Hacker News Reader

To get back to the article. I think a lot of businessmen get locked up because they did not play by the un-official rules and thought, perhaps some thought, they could function like they would do in the West or in America.

Whilst the situation in Russia is undoubtedly horrific, let's not pretend that corruption isn't endemic in the rest of the world; some counties have just legalized it to some extent.

Crony capitalism is criticised but rarely has action taken against it, and political campaign donations are seen as being perfectly acceptable. It doesn't appear to matter whether it's giving money to US senators, or joining "donor's clubs" that guarantee access to the UK's prime minister, e.g.:

http://www.conservatives.com/donate/donor_clubs.aspx

yay! You just taught me a new term in english: Crony capitalism. It's almost the same in spanish btw: ("capitalismo de amigos", literally: "friend's capitalism"). Thanks for that ;)

And yes, that kind of problem seems to be present all around the world. Probably, it's something related to human nature. And sometimes, it looks like the system is trying to encourage that behavior. We learn of the importance of knowing certain people, pertaining to certain circles, making contacts, grow our social network, and so on.

As a simple example, things like LinkedIn are essentially encouraging the use of our contacts, to get an advantage in our professional careers. Doing that in public service, would be unethical (and most probably, illegal). But doing it in the private sector, seems to be fine. So, that dichotomy blurs as long as it doesn't go too far away. But then, you'll eventually end up in that crony capitalism... unless something or someone stops you. And sadly, the law doesn't seem to be stopping anyone.

There aren't many 'English' words!

wikipedia: The word "crony" first appeared in 18th century London, according to the Oxford English Dictionary to be derived from the Greek word χρόνιος (chronios), meaning "long-term".[2]

That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west.

The worst part about the article is the fact that there is no fair trial in Russia.

Imagine a fictitious world where everything is corrupt, but the legal system. It isn't a perfect place to live, but, you know that at the very least your freedom is protected, your contract if breached is remunerated etc.

Imagine a fictitious world where everything is not corrupt, but the legal system is. In such place, one has no freedom, for out of spite perhaps, out of jealousy, out of greed, someone could simply send you to prison.

7 acquittals in 1000 cases, and even then 5 overturned, so practically only 2 people being acquitted in 1000 cases is a practical tyrannical state.

In the west, at least, the legal system protects against corruption by itself not being corrupt. If such bastion of freedom fails, then the land is no longer free.

>That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west.

Is it? I think it's hard to argue that it ISN'T. How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, while white collar criminals can steal MILLIONS, and get a slap on the wrist? When's the last time you saw a major celebrity or pro athlete actually A: Get convicted for something, and B: Serve real time?

Why should a celebrity get convicted of something unless they have committed a crime?

I think America may be a bit of an exception actually since you guys elect your judges. That sounds ridiculous to me. It is like electing your doctor or your engineers. Some things simply are best left to technocrats.

That said, in the UK at least, you have the choice of five appeals before a final, conclusive say is given in your case.

Take for example Assange, the Wikileaks founder. It is difficult to find a more political example. He went up to the highest court. That final hearing was held in public, as all hearings are, it was televised, again as all hearings are, you can read the judicial decision, as with all judicial decision. No one was corrupted. You can't corrupt them, because there is complete transparency.

Now take the hacking scandal. At least 10 people have been imprisoned and are awaiting trial I think. Maddof is another example. We will see what comes out of Libor, etc. We don't live in a perfect world, but we are the closest to it I think.

In regards to your point about 20+ year sentence for a relatively minor crime, I think you will find that the media often sensationalises things to get attention. If you delve into these cases, by for example, reading the judicial decision which are available to everyone, you will most probably find that the decision if not to your agreement, is reasonable and justified.

To conclude with clearly showing that there is no comparison between America or the West and Russia, if you look at 1,000 cases, you are very likely to find way more non guilty verdicts than in 2 cases.

Nope, not at all. Non-violent drug offenders can and do get 20+ year sentences in the US. Especially heroin and crack cocaine. There are some insane mandatory minimum sentences here.

How exactly mandatory minimum sentences prove that legal system is corrupt?

Gross inconsistencies.

Have a little crack on you? 5+ year minimum, quite possibly more, especially if it isn't your first time.

Whereas the rich will pay some high-priced lawyer with connections, and get a plea deal, probably for probation, for just about anything short of murder.

