> Men like him lived a paradox. The penal system was supposed to shape them up. But its tentacles had become so invasive that the opposite happened. Goffman argues that the system encourages young men to act shady—"I got to move like a shadow," one of Mike's friends told her—because a stable public routine could land them back behind bars.
> Take work. Once, after Mike was released on parole to a halfway house, he found employment at a Taco Bell. But he soon grew fed up with his crowded house and decided to sleep at his girlfriend's. That resulted in a parole violation. When Mike went back to the Taco Bell to pick up his paycheck, two parole officers arrested him. He had to spend another year upstate.
This passage described a poor black man in Philadelphia -- the tip of the iceberg in the story. Today I happened to read about Toronto's mayor and couldn't help compare the two.
Toronto's mayor is on video smoking crack, is drunk and disorderly in public, shoves (assaults?) a grandmother, more, and isn't even removed from office, let alone arrested.
How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? The differences in cities and countries pale in comparison to the differences in treatment between the two people.
EDIT: a couple comments point out the differences between the U.S. and Canada police forces. Fair enough, but as different as Toronto and Philadelphia may be and as different as Canada and the U.S. may be, I can't imagine those differences are lost on the men jailed for smaller infractions, asking "What does it take for a rich, white guy to have to go to jail? ... Why should I bother trying to stay out if nothing I can do can keep me out?" I'm sure we could just look at police on Philadelphia's Main Line, maybe ten minutes away, to find similar effects to avoid the U.S./Canada comparison.
I've noticed many airports have HSBC plastered all over the walls. This has been amusing to me after it came out that HSBC runs the world's largest money laundering operation for drug cartels. It's surreal thinking about how TSA and customs will put away recreational drug users for life but the bank that funds the largest drug cartels operates out in the open. Our system is broken at every level.
Never mind the fundamental fact that if your fine was less than the profit you gained from your illegal activity, you can just write it off as a business expense. Fines have to be punitive or they will have no effect; it's simple math.
I am always in constant bewilderment at how galling some of these corporate crimes are.
How does one even go about planning these?
Do the chief executives [1] [2] sit with the board members and discuss the tradeoffs of turning a blind eye to some hanky-panky stuff going on in Mexico? [3]
I know that they have legal counsels and all. But do they really sit down and weigh the legal ramifications and discuss who shall be thrown under the bus, if things should flare up?
Whether its a Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial [4] or a Maurice R. Greenberg[5] of AIG or even a Calisto Tanzi of Parmalat [6] [7]; do these people even have a good pulse of the prosecution climate of a given administration, the likelihood of getting caught and the possible fines and sentences before they choose to set these financially murky things in motion?
Or are they more like hot-shot, fledgling politicians [8] who think they are invincible and can never possibly get caught, in a scandal?
If anything, the public has come to be struck in awe of these people and their mettle, rather than find their actions, reprobatory.
The slap on the wrist fines and sentences ( if any at all ) that major executives and their houses have received, only reaffirms the notion that one -above all other skills and qualifications - has to be a skilled manipulator of fact, circumstance and public opinion, to head a large and highly profitable enterprise, these days.
After all the cake and watermelon, I am loath to admit that deviousness and calculated deceit has become sexy.
> I know that they have legal counsels and all. But do they really sit down and weigh the legal ramifications and discuss who shall be thrown under the bus, if things should flare up?
I come from a country where this used to be fairly widespread (I don't know if it is anymore; I imagine it is). Owing to my hatred (and no, I'm not using the wrong word; few things give me a more unpleasant, visceral sensation) for large organization and business crap, I wasn't involved in any stuff like this, but I know people who were.
Your supposition is in fact correct: yes, people actually sit and discuss which is actually more profitable and what they can do in order to make sure they don't get caught, either.
It's not usually a board decision, because a large board tends to spread its efforts far wider and, as you involve more people, the danger of news spreading (even for personal image gain) increases. It's usually something driven by two or three of the more important figures, who make sure (via bullshit, oh, sorry, I mean politics) that the rest of the board follows along -- not for free of course.
Things aren't ever written and are cleverly disguised under various contracts that are otherwise legal.
Obviously, this implies that the legislation lays the proper ground for this. Consequently, most of these things are usually done with political support from within the legislative unit.
