Hacker News Reader

Comment by tripzilch | Hacker News Reader

What you say seems to logically makes sense, but if you think about it, in the end boils down to "better be quiet or the bullies will make it even worse".

Better be quiet or the bullies will make it even worse. There are so many thoughts I have on this but it all boils down to this.

Do you submit that not talking about something very wrong that is happening right now in your justice system and is supported by it, are you saying that keeping quiet about it is a "better" option than making it open, public and letting people know?

That is exactly the logic of an abused kid. I am sorry.

View on HN

The details of prisoner mistreatment in the US have been widely reported. The issue isn't that people are keeping it quiet; it is that no one who can do anything about it cares or has the political will to change it. Essentially, everyone knows and no one cares. The fact that prison rape jokes are common and acceptable fodder for comedians in the US shows our society's lack of any form of empathy for prisoners.

The complaints that Weev has are the same complaints that prisoners in the federal system have had for decades. Prisoner treatment in the US has been litigated to death with no significant reform. Courts have made explicitly clear that current law effectively allows for barbaric treatment of inmates. Given the virtual impossibility of changing the status quo in the US political system, it is doubtful that our laws will be changed to upgrade the experience of criminals (which is how the cynical US public views such proposals).

So, when it comes to our unyielding government, I suppose every US citizen is an abused child. It is a bully that will not ever go away, and can and does abuse anyone it wants to without consequence. Ironically, this bully is empowered by its own pool of potential victims, most of whom are in favor of all of this right up until the time they become its target - which is becoming increasingly easy to do.

If you've ever been accused of even the smallest crime with the flimsiest of evidence, know that there are multiple salaries at stake once the handcuffs are on:

1. The police who arrested and charged you.

2. The prosecutor who decided to go ahead with the charges.

3. Your lawyer.

4. The judge (if it ever gets there)

5. Yours - you probably lost your job as soon as you were arrested anyway and good luck finding a new one with that on your record.

There is only one person on this list who even cares about your innocence. That's right, you.

Even your lawyer? S/he doesn't really care. For him/her, it's about getting the "best" deal. Because going in front of a judge is like flipping a coin and if you fit any stereotype, you are likely fucked.

Ever had a tax audit? Same idea. No one cares about fairness or justice in the government. They only care about their salary and performance.

The police are given more funding, the more arrests they make. The prosecutor has a full pipeline ensuring his/her job. The judge likely doesn't even need to see a single case in a week.

There is no way out. Talking about it doesn't help because anyone who takes a plea is assumed to be guilty: "Yeah he wasn't found guilty, but he must have done something otherwise why would he take a deal instead of go to trial?"

That is the way the layman thinks. If I was to tell you that I was arrested for walking in a room a police officer told me to walk into, you'd laugh and say I was lying. But it's true. And I had to plea out of it. Because it's my word against his. And I took a plea after he tried to steal $400 from me and burned my watch while I was in custody.

The government is a mechanism for satisfying bullies. Is it any wonder why small government is desired by some?

He wasn't justifying it, he was explaining it. It's the real world out there. If you live in China in 1989, it's better to be quiet than to be dead in Tiananmen Square, and if you're in the prison system it's better to be quiet than to be in solitary.

That is exactly the logic of an abused kid. I am sorry.

This seems like a veiled ad-hominem.

Really? Because to me it sounded like he was describing the type of thinking, not making a statement about the person engaged in that thinking -- I don't even know which person it is supposed to be an ad-homienem attack on.

Not the whole comment, just the last bit.

I'm not sure how, but that was not the intention. It means exactly what it says. I disapprove of the line of reasoning, that's what the comparison was about, not his person. It reminded me of something.

The "I'm sorry" at the end reads as if to imply downandout is (was) an abused kid.

I could see how some people might interpret it as such, but my impression was that tripzilch was aiming for a more general metaphor. The term "stockholm syndrome" might also have been fitting. I interpreted it as a general statement about victims becoming inured to their suffering to the point where they start to defend it.

As someone not previously involved in this thread, it doesn't read that way to me. Abuse is one of many areas where there's a tendency for pretty much everyone to keep quiet, even third parties who see the signs. That's why organizations trying to help devote so much of their time trying to get people to openly talk about things.

More like ad-nation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com