A person below asked, "Why is this clearly extremely intelligent individual in prison?" (The comment is dead.)
My father has several degrees, including a doctorate. He is highly intelligent, has an incredible work ethic and is a very kind and considerate person.
He went to prison for 6 months for a minor financial crime, something that was very out of character for him. The judge did not wish to send him to prison (she said that in court) but the prosecutor insisted that the prosecution would appeal any non-custodial sentence. So the judge gave him the minimum 6 months. That custodial sentence ruined my father's life, made him basically unemployable, despite his brilliance and integrity, and ruined my family's life too. Now my parents live in poverty and I have $23 in my bank account, with rent due tomorrow. I expect to be homeless by next week. Not a great situation for somebody with clinical depression.
Intelligent, good people can and do end up in prison and it can ruin lives (and not just the person behind bars, but also the people who love them). Good people do sometimes make terrible mistakes. My experience of this taught me so much. The really hard way.
For anyone who has a family member in prison, or has a similar story to mine, I feel for you.
>>The judge did not wish to send him to prison (she said that in court) but the prosecutor insisted that the prosecution would appeal any non-custodial sentence.
Prosecution optimizing for a kill count is another problem in this system. In case of minor victim less offenses some thing like community services, fines and warnings should be the maximum punishment.
When you punish some one for life for a minor offense, then you are basically telling them they are better off trying their hand at a full time criminal career. Now every one suffers.
Though, do bear in mind you're reading the clearly biased account of the person's son or daughter, who seems to be in denial that their father did anything much wrong in the first place.
If the father worked in finance (which seems somewhat implied here) and got imprisoned for committing a financial crime, it seems reasonable for that to be an ongoing stain on his professional reputation.
I agree with you that my account is biased because I love my father dearly. However, I am not in denial that what he did was wrong. I always knew he had done the wrong thing, and he always took complete responsibility for what he did. He pled guilty and never tried to shift blame to anyone but himself. Like I said, it was out of character for him and something he did during a time of intense difficulty for our family.
This quote strikes me as something quite apropos to your Father's difficulties: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France.
Tacking onto this, once your father's reputation is big enough even a felony conviction won't stop him from being hired at top places.
I've had offers at Google/Apple. I've worked for the Federal Avation Administration. I've been on a leadership team who's raised from A16Z. I've been through IPOs. I've gotten jobs in London and Tokyo.
Sure, it's extra paperwork when you have to explain that you're a felon, but once he's got a reputation, companies will foot the legal bill for him to join.
Hmmm. How society treats people who have made mistakes? How people are treated for mistakes seems to rely on how likable a person is to begin with and how egregious the offense. So, I don’t see that critique of social forgiveness going far in broad terms.
It is a fact, however, that mistakes have consequences the costs of which can be far reaching—financially, socially, for many years to come.
Like any great fall the question is how quickly you can accept change and move forward. Even harder is to accept yourself as society has weighed your ...contributions. (Ie. corruption)
The problem then becomes, of course, how can you rebuild when your resources are also diminished (financial, mentoring, clear thinking, network).
But a really charismatic person who is just fun to be around, they’ll bounce back.
this is to minimize the risk of internal fraud, inventory loss, potential staff issues, etc.
Its not all grim - There are some counterbalances that saavy employers can leverage. I believe some states , such as NJ, will reward employers that hire ex-felons. These amounts are quite large.
Of course, not all employers want to take the time to do an assesment of a potential hire with a criminal background.
Does your dad have the option to get the felony reduced to a misdemeanor post conviction after completing all the terms of probation or get it expunged etc... ?
I'm not sure what the process is for the state you live in.
Everyone deserves to be helped out of poverty, but cases like yours show that the deck is just too stacked even against some of our brightest people. Despite being from a more stable set of circumstances and I can barely manage to get by at times (including now), if that helps. It's tragic that the very best things on this planet are being destroyed as we speak, including people like you and your father.
The father stacked the deck against himself and his family through his criminality. This has nothing to do with being a bright person (though, one that clearly wasn't bright enough to consider the consequences from committing this crime, and like, not do it).
I’d think the felony conviction has a lot more to do with employability, to say nothing of professional consequences for breaching trust (i.e., there are exceptions to asking about criminal history with respect to breaching fiduciary duty).
I am still sympathetic to your position, but I can’t see why a judge would be sympathetic to your father.
You do not know if it was a felony. I doubt it would be, due to the low minimum sentence. Also, how hard is it to see a judge's sympathy for the commenters father? He made a mistake once, and the prosecution wanted to stick it to him. The unfairness of having to jail somebody for whom prison is an out-of-proportional punishment is more than enough to make a judge sympathetic to his plight.
Regarding your clinical depression, I strongly urge you to (with the guidance of a doctor) begin taking Prozac. It changed my life.
You can find a clinic that will take you for $50 or so. It's not the cheapest of options, but it's the single most impactful choice you can make in your situation. If you adhere to your schedule, and if your brain chemistry matches my own (which it might not), you'll start to be "evened out" after 30 days.
You have to take the pill every single day though, without exception. I almost didn't realize the Prozac was effective at all, because the first time I tried it, I was inconsistent.