One day, some forty-fifty years from now people will look back at this age and label it no differently than we now label the age of the robber barons. [1]
Far more importantly than that, they will observe that this was the onset period of a new era of disenfranchisement - somewhat like and some what unlike the eras before - where the individual's capacity to preserve his or her rights and privileges is far outmatched by the corporation's ability to do the same.
It is just so gosh darn enticing to form a corporation of some kind and reap the benefits that such a shelter offers. I don't know how you would form one, if you were, by profession, a X-ray technician or if all you did was make bee wax or farmed Tilapia. It wouldn't be large enough to offer you the legislative perks that a larger outfit would be able to lobby for. However, it sure as heck would be better than going it alone as a private citizen.
The things one - yes you and I, included - could get away with as a corporation that we couldn't as individuals, boggles the mind.
The sheer number of things you could skirt, is nothing short of astounding.
Tax-dodging is the juiciest aspect, of course.
Even blogs do it.
Blogs! Yes, blogs!!
Gawker is organized like an international money-laundering operation. Much of its international revenues are directed through Hungary, where Denton’s mother hails from, and where some of the firm’s techies are located. But that is only part of it. Recently, Salmon reports, the various Gawker operations—Gawker Media LLC, Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology LLC, Gawker Sales LLC—have been restructured to bring them under control of a shell company based in the Cayman Islands, Gawker Media Group Inc.
Why would a relatively small media outfit based in Soho choose to incorporate itself in a Caribbean locale long favored by insider dealers, drug cartels, hedge funds, and other entities with lots of cash they don’t want to advertise? The question virtually answers itself, but for those unversed in the intricacies of international tax avoidance Salmon spells it out: “The result is a company where 130 U.S. employees eat up the lion’s share of the the U.S. revenues, resulting in little if any taxable income, while the international income, the franchise value of the brands, and the value of the technology all stays permanently overseas, untouched by the I.R.S.”[2]
I hope its sooner than forty-fifty years time that we could look back and observe in horror and exclaim at how all this was allowed so flagrantly for so long.
> One day, some forty-fifty years from now people will look back at this age and label it no differently than we now label the age of the robber barons. [1]
It sure is a lot of stuff to keep unentangled in your head without ever so much as jotting it down in your daily planner for fear that it might someday be deemed admissible in court.
I wonder what kind of apps they'd trust to transmit or store information on their iPhones and iPads.
Speaking of technology that executives see fit to use, here's the billionaire owner of Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones, pictured using a flip phone:
Makes me think of all the popular media about the mob where a major plot point is getting hold of the "books" (in which the money from all the dirty business dealings is tallied up).
I'd like to hear more about this. Imagine that I, a sole proprietor, take in $10 million in a year, with deductible expenses of $1 million (if the numbers are rosy, well, it's my scenario ;) ). Imagine that I get hit with a fine of $8.5 million. How am I supposed to pay taxes on my $9 million of income with my $500K cash? Taxes get paid quarterly, so imagine I've already paid them when I get hit with the fine. Will the fine be discharged in my inevitable bankruptcy? Do the courts have to stand in line with my other creditors?
I don't think the fine would apply instantaneously. Also, the money you give back (the not punitive part) is clearly not income, so why would you pay taxes on it?
More like you have to return 6 million you didn't earn. Your profits are now 3 million. You owe taxes on 3 million, and the remaining 2.5 million fine comes out of what's left.
If I owe taxes on $3 million, and I also owe a $2.5 million dollar fine, then I owe a lot more than $3 million total. The fine can't "come out of what's left"; it's bigger than the amount that's left.
>>How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities?
The system is working as designed and as intended.
I think people need to rid themselves of this romantic notion that the government serves "the people" and cops in particular are supposed to protect the innocent. Both of them are ridiculously childish beliefs. The reality is much harsher. Adam Smith laid it out more than two centuries ago in his book Wealth of Nations:
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
> I think people need to rid themselves of this romantic notion that the government serves "the people" and cops in particular are supposed to protect the innocent. Both of them are ridiculously childish beliefs. The reality is much harsher.
That may be so. But if we don't stick to these ideals and try to enforce them again, and again, and again we'll end up for sure in a much worse situation.
What ideals? The institutions' roles? The government's structure and architecture? The people working for the government? The policies being passed?
