Hacker News Reader

Comment by kccqzy | Hacker News Reader

> Later, the detectives would look up all the recovered loot on Amazon and tally up its total value, which exceeded the $950 minimum required for a charge of felony grand theft in California. (The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office declined to file a felony charge and referred the case to the city attorney’s office, which filed a misdemeanor instead.)

This is something I don't understand. I thought the $950 limit was the limit by which a felony charge had to be filed. But apparently, there's prosecutorial discretion in filing these felony charges even when above the limit? This felt like the biggest demotivators for cops and detectives: they could respond to 911 calls and take someone into custody, and then calculate the value of the stolen goods to make sure it reaches $950, and then just no felony charges afterwards?

View on HN

A felony charge is harder to prosecute. Maybe they didn't think they had enough evidence to win

How often does it end up court? And since he was part of a group that robbed a train, there is also conspiracy charges that were never filed.

The Three Strikes law is one reason. How many people can we actually have in jail/prison for 25 plus years? If someone steals Amazon packages 3 times, should they get 25+ years?

Yes

At $50K/yr, that's 1.25MM that society gets to pay to punish the theft of $950*3 worth of Amazon packages.

The insignificant fear of losing an Amazon package makes unbelievably comfortable people absolutely hysterical. It's got to be performative, it can't be real.

That person is likely already a net drain on the system in many ways, I'd guess 50K is less than the cost of their actions + welfare over the year.

I think people are more concerned about the brazen displays of antisocial behaviour.

Do you at least understand the opposite position, that not spending this money to deter antisocial behavior will result in it becoming widespread, and a greater net loss than this?

At some point, yes. They are aren't playing by society's rules (committing three felonies) and should be removed. If you have two felonies, perhaps don't rob trains?

Most three strike laws have to do with violent crime though.

Who gets hurt? Would you consider this train robber a danger to society?

25+ years is way out of proportion for the offense. Long sentences as a form of deterrence are not as effective as things like the likelihood of getting caught. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-d...

Incarceration without rehabilitation does not solve the underlying problems and leads to recidivism.

Ruining someone's life over a few Amazon packages makes no sense, ethically or financially.

> Who gets hurt? Would you consider this train robber a danger to society?

By unjustly appropriating the fruits of other people's labor, thieves make it harder for all honest citizens to support themselves and their families financially. Of course they are a danger to society, and only someone in a position of extreme financial privilege could possibly think otherwise.

Sure, theft is bad. The question is how do we disincentivize it. Risk = punishment * probably of being caught. If the probability of being caught is low then the risk can be justified. If the probability of being caught (and successfully prosecuted) is 1 then even short sentences become effective.

Great, lets starting by jailing everyone who commits wage and hour theft, which exceeds the cost of all theft and robberies combined, but which gets little news coverage because it doesn't have dramatic video footage. IT's logical to start with the biggest thieves, no?

So why doesn’t it happen considering there is ample evidence of this?

Because prosecutors don't find it sexy, pundits whine about federal enforcement as government overreach, and corporate lawyers often make allegations go away by offering a settlement without an admission of liability.

Everyone gets hurt because prices rise to cover losses.

If you're running numbers you do have to account for the costs of incarceration, too. If 25 year sentences don't actually deter more than 10 year sentences then you're just paying for more prisons for no reason.

they most definitely do though

I'm sure you believe this, but the evidence doesn't support it.

So its ok to steal then? Because hey… its just a few dollars? Are you serious right now?

I'm saying that the punishment needs to fit the crime. People need rehabilitation and opportunities. Check recidivism rates and ask yourself if the system is working.

> Ruining someone's life over a few Amazon packages makes no sense, ethically or financially.

Heh really? Have you read Les Miserables? If one is hungry, go ask and SOMEONE will give you a loaf of bread (I cannot count the amount of times someone approach me/the queue in a food court of a mall asking for money and I've bought them some nice soup - and they actually sat down and ate it).

Who gives anyone the right to steal something I purchased, and I am expecting it for personal or business purpose? How would you feel if I come to your house every day and steal something - whatever I want and sell it on eBay?

Yes you are annoying :)

Yes, really. It is not even a point of someone stealing because they are hungry, even if they did it just for the sake of stealing or some shit, it still would not be ethical to kill them because of that.

Essentially, the life of a robber is immeasurably more valuable than your amazon box, so unless they are a threat to human lives, you do not kill them to defend property. Arresting them is fine, but killing because of stealing is a nono.

Other thing would been if the robbers were armed and thus dangerous to the conductor and the like, in those cases, lethal action may be justifiable as a form of self defense.

If they keep doing crimes you can lock them up again, you know.

Very few crimes should be able to get you more than 5 years at once.

I agree with you but I’m honestly curious why you say 5 years. It seems like overkill for what is basically a reset on life. Anything over a few weeks means you lose your job. Anything over a few months means you lose your residence. So what’s the difference between one year and five? What do you lose in those four years other than opportunity?

Two violent felonies and the third strike is any felony.

Sounds OK to me don’t commit violent felonies.

