to SBFs vegan preferences here.

SBF can afford lawyers who can make a big stink of prison conditions. We all know prisons in USA are understaffed with poor conditions, and too many Americans are fine with this even if it an injustice to those we are housing there.

SBF deserves punishment and to be treated as a criminal. But criminals as a whole arguably deserve better than this.

> I think when you go to prison, in addition to giving up your freedom of movement, you give up your dietary preferences.

In the US, members of some tribes such and Judaism and Islam are legally entitled to receiving Kosher/Halal/and other food preferences. However, members of the vegan tribe probably do not have sufficient political power to get their food preferences in prison.

Does he have a medical need to be vegan?

Why is that relevant? I assume prisons are required to adhere to medical restrictions.

My point was you are allowed to have food preferences in prison, assuming you are a member of a tribe with sufficient political power.

His choosing to be vegan is like my choosing to only eat white meat and fish (along with the usual vegetarian fare). Should I be able to get that if I knowingly break the law and go to jail? They can only do so much for a person. They have a kitchen that makes food for EVERYONE. It isn't to-order. I do agree 100% that conditions in our prison system are beyond atrocious. They are so so awful. I just have a hard time believing wherever he is sitting is one of those worse-off places. He can eat some damn meat in jail. He's being an entitled prick.

Are people who demand kosher and halal food entitled pricks?

My parents did not eat meat/seafood/poultry, and I was not given any either. As a result, I have a severe distaste for meat/seafood/poultry, I even find the smell makes me gag.

Should I be forced to eat meat/seafood/poultry in prison to get my protein needs, just because I do not adhere to a tribe with sufficient political power to force an exception?

> Should I be forced to eat meat/seafood/poultry in prison to get my protein needs, just because I do not adhere to a tribe with sufficient political power to force an exception?

No, you can eat peanut butter bread like SBF. Or ideally, realize earlier that you aren’t really cut out for the prison system due to your dietary needs and not commit the financial crimes.

No. SBF is an entitled prick. And if you are worried about your dietary needs not being met in prison, then don't do shit that lands you in prison? What is this questioning?

I did not opine on SBF. I was specifically responding to the veracity of this claim, as quoted in my original post:

>I think when you go to prison, in addition to giving up your freedom of movement, you give up your dietary preferences.

To which the response was to show that some people do not have to give up some dietary preferences, due to their tribal affiliations. For example:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-19-me-36098-...

As for:

>And if you are worried about your dietary needs not being met in prison, then don't do shit that lands you in prison?

Innocent people also end up in prison.

He is not in "prison". He is being detained pre trial and presumed innocent.

Ehhhh, SBF was tampering with witnesses.

SBF had a cushy house arrest inside his private Billionaire-class mansion until he started tampering with witnesses.

SBF is presumed innocent (for now) on FTX issues. But he's being punished for his poor pre-trial behaviors. Which is fair and just, prison conditions aside.

Their point is he is not in prison. Prison is post-conviction. Jail/detention center is pre-trial.

He's in jail because he violated the terms of his very cushy house-arrest. So I would say he has been imprisoned for violations, even though he hasn't been convicted of his original crime.

"there is still some truth to the perception that the only person Bankman-Fried has to blame for his current predicament is himself. "

I stopped reading this propaganda here...

There is absolute, incontrovertible, and complete truth that the the only person Bankman-Fried has to blame for his current predicament is himself.

And he knew how bad it would be from his previous jail time.

Molly White is a sarcastic writer. The above line is called understatement.

She's been following crypto-bullshit for years. Trust me, she's the last person who'd say a nice thing about SBF.

She failed to use the sarcasm font...

Imagine a man playing the worlds smallest violin to accompany SBF's tale of woe

It’s funny because it could happen to any person that gets charged with any crime in the US

Flagrantly violating a multimillion dollar bond agreement 3x by tampering with witnesses and therefore being unable to access digital equipment to prepare your case? Subsisting off bread and peanut butter and running out of ADHD meds because of same said violations of the terms of your pre-trial release? Still being given access to highly competent legal representation, access to a computer, and given multiple hearings to renegotiate your pre-trial re-release despite major violations the first time?

No, I don't think many people fall in that bucket.

This makes sense, he is in the special “Flagrantly violating a multimillion dollar bond agreement 3x by tampering with witnesses and therefore being unable to access digital equipment to prepare your case” jail that they built specially just for him. The idea that these circumstances could happen to literally anyone charged with any crime is factually incorrect because that would imply that are others in similar conditions, of which there are none.

