Hacker News Reader

It's obviously a problem with efficiency, resources and incentives. Earlier court dates is reshuffling deck chairs on the titanic, basically after the ship sank.

Since the problem is about labs and technology, and that the state labs declared themselves too busy to do justice, the solution is to provide accountability for those decision-makers. Just to reinforce: the reporter read the label on these field drug tests police were using to charge crimes, and ascertained that they were unfit for this use; yet the state lab which should have been broadcasting this information to the police, not only failed, but refused to test the same articles for months and months, until the case was literally at trial. I know it wouldn't make good press, but this story should be "labs, labs, labs, what in the world is wrong with state labs". You can't fix it with new laws, you need better people in charge of these labs.

Cynical outcome: the system can't handle the case load and instead of scaling, it just refuses to adjudicate any dispute that doesn't involve a noble. Justice between commoners is effectively abandoned as a duty by the state, and left to vigilantism.

This seems implicitly preferable than the beauacratic death of the alternative.

Neither are acceptable, so a third way must be found

I really do appreciate the sentiment, and in a flippant sense I agree, but if we're being real, the potential for harm to innocents, at least in the short/near term, is far greater if society devolves into vigilante mobs; study the Cultural Revolution if you want a realistic picture of some of the failure modes here. On the other hand, a period of chaos might be beneficial in the long term; that's the accelerationist position. Worth considering, but be careful with that mode of thinking. The ends justifying the means has gotten a great many people killed for ends that never manifested.

> it just refuses to adjudicate any dispute that doesn't involve a noble

Oh I got news for you, that already happened.

Anyone that's had their car broken into, bike stolen, or house burgled can tell you that cops won't do anything.

And if you look at serious crimes like homicide, you'll find a clearance rate of about 66%. And that's their self reported clearance rate. It's not successful prosecution. That's just the "we've looked into this enough and have decreed we think this person did it". It's a lot worse if you look at crimes like rape.

The crimes that police actually police are property crimes. Specifically for the nobles. Cops are pretty good at responding to stores being robbed or a crime against a wealthy and well connected person. Steal $1000 from a target and you'll get the book thrown at you. Steal a $1000 bike in front of the same target and cops will shrug and say there's nothing they can do about it.

Your example is flawed because Target has cameras and a security staff watching for shoplifters, and they will detain you as you walk out the door, and they will provide video and eyewitness testimony to the prosecutor. It's a slam dunk case.

The shoplifters who do manage to walk out undetected are of no interest to the police, as there's no basis for a case against them.

Target has security cameras on the outside and staff constantly walking around wrangling carts. That's why I picked this exact example. The evidence is pretty much the same.

At many locations, cars at grocery stores get broken into pretty frequently. Yet it's unusual for cops to ever do anything about those cases. That's not due to a lack of evidence, most grocery stores have cameras throughout the lot.

Hell, it's even less of an excuse today due to the amount of surveillance via flock cameras cities have adopted. Yet cops still don't do a thing about this sort of theft.

Kids picking up carts aren't going to detain anyone. It's the detaining that makes it work. The cops just come pick them up, they have eyewitnesses and video. Easy work.

The security guards that do the actual detaining are often off-duty LEO picking up extra hours. Even Kroger here has an armed officer at the exit door. So they can legally detain you and even arrest you.

True that they don't care about the bike outside. It's not their property.

Cops don't do anything about theft if it does not rise to level of a felony period. Most shoplifters don't get arrested until they hit felony level either.

Reason they get arrested for felony shoplifting is big box stores gift wrap those convictions. They have watched them, tracked exact items they have stolen down to UPC with price, have all the video/spreadsheet and it's all handed to cop/prosecutor on DVD. Those cases are so easy for prosecutor because conviction rate is ~100% and any testifying required is all paid for by big box store.

On bigger note, as society, we don't know how to handle people who have antisocial behavior. I'm not talking big stuff but low-level stuff that still impacts quality of life.

Which is why I picked the $1000 bike. In the majority of states that's beyond the threshold for felony theft.

Because Cops rarely chase people.

Vast majority of time when shoplifters get arrested, it's because they are still at scene of the "crime". AKA, they enter big box store, facial recognition fires and off duty cop there is notified or cops are called. They show up, take the person into custody and get their gift wrap.

Person stealing the bike is long gone before cops are notified.