The ideals you reference are vague. Do you mean Democracy? Surely you don't think hierarchical/technocratic institutions legitimized in the use of force is a necessary arm of Democracy or Liberty?
The idea that any of these institutions commit any morals good is hilarious. There are people, and there is power. Some people commit acts of moral good with power (Some Police, Most Firefighters, Most Medics, Some Teachers, Some Doctors, Some Lawyers, etc..) but many abuse that power to dangerous levels.
But sure. Let's assume the people at the absolute top fight for our interests. I would much rather have a discussion on power/authority, and what the absolute minimum is we need to function.
> Do you mean Democracy? Surely you don't think hierarchical/technocratic institutions legitimized in the use of force is a necessary arm of Democracy or Liberty?
Are you referring to the US democracy or the democracy I have in my european country ? What are you really talking about ?
> [..] But sure. Let's assume the people at the absolute top fight for our interests.
Not what I said. Don't make it look like I mistake people who abuse ideals for those ideals, thank you.
edit: Do you really think life was so much better before humans came up with some institutions to rule themselves ? The outback isn't that far.
PS: of course ideals are vague. We aren't some machines that would just need the right code to run as an "ideal" society.
My point was that power corrupts, and that centralizing that power will only serve to expediate the process.
That said, if you trust your government, then the whole thing is awesome. Central planning leads to tough decisions being made to benefit the collective as a whole.
The problem with this is that I see this collective force being used to subvert the populace putting it's time/money into it. I know you're probably coming from a different perspective, but I'm talking about Western Politics in general.
I understand the goal of trying to make government work, but I just can't see people having any effect on the government's decisions in Britain and the US at present time.
Again, I'm mostly speaking in economical terms. The people do get social progress from time to time with protest and reform. But all economic policy since the labour uprisings of the 20's/30's/40's, the upper most classes have been tearing down all of what our (again general Western politics) ancestors fought for.
Ah, I now understand your outlook on these matters a bit clearer. I do agree with all your points, our governments are failing and betraying us.
Frankly, it would take me thousands of words to express my opinion on the subject but in the end it would just amounts to "I don't know if it can be fixed or if humane nature will prevent us forever to live together".
Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems" as big and complex as societies and economies. I doubt that the results the US is seeing were indeed foreseen and designed by anyone.
And I would like to add that civil governments also protect the poor from the rich. Just look at undemocratic systems to see who needs protection from whom.
> Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems"
Everyone does. The comfort of the loonier conspiracy theories is that someone, somewhere, however evil, has a plan and is in control. And you can blame 'them' and their competence for your misfortune.
Denying that conspiracies exist by people who do have some influence and leverage over systems is the other wrong extreme.
There are plenty of good and evil intentions and plenty of conspiracies. Some of them kind of work out, rarely exactly as intended, and there's also lots of chaos.
I think that romantic notion is just a part of childish naivety. When most people grow up they realise the government doesn't serve the public's interests. However, I don't think we should abandon the romantic notion that the government SHOULD serve the people. It's not entirely clear how to make that happen (or if it is possible), but I think along with social change, technology could help (e.g. crowdsourced political debate, security for whistleblowers, personal surveillance, etc.) So I'm all for hackers being a bit idealistic :)
I agree with the "those who have some property against those who have none at all" part, but in modern times the "rich against the poor" doesn't hold as strongly, given the existence of the middle class.
But in a way isn't it tautological? If you create a system of "private property" obviously it's a system to protect those who have property from those who don't. The same thing is true for systems to protect bodily integrity. Obviously they protect those who are strong from those who are not.
I think the "romantic notion" that people need to lose is that the civil government is some neutral level playing field, even in theory. Giving preference to certain kinds of people is part of the system by design.
> I think people need to rid themselves of this romantic notion that the government serves "the people" and cops in particular are supposed to protect the innocent. Both of them are ridiculously childish beliefs.
They may not be true in the current system, but the problem is with the system, not with those beliefs. The government should serve the people, and the cops should protect the innocent. That they don't, is a sign of corruption in the government and the police force. It needs to be fixed.
> How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities?
Keep in mind that you only consider these to be travesties because you're in the 21st century. You've had the benefit of hundreds of years of philosophy and public discussion, now passed onto you as an obvious truth. That would seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to someone three hundred years ago, who wouldn't.
