Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[caketastydelish]

Disenfranchised minorities and/or the poor are starting to legitimately feel that the justice system is rigged against them. And that "no one above the law, no one below the law" is feel-good baloney instead of an actual truth.

And who can blame them? I don't know how off-topic this is, but this is what black lives matter is all about. What are the odds that Brock turner would have received this kind of sentence had he been a poor black man with nothing special going on in his life?

Just like the 'affluenza' case where the rich spoiled brat got off free for murdering people (even worse than this one). And these are just a few exceptionally famous, high profile cases. But things similar to this happen all the time. As long as you're white and daddy has money to hire a smooth talker, you have a get out of jail free card.

 

[Vectors]

Disenfranchised minorities and/or the poor are starting to legitimately feel that the justice system is rigged against them. And that "no one above the law, no one below the law" is feel-good baloney instead of an actual truth.

And who can blame them? I don't know how off-topic this is, but this is what black lives matter is all about. What are the odds that Brock turner would have received this kind of sentence had he been a poor black man with nothing special going on in his life?

Just like the 'affluenza' case where the rich spoiled brat got off free for murdering people (even worse than this one). And these are just a few exceptionally famous, high profile cases. But things similar to this happen all the time. As long as you're white and daddy has money to hire a smooth talker, you have a get out of jail free card.

I heard another one recently

Though Robert H. Richards IV was convicted of rape, the wealthy heir to the du Pont family fortune was spared prison by a Delaware court in 2009 because he would "not fare well" behind bars, according to court documents CNN obtained Tuesday.
Richards is a great-grandson of the chemical magnate Irenee du Pont.
He received an eight-year prison sentence in 2009 for raping his toddler daughter, but the sentencing order signed by a Delaware judge said "defendant will not fare well" in prison and the eight years were suspended.
Richards was placed on eight years' probation and ordered to get treatment and register as a sex offender, the documents show. He was also prohibited from having contact with children under 16, including his own children.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-rape-case/

 

[Hygro]

Disenfranchised minorities and/or the poor are starting to legitimately feel that the justice system is rigged against them. And that "no one above the law, no one below the law" is feel-good baloney instead of an actual truth.

And who can blame them? I don't know how off-topic this is, but this is what black lives matter is all about. What are the odds that Brock turner would have received this kind of sentence had he been a poor black man with nothing special going on in his life?

Just like the 'affluenza' case where the rich spoiled brat got off free for murdering people (even worse than this one). And these are just a few exceptionally famous, high profile cases. But things similar to this happen all the time. As long as you're white and daddy has money to hire a smooth talker, you have a get out of jail free card.

Hence the earlier discussion about maybe we should be rethinking how harshly we sentenced the less-enfranchised rather than beefing the harshness on the more.

 

[caketastydelish]

Rape is a serious crime and no one should get a light sentence if it's proven that they did it.

 

[Zelig]

It's interesting how your background means you like to zoom in on white, rural issues (and endlessly rage at those who ignore them - but only minorities who do that kind of raging are officially annoying, of course).

Rural dwellers are a minority.

It's not flagrantly off topic. The reason is that, as Mise says, we need some framework around which to build a "reasonable sentence".

Well the obvious way is to toss the problem into a machine-learning algorithm to optimize for:

1. Maximum rehabilitation.
2. Maximum deterrence.
3. Minimum recidivism.

Treat anything else such as "severity of crime" as irrelevant.

 

[Bootstoots]

Rural dwellers are a minority.

And a disadvantaged one, too, with a variety of social problems related to their marginalization in society. Their rates of suicide and drug overdose, for instance, are way off the charts, especially in Appalachia and the Mountain West. FWIW, there are non-white minorities in some rural areas as well: rural blacks in the Mississippi Delta and the Black Belt of Alabama and Georgia, rural Hispanics throughout South Texas and New Mexico, and Native Americans on reservations scattered throughout the rural West.