I think at best your argument proves that there is a problem with legislation. I.e. with the laws that treat white collar criminals not as hard as crack users.

I don't know about unknown rich with connections. But a lot of celebrities got pretty harsh treatment. Michael Vick served more time than his co-defendants.

That proves the system is broken (and it is, the whole War on Drugs is America's worst mistake since Prohibition) but not that it is corrupt. To prove corruption, you need to prove that the outcome depends on something else than the (admittedly broken) law. Pointing out that the law gives unjustifiably harsh sentences does not advance this argument.

Sentencing is a result of the legislative branch and not the judiciary. These sentences are often mandated by law. Judges have no legal leeway to reduce them. I believe the argument is whether the trial system is fair, and not the unfortunate reality that we elect morons because they are "tough on crime."

> I think America may be a bit of an exception actually since you guys elect your judges. That sounds ridiculous to me. It is like electing your doctor or your engineers. Some things simply are best left to technocrats.

Except for federal courts. All federal court judges are appointed by the president for life after confirmation from the senate. Only state courts have an election process, in some cases.

> That final hearing was held in public, as all hearings are, it was televised, again as all hearings are, you can read the judicial decision, as with all judicial decision. No one was corrupted. You can't corrupt them, because there is complete transparency.

Not all court hearings are televised, as you stated. The court hearing for repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was not televised. Most federal trials aren't televised.

Also, just because you can read the judicial decision, doesn't mean that it wasn't a result of corruption during the trial. And once you get the decision, its not like you can fix it if something wasn't right in the decision. Complete transparency would only occur if all court cases were televised and unedited, giving the people access to all evidence.

All court cases are held in public, so if you are interested in the full evidence, etc, you can attend the hearing in person. Moreover, all cases are recorded, so you can request a transcript of the whole process. Most judicial decisions however begin by a summary of the facts and the laws that were in question.

Once you get a decision, you can fix it. You appeal it. If the court was wrong, then the higher court is likely to overturn it.

The point about being able to read the judicial decision is that if the judge applied the law incorrectly, whether because he was corrupted, because he did not like the defendant or anything, if you are a trained lawyer, you can see that the law was applied incorrectly, so you appeal it. If that appeal is successful, the judge below would loose a huge amount of reputation, especially if it was blatantly obvious that he applied the law incorrectly. So no judge would do it. They are paid very handsomely. They probably practised as lawyers before becoming a judge so made quite a bit and therefore they have nothing to gain and everything to loose if they accept being corrupted.

> All court cases are held in public, so if you are interested in the full evidence, etc, you can attend the hearing in person.

Most, but not all. The judge can hold a private session if he chooses.

> All court cases are held in public, so if you are interested in the full evidence, etc, you can attend the hearing in person.

Space is limited in a court room. That's why I was talking more about televised sessions.

> Once you get a decision, you can fix it. You appeal it.

Good luck with that. That's all I can say.

> They probably practised as lawyers before becoming a judge so made quite a bit and therefore they have nothing to gain and everything to loose if they accept being corrupted.

That's the problem. Lawyers aren't very good and the laws aren't very clear in a majority of the cases. I have yet to see a judge lose their reputation from having one of their cases appealed. Also, private deals are made with lawyers all the time that are protected by client confidentiality. Do you honestly believe that they would have nothing to gain by exploiting such deals?

Inequalities in sentencing are one matter. It is another thing entirely if trials are not fair. I think for the most part, western nations provide fair trials.

Furthermore, corruption - at least in the US - is taken pretty seriously. Where as a matter of course one might offer a bribe to a policeman in certain countries, it's actually pretty rare here. And in the cases corruption does come to light, it almost always ends public service careers, even (especially?) for high ranking officials.

I'd say they're fair if you can afford a good lawyer. If you can't, and have to take a public defender, you are, in most cases, screwed.

Whether the system is fair or not is orthogonal to the skill of the participants.

I think you're completely missing the point.

This is the system, and it isn't fair.

The outcome of a criminal trial being strongly correlated with your bank balance is pretty much the definition of an unfair legal system.

Is it correlated? At the end of the day 12 randomly selected people from the population decide whether the person is guilty or not guilty.

How that system can be corrupted, even by the skills of persuasion, is beyond me. Some facts are simply facts and no gift of communication can change that.

