We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter. #InspireChangepic.twitter.com/ENWQP8A0sv
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Actually the reason shit never gets solved is because peaceful discourse doesn't work anymore. Sad but true. That goes for criminal justice reform in black America just as much as it is the destruction of manufacturing and small town white America. As extreme as these populist movements left and right are they're actually the only thing that seems to be working right now.
Or maybe - just maybe - they were listened to.
But a problem without a solution is just bitching.
If I hear peaceful protesters offering truisms and nebulous calls for change - I'm not doing shit. "Racism is bad!! Society must change!!!"
"Uh...yes, racism is bad? And uh...can you please provide me a Constitutional policy proposal I can attempt to work from in addressing your concerns? Because I'll tell ya fellas, I'm not seeing a lot of room here."
This is the kind of things teenagers and secretaries say. "YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO ME!!!!"
"No, as a matter of fact I am listening to you. And I'm not an uncaring idiot asshole who hasn't THOUGHT about these things before you shouted at them at me while calling me a racist. But in my exploration of this issue I think you may be wrong as to the underlying cause. Moreover, I believe the issue is somewhat overstated. However, I have listened and in my endeavors to find a solution that can actually make a dent, I've come up short. Whatchya got?"
And in the rare event you get an answer other than "Common sense measures" thoroughly digest it and conclude it wouldn't be feasible or even equitable for {insert myriad of reasons here} you become a half-dozen different 'ists'.
The desperate need by the disenfranchised (fairly or unfairly) to believe that nobody is listening is a MAJOR impediment to progress. Most of the time they're being listened to. Oftentimes they have very little to say and other times they have very little to suggest. [Reply]
But you're now also walking along the real thin line of the sort of dangerous populism that has destroyed nations and yielded forms of Nationalism that become genocide.
You want to know the REAL problem, Mecca? It's people. That's all it is. It's why I'll never ever call for socialism. Because Socialism will always become ruthless authoritarianism. But the populists uprising is invariably led by those you don't want complete equality - they want to BE the person at the top of the chain and are looking to lead the charge to overthrow a system rather than try to work through to the top of the existing one.
Man is not governed, internally or externally, by angels. And they never will be. Put women in power, minorities in power, ****ing Dogs in power (okay, maybe not labs - they'll always care more about you than they care about themselves) - and those people will tilt the rules in their favor. And the more power you give 'em, the heavier they'll put their thumb on the scale.
Human nature ****s EVERYTHING up. And the only thing that will ever truly change that is the end of desire. Not of NEED mind you, but of mere want. Because even if you make a system where everyone has 3,000 sq ft on an acre with 2 cars and a chicken in every pot - somebody's gonna want 4,000 acres and a steak. Somebody else is gonna want vegan tofu and a tree fort. you'll always have a fight until everyone can get everything they want the instant they want it.
And to speak to that I'll direct you to Marx - who I find fascinating and prescient in a lot of ways. Here's a hint - dude didn't actually dislike capitalism.
As long as there are checks and balances that's fine. There are ideas within socialism that make sense but even many liberals reject the extremes. Which is why progressives never gain much momentum. I will applaud both extremes for tilting the conversation though. As much as I cringe at the defund police movement and any mention of anarchy, it's hard to deny the progress. For the first time in maybe ever police unions are on the defensive, police chiefs are again re-establishing their authority, and there is genuine dialogue about evaluating use of force and training. So while I don't want the extremes, checks and balances is hopefully bringing reforms back to the middle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
People are at heart lazy, greedy and frankly fucked up. If you look at any ecosystem the real cancer in them is humans...
So hey - maybe as individuals we should stop be shitheels.
I have next to zero empathy - it's something I've said here several times. And I understand that's weird and a character flaw so I try to almost self-train on it the same way I've done with being an extrovert to make leadership (and client/court stuff) doable. It'll never come naturally to me but I self-reflect often enough to realize that. At that point I can appear empathetic at least and avoid upsetting someone who's already upset.
So I just try to not be a dick. It won't make me more empathetic, but hey - it'll steer me away from being a shitheel more often.
So that's where I almost always come back to - personal goddamn responsibility. Black or white, rich or poor - DON'T FUCK ON THE FIRST DATE. It ain't a hobby and it's gonna get ya knocked up sooner or later. Don't get knocked up early/on accident and you're orders of magnitude less likely to be in poverty.