I do find it amusing what happens when somebody acts as a SJW for poor whites. That's the one disadvantaged group that much of the current Left wants nothing to do with, and many of them will turn on anyone defending that group and start attacking them as a racist or whatever. That's one reason the GOP and Trump managed to pick up large amounts of support from non-college-educated whites: they're all too aware what educated liberals think of them, so they return the favor.

 

[Mise]

Rural dwellers are a minority.



Well the obvious way is to toss the problem into a machine-learning algorithm to optimize for:

1. Maximum rehabilitation.
2. Maximum deterrence.
3. Minimum recidivism.

Treat anything else such as "severity of crime" as irrelevant.

What if your algorithm found that knowingly and deliberately punishing innocent people once in a while, and telling everyone you've caught a rapist or something, actually min/maxes those things? If they're innocent, then (a) they're already rehabilitated, and (b) they can't become recidivists as they have committed no crime in the first place, so we get the entire benefit of deterrence without any of the cost of actually finding and catching criminals. Or what if it turns out that cruel and unusual punishments are actually really effective at all those things? Would you need to add something else to your algorithm, or at least bound it in some way, in order to make it not only effective, but just?

You might counter that it is unlikely that an algorithm would find those things effective, and I'd agree. But you're still accepting that it is undesirable to have cruel and unusual punishments, or to punish innocent people, even if those things are effective at min/maxing the above. In other words, your algorithm does need to accept some other input, or be bound by some other constraint, or be judged externally according to some metric of "fairness" outside of those 3 variables, in order to make it a just system.

 

[Hygro]

"Maximum rehabilitation" might cover those concerns.

 

[Mise]

"Maximum rehabilitation" might cover those concerns.

It might, it might not, but you're still judging the algorithm by things like whether or not it punishes innocent people, or whether or not it instructs us to hand out cruel or unusual punishments. Things that, in my view, are fundamental to the principle of justice itself.

What I'm saying is that, if the algorithm instructed us to do things that are contrary to our notions of justice, we would think the algorithm flawed, and tweak the parameters or feed it more data until it didn't instruct us to do those things. So we're not actually satisfied with min/maxing those things; we are in reality satisfied if and only if our notions of justice are satisfied. Our algorithm -- which I agree with, by the way -- has to be bounded or guided by some basic principles of justice.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well the obvious way is to toss the problem into a machine-learning algorithm to optimize for:

1. Maximum rehabilitation.
2. Maximum deterrence.
3. Minimum recidivism.

Treat anything else such as "severity of crime" as irrelevant.

I'm not sure. If (hypothetically) you can tweak the parameters such that they will give you one fewer murderer who re-offends, but give you two additional dog-nappers who re-offend, I think you'd want to take that. You'd also want to throw in 'minimum punishment' somewhere - if you can get the same result from five years in jail and twenty, it doesn't make sense to throw down twenty, even if that might give you a slightly lower rate of recidivism. After all, there is the slightly fuzzier additional goal of allowing people, wherever possible, to turn the corner from being 'criminals' to being normal, productive members of society. That 'fuzziness' is why I'm basically sceptical about trying to make complicated, essentially one-off (no two crimes/criminals/victims are the same) decisions by machine. By the time the machine is complicated enough to consider everything fully, you've made a mechanical human brain.

 

[Zelig]

What if your algorithm found that knowingly and deliberately punishing innocent people once in a while, and telling everyone you've caught a rapist or something, actually min/maxes those things? If they're innocent, then (a) they're already rehabilitated, and (b) they can't become recidivists as they have committed no crime in the first place, so we get the entire benefit of deterrence without any of the cost of actually finding and catching criminals. Or what if it turns out that cruel and unusual punishments are actually really effective at all those things? Would you need to add something else to your algorithm, or at least bound it in some way, in order to make it not only effective, but just?

You might counter that it is unlikely that an algorithm would find those things effective, and I'd agree. But you're still accepting that it is undesirable to have cruel and unusual punishments, or to punish innocent people, even if those things are effective at min/maxing the above. In other words, your algorithm does need to accept some other input, or be bound by some other constraint, or be judged externally according to some metric of "fairness" outside of those 3 variables, in order to make it a just system.