> On bigger note, as society, we don't know how to handle people who have antisocial behavior. I'm not talking big stuff but low-level stuff that still impacts quality of life.

Singapore has it figured out but nobody here likes to admit it. Fines are broadly ineffective and imprisonment too costly, when what most people really need is to get get smacked hard with a stick a few times.

To be fair, the only valid exchange with Target is to just take things off the shelf and leave.

That's what Target is there for.

They cannot detain you. Cops can detain you, Target staff can insist you have to stay, but they cannot easily and practically bar you from leaving.

They can initiate a citizen's arrest, which would permit them to detain you But if they are wrong, and you've committed no felony, that guard is civilly and criminally liable for false imprisonment -- a pretty serious charge. Most store security are unwilling to risk their own personal necks to protect the company's interest in $20 of shampoo or whatever.

In IL, a "shopkeeper" can definitely detain someone:

> (a) Detention. Any merchant who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed retail theft may detain the person, on or off the premises of a retail mercantile establishment, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time for all or any of the following purposes:

> (1) To request identification;

> (2) To verify such identification;

> (3) To make reasonable inquiry as to whether such person has in his possession unpurchased merchandise and to make reasonable investigation of the ownership of such merchandise;

> (4) To inform a peace officer of the detention of the person and surrender that person to the custody of a peace officer;

> (5) In the case of a minor, to immediately make a reasonable attempt to inform the parents, guardian or other private person interested in the welfare of that minor and, at the merchant's discretion, a peace officer, of this detention and to surrender custody of such minor to such person.

https://ilga.gov/Documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000...

Hah, my phone was stolen and being sold on eBay. I found it because the person who bought it on eBay got my contact info and asked me to unlock the phone, I refused, he demanded a refund from the seller and gave me the seller's info, who lived about ten minutes away from me.

I found my phone. On my phone, and each and every phone I bothered to try, the IMEI failed checksumming because the last two digits had been transposed. Effect: seller looked "legit" (hah), and I couldn't find the listing by searching my actual IMEI.

What was on his page of listings? 100+ phones, most "activation locked", all "no chargers, cables, accessories.

Same with laptops. "No chargers, no cables, no accessories", many "locked".

All ridiculous prices (like $500 for a 'like new' m3 pro MBP).

Gave this info to the police.

They could not care less.

"Well, he probably didn't steal them himself..." (i.e. even they felt pretty sure it was all stolen).

"Isn't it still a crime to knowingly sell stolen property?"

"..."

Could not care less. They had a slam dunk case in mine alone. My phone had been stolen, a police report had been filed with them, and it had shown up in California where someone who bought it on eBay gave them the seller's info, someone who lived near me.

Nope.

This is already happening in Germany.

And the UK.

Burglary? Theft? Biker robbed at the knife point?

The police will try to discourage from reporting that at all, and if you insist you'll get the crime number and promise that nothing will ever be done.

They even refuse to send the patrol that could recover a stolen car despite the owner pinpointing it to the very specific garage based on the GPS tracking.

The police will, however, beat you and arrest if you dare ro protest against killing kids with bombs.

In Maine there is a lack of public defenders and now must release those who are unable to get a trial in a reasonable time: https://observer-me.com/2025/03/12/news/maine-must-release-p...

Waiving rights is weird. It’s well understood that you can’t waive your right not to be a slave, for example. Why should you be able to waive any right? The 6th amendment doesn’t say “unless the accused doesn’t want it.”

Because it's presumably beneficial. It gives your lawyers extra time to prepare for the case or to potentially settle on more favorable terms.

Waiving your right not to be a slave could be beneficial too.

You can become someone's slave if you really want to. The only part that can't be enforced is you can't be coerced to stay.

Plenty of cults have slaves in the US. But because the are willing, nothing is done about it.

Heck, plenty of us companies still rely on slave labor. Look at Aramark's use of prisoners, for example.

That's an explicit carveout in the Constitution allowing slavery as punishment for a crime, not someone waiving their rights.

This reminds me of Futurama:

"You know the worst thing about being a slave? They make you work, but they don't pay you or let you go."

"That's the only thing about being a slave!"

So yeah, you can legally be a slave as long as you leave out the one part that makes it slavery.

If you have a right to both a fair trial and a speedy trial, there should be no trial that does not provide both.