Don't sell drugs. The majority of drug prisoners in this country, black or white, rich or poor - are distributors and not users. And of the users, the overwhelming majority are repeat offenders. Y'know what, try to avoid criminal activity outright. You may not like that drugs are illegal, but they are. Even if you aren't selling them - you really probably shouldn't be using them either. And if you do - well lets not pretend like you were just a bystander in however the police interaction went.
So much of this stuff can be answered by personal responsibility. And in so doing, you reduce the N in the stats to incredibly small numbers. And when those small numbers bring the raw discrepancies in outcomes down (because, y'know, math) you can actually start targeting/tailoring policy solutions to them because you've eliminated all the static and signal noise.
There is no overnight fix. And frankly none of the above is going to happen anyway because, as you noted, people are pretty shitty. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Okay - so again, not racism but a socioeconomic problem who's answer does not lay in the legal/law enforcement sphere.
Moreover, how do you intend to answer that? I don't disagree with it, but I damn sure don't have an answer for it either.
Make every public defender a 6-figure employee with a pension? And simultaneously hire twice as many so their caseloads aren't so unreal that nobody wants the job? Cap earnings in the private sector for attorneys?
You want a better building, you have to pay a better contractor. Want better food, spend more money. Want experimental treatments? Pay the freight of getting those experiments over the finish line.
How do you intend to dilute the legal system to the point that laypeople can do for themselves what other people have trained for years to get the skills to do better?
The problem is, as it has always been, an insistence on equity in outcomes. It's an impossible talking point. I will ALWAYS be a better litigator than 99.9% of people off the street. Black or white, rich or poor. And if I'm gonna do it for you - well it's my damn job, I'm gonna expect compensation in some form. I don't see me earning my livelihood as an unreasonable thing.
As you noted, the difference is poor can't hire me and rich can (well, not me - firmly middle class can hire me). That's regardless of skin color - if you can write the check you'll be represented. If you can't...well good luck w/ the Public Defenders Office.
But what's your remedy? We HAVE system in place for the indigent that we utilize to the extent the public is willing to fund it. But the vast vast VAST majority of people it defends are fucking guilty, man. Not just as a term of art, but as in 'they did the thing they were accused of'. Prosecutors don't go to trial unless they're 90% sure they're gonna win and when they're at that threshold, 99% of the time they're right. The public isn't too keen on throwing resources at criminals.
If sentencing is a person's biggest problem - don't be a criminal. Because that's the root cause here. And the squal over mandatory minimums always deflects from that fact. There was a real easy solution for the overwhelming majority that suffered adverse effects from sentencing disparities - don't commit crimes in the first place.
The problem is if you get arrested you are royally screwed.
One thing that would help would be funding the PD's office the same as the PA's office is. In this state last year each public defender is carrying over 240 (320 year before) cases. Missouri ranks 49th in indigent defense.
Do you think there is anyway possible that any of their cases has gotten a fair shake?
edit: Just realized you live in MO too. You prob know these numbers already. [Reply]
Originally Posted by stumppy:
The problem is if you get arrested you are royally screwed.
One thing that would help would be funding the PD's office the same as the PA's office is. In this state last year each public defender is carrying over 240 (320 year before) cases. Missouri ranks 49th in indigent defense.
Do you think there is anyway possible that any of their cases has gotten a fair shake?
So who's gonna fund it? Like I said - the vast majority of those defendants committed the crimes they are accused of. If you want to use this moment of unrest, momentum and yes, guilt, to convince the public that they want to probably TRIPLE the amount of money they're willing to pay into the public defender system - get it done.
Now's the moment. And for someone like Chiefzilla to say "It took riots to get people to pay attention" is garbage since everyone was absolutely aghast by that incident and yes, paying attention to the protesters. This was the moment before people starting setting Targets on fire.
Heavily investing in the Public Defender system has been attempted by many states. There have been ballot measures in Missouri as well. It's the most obvious front-line solution. The public hasn't bought into it because 90% of the people who benefit from it aren't innocent actors here.
Lawyers that become PDs do it because they understand that we have an adversarial system and for an adversarial system to function, both sides have to be on an even footing. They aren't there to defend criminals - they're there to keep the system functioning. They're protecting the entire adversarial system rather than the guilty - even WHEN they're protecting the guilty.