It would also seem like a perfectly sensible inequality to a lot of people today. These are the same people who will back tough-on-crime bills and political platforms. Not politicians, who are taking up their vote. Find these people. Talk to them. Figure out how to convince them. Show them the human faces and human stories. Explain the systemic problems that are causing this. Bring them over.
They are more likely to be on the "wrong" end. However, for many such people it's the lack of imagination that defines their opinions; they just can't imagine themselves on the short end of the stick.
It's like arguing with Stalin apologists which are now abundant in Russia. "OK, many innocent people were prosecuted. But we can forgive him for that, because he made us a superpower!" - that's how their logic usually goes. When you ask them what if they were among those wrongly prosecuted - would that change their opinion - they are usually genuinely incredulous: "Why would they come for me?"
It's partly that. It's also worth noting how many ways you can be on the wrong end. "I'm not black," is a legitimate form of reasoning on how you wouldn't be hurt by American slavery, but that doesn't actually express how you're still on the short end of the stick because it turns out you're Chinese or Irish.
Canadian here. I know this isn't the point of your post but I feel obliged to make excuses for the fact that Toronto's mayor has not been removed from office. The reason Toronto City Council and the Ontario Provincial Government don't have the power to do this is that under the parliamentary traditions on which the Canadian political system is based, it is inconceivable that a politician could behave in so utterly disgraceful a manner and not have the basic human decency and shame to resign on his own volition.
Also, for what it's worth, Canada's record of judicial fairness with respect to race is not much better than America's, and our Conservative Federal Government has adopted an American-style tough-on-crime stance that has embraced mandatory minimum sentences and so on - some of which has already been declared unconstitutional.
>Toronto's mayor is on video smoking crack, is drunk and disorderly in public, shoves (assaults?) a grandmother, more, and isn't even removed from office, let alone arrested.
How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities?
I couldn't agree with you more.
Every time I see a celebrity, or politician, or insanely rich person breaking the law it disgusts me.
Not only are they not arrested and punished for their crimes as everyone else would be, but the media actually celebrates their flouting the law.
I'm only 31 and I honestly think the system is too far broken. I personally believe we're heading for some massive, massive upheaval.
They are the often singled out for harsh punishment, actually.
See: Celebrities Lohan & Hilton & Martha Stewart, all singled out for harsher punishment than normal.
Politicians Cunningham, Spitzer both given harsher punishment (or more ink) than a typical person would get.
Rich people like the entire Enron board, telecom CEOs, numerous lawyers and execs you've never heard of charged with insider trading, trivial securities infractions, trivial tax infractions, and hounded.
And how many more rich people commit similar crimes and get away scot-free? How many poor minorities get the book thrown at them for far lesser crimes?
"Getting tough" on the rich and powerful is very much the exception rather than the rule, and we play right along with it by eating up headline after headline about Martha Stewart while ignoring the thousands and thousands of people who are rightfully afraid of the police on a day-to-day basis.
By the way, you mention "more ink" as if it's comparable. Being hounded by the media is certainly unpleasant, but it's not any part of the operation of the justice system, or shouldn't be.
>See: Celebrities Lohan & Hilton & Martha Stewart, all singled out for harsher punishment than normal.
Harsher punishment than normal? Than normal what? Black and latino persons, for one, have been shot or went to jail for decades (and/or life) for similar crimes.
"Why should I bother trying to stay out if nothing I can do can keep me out?"
Well, for starters, living by the conditions of the parole... I'm not trying to be too snarky about it, but given the choice of "fed up with a crowded house" and the chance of going back to prison for a year, the choice seems evident.
The question is whether the person really cares. Stuck in a crowded apartment, maybe it was a calculated risk: I can either get away with it, or I'll go back to the big house. In the end, maybe he doesn't feel that he lost that much.
Could you explain the relevant complexity, particularly as it applies to this example?
"It isn't that simple" is an utterly vacuous assertion that, while trivially true, is not even wrong. Of course life is more complicated, something on the order of 10^30 atoms were involved!
Is JonFish85 incorrect that the person in question could have chosen to abide by the terms of his parole?
I think it's a bit like saying all morbidly obese people can simply stop eating food and then they will lose weight. It's technically true, but it's unrealistic to the point of being vacuous in itself.