People seem to hate this advice and reply aggressively each time I give it, but the moment I see "clinical depression" I will continue to give it. If the doctor notices any problems, they will take care of it.
I wish I could recommend this. But the state of depression treatment is so poor, especially for people with $23 in their bank account, that it’s hard to imagine just how bad it is. I could easily see myself being prescribed one of those “horror antidepressants” you hear so much about, which simply exacerbates the situation. It becomes further complicated when you read that various doctors are essentially sponsored, and have some sort of incentive to prescribe certain drugs in preference to others.
All I can do is shout out what worked for me. I wouldn’t have believed it till experiencing it, and I felt like I lost five or so important years of my life by putting it off.
What caught my attention was that they described themselves as clinically depressed. I wouldn’t call myself that anymore, at least not in the way they did. It’s a distant memory. So, there is hope.
Glad to hear it! It’s not a cure-all, but it’s a starting point. Keep up the daily dose and things will feel better in some time.
There is only one side effect I ran into, and while it’s not the happiest of things, it was worth the exchange for me.
If you ever need someone to talk with, DM me on Twitter. I’ll see it within a day at most. And my sleep schedule is erratic, so feel free to shoot me a message at odd hours.
Good luck mate. Things will get better. It’s important to not just believe that, but also internalize it. It helps to repeat it to yourself, even if it seems trite.
I do! I've been there. Most people on HN can't really relate to $23 in the bank and rent due. Trust me, it gets better. In a few years you'll look back on this as a distant memory.
Seriously, if you're ever in a spot where you're feeling on edge or just need someone to vent to, shoot me a message. I'm here anytime!
This person was in jail for killing two teenagers while drunk in his car, something that can happen to anybody, regardless of intelligence, and yield more than 6 months (12 to 30 years in his case).
For your dad, yeah that was a disaster and a sign that there's no small crime sadly.
But as for your situation, it has nothing to do with it (maybe you didn't intend to sound like your dad's mistake created your inability to have more than 23$ in your account).
It so happen that there's a massive amount of people who live in relative difficulty and are not homeless. Wake up and move on. I live my life knowing the baseline is coffee maker at macdonalds, and I'm fine with it. They can recruit people like your dad, no one has a life right to be rich and successful and it's fine to fall down and start again. My dad is rich enough, has a doctorate and a small business, and I spent my entire teenage years decoupling from my parents to be fully independent and ready to weather any storm. Sometimes it means finding girlfriends to share rent, having a weekend job, moving to a smaller city where university is less prestigious but nearly free, etc. When I realised taxes would take most of a meager salary in France with barely any tangible benefit, I burnt half my life savings (3 years of full time job at 2000 euros per month) emigrating to a tax-free jurisdiction...
When did this event happen to you ? When you were too young to be already split from them ? I really hope you wake up, find a stupid job, cut all debt that are not legally mandatory, and bounce back. There's no dirty job, nothing is beneath you and being independent is the only objective you should have. Having this attitude, btw, is 90% of whatever job interview you'll have to do.
How do you know the OP’s situation has nothing to do with their dad’s predicament? Do you realize that social mobility differs tremendously across nations? In many societies, it is not nearly as easy to escape poverty as you seem to imply. Your “baseline” might be making coffee at McDonald’s, and presumably not homeless , but not everyone is as fortunate as you. For all you know, the OP has been living their life in exact accordance with your instructions up to this point.
So let us say it was totally the fathers fault. Shouldn't the fact that he served his sentence and "paid good dues" mean that still be the end of it (btw this should apply to any body having issues off their dues).
Yeah there's a sort of flaw in the fact recruiters assume jail didn't cure you of whatever put you there initially. There's a sort of obvious blame, if you screw up, on them: "you're a moron you took an ex-convict and surprise he misbehaved, you're fired, idiot".
The only thing to do is to have a contingency plan. If I go to jail for a period of time I think of what I'd do: preserve whatever savings I have, make sure my wife is at peace with it and will stay or not take everything I have, that I'm fine working in construction or bag groceries, and that I can live with nothing but books, some water, pasta and a small place because that's most likely the only way the future will look if I make such a mistake.
If you're at peace with it and understand life can turn that way, you're not even scared of jail anymore. I'll live through it and stay satisfied with whatever I find.
Especially if it's a white-collar crime like the one described. Then you just know it comes from a place of inherent dishonesty.
I'd rather hire the guy who got locked up for some raging violence in his younger years and has since mellowed with age, as one does, than some financial crook who will try some dishonest sneakery to fuck me over at the first available opportunity.
> "While he's on bond, he commits a strong-arm robbery down in Monroe stealing a fifth of whiskey," Bredell said, adding that authorities in Monroe eventually dropped those charges because the Washtenaw County case took precedence.
Given how many lives it ruins, I'm amazed at how easily accessible it is. I'm not trying to say we should bring back prohibition or something like that. I just find it fascinating how much socialization is build around drinking something that can have this type of potential.
I don't recall where I heard this, if it was a serious suggestion or a comedian, but the idea was simple. When a person reaches legal drinking age they get a drinking card allowing them to drink and buy alcohol. Not use their driver's license.
Do something illegal that involves alcohol, lose your drinking license for x years to forever. Get caught selling/serving alcohol to someone without a card, that's a 'crime' now.