Now ask yourself how many people have ever heard it put to them like that? Have you? And ultimately even if/when you do hear that - if you're 90% likely to never be in said system anyway - do you care? If you do, how much? Because it won't be cheap.
There have NEVER been the barriers to this sort of thing that people claim. They simply don't want to do the spadework and they suck at persuading people. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
So who's gonna fund it? Like I said - the vast majority of those defendants committed the crimes they are accused of. If you want to use this moment of unrest, momentum and yes, guilt, to convince the public that they want to probably TRIPLE the amount of money they're willing to pay into the public defender system - get it done.
Now's the moment. And for someone like Chiefzilla to say "It took riots to get people to pay attention" is garbage since everyone was absolutely aghast by that incident and yes, paying attention to the protesters. This was the moment before people starting setting Targets on fire.
Heavily investing in the Public Defender system has been attempted by many states. There have been ballot measures in Missouri as well. It's the most obvious front-line solution. The public hasn't bought into it because 90% of the people who benefit from it aren't innocent actors here.
Lawyers that become PDs do it because they understand that we have an adversarial system and for an adversarial system to function, both sides have to be on an even footing. They aren't there to defend criminals - they're there to keep the system functioning. They're protecting the entire adversarial system rather than the guilty - even WHEN they're protecting the guilty.
Now ask yourself how many people have ever heard it put to them like that? Have you? And ultimately even if/when you do hear that - if you're 90% likely to never be in said system anyway - do you care? If you do, how much? Because it won't be cheap.
There have NEVER been the barriers to this sort of thing that people claim. They simply don't want to do the spadework and they suck at persuading people.
The way I take your post is that people are guilty until proven innocent.
I'd never thought of the PD's that way. But yea, people get the illusion of a defence when in fact the PD is just part of the system to get them convicted and sentenced.
As far as changing the funding about all I can do is vote.
I think something that would help is changing the way people can bond out of jail. The way it is now if you don't have the cash for bond and an attorney you end up sitting in jail for months and months with absolutely no way to defend yourself. People end up taking whatever plea deal they get offered just to get it over with sooner. Whether they're guilty of the charges or not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
So hey - maybe as individuals we should stop be shitheels.
I have next to zero empathy - it's something I've said here several times. And I understand that's weird and a character flaw so I try to almost self-train on it the same way I've done with being an extrovert to make leadership (and client/court stuff) doable. It'll never come naturally to me but I self-reflect often enough to realize that. At that point I can appear empathetic at least and avoid upsetting someone who's already upset.
So I just try to not be a dick. It won't make me more empathetic, but hey - it'll steer me away from being a shitheel more often.
So that's where I almost always come back to - personal goddamn responsibility. Black or white, rich or poor - DON'T **** ON THE FIRST DATE. It ain't a hobby and it's gonna get ya knocked up sooner or later. Don't get knocked up early/on accident and you're orders of magnitude less likely to be in poverty.
Don't sell drugs. The majority of drug prisoners in this country, black or white, rich or poor - are distributors and not users. And of the users, the overwhelming majority are repeat offenders. Y'know what, try to avoid criminal activity outright. You may not like that drugs are illegal, but they are. Even if you aren't selling them - you really probably shouldn't be using them either. And if you do - well lets not pretend like you were just a bystander in however the police interaction went.
So much of this stuff can be answered by personal responsibility. And in so doing, you reduce the N in the stats to incredibly small numbers. And when those small numbers bring the raw discrepancies in outcomes down (because, y'know, math) you can actually start targeting/tailoring policy solutions to them because you've eliminated all the static and signal noise.
There is no overnight fix. And frankly none of the above is going to happen anyway because, as you noted, people are pretty shitty.
The concept of oppression is that the system adds barriers to bettering oneself. That's the issue. Do you accuse a skilled manufacturing worker of not having personal responsibility because their trade was diminished by American trade practices? Do you blame the opioid addicts whose addiction started because pharma literally got away with murder in how they marketed and distributed their products with the help of corrupt politicians? Many of those addictions starting from over prescription.
So is it the chicken or the egg between personal responsibility and systemic oppression? Why can't it be both? Yes, people need personal responsibility but that starts first with a system they can have confidence in. Maybe America is overall ginormously less personally responsible than the free world. I call bullshit. We arrest more because we always look for the most severe punitive measure. It's hard to take personal responsibility when a small mistake as a teenager strips you of everything and creates insurmountable obstacles to overcoming. Its hard to have hope when the system is so rigged against people who start come from nothing. And how can anyone really know right or wrong when authorities beat you the same way for a minor traffic stop the same way they would a person selling drugs? At what point does that person just slip into the mindset that they're going to get fucked no matter what, so might as well just do what I want?
