
Shon Hopwood and Kopf’s terrible sentencing instincts - danso
http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/08/08/shon-hopwood-and-kopfs-terrible-sentencing-instincts
======
danso
Here's the comment by the judge's former convict:

[http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/08/08/shon-hopwood-
and-...](http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/08/08/shon-hopwood-and-kopfs-
terrible-sentencing-instincts/#comment-2810)

I feel like I'm in some fantasy alternate reality, where prison rehabilitation
really works, and where the Internet is used for polite, intelligent, and
uplifting discussion.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I was soooo tempted to troll that comment :-)

I am struck however by the agreement by the judge and the ex-robber that 5
years is about the max you should give if hoping to reform someone.

> In the “for what it is worth” category, I have thought > for a long time
> that 60 months was about the maximum > sentence one should impose if you
> were were solely hoping > to make a positive impact on the prisoner.

It would be interesting if we genuinely tried prison as a reform institution.
Stop the violence, stop the drugs, provide real meaningful work, and ... err.

~~~
rayiner
It was intellectually in vogue in the 1960's to treat prison as a reform
institution. Then the 1970's and 1980's happened, and the great cities of the
U.S. dissolved in crime and violence, and those ideas went very much out of
style.

I think it's an unfortunate accident of history more than anything else. When
I was growing up in the 1990's, us suburbanites from Northern Virginia would
never dream of going to D.C. at night. What took the capital of the country
and dragged it down into that sorry state was a combination of economic
issues, the drug war, deteriorating race relations, political conflict, etc.
But whatever the cause was, it happened, and the end result was that we had an
entire generation of people (the boomer generation), that saw the purpose of
the criminal law as keeping the criminal element from spilling out into
civilized society. Hence, the focus was, through the 1990's, "victims rights"
and "tough on crime" not rehabilitation.

~~~
cstross
_whatever the cause was, it happened_

The incarceration rate since the 1960s has remained virtually static; but the
incarcerees are in prison, where previously they would have been detained in
mental asylums:

[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-
normal/201303/pri...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-
normal/201303/prison-or-treatment-the-mentally-ill)

Also note the strong correlation between falling crime rates since 1970 and
the removal of tetraethyl lead as an additive in gasoline:

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2013/01/lead-a...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2013/01/lead-
and-crime)

A punitive prison regime isn't going to cure the sick. What we need is to
swing the focus onto mental health issues -- and yes, this may mean building
new asylums, to replace the punishment regime of prisons with a
medical/treatment oriented system -- and shrink the prison system and re-focus
it on actual _criminals_ rather than unfortunates who hear voices in their
heads.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Huh? Lead causes crime?

~~~
patrickmclaren
Correlates with, does not necessarily cause.

~~~
mcherm
But it is difficult to imagine a mechanism where the lead could be caused by
the crime and easy to imagine one where the crime is caused by the lead. A
separate independent cause that affects crime and lead is easy to imagine, but
if you control for location where people live, or lived when young (which is
largely a measure of poverty) and still saw the correlation between lead and
crime, then I would say that was quite strong evidence that lead poisoning
(which is known to have mental effects) causes behavior patterns that lead to
crime.

~~~
jrochkind1
One causing the other is not the only possibility.

Maybe it's a complete coincidence.

Or maybe (keeping in mind that somoene above suggested the correlation has
been shown in different countries at different times) -- societies that work
to reduce lead also tend to be societies that work on other social issues, and
those other social issues reduce crime. So the lead is correlated to crime
historically, even though neither causes the other directly.

Now, i think the study showing lead/crime correlation is _awfully_
interesting, and I don't dismiss it.

But "correlation does not prove causation" does not just mean "B could have
caused A instead of A causing B." And this is important to understand in order
to evaluate statistical findings properly. There are all sorts of things that
can cause correlation rather than either A or B causing the other -- including
things nobody's actually even thought of yet, but may still be what happened.
And complete coincidence is always possible as well.