Lawyers are not magicians. Lawyers can't by simple force of intellect persuade the jury to acquit someone when the fact clearly show to any impartial reasonable observer, as normally is the case with a jury of 12 people, that the person has committed the crime.

You might have a stronger argument in regards to how decisions are made as to which case is prosecuted, how much resources are allocated to gathering the facts to prosecute a case related to drugs as compared to a case related to financial fraud, but in my opinion, once the person charged is in court, I think there is no corruption at all.

The a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of trials end in the striking of some sort of deal before the case ever goes in front of a jury. You'd better believe that the successful local lawyer who's the DA's golfing buddy gets better deals than some zit-faced public defender who just passed the bar exam. I know that sounds quaint, but it happens all the time in America, especially in small towns where the good ole boys club is still very much a going concern.

The deals are predetermined by law.

In the UK you get 33% off the sentence if you plead guilty at the first opportunity, i.e. at the police station or the first time you appear in court, 20% at the second opportunity, etc.

The UK maybe, not so in the US.

Public defenders usually produce better outcomes than private lawyers, the exception being private lawyers who were once district attorneys or public defenders.

Public defenders get a bad rap because most of their clients are--get this--actually guilty of the crimes they are charged with. The vast majority of defendants accept their guilt and are unwilling to pay thousands for a private lawyer who will not produce a better outcome. For these defendants, the public defenders are merely there to make sure that their rights are protected (at this point, usually procedural rights, i.e., due process).

A lot of the remaining clients go to trial simply because they can without having to pay for it (i.e., go down fighting). These clients have no chance of winning (multiple eyewitnesses, caught on video, caught with the goods/drugs/weapons, DNA/fingerprints, unsolicited confessions, etc.), but the public defender goes to trial anyway because that is what the client has demanded. (Private attorneys would simply inform them that their rates for trial are usually double their standard rates; at this point most clients either switch to public defenders or plead out.)

>Public defenders usually produce better outcomes than private lawyers, the exception being private lawyers who were once district attorneys or public defenders.

Interesting! Do you have a source?

Working for the public defender in California and volunteering with prosecutor's office elsewhere.

Blue states have high-quality public defenders because they receive adequate support from the state. Certain Southern states also have high-quality public defenders, as a result of the civil rights movement (for example, Atlanta, Georgia).

In a lot of smaller counties (including in California), public defenders are private lawyers operating under contract (because there is not sufficient need for a full-time public defender). They're usually selected because they are extremely competent and/or have cozy ties to the D.A., but either way, they also produce good results.

Not all public defenders are good. In some states (specifically Ohio and most Southern states), public defenders are employees of the "county" but are paid minimum wage base salaries and receive the bulk of the compensation as commissions per-case (regardless of outcome). In those states, public defenders generally have little to no budget to hire experts or investigators, but face off against prosecutors who have essentially unlimited resources (and market-rate salaries with pensions). As a result, these public defenders are overworked and simply do not have the time or resources to do a good job on any of their cases.

If you're looking for the actual numbers, I don't know of a freely available source. There are usually a few law journals that publish these stats every year or two, but my current legal database subscription does not include access to these journals.

> How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, ...

Those laws are effectively a eugenics program to weed out low IQ and impulsivity. If you cannot figure out how to beat a cocaine rap or not knock over a gas station, boom, your peak reproductive years get spent in a single sex environment.

Actually research shows that these people that spend years in jail have more children on average than people without criminal record. In addition the more years you spend in jail, the more reproductive you are. So the "eugenics program" will never work because the human evolution doesn't care about low IQ and impulsiveness .

Interesting. Do you have sources for that research?

Sorry, can't find it now. It's somewhat related to papers about "Dark Triad" traits.

Right. I did not say it was enough, just that the goal certainly appears to be eugenic.

There's a huge, huge difference between:

a) a system in which paying a third party to spend their life understanding that system aids in better navigation of that system

versus

b) a system in which you must pay representatives of the system in order to engage with the system.

Yes, in both situations, more resources will get you better results, but process matters. System A is a whole lot closer to redemption than System B.

Whilst the situation in Russia is undoubtedly horrific, let's not pretend that corruption isn't endemic in the rest of the world; some counties have just legalized it to some extent.

Every time there's a discussion of corruption, people make this statement, and it bothers me (I'm originally from India, which has a lot of corruption too). You cannot just equate the two. Corruption as described by the GP is like a cancer which has metastasized all over the body; corruption in the West is like an isolated blotch of melanoma on the skin.