Don’t get caught* committing violent felonies. Harsh consequences don’t actually prevent the offense. There’s an equally important chance of being caught.

> Harsh consequences don’t actually prevent the offense

But they do protect the public.

Do they? There’s an overwhelming amount of unprosecuted petty crime in my city perpetrated a handful of known individuals. Harsh penalties protect the public from people who get caught. But that’s no consolation when my gas tank gets drained or a window gets busted out to search an empty backpack.

They don't even necessarily protect folks from those that get caught.

We sit there and put folks in jail or prison for an offense, where we might hold them in solitary for months - and if they aren't, they are in a system where people *assume' they are going to get raped by another inmate (it is a common joke, after all).

And then we let them out, put them on probation with a bunch of fees that need paid, a record that makes it difficult to find legal work - especially the sort that will pay bills plus probation - and might exclude them from public housing. And when I say exclude, I mean they might not be able to stay with family for a week if their family lives in public housing.

Harsh penalties do not protect the public. Harsh penalties are the result of a system meant to extract misery, sometimes for fairly minor expenses. If we (Americans) cared about protecting the public, we'd house people, feed them, make it so crimes of desperation are fewer. We'd treat folks well in prison, treat pre-trial folks like they are innocent, and focus on integrating folks into society in ways that few would mind a felon for a neighbor.

Consequences are not harsh if criminals are not caught. The issue is in the lack of enforcement. Punishment for any crime should be inevitable. But proportional to the type of the crime.

Right. A lack of enforcement can’t be counterbalanced by harsh sentencing.

Why three? Because baseball? It seems so arbitrary. Recidivism is a real issue but what’s so magical about three strikes? Why not five, or one, or 47?

One can be a mistake. Two is recidivism, it's bad but we can give you another chance. Three: you blew it. Do not pass go, go directly to jail

Go directly to jail. Like… Monopoly? It still feels arbitrary to me. If two is recidivism then so is three right? So is three be life? That doesn’t seem right. Shouldn’t we be trying to minimize recidivism?

If you wanted to minimize recidivism you’d have a life sentence for every crime.

Only if we ignore crimes committed in prison.

Solitary confinement and/or death penalty then.

Obviously, minimizing recidivism isn’t our only requirement.

I think the idea is that a "good" person can still have a (small) rate of criminality. If you kill after one crime you'll kill many good people, if you do so after 2 you'll still kill good people. But the odds of a good person committing 3 crimes are low enough to go for it.

Do you think it should be five, or one, or 47?

It is kind of arbitrary, there's nothing so magical about it. Two or four would be just as good or at least not a whole lot worse; one seems overly harsh, and five seems overly lenient. Social policy is not an exact science, and we make these decisions democratically; most people seem to have a sense that people should get a few chances, but there should be a point at which they get the book thrown at them. Better to try and draw the line in a place that makes sense, and tweak it if necessary, than to be paralysed by indecision because you can't decide exactly where the line should be.

> Do you think it should be five, or one, or 47?

No. I don’t have a preference for the specific number.

I am asking by which reasoning we decided on three. If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better.

In other words do we have a framework for deciding on additional punishment for repeat offense?

> I am asking by which reasoning we decided on three. If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better.

If you think we can do better then what's your concrete proposal for doing better. 2? 4? Paying a philosophy department to crank out papers until we spot one we like?

Well, I don’t think there’s a one size fits all number. I’m not even convinced previous convictions should be considered in sentencing.

I am not asking for answers from philosophers. I am asking for a description of the reasoning behind the existing three strikes policies.

A philosophy is just a framework of thinking. It doesn’t have to be created by intellectuals.

Three seems like a reasonable number. Not too high and not too low. Like a more relaxed version of "fool me once, shame on you...".

I'm surprised by your second line because it seems like you're the one philosophizing. I bet nobody has ever written down a "reason" for three strike policies for criminals/sentencing/etc. It just seems like a reasonable number, and we have the baseball metaphor to back it up.

How are we supposed to answer your question if you're not interested in philosophizing?

I… am interested in philosophizing which is why I specifically asked for the philosophy.

“Seems reasonable” and “baseball” aren’t compelling reasons for harsher punishment.

Apologies for misunderstanding.

Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments? If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy?

These questions leave aside the question of "how many strikes".

> Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments?

They don’t seem to work so… no?

If you are convicted of a crime the individual offense and circumstances should be considered. Adding more punishment because someone failed to be persuaded by punishment seems ineffective at rehabilitation. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.”

Maybe it makes sense to give up on a person and lock them up forever but if we are going to do that we should be honest and thoughtful about it.

“Well baseball” doesn’t seem sophisticated enough to address what should be an exceptional action in a nuanced situation.

> If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy?

This is a good question. I guess my real objection to three strikes is that it seems both arbitrary (still willing to be wrong here but so far it’s just “baseball”) and mandatory. Similarly I’m also not a huge fan of minimum sentences. Let the judges… judge.

You said "If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better." So suppose for the moment there is no fancy philosophy and the number is just some vague, messy human sense of how many chances someone ought to get before we throw the book at them. What, concretely, is your better proposal?

