Hacker News Reader

Comment by al2o3cr | Hacker News Reader

"India is furious that the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was strip-searched and kept in a cell in New York with criminals."

Because wage theft isn't at all like those nasty crimes everybody else does, amirite?

Well, it is slightly different - it's only committable by people who have enough cash to pay wages. So in short: "waddya mean I'm a criminal? I'M RICH!"

View on HN

Well, it's white-collar crime. Even Americans are not entirely happy with white-collar criminals getting thrown in with blue-collar criminals. Not because of classism, just because white-collar criminals are non-violent and it doesn't seem right to throw an embezzler in with cutthroats & muggers.

Cutthroats aren't a thing, and muggers are desperately impoverished. It's classism.

So you feel there's nothing wrong with placing non-violent criminals in with violent criminals?

Being violent is not a choice, you are just forced to be violent by circumstances. /s

I think, to say that they don't belong in the same prison together, would require a certain acceptance of the current state of things as "natural". One would have to accept that the violent conditions of maximum security prisons are an unavoidable situation. And one would also have to accept that even minimum security prison is as equal deterrent to crime as maximum security prison.

Given what we know about prison guard misconduct and how countries like Norway handle their most violent offenders, I don't think it is the case that prison has to be terrible, violent, places. In every case I've ever heard of, compassion and rehabilitation for criminals of all types is the best way to reduce recidivism. Punishment turns out to not be that much of a deterrent for desperate people who think they screwed either way.

And given that minimum security federal penitentiaries have the nickname "Club Fed", it would seem that they don't serve as a very significant deterrent.

The full, correct answer is that the entire prison industrial complex needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Unfortunately, there is too much money in it for that to happen anytime soon in America.

I guess rather than what could be wrong with it, why do you think or feel it's necessary to have them separately placed? Is it that you believe non-violent offenders shouldn't be at risk to violence from violent ones? Do you find there to be a societal benefit to this? To the inmates? I honestly just want to know your take on this.

Well, two reasons:

- It seems to break the rule of punishment matching the crime. I wouldn't say violent criminals "deserve" to be locked in with other violent criminals & get stabbed, but at least the violent ones might be better able to fend for themselves.

- Violent criminals require more security, so if we separate the violent & nonviolent criminals it will be cheaper for the US taxpayer

A jail cell is to hold arrestees, not to punish them.

I'm also finding it weird that in your 'punishment matching the crime' scenario, a burglar who makes off with your TV is treated worse than a pension fund raider who causes a string of suicides. Or even a more run-of-the-mill embezzler who 'only' makes off with 100k.

If burglary is considered a violent crime, I may need to rework my comments.

As for jail v. prison, my apologies. I know the distinction, but so few people make the distinction in their use of the two words I usually ignore the difference.

Hmm, alright. To your first point, the ultimate conclusion to that idea would be a graded prison, where criminals of like-violence are kept together so everyone has the same likelihood of fending themselves, because I can imagine there are those that are charged with assault being significantly less violent than murderers. I wonder if that would also further lessen the cost for your second point.

Edit: And thanks for your response.

Many countries generally don't cage people suspected of crimes - but not convicted or even charged - in a small holding pen similar to those used to hold animals. Others do, but let people with means bribe their way into better conditions...

There are plenty of "blue collar" crimes that are non-violent. Some Americans have a problem mixing white collar and blue collar criminals because they are classist, like thier peers in India. This American thinks there should be one criminal justice system, not a seperate one for the rich (see e.g. affluenza).

Ok, then replace "blue collar" with violent and "white collar" with non-violent in my comment. I don't care which term we use, I just started with "white collar crime" because that's the most common term for financial crime, and "blue collar crime" (though an uncommon phrase) is the antonym.

It does not work like that because there is plenty of crime which is non-violent as well as not financial.

such as?

Any person jailed just for selling drugs.

I don't have a horse in this race, but have you ever been around drug dealers?

Some of them are violent but some are not. It's not too hard to find people who would not use violence an sell wee for example.

Burglary, drug possession, prostitution, some kinds of vandalism, providing a false ID, underage alcohol, urinating in public, driving/hunting/whatever without a license, trespass, conspiracy to commit a crime... even taking a photo of a school in some places.

Yes, I know "white collar" was not the best term, it's just the most commonly used for the type of crime(s) like what she committed. Please, let us not get mired down in nitpicking over the precise term I used hours ago which I already freely admit was the wrong choice. I think it's clear now what I meant.

Calling them non-violent is a mistake given the wake of chaos they leave. Sure, they don't personally swing a knife around - instead, they blow away economies, or at a smaller scale they leave people crying in the street next to their piled-up possessions and repossessed house. That's plenty violent.

I'm not trying to downplay their crimes. They are real, and they can be hugely damaging. But when we're talking about throwing people together in a box, it's an important distinction. Someone who destroyed an economy may be amoral, but they are still pretty unlikely to stab their cellmate as compared to a violent criminal.

What do you consider violent criminals?

Thieves? Drug users? Fences? Smugglers? Forgers? Vandals? Illegal immigrants? Heck, do you think being an arsonist makes you particularly likely to stab a guy in prison?

All of your listed crimes are not violent crimes in themselves, although any and all can commit violence in the course of their "profession" in which case, yes, they are now violent criminals.

What are you saying? Just because they could be violent means they are violent?

There's no profession where someone couldn't act violently.

You folks are trying real hard to put words in my mouth. My parent asked if I thought those were violent crimes; I said no. I also added that if they commit violence in the course of those crimes, then yes they are now violent criminals. Maybe it was unnecessary extra commentary, but do you disagree with either of these statements?

I should try the words-in-mouth game, it seems fun.

Are you trying to say just because they aren't automatically violent, means they can't be violent? How could you say a thing like that? You are such a foolish person.

Man, that was fun.

Oh my god, dude. I honestly didn't understand what you were getting at. I read more into the extra commentary than you intended.

It's worth remembering that a large portion of blue-collar criminals are arrested for possession of, say, a small amount of marijuana. There's a big difference between mugging someone and lighting a joint.

i don't see the problem. crime -> prison. it seems classist to me to not throw them all into the same place

different crimes merit different punishments. Why should length of time be the only variable?

As for classism- a nonviolent field worker should go in the same pen as a nonviolent lawyer.

This brings to mind the famous Johnnie Cochran quote:

"In America you are innocent until proven broke".

In fact it's highly unlikely she was put in a cell with convicted inmates. In all likelihood she was placed with others awaiting arraignment, with an outside possibility that the cell also had pre-trial detainees (i.e. those who were denied or couldn't make bail).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com