Additionally, since you are not removing their driver's license as punishment, they can still do things like go to work, take care of kids/family and so on. they just can't drink legally. Obviously lots of issues and ideas, but that is the basic idea.
You're describing the reasons for the opioid epidemic. First, get someone addicted to opiates for pain, then take them away when it's obvious they are, resulting in the heroin epidemic. There's always gonna be a black market for illegal intoxicants, and addiction is a nasty thing.
> This would only function as a nuisance for the responsible drinkers.
How so? Keeping a card is not much of a nuisance...
> It's very easy to make alcohol at home.
Sure and it's easy to find someone else that can get you some, we all know people underage that had no trouble getting alcohol. It's harder though to get though, and let say it's 10% harder, then you just may have saved 10% of the case, much better than doing nothing.
Its hard to ban these things. Make the access to a banned thing too hard and then you get smuggling and contraband, make it easy and then its a joke. The right way to go about banning these things is to put them just outside the reach of ordinary person's living wage.
The think should be accessible, but its supply reduced and price a little high so that people begin to measure the pay off between buying and the pleasure they get from it.
These things happen with Sugar too. The amount of lives ruined by easy access to a addictive thing like sugar is just unbelievable.
> These things happen with Sugar too. The amount of lives ruined by easy access to a addictive thing like sugar is just unbelievable.
The American price of sugar is generally around triple the price on the world market. How high do you think the delta needs to be before smuggling gets serious?
Compare cigarettes, where smuggling -- just from state to state -- is already highly profitable.
The right question here is how affordable it is to Americans. I am not an American, but I have stayed in the US for a few years. But sugary drinks, confectionaries, desserts are affordable and easily accessible. Often inside 'healthy foods' like cereal and fruit juice.
You can walk into a Walmart and Costco and end up buying lots of these things for very cheap.
The tricky part is the companies seem to be making it up on scale. I mean like you can get some one to buy a really big box of Cereal by just having them compare the price of buying a several smaller boxes.
Buy this small packet of lays for $2 Vs buy this large bag of lays worth 10 $2 packets for $6.5. Congrats, you just made the person buying the $2 lays packet stupid.
> How high do you think the delta needs to be before smuggling gets serious?
In my view a good estimate is to look at restaurants, as they are pretty good at figuring out the pain point of how expensive something can be and people will still buy it. If it cost more than that then the price is too high.
I think the issue is more complex than that. Cigarettes are a great example here -- they can be really expensive and people who are already smokers will still buy them.
But there's still a limit to just how heavily you can tax cigarettes, because the higher the taxes are, the more profit smugglers can receive. They'll go out there to bring the price down even if smokers were willing to pay the higher prices, as long as their smuggling costs are covered.
I think it is fair to assume that someone who goes as far as to commit a strong-arm robbery for a fifth of liquor probably has an extremely toxic relationship with alcohol.
It's tragic to see bright young people in prison like this. Travis (the son in this post) is 25. To be in prison since 19 years old, with the earliest release date in 2027 (latest in 2045)... Goodness. This sort of time in jail is what you get for murder in parts of Europe [1].
Anyway, sorry if it's off-topic. Very inspiring what he's up to.
I'm sorry if it comes off as dismissing the plight of others, that certainly wasn't my intention.
I think being sentenced so heavily in one's youth is arguably more tragic because there's an argument to be made that adolescence is a different developmental period [0]. Perhaps sentencing should take this into account (e.g. a different sentencing bracket until ~24?). Also, there's another argument to be made that younger people have had less time to sort themselves out, and a longer time to redeem themselves or make something of themselves (which I think we see here, not to say an elderly person couldn't do that).
With regards to less intelligent people who are imprisoned, I would even say their plight is maybe even more tragic. Less intelligent people probably have faced many more hardships in life and/or had a harder time mounting a strong legal defence (though intelligent people are more likely to abuse drugs [1]).
I suppose this struck me in particular because it's a strong condemnation of the stereotype that prisoners are "certain kinds" of people. The contrast is what made it stand out. Maybe it can serve as an example for those who believe you only end up in prison if you are one of those "certain kinds" of people.
Again, it wasn't a calculated sentiment, it just struck me how absurd getting sentenced to up to 30 years of imprisonment is, especially as a 19 year-old who probably could've ended up at a top university if not for life circumstances.
I also think our justice and prison system is fundamentally flawed and should be reworked, especially for non-violent crimes (which this borders on the edge of).
If someone (non-violent and intelligent though he may be) regularly puts many people at risk of death, and likely will cause many more deaths if left unchecked, what do you propose to do?
There is no tool available in the US (or even in less free societies, for that matter) to reform alcoholics into non-alcoholics, or to deny them an ability to drive.
There definitely are many tools to reform alcoholics into non-alcoholics. There are standard treatment programs like Alcoholics Anonymous [0], there are a number of other rehabilitation programs [1], and there are cutting-edge therapies like psychedelic treatments [2].
It's a despondent (and false) view that alcoholism is untreatable.
Also, as it comes to driving itself, France is a good example. There, police regularly do random spot-checks for drunk drivers [3], and IIRC every driver must necessarily carry a breathalyser [4].