~~~
mcherm
> Maybe it's a complete coincidence.

The word "correlated" means that it is NOT just a complete coincidence. One
might not cause the other, they might be correlated because of a separate
factor that interacts with both, but if they are "correlated" then complete
coincidence can be ruled out.

> [...] So the lead is correlated to crime historically, even though neither
> causes the other directly.

Yes, this is what I mean by a third factor affecting both. But lead is a
physical effect -- there are only certain sorts of things that can cause it.
Things like eating lead, breathing lead, or having a diet that causes one to
incorporate less lead into neurons. Thinking happy thoughts cannot change your
lead levels (directly). So there are only certain categories of separate
factors, C, that could be the cause of both A (lead) and B (crime). Where your
name comes in the alphabet might conceivably cause crime, but it simply cannot
cause lead. C, if it exists, must be a physical effect.

That's why I mentioned controlling for location where people live. That is a
likely candidate for C: it is plausible to correlate with crime and it is
possible to correlate with lead. If you control for it and still find an
effect, then either A causes B, B causes A (not reasonable), or there is a
different C'. Perhaps a genetic mutation that increases lead absorption and
also alters brain chemistry to increase propensity to crime? That one is
already a bit of a stretch.

I guess what I am saying is that it is true that correlation does not imply
causation, but that there are reasonableness constraints on the kinds of
interactions one can hypothesize, and after a certain point Occam's razor
implores us to consider causation.

~~~
jrochkind1
_The word "correlated" means that it is NOT just a complete coincidence._

How do you figure? The word 'correlated' means that a relationship has been
shown to be statistically _unlikely_ to have happened purely by chance. It can
never be shown to be _impossible_ however. And there can (and often are)
subtle mistakes in the calculations that mean even the correlation isn't what
one first thought.

And obviously statistics alone can never prove (or rule out)_ a causation, I
think we agree there.

I haven't examined the research under discussion in detail enough to know if
they controlled for all the things you suggest would be good to control for,
etc., I have no idea.

But yeah, in the end we use our judgement as to what statistical correlations
actually mean (such as a causation, and what sort through what mechanism). We
can also do experiments or analysis to try and rule out (or confirm) other
plausible alternate explanations. That's science, yep.

I think we mostly agree. I still object to what I think was an overly facile
implication on your part that a few minutes of thinking of alternate
explanations and deciding they are implausible -- on your own without seeing
what other people's responses to the study in the literature have been,
without an in depth analysis and consideration of the original research -- is
sufficient to determine that there's "quite strong evidence" for correlation.
That's not science.

------
jacquesm
That's not the title.

The title is "Shon Hopwood and Kopf's terrible sentencing instincts".

Choice quote: "Hopwood proves that my sentencing instincts suck. When I sent
him to prison, I would have bet the farm and all the animals that Hopwood
would fail miserably as a productive citizen when he finally got out of
prison. My gut told me that Hopwood was a punk–all mouth, and very little
else. My viscera was wrong."

That's quite a stand-up thing to write.

~~~
Peroni
I believe the title is highlighting something most folk will miss. Hopwood and
Kopf have a fascinating back-and-forth in the comments section.

Whilst the article itself is a good read, the comments (which I would have
otherwise skipped) are fascinating.

~~~
mathattack
Indeed. The title is a little misleading (they agree, rather than debate) but
I wouldn't have gone to the comments without the hint.