In this case saying "it isn't that simple" means that we live in a completely different world, and experience completely different aspirations and incentives than the person in the article. You and I might think it simple to abide by the terms of parole if we were ever arrested. However, in reality, the people discussed in the article, black people trapped in poverty, do get drawn towards crime and do find it hard to stick to their parole. If you think that means they are deficient as people, then that is more than a little self serving. You might as well puff yourself up and tell yourself they are poor because they deserve to be poor, not because they were born into it.
The simple truth is, if there is no incentive for a people to participate in mainstream society then it doesn't matter how hard you harry them, they won't participate. If jail seems like an inevitability, and meaningful work an impossibility, then the decision to inconvenience yourself in order to stick to the terms of your parole is not easy.
If you want to modify a person's behaviour through punishment, then bad behaviour has to be punished fairly and then forgiven, followed by a chance to earn rewards through good behaviour. The situation described in the article is one of nothing but punishment, with inevitable results.
Poor black men are not helpless babies unable to make choices for themselves. And if a given individual (regardless of race or income) is a well-muscled 200lb helpless baby with uncontrollable violent impulses, he needs to kept away from the rest of us.
The same is true of all sorts of other people with different experiences, aspirations and incentives - for example, child molesters, serial killers and radical islamic proponents ofhonor killings and FGM (don't google it if you don't know the acronym, you don't want to know).
Asserting that people can't make choices about their life is, in legal terms, asserting their incompetence. Generally speaking, we institutionalize the incompetent. We don't allow them to run around harming themselves and others, sign contracts, and the like.
You might as well puff yourself up and tell yourself they are poor because they deserve to be poor, not because they were born into it.
Lets make this issue slightly less morality-based (striking the word "deserve") and more empirical. What evidence (if any) would convince you that poor people become and stay poor primarily as a result of their own choices?
then bad behaviour has to be punished fairly and then forgiven, followed by a chance to earn rewards through good behaviour.
The man in question was rewarded for good behavior, with parole. Taco Bell further rewarded him for good behavior with money. His bad behavior was punished, and at his next parole hearing further good behavior may be rewarded again. Does he also deserve cash prizes or trophies for not committing crimes?
It's a public policy issue. The guy in the example, from what we know, isn't a threat to society or involved in any crimes. He's working. Yet the system's on him so tightly that a single paperwork slipup from him and he's back to prison. I screw up on paperwork all the time, I'm sympathetic.
Is this a good use of our tax money? Guy got out of prison and has a job, let's ride him with the parole system and put him back through the grinder for a year, see if he's a little harder and more bitter when he gets out, maybe gets into dealing drugs or armed robbery instead of that honest job BS.
We have a big problem in this country with the most prisoners in the world and a pretty bad recidivism rate. We should be looking for opportunities to move those numbers in the right direction, not the wrong direction, and anyone can get behind that for entirely selfish reasons. Would you rather be paying to lock this guy up or having him pay taxes out of his paycheck?
I don't know if it's good policy or not, nor was I arguing anything about that point. I was simply objecting to girvo's logical fallacy, and onetwofiveten's paternalistic assertions of black male incompetence.
As for what the best policy on this matter is, I have no clue. That's a quantitative problem: is P(commits crime | violated parole) x cost of crime + value of deterrence > cost of incarceration? I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I doubt anyone else here does either.
It doesn't take paternalistic assertions of black male incompetence to notice that the environment people come from shapes their options and eventually their decisions. Greenwich connecticut produces more stockbrokers than the marcy projects. Why? We could talk all day about it and probably argue on the particulars but certainly there's something there.
You're missing some upside variables in your calculation, future tax revenue from paychecks and participation in the economy contributing to GDP. And what about future crimes from some kid who got locked up for typical teenage idiocy in a neighborhood with a high arrest quota and comes out of prison with few job options and a thorough criminal education? Locking someone up costs a lot more than the bill for jail time.
The folks a couple of blocks away perceive him as a threat to society: they shoot holes in his car if he comes around, and it seems likely he would return the favor. No, I'd rather he was out and working, but I think it is reasonable he should abide by the conditions of his parole.
Look, I like to look at things as simply and logically as the next developer.