France attemtps to prevent alcoholics from driving. It doesn't actually prevent it. The very first result on Google search: https://www.statista.com/statistics/767979/deaths-road-accid...: "Drunk driving is the leading cause of traffic fatalities in France". So if you don't put someone in jail, they often keep driving and killing. What to do about that?
Similarly, reform programs attempt to reform alcoholics; they often do not succeed.
Jail, however unpleasant it may be, seems to be the only reliable tool to prevent further killing (at least for the duration of the jail term).
A better rule of thumb is how much sympathy can be garnered from a prisoner's class, race, and general appearance.
Take your average white American, for example, and how they regard people in prison.
Upper-middle class, white, looks a bit like them? "What a crying shame, all that wasted potential!" they'll say adoringly, ignoring the fact he killed two kids.
Poverty class, black, looks a bit scary to your average racist white? "That thug got what it deserved, glad it's locked up!" they'll snarl instead, about some guy banged up for the rest of his life for selling a few bags of weed.
1. There are a number of accounts created in the last 30 minutes commenting on this thread, including yours. Did you just happen across HN? If so, welcome!
2. If you read my other comments, you'll see I'm very much in favour of reforming non-violent drug law sentencing. I'm even in favour of clemency for the vast majority of non-violent offenders. I also think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who thinks in the way your strawman/caricature does. The whole point is that draconian prison sentences are a shame and do little do address the core problem (whether it's drug abuse or violent crime).
I also think using phrases like "your average racist white" is unnecessarily provocative, and the phrase itself is inaccurate.
The more bright and young someone is, the more we're inclined to give them another chance. Is this surprising? Is there a society where this is not true? Germany?
How about mourning for the people he actually killed?
Rather than mourning for the killer finding it more difficult to engage in his hobbies, while he experiences the consequences of killing two innocents.
I thought I was more careful with my wording. I do not mourn the killers happiness to do things, just the lost potential to society. Granted I have no idea what potential the two innocents had as well, if they happened to be academics, I would mourn their lost potential as well.
I think it's more a case of some commenters on HN having more empathy with a person who they assume is like them (young, intelligent, privileged) then the people this drunk driver killed.
As a daughter of one of these useless degenerates, I'm more concerned about people who have so little regard toward human life that they'd casually endanger others for little to no reason than those who deliberately plot to kill someone else for personal gain.
Of course, there's overlap in those two groups too...
I'm sorry you had a drunken parent. I commiserate and I have close relatives/friends who have grown up in such households, some who are people like that themselves.
I share sympathy for your viewpoint, but I don't agree with it (and neither do most court systems). But I do respect your difference of opinion.
True, my parent was/is drunken my entire life, with a month or two of sobriety spliced in here and there. That doesn't mean that alcohol somehow magically caused him to be a useless degenerate who has no regard for human life. From what I hear my dad's biggest unexcusable behavior in life came before the alcoholism. His flashes of sobriety that I witnessed growing up didn't magically reveal a good person.
Using alcoholism to excuse any behavior is just wrong, imo. My mom readily used it to justify why my dad beat her and us. That's not okay.
Assholes need to be hold accountable and their actions should not be explained away.
In this case, it seems quite clear that this man is not a "useless degenerate" in the absence of alcohol — in fact he is doing productive, intelligent work.
I believe it is quite apparent that alcohol/ism was the key factor in his terrible decisions. Without alcohol, he isn't behaving like a useless degenerate.
Therefore, we can quite comfortably say that alcohol is an explanation, if not an excuse, for his behaviour.
Does the distinction matter when he chose to drink and drive?Plenty of people choose to not drink and plenty of people choose to drink and not get behind the wheel of the car - seems like his degenerate behavior is pretty ingrained
Both manslaughter and murder count as "killing." Not to mention, the dangers of drunk driving are well-known by now, and he still decided to drive drunk. Actions have consequences, and now two people are dead due to his entirely voluntary actions.
something I've always been curious about and honestly not trying to be edgy. Why is it that with the choice of drunk driving, it is 100% rationally made and bears the full consequence of his actions, but when alcohol is involved in sexual relations, then it is perfectly fine to argue the inability to make sound judgement?
Are you talking about the phenomenon of blaming poor judgment in consensual sex on alcohol? One major difference is that the unintended consequences of consensual sex are usually reversible afterwards, whereas there’s no undoing a death. Another is that alcohol is usually used as a face-saving measure in the first place. Even if both partners are not that drunk, they now have a socially acceptable excuse to have sex without being perceived to be “as” promiscuous as they would be otherwise. The “consequences” here aren’t so great anyways, at most maybe an unwanted pregnancy, which yes is something one should take responsibility for one way or the other anyways.
If you’re talking about alcohol as an excuse for sexual assault, I agree, and I don’t know anyone in my social circle who wouldn’t. If you’re unable to control yourself on alcohol, then don’t drink. If you drink and end up assaulting someone, sexually or not, that’s entirely on you and you should be punished for it. Don’t be a Brock Turner. The legal system may have double standards, but the rest of us shouldn’t.
yeah I suppose I was considering what seemed at the time consensual, and separately sexual assault(which is not ambiguous at all).