Well my assumption was that you'd feed "people deemed guilty" into the algorithm to determine sentence, not other things. Otherwise the machine learning is liable to get confused when you give it potatoes and it gives you bisques as punishment - it's not a general purpose "what do I do with this thing" algorithm.

I don't know that I'd take for granted that we need to avoid cruel and unusual punishment (seems more like a rule of thumb for humans to avoid sub-optimal results), or that we need a just system. Probably worth avoiding cruel and unusual punishment as long as we might accidentally punish innocents.

Might need some bounds to make sure the algorithm doesn't just set out to kill all humans in order to eliminate crime though. Also some tweaking to adjust for short-run vs. long-run optimization.

I'm not sure. If (hypothetically) you can tweak the parameters such that they will give you one fewer murderer who re-offends, but give you two additional dog-nappers who re-offend, I think you'd want to take that. You'd also want to throw in 'minimum punishment' somewhere - if you can get the same result from five years in jail and twenty, it doesn't make sense to throw down twenty, even if that might give you a slightly lower rate of recidivism. After all, there is the slightly fuzzier additional goal of allowing people, wherever possible, to turn the corner from being 'criminals' to being normal, productive members of society. That 'fuzziness' is why I'm basically sceptical about trying to make complicated, essentially one-off (no two crimes/criminals/victims are the same) decisions by machine. By the time the machine is complicated enough to consider everything fully, you've made a mechanical human brain.

Yes, I guess to measure what "min recidivism" and "max deterrence" are, you'd need effective measurements. You can probably free market away the problem by using the net economic damage caused by crimes.

If five years has a lower rate of recidivism, then it's not the same result as twenty years... and the entire point of "maximize rehabilitation" is that someone who gets out after five years and doesn't murder again is more effectively rehabbed than someone who gets out after twenty years and doesn't murder again.

 

[caketastydelish]

Many of the people in jail are simply mentally ill and belong in a psych ward instead of jail. Although stupid things like 'affluenza' don't count as a real mental illness. I'll also say if they commit a horrible crime, they should not be released from the psych ward quickly, otherwise they can use their mental illness as an excuse and commit crimes again if they aren't psychotic at the time.

 

[aelf]

And a disadvantaged one, too, with a variety of social problems related to their marginalization in society. Their rates of suicide and drug overdose, for instance, are way off the charts, especially in Appalachia and the Mountain West. FWIW, there are non-white minorities in some rural areas as well: rural blacks in the Mississippi Delta and the Black Belt of Alabama and Georgia, rural Hispanics throughout South Texas and New Mexico, and Native Americans on reservations scattered throughout the rural West.

I do find it amusing what happens when somebody acts as a SJW for poor whites. That's the one disadvantaged group that much of the current Left wants nothing to do with, and many of them will turn on anyone defending that group and start attacking them as a racist or whatever. That's one reason the GOP and Trump managed to pick up large amounts of support from non-college-educated whites: they're all too aware what educated liberals think of them, so they return the favor.

The SJW for poor whites, however, seem to love picking on other minorities (I'm using this term in a conventional sense to mean mostly other races). You're right when you think about Trump, because the people he attracts are often those. "Hey! Hey!! Hey!!! We're poor and sad here. But those goddamn Mexicans better get out."

The weak in the pack tend to pick on those who are weaker, so I guess I just don't buy the idea that these poor whites are the biggest victims of the system.

When you call them out for it, though, you get labelled as an elitist liberal who is weaponising your intellect and education.

 

[Mise]

@Zelig: If you're saying that it would be unjust to punish people who are not guilty, then I agree. It sounds obvious, but your algorithm doesn't have that in it: it doesn't care if people are actually guilty or not (beyond the extent to which innocent people are already rehabilitated and have no crime to commit again). So the algorithm is already bound by one principle of justice: don't punish innocent people. This isn't a trivial point: if you believe that there are red lines for punishment, e.g. that you shouldn't punish innocent people, then you also have to justify why other putative red lines, such as not punishing people beyond the degree to which they deserve punishment, should not also be considered. Does a thief deserve to have their hand chopped off? Would you tweak your algorithm to prevent that?

