

Help Thy Neighbor and Go Straight to Prison - nkzednan
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/kristof-help-thy-neighbor-and-go-straight-to-prison.html?smid=pl-share

======
rayiner
The gaps in Kristof's narrative really highlight how he's trying to spin a
story out of this:

1) Why didn't he dispose of the shotgun shells? Surely someone told him that
as a convicted felon he wasn't supposed to possess firearms or ammunition?

2) What led him to be suspected of the burglary?

3) He notes: "Then Young became a suspect in burglaries at storage facilities
and vehicles in the area, and the police searched his home and found the
forgotten shotgun shells as well as _some stolen goods_." He keeps mentioning
the shotgun shells, but never returns to the issue of the stolen goods found
in Young's house.

I agree with the sentiment of the article. Minimum sentence laws are wrong.
Felon in possession laws are wrong. The disabilities applied to convicted
felons after they've served their time are wrong. The U.S. imprisons too many
people, especially in states like California where there is an toxic amalgam
of scared suburbanites, police and prison workers unions, and for-profit
prison companies that have created an unsupportable situation.

BUT: the fact that the author has to resort to presenting a story that's as
much of a mixed bag as Daniel Young's should give you some pause. It should
give you some perspective of the scale of the problem.

Kristof's exaggeration is unnecessary ("totally innocent people sent to jail
just for helping their neighbor!"). I once had to watch a sentencing hearing
for a class. The guy was a scumbag. Drug dealer (not the harmless neighbor kid
who deals pot mind you), had two kids with two different women but didn't
support either of them. One of the moms came to testify that he was trying to
be more of a father to her kid recently and that imprisoning him would destroy
that. The judge handed down I think a 15-20 year sentence based on the raft of
prior enhancements (I think he had assaulted his other baby momma, did some
burglaries, etc). He was not an innocent guy. At the same time, it was
unnecessary to sentence him to 15-20 years. Our sentences are just too damn
long, even if they are mostly applied to scumbags.

~~~
mistercow
>1) Why didn't he dispose of the shotgun shells? Surely someone told him that
as a convicted felon he wasn't supposed to possess firearms or ammunition?

I'm not sure that a "why not?" like that is a gap. I'm also not convinced that
anyone _would_ have told him that. You're generally just supposed to know the
law. Nobody necessarily tells it to you.

~~~
Sauer_Kraut
"You're generally just supposed to know the law. Nobody necessarily tells it
to you."

If no one tells you, then how are you meant to know?

How?

~~~
aeontech
That's been the practice since Roman times.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat)

~~~
Gormo
That was a reasonable principle up to about a century ago, when statutory law
started growing out of control and drowning out other more stable and sensible
sources of law.

When legislatures churn out volumes and volumes of bills every single year, _"
ignorantia juris non excusat" non excusat_.

On top of that, what ever happened to _mens rea_ being a necessary element of
culpability? Why are all of these _malum prohibitum_ laws strict liability
offences?

~~~
aeontech
Kafka wrote something about that ;)

------
hga
Our betters love gun control and don't believe that anyone committing a felony
deserves to possess any, or ammo in this case.

Given how harshly "citizens" with no records are often treated for the same
thing, I have mixed feelings about this case. E.g. any "citizen" of
Massachusetts doing this without having a state Firearms Identification Card
would be going to jail for 1 year, no judicial discretion allowed. One of the
first cases was a teen who borrowed the jacket his father had used for
hunting, which had a leftover shotgun shell or two.

~~~
anigbrowl
I don't think that's about gun control, but about America's hostility to post-
sentence reinstatement - ex-felons also find it hard to vote, have to ID
themselves as ex-felons for the rest of their life on job applications etc.
etc.. At least there's some rational basis for restricting them from owning
firearms if they have a documented history of violence.

~~~
hga
" _At least there 's some rational basis for restricting them from owning
firearms if they have a documented history of violence._"

Not that it doesn't support your thesis, but _all_ felons are banned. Even
those guilty of e.g. environmental "wetlands" (based on law about _navigable_
waters) "crimes" absolutely lacking in _mens rea_ (guilty mind; feel free to
substitute your own favorite ludicrous felony).

~~~
anigbrowl
Many states have a procedure for getting those rights restored. You might find
this article of interest: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-
finding-it-easy-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-
easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all) See also:
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=firearm+rights+res...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=firearm+rights+restoration&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5)
although I've only skimmed this one as my printer's broken.