Right. He's been given way too much leniency already and look what he did with it. He's an asshole. He doesn't care. He cares about SAM, that's it. So, let him sit and cry because he 'has' to eat bread and peanut butter because he CHOOSES to stick to a vegan diet. I know plenty of vegans that, if presented with a situation where it was only PB and bread or other options, they would just say "Eh, well... I can just eat the other stuff for now because this is what there is..." That's a reasonable person. He is not reasonable and he is showing more and more how pathetically self-centered he really is.

> I know plenty of vegans that, if presented with a situation where it was only PB and bread or other options, they would just say "Eh, well... I can just eat the other stuff for now because this is what there is..."

This makes sense. There is a logical reason to deny vegans food that fits their diet, and if you think about it getting arrested while being a vegan is basically two crimes. Any vegan accused of any crime should be forced to eat meat as a punitive default. The reasoning for this is obvious, for example

There actually is a logical reason and that reason is they can only produce and provide so much in a day in a prison. They can't make all these custom meals. That's now how the kitchen works in a prison.

I like the idea that “giving people vegetables” puts undue stress on the state of California.

Can you elaborate on how kitchens work in prison and jails?

I don't believe that giving people vegetables puts undue stress. I don't believe that SBF hasn't been presented with vegetables or fruit either. I imagine they are canned and not fresh and beautiful, as he's come to expect. I think he's being a little brat.

I just meant that they have limited ingredients and set meals planned for each day. It isn't a restaurant where you have a menu to pick from.

It doesn’t seem like you actually care about this but if you do, it is important to have a sympathetic face to get public support. There is a reason Rosa Parks was chosen as the face of the bus boycott. SBF is never going to be the face of prison reform so acting antagonistically to people online not giving him sympathy probably won’t help prison reform.

I like this article because the author chose an unpopular person. The majority of the comments are highbrow versions “ROFL eat bread bitch”, which is illustrative of a large and vocal group of people that believe that basic dignity should be punitively stripped by the state in the case of criminal behavior (of which they could never even be accused)

How many chances do you think a wealthy man from an upper class family should get? He's already burned through more considerations than poor people ever get.

Do you understand the concept of deterrence? He's being made an example. SBF is getting body slammed with the harsh reality of the consequences of white collar criminal behavior to serve as a lesson to all the other potential white collar criminals out there. The message is that it doesn't matter if you are wealthy and come from a connected family. The rules apply to everyone.

> How many chances do you think a wealthy man from an upper class family should get?

I have a question. Do you see any difference between the following two sentences?

1. The conditions that SBF is in could be experienced by any person accused of a crime in the US.

And

2. SBF should not be in jail.

I have not said anything that could possibly be construed as #2 but it seems like you are asking me why I said that?

Edit:

I do appreciate the honesty in stating that you believe that this sort of treatment of prisoners is a good thing. If nobody admitted that they felt that way, the mystery of why we treat people that are accused of crime terribly would forever remain a black box.

It is, however, genuinely amusing that people think that he’s getting treated Extra Bad because he’s an Extra Bad Guy.

Buddy, jail, not prison but jail is the place that you could find yourself tonight without a judge or jury. The only requirement for jail is probable cause or an officer having a bad day. You (the person inside the US reading this) could have your diet dictated and medication punitively taken away by the state while you are reading this sentence.

> Buddy, jail, not prison but jail is the place that you could find yourself tonight without a judge or jury. The only requirement for jail is probable cause or an officer having a bad day.

Ignoring the snark tone - Yes, exactly! Those people exist, so shine a light on their cases to garner sympathy, support and mindshare towards reform.

It would be infinitely easier to sympathize with someone who's actually being treated unfairly. I'd go further and say that writing about the "woes" of SBF is insulting to anyone's who's actually suffering from unfair treatment.

Trying to use SBF as the poster child of unfair treatment is frankly delusional. If you want to come across as genuine, write about the working class people whose stories would never see the light of day without someone taking a closer look, not the "woes" of a billionaire kid who's crossed every single boundary that's ever been set for him, who's interfered with justice process, and is now complaining about having to eat peanut butter because he refuses more nutritious food.

The purpose of using SBF as an example is not to paint him as a victim in need of help. It is a useful exercise that invites the people that are ideologically opposed to the idea of humane treatment in prisons to pop up and voice their reasoning for force feeding vegans meat and denying people prescribed medication.

> so shine a light on their cases to garner sympathy, support and mindshare towards reform.

And

> now complaining about having to eat peanut butter because he refuses more nutritious food.

Are incompatible statements. In your final sentence you literally say that the problem is not the availability for vegans to have access to their diet. You cannot logically claim to care about jails providing reasonable diets to prisoners while simultaneously placing the blame squarely on a prisoner.

You either think that the state punitively denying someone a reasonable diet and prescription medication is a good thing or a bad thing. There is no inbetween.