It was drilled into us at college and in the military that a woman can not consent if intoxicated, no matter how sober they seem. However, this might just be a zero tolerance policy to better control those without good judgement,
It just always seemed weird to me that two people could drink the same amount, both be engaged and consenting at the time, then the day after still be classified as a sexual assault.
Exactly, sexual predators and molesters shouldn't be given just a slap on the wrist because they had a few drinks first.
Sex crimes in general are routinely downplayed as it is. Something like 99% of reported rapes don't lead to prosecution. And men (it's overwhelming men who rape) know this, and know they can basically get away with it. It's disgraceful.
> Both manslaughter and murder count as "killing."
Your use of quotations seems to imply that you're saying that GP used the word "killing". That's incorrect; the word used was "murder" and, as GP already said, manslaughter is not murder.
I might have misinterpreted your use of quotations, but in that case then I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
With "GP" I meant the original comment, the one by sebmellen. The comment you linked is another misinterpretation of sebmellen's original point. My comment applies as much to that one as it does to the one I replied to.
No, of course not. Our previous President not having taken more decisive action on the COVID pandemic doesn't make 400,000 people any less dead.
But this is, in my opinion, more a tragedy of circumstance than anything else, and that's what our court systems should be working to mediate. This guy, with a strict halfway-house counselling & treatment program, could be solving mathematical problems at a top 10 university right now. Instead, he's locked up in prison for the foreseeable future — what good does that do for the two dead people, for society, or for him?
Prisons should be there to house people who can't be rehabilitated, and to punish those who've done things seriously wrong (which may include him, but I would err to think not).
> He was also not charged with murder, but with “Operating While Intoxicated Causing Death” [1], which I believe is a manslaughter charge.
No, its what it says on the tin, any mapping to common law categories is imperfect; though, if you want to map it to common law homicide categories, murder of the “depraved indifference to human life” type would seem to be a decent fit. It may also, in common law terms, be a fit for felony murder, depending on whether DUI is a felony in the state and circumstances committed (typically, its not for a first offense, but may be for subsequent offenses).
This guy killed two teenagers with his car, because he was wasted. I'm not going to shed any tears for this guy when people have gotten similar sentences for small amounts of certain drugs.
A 12 year sentence is nothing in America, but hopefully his treatment in prison is humane and he has all the access possible to resources for education, health, and eventual contribution to society. It won't be though, of course, since the US prison system has fostered a brutal environment that causes recidivism, mostly arising out of American hatred of the poor and of dark-skinned people.
Yes, I know, but murder is a very different sentence from manslaughter. This was obviously his fault, and I feel terrible for the 2 people who were killed, but it wasn't premeditated or even intentional.
Intent plays a big part in sentencing, so I think there is an important place for understanding and rehabilitation. This situation is tragic all around.
That's precisely the problem, the guy didn't give a shit about anyone around him. Someone who kills someone over a sum of money, OK, that's understandable, but a drunk driver who doesn't give a shit about the hundreds of road users he encounters on the way home, I don't get that.
I don't know if you're being facetious with your Skaphismos comment — if you are I think we'll have a hard time finding any common ground.
We could argue about the details of the crime, but I think your view of punishment is draconian and absurd.
For those who don't know what Skaphismos is, I've translated this from the German Wikipedia:
> In scaphism, the victim was ... enclosed in a prepared, clamshell container, except for the head, hands, and feet, and force-fed inside; according to the accounts, death resulted from infection, tissue destruction due to insect feeding, or physical emaciation (thirst, starvation) and blood loss and/or poisoning from insect bites. [0]
No, the draconian and graphic punishment is intentional - how do you even reason with someone who prizes his own desires above the lives of all others he encounters? This kind needs to be removed from society, expeditiously.
I am a chemist and we take safety extremely seriously - if we didn't property damage and casualties would be a regular occurrence. It's immaterial if you are reckless or clueless, what matters is that you are a danger to everyone else around. Nature doesn't care about your intent.
If you believe "this kind" needs to be removed from society expeditiously, the best option is rehabilitation and treatment. Otherwise, we'll have to kill 14.4 million people in the US alone [0]. There are many treatments that work [1][2][3].
An alcoholic may not have the choice not to drink, but they can choose not to drive while under the influence. We are talking about drunk driving, not alcoholism.
Just to clarify things, your position is that all drunk drivers or only those who kill people while driving drunk should face torture more severe than skaphismos?
And if given the opportunity how many of these people would you be willing to torture?
In this case I believe it's murder vs manslaughter [0]. Otherwise, I believe his MDOC page would reflect a murder charge [1]. Murder and manslaughter are quite notably different in their intent and premeditation [2]. If you accidentally (or half-accidentally) kill someone, that's very different from killing them on purpose.
When I was 19, I didn't have a father or mother to send me books, but I managed to barter with other prisoners to get books to come in from the outside.
My primary focus was computer science rather than mathematics, and even though I didn't have a computer to work with, I wrote out all my programs on paper. Learning was slow, very slow.
When I got out, it took me 8 months to get a computer. I couldn't afford to buy one, so I bought it part by part and built one myself, even though I never had done it before.
Fast forward 20 years, I'm a multimillionaire, successful startup founder, and two IPOs deep. I think my success came from the anger I felt in prison. Nothing could be worse than serving time, I told myself, and it made me very ambitious because of it.