But the entire point of the OP (and sociology in general) is that while personal responsibility is of paramount importance (the guy in question finally got his stuff together and is now on the right side of the law), often there are forces outside of your control, or situations that you can end up despite your best intentions that make things harder than normal.
Look, I doubt I'm going to convince you otherwise, but I used to think the same way you did. Then I ended up on the wrong side of life for a particularly long time. Once you've lived like that, it all starts to make sense. I was lucky, I pulled myself out of it. Others weren't, or couldn't.
Generally speaking, we institutionalize the incompetent. We don't allow them to run around harming themselves and others, sign contracts, and the like.
We also rehabilitate them. Jailing someone for minor infraction does not qualify.
onetwofiveten is not saying that poor black men are unable to make choices. He/she is saying that those choices are made in a context in which "bad" choices -- choices that you and I would not make -- nonetheless seem to make sense to them.
That context is not something we can control, but we as a society do have some impact on it through our public policy choices.
As for the parole violation, I don't think we can evaluate it as "bad behavior" without knowing what restriction he was under and why he was under it. Did it really serve some valid purpose, or was it somewhat arbitrary?
> Could you explain the relevant complexity, particularly as it applies to this example?
Maybe it's simple if all a parolee has to do is to make sure he spends every single night in the halfway home. That might not make a lot of sense, but if that was the _only_ rule he had to follow, it might be simple.
My guess is there are many rules to follow, and a lot of them don't make sense to the individual parolee. A rule like having to spend every single night at the halfway home is there for a reason, but the reason (probably) is not to prevent parolees from seeing their girlfriends. So it's easy for someone to think that they aren't doing anything wrong when spending the night at their girlfriend's, even if they might be aware that they are -- technically -- breaking a rule. They might also (naïvely) expect to be met with some kind of reasonably response to said rule violation.
People have difficulty with rules that don't make sense to them. It's very easy to think: "This can't possibly apply to me in this situation".
Finally, one more thought: I know this is borderline Godwin, but this reminds me of rape and blaming the victim. Like in, it was her own fault for wearing a short dress. This is a case of someone who was the victim of an injustice. Does it really make a lot of sense to talk about what he, the victim, might have done differently?
People have difficulty with rules that don't make sense to them. It's very easy to think: "This can't possibly apply to me in this situation".
When a convicted criminal demonstrates an inability to follow rules they don't agree with, that's an indicator that they might commit additional crimes. For example, "this law against rape can't possibly apply to me in this situation where she was asking for it".
Parole is intended only for criminals with a low probability of committing additional crimes. The burden is on the convicted criminal to demonstrate that they are unlikely to commit new crimes.
Look, if he was convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, I agree he is a victim. But he's a victim of drug laws, not the parole system. The parole system is doing the right thing here.
>"When a convicted criminal demonstrates an inability to follow rules they don't agree with, that's an indicator that they might commit additional crimes."
Since you are so keep on empirical evidence, perhaps you can supply us with the academic articles and/or papers that prove your hypothesis.
This is simply my prior - an assertion I find plausible about the world.
I'm a bit curious, though - out of everyone using priors and reasoning to discuss this story, I'm the only one you've demanded academic articles from. Why is that?
Or you could use your imagination and empathy to try and try to understand how "It isn't that simple". Both are important engineering, design and entrepreneurial skills.
I think we can agree that we don't know the facts about what"the person in question" (mike) chose to do that led to the terms of his parole being violated.
Maybe he was stopped and questioned by police, and couldn't get transportation back to the parole house in time. Maybe he was doing a drug deal our saving a burning bus full of children.
Parole officers aren't required to make exceptions for these things.
Reality its complex, which is why some networking algos have which is why h and failure modes.
He can choose to try, or choose to do his best, but he can't choose to amide by the terms any more than you can choose to catch the bus.
In the article it stated that names and events were changed to protect people from the crimes committed.
Maybe he was breaking the law, maybe he was helping children, maybe he was the victim of a crime like the other fellow who had his face smashed in and had reasons not to go to the hospital.
If I were writing such an article and needed to change the reason why he couldn't go to the halfway house, I would make up another reason why he couldn't go instead of making up the fact that he decided not to go. That's just sloppy journalism.