> In other words do we have a framework for deciding on additional punishment for repeat offense?

Yes, and you should be able to find how it's handled in your state fairly easily. The fact that you don't know that, and that you're generally focusing on the rhetoric rather than ideas, makes me wonder if you're interested in the subject or just arguing...

how could one ever reach a number? because let's say after 7 issues there's a 80% chance they won't reform. so then why 80%?

it's a good chance, don't worry too much about where the line in the sand is drawn. I've seen multiple teams at work also bogged down by this. if there were a name for this phenomenon, I'd love to know

Well 7 and 80 are both mare up numbers. I think details matter and that reality is messy. So I don’t think an arbitrary number that feels good is the right way to go.

Property crime is predominantly driven by poverty / wealth inequality.

I'd like to see you, with a conviction for a nonviolent drug crime and no college degree or tech experience, try to get a job and provide for a family.

The "rules" of the US are intensely stacked against poor people while allowing the wealthy to almost fail upward.

Do you have a solution for this? And consider tyat being poor that does make it ok to steal.

It wouldn’t be that hard to stop emoloyers from asking if you served time and do background checks for this. In theory, you did your time, you’ve paid your debt to society. I feel like, at leastbin the US, you’re pretty much screwed if you were ever convicted of anything.

I would re-up my forklift cert and go do construction. This would be difficult work, but would keep you gainfully employed with a roof over your head almost anywhere in the United States.

It would not be hard to find a job in construction even with a drug offense and no degree.

>At some point, yes. They are aren't playing by society's rules (committing three felonies) and should be removed. If you have two felonies, perhaps don't rob trains?

It's been argued[0] that most of us don't commit three felonies in a lifetime, but three felonies a day.

While that may be somewhat hyperbolic, it also points up something important about our society. If I were you, I wouldn't be so excited about sticking "three time losers" in prison for decades. It could be you -- for what you did yesterday.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...

People don’t typically get “three strikes” sentences for committing obscure white collar federal felonies. They get them for felonies that people are generally aware of, like armed robbery and domestic violence.

I’d prefer exponential backoff. Double the sentence each time. But given the choice of three strikes or a slap on the wrist, I’d take three strikes enforcement.

You can sort of justify a first time offence - say you found a package and you were caught with it before being able to take it to the police.

But being caught three times…

And while it seems disproportionate, it might motivate others to not risk 25 years in prison for a $100 online order…

> it might motivate...

That gut feeling resonates with so many that few care to question it. It just feels right. Problem is, it feels right to the kind of person that habitually weighs the benefits and drawbacks of their actions, is able to reason about consequences and has a good grip on their impulses. Those people would be unlikely to steal Amazon packages even if the sentence was a fine and 30 days of social work because they are usually in a different place in society anyway. (Don't get hung up on exceptions)

Those that decide to steal anyway are often those that think they won't get caught. It doesn't matter if they don't sit in prison for 2 years or for 25. I'm sure there are other dynamics at play as well. Unfortunately I can't cite research to support my claims but then neither can you. So I just invite you to consider them.

But those people are the kinds that we don't want anywhere near the good kind, nor anywhere close to our children. Hence why a lot of us feel like they should be, within reason, separated from the rest of us.

Consider this: https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilit...

https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab

Except data shows that long sentences do not create deterrence. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-d...

Absolutely, yes. Theft should not be behavior we encourage as a society.

Isn't that like tracking down Al Capone for bootlegging liquor, and then only charging him with tax evasion?

Wasn't Capone successfully jailed for tax evasion?

Which is kind of weird, because it’s used as a “crime doesn’t pay, the good guys win” and on one hand, sure, Al Capone is a bad guy. On the other hand it highlights the power of the government to harass someone they don’t like, suspect of crime, and can’t prove via unrelated arms of the government. That they’ll just lawfully harass you on all possible ways until they either bankrupt you or find something you’ve done.

Yeah, but the post I'm replying to suggests that police are demoralized when the original charge is not what prosecutors actually bring in court. Ultimately, the prosecutor needs a charge that they can prosecute (get a plea bargain, or convince 12 peers of the defendant) and I think the cops understand that.

In the case of Capone, it was just easier to prosecute tax evasion; "here's his bank balance, here's the tax we think is due, here's the tax he paid". In the case of shoplifting, plea-ing out a misdemeanor is probably easier than convincing a jury of a felony charge.

Like, all they probably have is a grainy video of the suspect. Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that that's the person sitting in the defendant's chair? If one juror thinks "no, I'm not sure", then everyone who commited the crime goes free.

Also, realistically, $950 shouldn't be the threshold between a felony and a misdemeanor. That can't be a number that was adjusted for inflation. $950 isn't much money these days.

Does the $950 follow inflation?

Does it really matter? The idea is that if you’re stealing because you are starving or need a pair of socks or something, it won’t be anywhere near $950. In other words nobody steals $950 on accident.

Currently. But in 50 years $950 might not be so large if it doesn't follow inflation.

With $950, you can't even get a roof over your head for 1 month... it can be a pretty big problem in winter times...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com