------
anigbrowl
Surprisingly, this article omits to mention that the DoJ is asking the US
Sentencing commission (and independent statutory body) to dial back mandatory
minimum sentencing: [http://www.justice.gov/criminal/foia/docs/2013annual-
letter-...](http://www.justice.gov/criminal/foia/docs/2013annual-letter-
final-071113.pdf)

------
kaonashi
So a white guy gets targeted by the laws meant for minorities, and all the
sudden the walls are falling down?

~~~
kevingadd
People who write NYT op-eds don't notice when it happens to black people,
sure, but that doesn't mean the author of the linked page only wants the laws
fixed for white people...

He even points out the disproportionate effect on minorities later in the
article; he's not ignorant of it.

------
larrys
Point by point:

"He later found, mixed in among them, seven shotgun shells, and he put them
aside so that his children wouldn’t find them. "

Ok so why did he "put them aside". Why is this taken as a fact anyway?

"“He was trying to help me out,” Mumpower told me. “My husband was a pack rat,
and I was trying to clear things out.” "

Why does this matter at all? The fact that he was helping her and the fact
that he held on to the shells has nothing to do with anything.

"Then Young became a suspect in burglaries at storage facilities and vehicles
in the area, and the police searched his home and found the forgotten shotgun
shells as well as some stolen goods. "

but then:

"It didn’t matter that the local authorities eventually dismissed the burglary
charges. "

So we find out that he was enough of a suspect to be charged with burglary.
(Not a big deal but not the same as "walking through his house they saw
shells" or anything like that. Apparently even though he had committed no
crimes since 1996 there were circumstances that made him a suspect in a
burglary.

"So the federal government, at a time when it is cutting education spending,
is preparing to spend $415,000 over the next 15 years to imprison a man for
innocently possessing seven shotgun shells while trying to help a widow in the
neighborhood. "

What does education spending being cut have to do with anything? What does the
amount they are going to spend have to do with anything? What does the fact
that he was "innocently possessing" have to do with anything? I didn't know
that that mattered and of course where is the proof that he was "innocently
possessing" or is that just a conclusion that Kristof came to?

" With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has
almost one-quarter of the world’s prisoners. "

Why does this matter at all? So other countries don't lock up as many people.
Who cares about a comparison like this other than to try to get people all
emotional about this case (clearly the point quite obviously "ah the injustice
of it all").

"Almost everyone seems to acknowledge that locking up vast numbers of
nonviolent offenders is a waste of money. California devotes $179,400 to keep
a juvenile in detention for a year, and spends less than $10,000 per student
in its schools. "

Who are the "everyone" and why does it matter comparing prison spending to
education? They are two different things. People get locked up in prison when
they break laws. Stick to the argument of the law part don't say "we could
feed 10000 hungry children if we didn't lock this guy up".

"Granted, mass incarceration may have been one factor in reduced crime in the
last couple of decades; there’s mixed evidence."

The NYT "to be sure" phrase. I'm surprised there is only one of these in the
opinion.

" One careful study of 35,000 young offenders by Anna Aizer and Joseph J.
Doyle Jr. reached the startling conclusion that jailing juveniles leads them
to be more likely to commit crimes as adults. "

"One study" \- speaks for itself. So what. One study.

Etc. Etc.

Sure it's an opinion piece. I know. Just pull at the heart strings with a
compelling story and we will all fall for it.

~~~
anigbrowl
I agree with the article's basic premise, but it's very poorly argued. I
suspect that's why it doesn't include a direct reference to the case in
question (US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
1:12-cr-00045-1). I obtained and uploaded the prosecution's sentencing memo,
for reference:
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/159437911/12-cr-00045-36](http://www.scribd.com/doc/159437911/12-cr-00045-36)

It pisses me off that NYT columnists/researchers and journalists in general
are too lazy to spend the 5-10 minutes it requires to make original documents
available to readers.

~~~
greenyoda
The sentencing memo tells a very different story than the Times article, and
suggests that Young didn't "turn his life around". In particular, Young
confessed to the burglary that he was suspected of, and was in possession of
several of the stolen items. (We don't know why those charges were dismissed,
but perhaps it was because the local authorities didn't think it was
worthwhile to pursue a case against someone who'd be in federal prison for a
longer term than he could get for the burglary charges.)

From the sentencing memo:

 _On October 1, and October 3, 2011, the Chattanooga Police Department (“CPD”)
received reports of several burglaries of storage building and vehicles. There
was video surveillance of the areas burglarized and a suspect car was
identified which CPD Detective Tomisek was able to trace to the defendant. On
October 5, 2011, Detective Tomisek went to the defendant’s residence and
received consent to search from the defendant. Detective Tomisek and two other
officers witnessed the defendant sign a written consent to search from for,
among other places, the defendant’s residence.

Detective Tomisek found several stolen items and seven shotgun shells. The
shells were in a box in a chest of drawers next to the defendant’s bed. While
Detective Tomisek was holding the shells in his hand, the defendant
voluntarily stated that they were his. The defendant later gave a taped
statement in which he confessed to the burglaries. The defendant admitted to
having his son help him load the stolen property into his car. The defendant
was a convicted felon at the time he possessed the ammunition having sustained
at least the following felony convictions: four Aggravated Burglaries, three
Burglaries, five Thefts._

------
Retric
Cases like this are one of the reasons pardons exist.

~~~
u2328
Ha, that's only for the rich and powerful who have bought influence with the
Administration.