Reading Travis' letter and seeing his DOC number at the bottom of it made me feel all those painful, frustrated moments I had while serving time.
Best of luck to Travis. I will be contacting his father and sending what is allowed.
Sometimes I try to imagine life without prisons. It seems an inexorable part of the human condition: where society exists, punishment exists. It's a bit like trying to imagine all the foods we're missing out on by them not existing; it's easy to imagine a world without tomatoes, for example, and if you invert that thinking, you end up with all the foods we might have enjoyed if they evolved.
Is there any society with no judicial system? Or is it an absolute requirement of any group of people over, say, 10,000?
Revenge killings like that are not as frequent at all, even in cases where perpetrator walks free. Maybe you would do it, but majority of people simply don't.
Revenge killing is good movie plot, but not really the reality of western culture nor was for it reality in past.
Revenge killings are rare because perpetrators often don't walk away and if they do you might not walk away. There areas in my country where there are vendettas spanning generations.
Vendettas spanning generations are because your social status require it, not because it is universal emotional reaction to someone being killed three generations ago. That is about mafia dominance struggle.
Moreover, other phenomenon in low legal justice areas is that if you or your family is not powerful enough, you suck it up and shut up when someone more powerful kill your relative. Or even when equal does that, unless you are connected to one of mafias. The average person when they have relative killed in drunken auto accident wont kill in revenge.
Even criminal groups more often kill for profit or to get rid or witness then pure vengeance.
Earlier societies found it more cost effective to exile or kill people. But the least socially damaging option was to fine people, thereby lowering their social status.
Because lives were so important to the survival of the group, you couldn’t casually discard one.
So someone who murdered someone might pay a severe fine which would lower their social status to the point where they couldn’t have a family etc.
But yes, buying your way out of punishment was normal.
While on a family trip to Iceland, I read a translation of Njal's Saga. Granted, you have to read it in light of the fact that it wasn't written down until a long time after the events happened.
But it describes Iceland's ancient legal system in some detail. If you killed someone, you could be sued, tried, and fined. The fine went to the victim's family. What it looks like happened in practice was that the victim's family wasn't really satisfied that justice was done, and would conduct a revenge killing. Then the money would pass back to the other family again. The practical effect was that the entire saga is like a decades long blood feud, mediated by the court system.
Of course it was fascinating to read, especially since we were visiting places described in the saga, such as Thingvellier, where they met to conduct government and trials.
They had another system, where if you were utterly uncontrollable, they could vote you off the island by making you an outlaw, meaning that anybody could kill you without repercussion.
It existed... in Europe was the 'Vendeta' system... this was in the Balkans (Albania), and parts of Italy.
You steal a sheep, I get something in return. You kill someone, you die... or someone else from your family is going to pay for it...
In some other places it was protecting your honor by duel, ettc...
Pirates were hanged, together with members of the ship that mutinied.
In some places people were exiled/shunned from the community
etc. etc.
As, you see, it was an eye for an eye, where death was a common punishment, then it was financial retribution, or banishment/exile
As you see, a world without prisons was a harsh one. If you were a weak person, without a large family, you were toast.
It seems like an extreme different from the current one. From the post: "In short, without direct access to the internet or fellow researchers [...]" - that seems like a really stupid limitation for someone who wants to be productive. Many countries could start with prisons which are not pure punishment. We even have "open prisons" in a few places.
Once we stop over-punishing, it could be easier to imagine plan for what no-prison world would look like.
It's interesting to consider that if we provided inmates with computers and a solid internet connection, they could potentially find remote work in the new virtual world and have a full-time job.
The sad truth is, if that were the case, prisons would label what they do as prison labor and claim their wages or sell them connectivity and equipment at exorbitant prices. One upside is it would be a solid addition to their resume, but that’s after they find a company willing to hire ex-cons.
We would all be better off if prisons had rehabilitation and reintegration as their raison d'être, but with private prisons wanting to grow, I doubt that’ll happen any time soon.
somewhat related: in Russia, mobile phones are illegal in prisons, but somehow ends up available to some inmates. Sizeable amount of scam calls from "banks" etc are coming from there. Problem isn't solved for many years, of course prison management tolerates if not directly profits from that, but yeah: internet and mobile connectivity will be used for crimes, unless something else in how prisons work would change as well.
There are widely different judicial systems, and many that differ from the method used in the US.
Prison and forced hospitalization can in some places be very similar with the goal being rehabilitation. The purpose is to establish when the person is safe to be released, and to build a program towards that goal. Norway and Sweden is often cited as using those methods heavily, with Sweden getting both praise and criticism because of the fact that sentences can be undetermined in length. A person is released when they are deemed safe, which is a bit subjective. For youths specifically, the punishment is even called youth rehabilitation, even if its located in a prison building.
In contrast here we got a 15 years old kid that got a minimum 12 year sentence. The similarity with a hospital is almost zero. Its questionable if the legal system care if the kid got better or worse from their time spent there.