So yes, there is corruption everywhere I guess ( perhaps even in Sweden and Norway and Switzerland); but it's not at the same level as that in Somalia and Russia.

The thing that draws entrepreneurs from all over the world to the US is that it is almost trivial to register and start a business here; and even if you're wildly successful, your "corruption overhead" is minimal (the occasional $35K dinner for $PRESIDENTIAL_CANDIDATE notwithstanding). This may not be the case in ALL industries, but in general it's true.

Consider for example Google. Till a few years ago, despite revenue in the billions, Google didn't even have a lobbying presence in DC.

This is not to say that we should not be alert. The way lobbying (i.e. corruption) is playing out in DC is a troubling trend. If things are left unchecked, there could come a time when, for example, instead of putting a competitor in jail (as in the article), companies would just get laws passed which kneecapped the competitor. We're not there yet (there might be exceptions), but we have to be vigilant.

I think entrepreneurs are drawn to the US simply because it is the biggest economy. The corruption overhead is just a cost of doing business, you don't pay, your customers do, you just have to account for it when you create the pricing structure.

I think Google is an exception, because it is a technology company. I would say the amount of corruption depends on the age of the industry and the vested interests, technology is so new it just isn't there yet. On the other hand, you have the financial industry and the big New York banks. The SEC is bought and paid for, they will never prosecute one of the big banks, and a judge will never rule against them either.

One of the most interesting stories is Martin Armstrong (perhaps the only person in the world who actually understands how the global economy works imo) who was held in contempt of court in jail without trial for like 7 years because the government wanted to silence him.

In the US you won't really see the corruption at the lower levels, but the higher up you go, the more corruption you will find. The corruption is hidden and more sophisticated. The real corruption occurs at the highest levels, behind the curtain. Governments are simply tools used by those who are really in power. It's more profitable to make your competitor (unknowingly) become your economic slave than it is to put them in jail.

As far as I can see, Armstrong was jailed not because government wanted to silence him (which would be futile anyway since there's ample ways to communicate from prison and many people do that) but because he refused to turn over some materials after being indicted (and later convicted) for financial fraud, which looks not entirely unlike what Madoff did. So it does not look like any government conspiracy theory is required. Of course, if you have data proving otherwise, it would be interesting to look at it.

The courts in US regularly rule against big banks in various cases, so it is just plain wrong to claim judge will never rule against the bank. The SEC is more problematic, since high knowledge requirements for regulating banks and security industries leads very quickly to the situation when all SEC experts are industry people, and thus defend the industry interests. This is inevitable problem of state regulation - the only way to know what the industry does is to work there, and finding somebody that is both impartial and competent is next to impossible. Yet even SEC regularly issues rulings against banks.

Of course, there's a lot of corruption is US, including the highest levels of government - so, former House Ways and Means Committee chair Charles Rangel was caught fraudulently evading taxes, getting huge donations from companies directly benefiting from rules he was promoting, taking lavish Caribbean trips paid by lobbyists, etc. He finally had to step down from the position and was censured by the Congress ethics committee, but still was reelected. So I think the problem here is the people that vote for corrupt officials as much as the corrupt officials themselves. If the people would refuse to vote for corruption, people like Rangel would not be able to persists in power for as long as they do now.

It's actually worse. There are no rules that would prevent that from happening. If you have money, you are a target for criminals, and bigger organized crime syndicate is the security services themselves. If you're lucky, you lose some money, if you're less lucky - you can lose everything, including your freedom. Since judicial system and law enforcement as a rule do not protect potential targets from attacks, but rather facilitate and sometimes initiate them - there's nothing to prevent that from happening. You can bribe someone, of course, if you have money - but somebody else can pay more, or threaten, or the bribed official may decide to take the money, but do nothing to help you. What you're gonna do, sue him? Another part of it is that the laws are purposely built in a way to ensure it's impossible to not have some problems with them. This way, of course, the officials can solicit more bribes - but also more people would be imprisoned because there's always something he can be accused of. Or, as famous Russian saying goes, if there's a man, there's always a criminal code article for him.

Thanks, You make me feel better for my country. Even when there is a lot of corruption in Argentina, luckily we are not at that level yet.