The tweaking you described surely has a goal, i.e. you tweak it in order to make it more X or less Y, or to avoid P, Q and R. So if we're judging two algorithms, how do we know which is the better algorithm? You have to judge it against which one produces the more desirable outcome: a more just system.

It's fair enough that you're willing to bite the bullet on cruel and unusual punishments. This actually hits at the crux of the philosophical difference between the two positions: if you're saying that, once we optimise those 3 variables, assign appropriate weightings to each, and maybe put a time dimension in too, whatever punishment regime that comes out of it is acceptable to you -- even if they are cruel and unusual, or if they contravene some other principle of justice that underpins our current thinking -- then you've got an argument that's both consistent and complete: you don't need to account for anything else. But you'd be stuck defending the idea that, in principle, there are basically no red lines for punishment, that flogging or torture are fine as long as they reduce recidivism etc, and the only reason we don't punish innocent people is because that would be an ineffective deterrence etc.

In philosophical terms, the last paragraph describes a pure consequentialist a la Bentham: a view that the consequences of the punishment are the only things that are important in determining what the punishment should be, and what we should punish. The first paragraph describes a "limited" or "qualified" consequentialist: we should punish people if and because it min/maxes those factors as a consequence, but our pursuit of that aim should be constrained or guided by some non-consequentialist principles of justice.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Disenfranchised minorities and/or the poor are starting to legitimately feel that the justice system is rigged against them.

Starting to legitimately feel? The evidence has been there too long for that legitimacy to just be starting, unfortunately. You'd need some gymnastics to avoid a conclusion of bias for some time now.

Well the obvious way is to toss the problem into a machine-learning algorithm to optimize for:

1. Maximum rehabilitation.
2. Maximum deterrence.
3. Minimum recidivism.

That *sounds* reasonable, but is it something we can reasonably do? I'm a little dubious about "tossing x into a machine learning algorithm", what are the details of this machine's design and why do we expect it to do a better job than other algorithms set to maximize though three?

That said, maximizing those seems reasonable...though they'd have to be weighted somehow.

In other words, your algorithm does need to accept some other input, or be bound by some other constraint, or be judged externally according to some metric of "fairness" outside of those 3 variables, in order to make it a just system.

It's still a better start than something haphazard, even if you have to adjust for impractical results.

but our pursuit of that aim should be constrained or guided by some non-consequentialist principles of justice.

I think this is the better way to go, since I don't trust that our setting of the algorithm is flawless. However I would like to see those principles of justice similarly fleshed out, as opposed to being vague "what is right" conceptualizations that can vary in critical details between people.

 

[Bootstoots]

The SJW for poor whites, however, seem to love picking on other minorities (I'm using this term in a conventional sense to mean mostly other races). You're right when you think about Trump, because the people he attracts are often those. "Hey! Hey!! Hey!!! We're poor and sad here. But those goddamn Mexicans better get out."

The weak in the pack tend to pick on those who are weaker, so I guess I just don't buy the idea that these poor whites are the biggest victims of the system.

When you call them out for it, though, you get labelled as an elitist liberal who is weaponising your intellect and education.

They're not the biggest victims of the system by most metrics; rural whites are generally somewhat less poor (outside of parts of Appalachia) than rural Blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans, and somewhat less likely to end up in prison. They do win on suicide and drug overdoses; they've undergone a severe cultural collapse over the past couple of decades, and this has something to do with why "family values" appealed to them so much.

But they're still very much victims of the system, and I reject the notion that we should compare different groups of poor people by race and only support the ones who are doing the worst. In general, I think the way the left has de-emphasized class in favor of race, gender, sexuality, and other identity groups is a deeply problematic one. It's not that those don't matter or shouldn't be talked about - quite the opposite - but it leaves out a large group of genuinely struggling people, increasing their level of racism and inducing them to support demagogues. This is a very dangerous dynamic.