Thats not to say the solution is easy. Absolutely, social programs haven't done a good enough job in many cases. But that's not a reason to stop things like addiction treatment centers. And it's not like the alternative (expensive jail with horrendous recidivism) is better. But none of that works if the system remains as it is today where these people continue to feel like systemic barriers are totally insurmountable. [Reply]
Originally Posted by stumppy:
The way I take your post is that people are guilty until proven innocent.
I'd never thought of the PD's that way. But yea, people get the illusion of a defence when in fact the PD is just part of the system to get them convicted and sentenced.
As far as changing the funding about all I can do is vote.
I think something that would help is changing the way people can bond out of jail. The way it is now if you don't have the cash for bond and an attorney you end up sitting in jail for months and months with absolutely no way to defend yourself. People end up taking whatever plea deal they get offered just to get it over with sooner. Whether they're guilty of the charges or not.
I think perhaps I failed to make my point.
The point is that the PD doesn't CARE if you're guilty or innocent (in fact, not law). You'll get as good a defense as resources and their competency allows. And that's NECESSARY because if the PD started caring about whether or not you did it, the people that did would be in real trouble.
Their duty is to provide ANY indigent party, guilty or innocent, as zealous a defense as they can. So in working reality, their duty is to the system writ large.
Your presumption of innocence remains. You're still innocent until proven guilty - but the PD system doesn't operate on proving your innocence as much as it operates on simply making as strong an argument as possible for same. If they make that argument and they fail (because, y'know, most of 'em are guilty) they don't see themselves as having failed. They gave you the best defense they could so in the end they performed a necessary task for the health of 'justice' in this country. Everyone got a fair shake and your guy lost? Still a win.
Private defense attorneys, OTOH? Yeah, there job isn't to give everyone a fair shake. It's to get you off. If you lose, so did they. But that means you got an advantage over the state so whatever. All that needs to exist for a functioning justice system is that you get at least as thorough an effort as the state does. That doesn't presently exist but it hasn't for decades and the public hasn't seen fit to remedy that.
Maybe now they will - but torching a gas station didn't improve that position.
As for the bond system - that's what bail-bondsman are for. They front the cash for you and give back some set percentage of it if you come back when you're supposed to. If you don't, they eat it.
If you have a 100,000 cash bond - A) you're probably a pretty bad dude who's been accused of some pretty bad stuff or B) you got there in your helicopter. Moreover, paupers writs will allow you to seek reduced bonds if you're actually clearly indigent instead of just unwilling to pick your freedom over your iphone.
And if you have a bail-bondsman willing to front your 100K, you'll eventually get almost all of that back. They're pretty regulated. If you can't find a bondsman, who's livelihood is taking this risk, to back you - well there's probably a reason for it. You're probably not the greatest risk in the world and these guys have pretty complicated algorithms these days that can calculate that risk for them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The concept of oppression is that the system adds barriers to bettering oneself. That's the issue. Do you accuse a skilled manufacturing worker of not having personal responsibility because their trade was diminished by American trade practices? Do you blame the opioid addicts whose addiction started because pharma literally got away with murder in how they marketed and distributed their products with the help of corrupt politicians? Many of those addictions starting from over prescription.
So is it the chicken or the egg between personal responsibility and systemic oppression? Why can't it be both? Yes, people need personal responsibility but that starts first with a system they can have confidence in. Maybe America is overall ginormously less personally responsible than the free world. I call bullshit. We arrest more because we always look for the most severe punitive measure. It's hard to take personal responsibility when a small mistake as a teenager strips you of everything and creates insurmountable obstacles to overcoming. Its hard to have hope when the system is so rigged against people who start come from nothing. And how can anyone really know right or wrong when authorities beat you the same way for a minor traffic stop the same way they would a person selling drugs? At what point does that person just slip into the mindset that they're going to get fucked no matter what, so might as well just do what I want?
Thats not to say the solution is easy. Absolutely, social programs haven't done a good enough job in many cases. But that's not a reason to stop things like addiction treatment centers. And it's not like the alternative (expensive jail with horrendous recidivism) is better. But none of that works if the system remains as it is today where these people continue to feel like systemic barriers are totally insurmountable.