I mean, yes... some things are common: police taking money from prostitution and even from drug dealers in some places, Union leaders getting rich and powerful by using union's money as if it was of their own, politicians contracting companies owned by friends or family members while public prosecutors and judges turning a blind eye... and so on...

But taking money to put innocent people in jail? Maybe there's hope yet...

But then, somebody else coming from a different country would read my message and would also say: Wow!

Surely, that's an advantage of having a highly banked system as in some places of Europe and the US. I think that most of this "low level corruption" problems would be solved if people used less cash. I don't know in Russia, but here, most of the transactions are made in cash. Even when buying a house, most people go to make the transaction carrying USD 150,000/250,000 in cash. People do not trust in banks (mainly after the 2001 crisis), and lots of people have safe deposit boxes instead of savings accounts, just to avoid the government from knowing how much money they have (tax evasion). But, if people used less and less cash, it would be harder to have these kind of corruption in lower levels, simply because of money laundry's complexity for most people would be just too much, or too risky.

>But then, somebody else coming from a different country would read my message and would also say: Wow!

I'm not so sure. All of those things you list in your first paragraph happen in the UK all the time and nobody cares, and I imagine it is the same in most other countries.

As usual, there's probably some Scandinavian place where everyone behaves exemplarily.

That's funny, I had a fellow co-worker here who came from Sweden. He said that even when there was practically no corruption at all where he lived, life was incredibly boring.

He seemed to enjoy "having problems" here (yeah, that sounded strange to me too). Maybe those problems add adrenaline and emotion to our lives? Or maybe he was just crazy.

Life is boring in Scandinavia? I don't recognize that at all, I'll even go as far as to say it's the exact opposite.

Maybe he should try living in Copenhagen or Stockholm.

I don't see how needing to pay bribes makes life exciting. If he wants some danger in his life, he could take up an extreme sport...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bothersome_Man

Corruption is demoralizing. Unless he views it as tabloid gossip, which is... unimpressive.

They happen everywhere. It's a matter of degree. Some people in corrupt places love to use the fact that no place is perfect as an excuse for why things should not change and why people shouldn't get angry.

In Ireland, there isn't so much corruption. I won't say there's never any whatsoever, obviously, but there isn't anywhere near as much as people are describing here. I suppose it puts in perspective how lucky I should feel.

>In Ireland, there isn't so much corruption.

Really? How hard are you looking?

If there was anywhere near as much as is being discussed regarding some other countries, a cursory glance would suffice. Did you miss the bit where I said 'I won't say there's never any whatsoever, obviously'?

Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Haughey#Retirement.2C_t...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Burke_(Irish_politician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lowry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertie_Ahern#Controversy

At least 2 former Irish PMs (Taoiseach) were up to their eyes in it.

I think you should put things in perspective. Ireland is not the least corrupt country in the world, but definitely on the right end of the list. Only Scandinavia, Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is less corrupt. The rest of western Europe as well as the US, Chile, Uruguay and surprisingly Botswana is at about the same level, while every other country is more corrupt.

No country is totally free of corruption. It would be no problem to find cases in Swedish media as well. That you find corruption cases in the media is a good sign, because it indicates society does not accept it.

Corruption is not in any way crippling Irish economy like it does many other places.

(Source: http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ )

The table of countries makes interesting reading...

Am I wrong to find it fishy that Julian Assange wants to hide in Ecuador (rank #120, score 2.7) rather than face a trial in Sweden (rank #4, score 9.3)

Incidentally, a new law was just passed here in Italy to reduce the maximum amount a transaction can legally be made in cash. That is mostly to contrast tax evasion, but the same logic applies to corruption, I guess.

This sounds like an awful law and I would strenuously argue against it if it was proposed in my country.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/italys-cap-on-cash-paym...

The limits are quite low, too.

I have a somewhat unreasonable hatred of banks, which stems from some unfortunate incidents - they basically lost my meager money back when I was starting out and they literally left me with nothing to eat for a few days; some unreasonable fees, awful hours, anti-customer service, etc.

So so far I've made all my large transactions in cash - I bought my car in cash, for example, U$ 9000. It's actually a tiny pile of money.. I'm pragmatic and I do use all banking services, but I'd love for them to be disrupted (and even had a tiny try at them myself befare I despaired at the humungous amount of red tape)

I live in Russia and I never gave a single bribe to anyone. My parents did, but I'm 27 and never been in situation when I needed to bribe anyone.