Even if you use “deterrent” style rhetoric to lend legitimacy to your personal enjoyment of seeing somebody you dislike suffer, you are still pointing at the state punitively denying people access to reasonable diet accommodation and prescription medication and saying “This is a good thing.”

Like, it’s kind of funny that you’re giving me tips on how to better illustrate this problem to people that are against inhumane treatment in jails. You’re not even the audience for such a thing because you are ideologically in favor of the phenomenon.

He was given every break afforded wealthy people and could have lived a comfortable life preparing for trial, but he choose to break the rules. Maybe you missed the part about witness intimidation from his comfy home that resulted in him getting locked up in "unfair" conditions.

I don't understand why people are misreading this article so badly.

What I find really interesting is that the man has so far not been found guilty. So he is factually innocent, yet still has seemingly all basic human rights stripped from him.

Now I know that "Innocent until proven guilty" is a euro-socialist concept which does not apply to the rightfully detained people in the glorious US of A, because the modern and infallible justice system spearheaded by its brillant and impartial police force would never even think of making any errors. Thats why the modern and comfortable prisons which are basically empty nearly never produce any repeat offenders when the few that are even incarcerated are released into society after their successful resocialization.

Oh wait, no. We are talking about the only industrialized country in the western world still clinging to a "But the majority says so" justice system of mass punishment and gleeful misstreatment - where you still can be legally shot or electrocuted or hanged when you dont look like someone "the people" like.

And the self-proclaimed upper-class of this country, stemming mostly from the area of said country that feels morally and ethically superior to the rest (Valleyfornians) still are gleefully happy in the comments that mistreatment worth of totalitarian regimes is applied to a white collar criminal.

While true, “but SBF might not be found guilty” is not a hill I would personally choose to die on.

Which is completely besides the point, however dire it looks, guilty is decided by the Judge. (Or the jury in less... modern countries)

Defendants have a right to a jury trial, but can often opt for a bench trial if they want. Conventional wisdom is that the odds of acquittal are better with a jury, outside of unusual cases (eg. an extremely unpopular defendant).

Describing trial by jury as "less modern" is also bizarre, the trial by jury is a specifically enumerated right in the Constitution because of legal abuses in Great Britain in the 1500s and 1600s. It exists to protect defendants by placing the decision ultimately in the hands of members of the community, rather than a single political appointee.

While I do understand your points and even agree overall... it's just so hard to have any sympathy for someone that feels almost sociopathic in their decision making to ruin so many people financially. It's very hard.

> What I find really interesting is that the man has so far not been found guilty. So he is factually innocent, yet still has seemingly all basic human rights stripped from him.

He's not been found guilty of the crimes that he has been charged with. But he also was not jailed for this crimes. He was under house arrest.

He's in jail because he violated the terms of his house arrest.

> Now I know that "Innocent until proven guilty" is a euro-socialist concept which does not apply to the rightfully detained people in the glorious US of A, because the modern and infallible justice system spearheaded by its brillant and impartial police force would never even think of making any errors.

It appears that most countries sometimes jail people pre-trial. Here are some statistics on pre-trail jailing around the world [1].

Among the countries mentioned in that with pre-trail jailing are:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa (USA), Andorra, Angola, Anguilla (UK), Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba (Netherlands), Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda (UK), Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands (UK), Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo (Republic of), Cook Islands (NZ), Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Curacao (Netherlands), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Faeroes (Denmark), Fiji, Finland, French Polynesia (Fr), Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar (UK), Greece, Greenland (Denmark), Grenada, Guadeloupe (France), Guam (USA), Guatemala, Guernsey (UK), Guinea (Republic of), Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Isle of Man (UK), Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jersey (UK), Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea (Republic of), Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau (China), Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Martinique (France), Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte (France), Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico (USA), Qatar, Reunion (France), Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome e Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sint Maarten (Neth), Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, U.S.A., UK: England & Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands (UK), Virgin Islands (USA), Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Note that this list is missing some countries that do pre-trail jailing, such as France. France is in the PDF but I extracted the list by copy/paste from the PDF to text and then cleaned it up with some regular expressions, and some countries in the paste ended up formatted different enough from the others that my cleanup mistook them for headers or something.

[1] https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/...

Why does everyone think jail isn’t shitty? Whether it should be is a different story.

Money still buys him good PR.

Does anyone have connections at Kraken? I am getting all of Molly Whites KYC connected wallets to see what money SBF still has under control. I have Coinbase and most other US exchanges covered.

This article highlights the importance of making sure jails are as inhumane as possible by default for everyone. Making any effort to improve them systemically could benefit one specific egregious, obviously guilty idiot grifter, and if that happened we would lose the most important thing: laughing at his condition.

If you think about it, the decades of treating prisoners as less than human were actually justified as a sandbox to perfect misery in the run up to FTX, and the decades of continuing the practice will be good because that one guy will probably still be there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com