 

[BvBPL]

Some reflections on this matter.

First off, it is noteworthy that nearly everyone is saying that Turner raped his victim. Turner digitally penetrated her. Thirty years ago, most watchers would not called that rape, rather some form of sexual assault. Of course California didn’t consider it rape either, which is why the rape charges against Turner were withdrawn. The near universal use of rape to describe Turner’s actions represents a sea change from more traditional understandings of the crime.

Secondly, absent from the present discussion is that the judge did not issue the sentence in a vacuum. In fact, the judge adopted the sentencing suggest offered by the probation department. The probation department interviewed both Turner and the victim and took into account standardized sentencing objectives. Interestingly, the probation department did note Turner’s remorse about his actions as a modifying factor.

Which brings me to my third observation on remorse. Lexicus and the victim’s sister believe Turner’s has not shown remorse, the court system came to a different conclusion. Turner’s lack of statements of remorse to the public, rather than to the court, may be the difference here. Regardless of what role courtroom expressions of remorse should play in sentencing, I don’t think it is wise to expect people to go around self-flagellating themselves and wearing hairshirts for the benefit of the public. Save that for celebrity pop culture, and let the courts make their own decisions.

Fourthly, as others have previously pointed out, the Turner case reflects the push-pull in determining minimum sentences. Twenty years ago, mandatory minimums were all the rage, now they are out of vogue for many. When mandatory minimums are removed, judicial autonomy in sentencing means judges will choose to give sentences with which people will disagree. That’s a price for judicial autonomy. You can’t give the power of sentencing back to judges in an effort to craft each sentence for every defendant and then anticipate the judges will agree with you down the line.

Fifthly, outrage over the light sentencing ultimately comes from a retributive view of justice. The belief is that Turner must pay for his sins. While many people in general would demur the retributive aspect of justice, the Turner case demonstrates that in particular cases it is still demanded from the public.

Finally, in regard to judicial elections, the 2014 reelection of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch demonstrated to me that voter outrage at justice officials flashes out real quick.

 

[aelf]

They're not the biggest victims of the system by most metrics; rural whites are generally somewhat less poor (outside of parts of Appalachia) than rural Blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans, and somewhat less likely to end up in prison. They do win on suicide and drug overdoses; they've undergone a severe cultural collapse over the past couple of decades, and this has something to do with why "family values" appealed to them so much.

But they're still very much victims of the system, and I reject the notion that we should compare different groups of poor people by race and only support the ones who are doing the worst. In general, I think the way the left has de-emphasized class in favor of race, gender, sexuality, and other identity groups is a deeply problematic one. It's not that those don't matter or shouldn't be talked about - quite the opposite - but it leaves out a large group of genuinely struggling people, increasing their level of racism and inducing them to support demagogues. This is a very dangerous dynamic.

Oh, a class warrior I am.

But I don't think you can convincingly build a case that the racism of poor white people is because the Left has abandoned them in favour of identity politics. I think the racism predated the identity politics, such that the latter is more likely a reaction to the former instead of the other way round. There is a rich tradition of racism and prejudice that has stuck around, and it's still nauseating when poverty is used as a shield to bash people with when the prejudice is talked about.

Also, the cry for attention often entails a 'biggest victim' mentality, particularly when the spectre of affirmative action is raised over and over.

 

[Mise]

@BvBPL: Nice post, fine thoughts.

Retributive justice is still a huuuuge part of our culture. Even the most wide-eyed liberals in the US or UK would baulk at the kind of prisons they have in Norway, for example.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So... if we can have an 8 page thread about a "rapist" who wasn't convicted of rape (and who had the rape charges against him dropped), does that mean the next time we have an abortion thread we can just call that murder without all the tiresome "actually murder has a very specific legal definition so you're wrong" comments? No?