Comment by dopamean | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dopamean | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As someone who has been prosecuted for a crime in Florida (it was semi-serious) and has had a few friends enter the pre-trial diversion program there I would like to point a few things out.

Pre-trial diversion isn't cheap if you are of limited means. You have monthly fees you have to pay and you likely have fines and penalties to pay too. A lapse in any of those payments can result in what is called a "writ" being issued. It is essentially a bench warrant for your arrest. I have had this happen to me. It sucks.

Kiera is 14 and so I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is not a drug user. However, if she is she better get clean soon. Florida loves to drug test people in an attempt to violate them on their probation. A failed drug test will have you removed from the diversion program and you will face the original charges in court.

Finally, if the diversion program is completed without incident there are some lasting effects. Even though the charges will ultimately go away there are some things that wont. For instance, a friend of mine recently applied for a job that did not simply ask if he had been convicted of a felony. It asked specifically if he had ever pleaded guilty, nolo contendere, or entered a pre-trial diversion program. Completing the program smoothly does not necessarily mean that this incident will be completely over for her.

Shame on the DA in this county for moving forward in this way. The police were stupid to arrest her in the first place but hey, that's what they do. Proceeding with criminal charges, particularly in a case where no one was hurt and no property was damaged, is completely at the discretion of the DA.

This is bullshit and no one should be pleased with this outcome.

This is disgusting. Is this really how Florida treats its own? I grew up in Southern California and I blew out the circuits on my junior high's science building once. I got a firm talking to, a two-day suspension, and a uncool nickname out of it, but that was it.

It is worse than you think, here is a small excerpt about Florida students: In Florida, students have been arrested for bringing a plastic butter knife to school, throwing an eraser, and drawing a picture of a gun. The eleven-year-old who allegedly brought a plastic butter knife to school was handcuffed, taken to jail, and charged with a third-degree felony. Legislation recently passed unanimously by the Florida Senate could change all that by prohibiting schools from calling the police for nonviolent misdemeanors. "Throw an eraser and they want to call it throwing a deadly missile, which is a felony," said state Sen. Stephen Wise (R-Jacksonville), the senate sponsor of the legislation, which has yet to clear the state house. "When you get into the juvenile justice system everybody thinks your sins are forgiven when you turn 18, and I will assure you that doesn't happen. It's a blemish on your record." http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2009/june09/zero-tolerance...

I am personally aware of two FL elementary cases one where a student was charged for throwing a deadly missle, which was a paper ball, and the other a boy kissed a girl on the school playground and was charged with sexual harassment. I wish I could say I am joking...

Good thing the sea levels are rising..

> I got a firm talking to, a two-day suspension, and a uncool nickname out of it, but that was it.

Was this before, or after, the Columbine school shootings in 1999 and the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001?

Columbine wasn't the first school shooting[0], and 9/11 wasn't the first terrorist attack.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_sec... (The list begins with an incident in 1853)

it changed everything dont you see

(why do you hate america)

Columbine had a major effect on the way US schools deal with violence, threats or even just weird kids.

9/11 had a profound effect on how the US deals with terrorism, threats of terrorism or even just brown people.

Certainly not the first, but probably the events with the most lasting effects.

I realise you haven't directly stated that you support these actions, I would like to make the following comment since it seams to me that you think school shootings and terrorist attacks are valid reasons for this behaviour.

I believe while you are under the impression your government and law enforcement agencies are just doing more to protect you, you are actually relinquishing your freedom in exchange for false hope and allowing your government to nerf the world, and allowing the terrorists to win.

Arresting 11 year olds for bringing a plastic knife to school is ridiculous behaviour and should not be allowed (or encounraged) under the guise of "protecting us from school attacks and terrorists".

(I say 'your' because I am actually a UK citizen. While the ridiculous behaviour of the Americans is not really a concern of mine, I worry that other countries and governments will follow suit. That said, we're not dumb enough to allow rampant legal gun ownership. Sorry.)

Nor did it indirectly state it. It's certainly true that those events resulted in increased sensitivity towards school violence and explosions, so it's worth asking what context the GP's actions happened in-- doesn't imply the sensitivity is a good idea. I don't believe you can read any value judgement out of csense's comment at all. Don't put words in other people's mouths and then lecture them about it.

Edit: clarity

You read so much of your own bias into parent's comment it is not funny. Nowhere is it stated, explicitly or implicitly, that poster believes those events to be valid justifications. His point is that in current American society, those events are used as justifications for restrictive laws, which is undeniably true.

To parrot your sentiment, arresting random girls for wearing fancy dresses around the time of the royal wedding is ridiculous behaviour and should not be allowed (or encouraged) under the guise of "imminent breach of the peace".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/19/arrest-w...

My point is, please drop your anti-American superiority complex. You Brits do plenty of ridiculous things too.

> we're not dumb enough to allow rampant legal gun ownership

I respectfully submit that much of Europe's "enlightenment" in this area (including the UK) is not due to the wisdom and foresight of its leaders, but due to the historical accident that it was already densely populated when firearms were invented.