Notice I said "so many" - I certainly didn't say 'all'. I said whittle down the figures, not eliminate them altogether. Remove the static.
Take care of the things that CAN be addressed by personal responsibility before trying to identify where the actual injustices are. Because it's impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff at this point.
As to your second point - distinguishing between 'America' and 'the free world' is either an inartfully stated point or a fucking absurd one. If you believe the rest of the world is 'ginormously' more just than America, I simply don't know what to tell you.
Lax immigration policies compared to many European nations, massive geographic and cultural distinctions in comparison to other industrialized nations and significantly greater populations than anyone else in the running here all make the job of maintaining equity in the United States exponentially harder than most anywhere else. And yet the systems we have in place do a generally exceptional job of it.
Wanna work in the margins? Do that. But don't sit here and act like the United States has just as easy a task as Sweden (who won't let ANYONE move there if you don't have a damn doctorate or something - incredibly strict) and that places like German or the UK don't have problems of their own in their systems. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
In fairness, the officer thought he was reaching for a gun which just turned out to be his belt. And the suspect was black. And the officer was no doubt aware of the fact that black men are much more likely to kill a police officer than white men given that they grew up in fatherless homes.
If you consider all of the above, it's more understandable.
I'm going to assume you're being facetious. [Reply]
Welp trending story about a young black man that was found dead hanging from a tree in California. It was ruled a suicide, but it’s a trending story now because many are immediately jumping to conclusions.
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
In fairness, the officer thought he was reaching for a gun which just turned out to be his belt. And the suspect was black. And the officer was no doubt aware of the fact that black men are much more likely to kill a police officer than white men given that they grew up in fatherless homes.
If you consider all of the above, it's more understandable.
Well, I mean...the suspect was white. So there's that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I think perhaps I failed to make my point.
The point is that the PD doesn't CARE if you're guilty or innocent (in fact, not law). You'll get as good a defense as resources and their competency allows. And that's NECESSARY because if the PD started caring about whether or not you did it, the people that did would be in real trouble.
Their duty is to provide ANY indigent party, guilty or innocent, as zealous a defense as they can. So in working reality, their duty is to the system writ large.
Your presumption of innocence remains. You're still innocent until proven guilty - but the PD system doesn't operate on proving your innocence as much as it operates on simply making as strong an argument as possible for same. If they make that argument and they fail (because, y'know, most of 'em are guilty) they don't see themselves as having failed. They gave you the best defense they could so in the end they performed a necessary task for the health of 'justice' in this country. Everyone got a fair shake and your guy lost? Still a win.
Private defense attorneys, OTOH? Yeah, there job isn't to give everyone a fair shake. It's to get you off. If you lose, so did they. But that means you got an advantage over the state so whatever. All that needs to exist for a functioning justice system is that you get at least as thorough an effort as the state does. That doesn't presently exist but it hasn't for decades and the public hasn't seen fit to remedy that.
Maybe now they will - but torching a gas station didn't improve that position.
As for the bond system - that's what bail-bondsman are for. They front the cash for you and give back some set percentage of it if you come back when you're supposed to. If you don't, they eat it.
If you have a 100,000 cash bond - A) you're probably a pretty bad dude who's been accused of some pretty bad stuff or B) you got there in your helicopter. Moreover, paupers writs will allow you to seek reduced bonds if you're actually clearly indigent instead of just unwilling to pick your freedom over your iphone.
And if you have a bail-bondsman willing to front your 100K, you'll eventually get almost all of that back. They're pretty regulated. If you can't find a bondsman, who's livelihood is taking this risk, to back you - well there's probably a reason for it. You're probably not the greatest risk in the world and these guys have pretty complicated algorithms these days that can calculate that risk for them.
And we get back to the point we need more funding for the PD's office. If I remember correctly in MO a PD has about one hour to spend on each persons case. One hour? How about we give them enough time to present a competent defense instead of just going with the oh well, they're guilty anyways approach.
It doesn't take much at all for someone to get a $10,000 bond ( which kinda falls in line with the over policing people are protesting). That'll cost you $1000 for a bondsman to bond you out. If you can't get your hands on that $1000 you're screwed. If you're one of the working poor in this country you are really screwed because guess what? You just lost your job because you're still in jail. And the shit storm just snowballs from there. [Reply]