A rich black guy, Eric Holder, had been found in criminal contempt of Congress (I have a vague idea what it is but it sounds more serious than grandma-showing), he is still free and keeps his job. So it takes as much for a rich white guy to go to jail as takes for a rich black guy to go to jail.
Criminal contempt of Congress carries a jail term between one and twelve months, and a fine between $100 and $1000.
Suffice it to say, it isn't very serious.
Holder is still free because it's unclear from a constitutional standpoint where Congress got the authority to hold anyone in contempt, let alone a member of the Executive.
>Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Holder is free because he's the head of the agency that's supposed to prosecute these kinds of crimes. The only way forward for Congress is to impeach him, and that's not going to happen as long as the Democrats control the Senate.
> Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938
... by Congress, presumably? If so, it seems to me there might be questions about whether Congress can give itself increased authority when it comes to compelling the executive branch.
> who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry"
>... by Congress, presumably? If so, it seems to me there might be questions about whether Congress can give itself increased authority when it comes to compelling the executive branch.
This is settled law. People have gone to jail for contempt of Congress. It's true the branches of government are co-equal, but Congress has a legitimate oversight authority. The problem is Congress doesn't have a way to enforce the law independent of the executive branch, so as I said the way forward is to keep impeaching Attorneys General until they get one who does his job. It's not politically practical without overwhelming public support.
>Hmm. 5th amendment?
Sure, but just like in court the 5th amendment isn't an absolute protection against being force to provide testimony. It only protects you from self-incrimination. If Congress gives you immunity you can be jailed for refusing to testify, just as you can be jailed by a court until you agree to testify under the same circumstances.
I'd say, experimental results show that the canadian way produces safer civil society. But then, I'm completely biased, being Canadian.
Anyhow, I do feel much safer in any Canadian city than in the places I've been to in the US. Just compare crime rates for major cities and you'll see for yourself.
The dangerous US cities in some other border states throw off the perception, but there is a heck of a lot of difference between Detroit and Toronto other than law enforcement!
In general, it's the rust belt and deep south and Mexican border states which skew US homicide rates; the parts which border Canada have similar homicide rates to Canada (again aside from rust best + Illinois).
It's actually a bit funny - states near Canada have similar homicide rates to Canada. States near Mexico have similar homicide rates to Mexico (much lower than Mexico, but higher than some other states). States near the Caribbean have rates like the Caribbean (again much lower than the Caribbean, but again higher than other states).
Not sure how the mid Atlantic states work into that analogy, haha :)
If you compare the population density instead of a map, the situation is different. Québec, British Columbia and Ontario are the most populous areas yet they have to lowest murder rate. Compare that with Texas, California, New York, Florida, ...
My guess would be that law enforcement doesn't do much at all for public safety and the level of violence in any given area is probably driven by economic or other factors.
Not sure what Canada's crack smoking, grandmother-shoving mayors have to do with this. I am sure African warlords do worse, and Russian mafia is in bed with their government. The story is about the US justice system.
Not to downplay the inequalities that exist on both sides of the border, but don't underestimate the differences between the United States and Canada - especially when it comes to things like drug enforcement and the prevalence and nature of ghettos.
> Take work. Once, after Mike was released on parole to a halfway house, he found employment at a Taco Bell. But he soon grew fed up with his crowded house and decided to sleep at his girlfriend's. That resulted in a parole violation. When Mike went back to the Taco Bell to pick up his paycheck, two parole officers arrested him. He had to spend another year upstate.
This passage described a poor black man in Philadelphia -- the tip of the iceberg in the story. Today I happened to read about Toronto's mayor and couldn't help compare the two.
Toronto's mayor is on video smoking crack, is drunk and disorderly in public, shoves (assaults?) a grandmother, more, and isn't even removed from office, let alone arrested.
How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities? The differences in cities and countries pale in comparison to the differences in treatment between the two people.
EDIT: a couple comments point out the differences between the U.S. and Canada police forces. Fair enough, but as different as Toronto and Philadelphia may be and as different as Canada and the U.S. may be, I can't imagine those differences are lost on the men jailed for smaller infractions, asking "What does it take for a rich, white guy to have to go to jail? ... Why should I bother trying to stay out if nothing I can do can keep me out?" I'm sure we could just look at police on Philadelphia's Main Line, maybe ten minutes away, to find similar effects to avoid the U.S./Canada comparison.