Widespread gun ownership was a reasonable decision in the US at the colonies' inception, and once it's implemented, the switching costs of changing to restricted ownership permanently become high. I'll elaborate on this:

When the US colonies first started, they had a tiny population trying to hold their own, spread out in a vast wilderness. A gun can be used to defend against criminals, hostile natives, or can be used for hunting. Remember, homes were often miles apart, there were no telephones to dial 911, and the nearest police force might be in one of relatively few cities or forts, tens or hundreds of miles away. Not letting people own weapons would have made the colonists' lives much harder.

Once enough guns are out there, it gets harder and harder to argue that they should be outlawed, because:

(1) A culture of gun ownership develops, which will be upset if you try to take them away

(2) A sizable number of guns will presumably escape the confiscation program and enter the hands of criminals

Add to this, the country's experiences during the war of independence convinced its founders of the benefits of empowering the citizens to rise up against foreign invaders or an oppressive government.

As for why there's not more support for "common-sense regulation," no less a hacker than Eric S. Raymond has recently given a cogent explanation [1] [2].

[1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912

[2] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939

I will say in predominantly minority schools in Florida it has always been like this. If you were a certain race, class, or acamdemic level you were treated differently. A friend of mine (white and ESL, or gifted) threw some acid in my face one time by accident and we had a class discussion on lab safety. Another friend (poor, black, and academically behind) was suspended from school for using the face washer. No class discussion on lab safety in that case.

> It asked specifically if he had ever pleaded guilty, nolo contendere, or entered a pre-trial diversion program. Completing the program smoothly does not necessarily mean that this incident will be completely over for her.

That is shady. It seems like there should be a law preventing them from asking that. The whole point is so the record goes away if it doesn't, might as well fight it in court.

I have seen these questions on forms. Usually phrased as "have you ever been arrested?". Interesting. Even speed tickets have an entry as "date of arrest" even though there is not physical arrest going on. Does that qualify? Can someone not be arrested but charged with a crime, tried and serve jail time? I don't know of all the technicalities.

Also think about this, how do these "background check" companies find out about this supposedly sealed and then expunged record?

It is a little shady. The job application on which my friend encountered that question was actually for a public sector job with the state. I have been asked the same thing for a private sector job. My girlfriend has also been asked the same thing to work for a pre-school. All in Florida.

Edit: I'd like to add that I have moved back to New York (where I am from). My girlfriend is moving in January. Fuck Florida.

> Also think about this, how do these "background check" companies find out about this supposedly sealed and then expunged record?

In a case like this, they would have a whole bunch of news articles to go on. It is likely to show up on Google for quite some time.

In this case it may be a good thing. Anyone who reads this account (anyone reasonable at least) will think. "Bright student with an interest in science trying a fun science experiment." Then they'll hire her, or not, based on her qualifications. At least in a perfect world...

In and ideal world this would happen. Most likely they won't even bother with the context, just see there was an arrest made and filed it under rejected.

I think background checks are usually done at the point when you've decided to make an offer, and take the form of "is there something she's not telling us?". At that point, she will have had a chance to disclose the incident in context, so at least the context is considered.

According to this article[1], the employer has to "have a legal release form completed by the applicant, inform that person of his/her rights, and provide that applicant with a copy of the report, as well as adverse actions communications".

If she's rejected on the back of an incident that's not on her criminal record, but found on Google, she's going to have a pretty good case against the employer.

1: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2012/10/26/the-10-...

In at will employment states this will be close to impossible. Simple loophole -- hire her first, then fire next month due to "urgent restructuring" or "non-performance" good luck with that.

The original worry was not over that the evidence of her actions might be used against her, it was that they might be used without the context, presumably by an algorithm or a mindless HR drone.

If you go through the trouble of hiring someone, you'll have the context. I can't immediately think of a job where it'd reasonable count against her, but it's not inconceivable that a such could exist - and if it did, she'd be wrong to withhold it.

I would just like to say, as someone who has gone through a similar probation program, that dopamean is absolutely correct.

This may be better than a conviction, but Kiera is not out of the woods and this moment of hijinks at age 14 may follow her for life. At least she has popular support and the attention of the media, many young Americans face these laws without that benefit and it is a scary road to walk.

It's already fucked her life. This fiasco is going to be the top result of any future searches potential employers will see. This is just a pure god damn disgrace to humanity and the DA, the cops, fucking EVERYONE involved should be prosecuted for the bullshit they're putting this poor student through. This is not right.

I hope not, I hope that anyone that googles her is as outraged as we are and won't hold it against her. If she is interviewed by right minded people it might even be a nice thing to talk about.

This would have never reached the extent it did if most people were right minded. We are not the norm in America.

But, to find a job you don't need to please most people. You need to find just one "right-minded" employer. Whatever that means.

That statement makes no sense. Most people were not involved in Kiera's case at all, so it cannot possibly reflect on "most people."

True, but I expect that for a number of potential employers, it will increase her chances. Not everyone who goes a Google search on her name and finds things like this will immediately stop consider hiring her. Some will actually think it's positive.

I could, for instance: it's certainly a demonstration that she has intellectual curiosity, which is good in some jobs. In some of the better jobs, actually. These jobs could be a minority, but in the end, you usually have only one job at a time anyway...

Sounds like name-changing time.

Though don't get me wrong, I do think it's absolutely disgusting to punish someone so disproportionately for something that should have been handled by a swift telling off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com