During the 80s and 90s, Norway used an interesting old approach to youth rehabilitation. Put them on a old sailing boat and put it out to sea for a several months. A kind of floating prison since escape was basically impossible, and the risk of drugs being smuggled in was pretty low. On the boat they could either sit in their room if they wish, or learn team work by helping the crew run the boat. It is difficult to compare that to a regular prison, even if a lot of the aspects of prison is there.
The "generally understood" purpose of prison is for:
retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation
The US skews a more towards the retributive (i.e. "just punishment") than other jurisdictions. For example, the federal sentencing guidelines explicitly prohibit reduced sentences in order to facilitate rehabilitation (except drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs).
It's easy enough to imagine a society where prison has a significantly less retribution focused, instead focusing on how a criminal can be rehabilitated (education opportunities, community corrections orders e.t.c). Popular example being some Nordic prisons.
Without the threat of punishment, society would collapse. There are people out there who enjoy killing, torturing, raping and destroying other people. You would need to be heavily armed to go anywhere without risking your life. Without basic trust in each other (enforced by the threat of punishment) society doesn’t work.
Every society has a judicial system. They're all different, with some being very primitive with eye-for-an-eye violence while others have centuries of political procedures and massive infrastructure. They can also be layered, as the society within a prison has its own justice system.
This is so depressing. I really hate our punitive justice system.
Punishing people for 15 years doesn't change drunk driving. If they were *thinking* before driving drunk, or contemplating the consequences, they wouldn't be driving drunk.
Not to mention the armed robbery after the drunk driving occurred...
I think the punishment system we almost hilariously call a justice system needs a lot of help but this seems like a young man who was a real danger to society. A lost decade should take the wind out of his dangerously murderous antics.
In the worst case, it at least protects society from the person, but I'm optimistic that there are more humane policies that can accomplish all of the above. Imprisonment is about ensuring public safety, to the extent that we can make it humane for the prisoners as well, we ought to do so, but failing that the alternative isn't to release dangerous criminals to reoffend--that's inhumane to their communities (and while some are particularly keen to note that prisoners are more likely to be marginalized minorities, those same people frequently fail to note that the communities that we release these unrehabilitated prisoners back into are also largely marginalized minority communities).
What those consequences be if the society does not punish people for that? (where “punishment” isn’t necessarily prison time)
You can’t bring back dead people to life, unfortunately. For some other crimes you can be fined, make amendments in other ways, having your license revoked, etc. But not for manslaughter. For this crime any punishment is exerted only as a message to other people: don’t kill people or else those bad things will happen to you.
> What those consequences be if the society does not punish people for that?
Given the state of most prisons in the west (Especially in the US), we are often sending people to effectively rot and even if they get out they might as well be dead they're so stunted.
Indeed, you can't bring dead people back to life. Judicial systems should not be based off of the emotions of people affected by crimes - it's not a nice thing to say but it just empirically doesn't work.
> For this crime any punishment is exerted only as a message to other people: don’t kill people or else those bad things will happen to you.
Not only is deterrent-policy usually very expensive both directly and in the aforementioned tendency to shit out people who go straight back into crime, I'm not aware of any studies that manage to disprove their null.
I want radical reform of the prison system and the judicial system, but after we've made our prisons as humane as possible then I want to put this guy in there for at least 20 years.
They should tie the penalty to blood alcohol concentration and it should be substantial for anyone driving in the higher ranges.
What is accomplished is that this maniac is contained in a cell for 12 years, out of society and unable to kill people.
You can cry me a river but there are plenty of drug dealers getting those kind of years in America, and it's a little telling that this case is the one that really riles your sympathy.
Knowing that you killed two innocent young people would certainly be a huge consequence for most people, one that they would never get over. I think by comparison some jail time would be almost inconsequential. If the former isn't a deterrent, I don't see how the latter would be, psychopaths excepted perhaps.
idk. I’m sure there are better methods of preventing drunk driving then punishing people after the fact. Measures include:
* Better party hour transport availability
* Better driver awareness, education, and propaganda
* More enforcement of drunk suspects before an accident
* Police cooperation with bars, i.e. tattle-tail programs
Moving to America I’m astonished how much drunk driving goes unpunished here. In rural areas there people often go a few dozen km to the next bar, and there is no alternative to get home except to drive. When there is enforcement it seems like it is only over the top punishment. Bartenders seem to be fine with people having a few beers and driving home (as long as they are not “too drunk”).
I think America is failing spectacularly in preventing drunk driving, and I think the main reason is that this over reliance of punitive measures that simply don’t work.
Right. So you have no problem with private citizens owning nukes for example? Since they just have to be adults and we can always punish them if they kill a few million people? Also, I hope that you realise that it is adults that murder, rape, torture, beat up their wife’s/kids etc. So are you sure being an “adult” is enough?
I don't know, I just don't see the point of essentially killing another person.
Is the point revenge? To make sure this doesn't happen again? Is justice = revenge? Questions...
Like I guess my point is someone who is driving drunk is already not thinking logically. You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change.
I have been informed of cases where drunk drivers get their licenses revoked yet continue to drive anyways. Should the system just continue to give this individual another slap on the wrist? The system should work to make the necessary adjusts to protect society from these individuals. For some, putting on a breathealyser is enough, while sometimes people start to have their friends breathe into it instead. If there is no other measure that can be taken to prevent an individual from becoming intoxicated and conducting heavy machinery, then I don't see another alternative.