The speed which enables the most fair outcome overall is subject to interpretation. More time to prepare your case is probably good, but the longer the process drags out, the greater portion of your finite life you've lost to the process. Weighing these two factors, with all the other various factors, can't be done objectively for a generalized case that can apply to all real cases, hence giving the accused some amount of say over the matter.

You can waive your right not to be a slave, but no one can gain the right to legally own slaves. The 13th amendment doesn't guarantee the rights of people to live free, it bans the practice of slavery. If you find someone living in slavery you don't arrest them for being a slave, you arrest the person who enslaved them. If someone asks you to do something illegal for them, you are obliged to say no; even if they are the only person directly impacted and they insist they want it, it is not in your authority to grant the request.

You can choose not to exercise any right, that's what makes it a right. Freedom of religion does not imply an obligation to practice religion, freedom of speech does not compel speech, right to bear arms does not imply an obligation to bear arms, etc. Your right to a swift and speedy trial is likewise something you can choose not to exercise. Things would be different if the law was all trials must be swift and speedy.

By that logic, you can waive the right to a speedy trial, but it would be illegal for the state to try you in a non-speedy fashion.

> Your right to a swift and speedy trial is likewise something you can choose not to exercise. Things would be different if the law was all trials must be swift and speedy.

I think there's a difference between waiving a right and not exercising a right.

If I don't own a gun, I'm not waiving my right to own a gun. Waiving my right would be something like, signing up for a registry which makes it actually illegal for me to own a gun, and I could go to prison if I buy one. I can decide not to exercise my right to life by jumping off a bridge, but I can't generally waive my right to life and make it legal for someone else to kill.

In short: you aren't required to exercise your rights, but someone else isn't allowed to violate them regardless of whether you're exercising them or not.

Well if you choose not to exercise your right to a swift and speedy trial you're not signing a registry saying you will never exercise the right in future trials. The word waive does not necessarily imply permanent relinquishment, it only implies the voluntary nature of the relinquishment.

Regardless of the word you choose to use for it, the point is that a swift and speedy trial is a right you have. There's nothing fundamentally illegal about a long trial taking place, you just can't force it upon someone. Slavery on the otherhand is explicitly forbidden. You can waive your right to freedom all day long, it doesn't make slavery any less illegal.

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

As for permitting someone to kill you, this falls very much into the same category of explicitly forbidden. Murder is illegal, and "he was asking for it" is not a valid defense. On the other hand, something like euthanasia, so long as you're in a jurisdiction that does not consider it murder, is permitted. In neither case is your right to live or lack thereof a question.

Your right to life is very much a question when the state kills you. For example, George Floyd's assailants were convicted of violating his civil rights, in addition to the murderer being convicted of murder. And Floyd declaring that he waived his civil rights wouldn't have changed that.

I think we should allow people to declare that they will accept a non-speedy trial. But we should allow people to assert their rights at any time even if they have previously declared they will not. It should not be possible to waive your rights in a way that's binding upon you in the future. The combination of these things would mean that effectively the state has to prosecute you within whatever window is defined as "speedy" because otherwise you could wait until that window expires, then say "whups, changed my mind, you violated my right to a speedy trial, I'm going home now."

Obviously this isn't how things actually work. But how things work and how they should work are often pretty distant, especially when it comes to the justice system. I also have major problems with things like plea bargaining and binding arbitration which are other staples of the American system.

Plea deals were illegal for the majority of America's history.

You could help fix this problem by removing the 'trial' tax. Currently you receive a much lower sentence if you take the plea. If a punishment is truly fair based on the crime the sentence should be required by law to be the same in both cases.

And are still illegal/unused in the vast majority of the rest of the world.

And in most of those jurisdictions where it is a possibility, its use is massively less (less than 1% per capita) and also far more regulated, and subject to review. In the US a judge ostensibly has the power of veto over a plea deal, though in practice this is nearly never exercised unless the miscarriage of justice (in either direction) is so egregious that it can't easily be ignored.

> ... jails cleared out much quicker

Private jails generally don't want this because they are paid by the government for the number of people they hold and many states need the slave labor of the incarcerated.

Another thing that enables the plea bargain system is the existence of bail, which has long been criticized for being a pay-to-win scheme baking inequality into the legal system. It's also seen by other parts of the world as bizarre.

You just...don't hold people before their court date if they're unlikely to harm other people. If they can be released on bail, there's no reason they shouldn't be without the grift.