~~~
danso
"Debate" generally does mean "argument" (and if on the Internet, a contentious
one), but it also has the connotation of discussion. That said, I do think the
judge asserts a point that the ex-convict rebuts:

Judge Kopf:

> _Hopwood proves that my sentencing instincts suck. When I sent him to
> prison, I would have bet the farm and all the animals that Hopwood would
> fail miserably as a productive citizen when he finally got out of prison. My
> gut told me that Hopwood was a punk–all mouth, and very little else. My
> viscera was wrong_

Hopwood:

> _I wouldn’t say that your sentencing instincts suck. While I meant what I
> said at sentencing, I was hardly the person that could back it up. I was a
> reckless and selfish young man back then. I changed._

And later:

> _But as a judge, you’re constrained by the system we have. I’ve never
> believed that it’s up to judges to fix that system on their own. It requires
> citizens to view criminal justice issues differently (and heck, to view
> prisoners differently), and a Congress to actually pass some legislation._

Hopwood disagrees that the judge's instincts were off, because at the time of
sentencing, the judge was right to see the convict as a "mouth-off".
Furthermore, Hopwood disagrees with the Judge Kopf's implication that he, a
judge, bears the agency and responsibility of harsh sentencing. The system is
not one that judges alone can fix, Hopwood says, and up to the legislature
(and the voters who vote in lawmakers) to effectively reform the system.

That last point is, IMO, an extremely important nuance that is often
overlooked in debates over controversial judicial matters. It's easy to blame
the judge (hence, the focus on the party of the executive who appointed a
particular federal judge) because it's the easiest part of the system to
personify. Much harder to sustain interest in the chain of laws, voter
attitudes, and societal values that puts the buck in the judge's court.

So in other words, it is a debate, albeit a small one that doesn't catch
fire...which makes it so unusual. Also, note the comment thread in which a
Huffington Post reporter tries to get Kopf and Hopwood to participate in an
online talk, and how Judge Kopf declines:
[http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/08/08/shon-hopwood-
and-...](http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/08/08/shon-hopwood-and-kopfs-
terrible-sentencing-instincts/#comment-2820)

------
onetimeonly
Prison works for a very small minority of people who are reasonably
intelligent and curious, but lacking direction or drive. Being incarcerated
for a short time is a hell of a wake-up call, and for me, Shon Hopwood, and a
few others ever, leads you to turn your life around.

For most people it's not about rehabilitation, but deterrence, retribution,
and physically restraining inmates from committing crimes in mainstream
society.

I completely agree with Shon about the impact of long sentences. He says:

 _Five years is about the maximum amount of time for someone to “get it” and
change and create a different life. More than that, and prisoners feel
hopelessness and they think “why bother, I just need to get through this and
go home.” It’s very difficult to “seize the day” in prison and use every day
to prepare for release when you staring at a 10- or 20-year sentence in the
face._

I would add that many people become institutionalised. After a few years in
prison you can become socially important in the community. But on the outside,
you are nobody. The longer you're in there, the less attractive it looks to
reform and try to build a life on the outside.

~~~
RougeFemme
Also helping Hopwood's situation - he had a strong, supportive social network
while in prison and after his release.

------
schoper
Smart white guy gets locked up, manages to make something of himself once his
hormones cool off over the course of a few years. This is not rare. Nor is it
something you can apply to the general prison population. I.e., think of what
the racial makeup of prison would look like 5 years after you started giving
smarter people lesser sentences due to their lower rates of recidivism (and
vice-versa).

The average prison inmate has an IQ of 85. What can you do with that? That is
McDonalds or a government-job level human potential. Further, large swaths of
criminals come from parts of our society that don't avail themselves of a
traditional means of attaining social restraint: marriage. While everyone here
on HN has been solving such important world problems as gay marriage,
America's underclass has more or less stopped marrying. Bizarrely, the
libertine paradise has not ensued.

~~~
bjhoops1
I'm amazed you haven't deleted this post considering it must have been down-
voted into oblivion. Or so I hope.

> government-job level human potential

I'm so fucking sick of hearing (presumably conservative) people badmouth and
dismiss all government employees. Are you contemptuous of the law enforcement
officers who protect? The firefighters who would risk their lives to save your
ass should your home catch fire? The over-worked, underpaid, disrespected
teachers like my wife who slave away educating your [God I hope you don't have
any] children? The National Guard and FEMA workers who would pick you up off
your roof in the event of a flood? The DOT employees who construct the
highways you drive on? The FDA workers who make sure that everything you put
in your mouth is safe and poison-free?

But no, those whole groups of people are to be held in contempt. They're all
incompetent DMV workers unfit for jobs in the private sector.

I'm sorry that I'm kind of losing my shit on here right now. Maybe you don't
deserve that, IDK. I've kind of been rehearsing this diatribe since a few
weeks ago when my uncles went off on this tangent at a family gathering, even
declaring "the only thing a government employee cares about is their
paycheck." I said nothing at the time and regretted it later as the arrogance,
scorn and fucking vacuity of that comment wormed its way further and further
under my skin.

The patently obvious thing to say at that moment would have been something
along the lines of "Oh, and are private sector employees not motivated by
pay?" What a moronic assertion, that public employees, who are frequently
overpaid and certainly not overpaid compared to their private sector
counterparts, are somehow more motivated by financial gain than private sector
employees. I suppose the firefight working for < $30k/year is just greedy.
Same for my wife, who with her Master's in Education pulls in less than a
Junior developer at Innitech. Obviously the only reason they do the work they
do is for the pay. Whereas the VP of Sales at GE does what he does out of
altruism and selflessness.

Ridiculous.

Are there incompetent, unmotivated government employees? Certainly. Are they
more prevalent than disengaged employees in huge private corporations? I'm not
so sure. All I know is, with all the shitting on that gets done en masse on
government employees, someone needs to defend them.

~~~
windsurfer
I don't know about the rest of your argument but I know that police officers
have to take an IQ test in many places, and if their IQ is too high they don't
get the job: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/too-smart-
to-...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/too-smart-to-be-a-good-
cop/)

~~~
craigyk
Maybe that's a wise policy though? I don't think mandatory IQ tests are common
in private industry, but there are plenty of jobs were being "too smart" is a
huge knock. And it makes sense really, smarter people are more prone to
boredom and stirring up trouble if unhappy.

------
chris_wot
That's not what I call a "debate". Both the ex-inmate and the judge largely
agree with each other, unfortunately the judge is constrained by the system.
Pretty inspiring story though!

~~~
onedognight
In this case the judge wasn't constrained by the system and he still agrees
with his 12 year sentence. Where the constraint often comes in is the federal
minimum sentencing guidelines as pointed out by Shon here[1].

 _In the 1990s, Congress passed several get-tough-on-crime mandatory minimum
sentencing bills. One of those laws requires a judge to impose an additional
25-year sentence for anyone convicted of a second or subsequent firearm
charge. Without these laws, Adam may have received the same 12-year sentence I
did. Instead, mandatory minimums allowed prosecutors to transform a crime that
averages a 10-year sentence into life imprisonment._

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/i-got-a-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/i-got-
a-second-chance-after-robbing-banks-and-others-should-too/266567/)

------
mrt0mat0
This is the beautiful of the internet. People always look at the internet and
see the facebooks and the twitters that connect us, and that's cool, but
people don't see the beautiful parts. this is the beautiful.

~~~
bradleysmith
agreed. The judges comment at the end nearly yanked a tear from me; sounds
like an old professor, with a genuine care:

 _Shon,

Savor your third year! Luxuriate,now,in your incredible success.Keep a daily
journal–30 years from now it will amuse you while giving your grandchildren
warm insights into who you were and how you became the distinguished lawyer
that you will become.

Most of all, be happy. All the best.

RGK_

------
nollidge
Where's the "debate"? Seems like they agreed with each other.

------
michaelwww
* > giving smarter people lesser sentences due to their lower rates of recidivism*

Do you have any evidence for this claim? My limited personal experience with
criminals and from what I've read is that many are highly intelligent
individuals who don't care about hurting other people (sociopaths), don't
think the rules apply to them and have a deep and abiding grudge against
society.

------
sophacles
On a side note - the level of discourse in the comments on that site is
surprisingly high. It would be interesting to see how such a level is
achieved.

------
darkchyld
Wow. This is such an amazing story.