> You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change.
I'm not sure how feasible it is to make this statement because I'm not aware of anyway we could test the accuracy of this statement.
One field I'm interested in being developed is detecting cars whose drivers seem to be intoxicated with machine vision software. Some cities / countries have enough state-owned cameras in public for this, and you could combine this with IoT spikes in the road or state-controlled kill-switches to completely eradicate drunk driving.
You can however stop punishing drunk driving and watch the number of drunk driving incidents skyrocket. The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent.
Again I don't think someone who is behind the wheel driving drunk is thinking about the consequences of their actions. I don't think the severity of the punishment changes that.
I'd much rather see why drunk driving rates is far higher in the US than other countries with similar laws and transpiration systems.
1. Look at why drunk driving is a much larger problem in the US than other places.
2. Is there stuff we can do to fix the discrepancy in the US.
3. Can the perpetrator of harm in society be a part of fixing the harm they have done, and preventing more harm in society.
I think punitive justice is just the easy way out and never addresses the roots of the problems.
For example, imagine instead of jailing people for 15 years, we used that money to subsidize lyft/uber rides of 18-25 year olds when they were detected to be near bars. How much impact would that have compared to jailing?
Right. So if somebody gets drunk and kills a school full of children with a machine gun then we should ask him/her nicely to not do it again and send him home in a Taxi?
I personally think it should be longer than 15 years. Taking away 2 lives (which would have lived much longer) should have a retribution of more than 15 years.
Have you contemplated the insufferable loss of the two people's families? For no fault of their own, their child gets swiped away by some drunk driver who happens to be smart at math?
So if you jaywalk and a bus goes off a cliff, you should automatically get multiple life sentences? If you drive drunk and no one gets hurt should you not face any charges? What if you attempt to shoot someone and miss?
We have control over our decisions but not the consequences of our decisions. Punishments should fit the crime, which is fundamentally different from the result. Choosing to drive drunk is the same mistake whether it hurts no one or hurts many.
For one, it would provide justice to those who suffered. You can argue an "eye-for-an-eye" approach to disputes amongst humans - logic says, let go. It's past us. Emotions and life long suffering of a lost child says I want revenge. Justice system also prevents escalations from other avenues - like societal violence since "Justice was not served". You really don't want to live in a society where people take up arms for retribution.
It's arguable whether it prevents others from committing similar crimes - I don't think it makes much difference if its 15 years or 30 years to make a drunk person avoid driving.
Also keep in mind, the cost-benefit of the Justice system is highly dependent on the socio-economic conditions of the city or neighborhood. Living in Geneva vs. Guadalajahara, you're going to get different answers.
What if instead of drunk driving, the accident that killed your kids involved distracted driving? Say, driver was texting? Eating a hamburger?
What if the driver was just driving 10mph over the speed limit? 15mph?
What if the driver fell asleep at the wheel?
What if the driver was driving on bald tires and a blowout precipitated the accident? What if they were only 95% worn out? 80%?
-----
There are different levels of culpability. Drunk driving is negligent and bad, but I hope we can all agree it is not as bad as willful murder. Five years in jail is an incredibly severe punishment already - that's a quarter of this kid's life to that point.
I don't buy the revenge angle. We can expect more from people.
OR you could stop assuming criminals are different than you and realize they have the ability to learn from the mistakes themselves, especially heartbreaking ones where 2 people die.
I am so sick of seeing people who feel that justice can only be served by destroying peoples lives and making them and their families suffer to the full extent of the law. Why do we keep electing prosecutors to the high offices? Why do so many prosecutors feel they are good if they can put away the baddies for a long time? I wish we would promote and elect more defenders because they seem like the only people who see that the people facing life in prison and a family thrown into poverty are not "they" but are "we".
If there weren’t stiff penalties for drunk driving it’d be rampant. The fear of being locked away for 20 years most definitely acts as a preventative measure.
> Punishing people for 15 years doesn’t change drunk driving.
It absolutely prevents the particular actor from driving drunk for the period of actual incarceration. It may even make it more likely that they will think before doing it again, even if they did not think the first time; and if you argue that the people who would do it once aren’t rationally deterrable even by adverse experience, that makes long-duration incapacitation such as by incarceration even more critical.
So how many people will somebody have to kill before you consider them dangerous enough to lock up? Also, do you realise that some people are too damaged/dangerous/psychopathic to ever be “fixed” enough to live in society?
Yea of course but that's a tangent. The point is if these crimes were handled lightly, they would occur more often.
We can go all the way down to the animal kingdom. Lions don't usually attack hippos because they know there can be harsh punishment in failure. Otherwise said attacks would be frequent. Just as I don't drink and drive recklessly because I know there can be severe consequences.
Frankly I believe the only way to reduce prison population is through education and opportunity BEFORE crimes happen but keep current punitive laws because they serve to protect the law abiding hard working citizen and to disincentivize crimes.
My own philosophy is that we should be prepared to come down like a hammer on the crimes that require premeditation, dedication, and intellect to execute.
If someone gets caught up in the wrong crowd at a young age, they need help not punishment - even the process of receiving that help can be sufficiently emasculating as to be punishment in itself (arguably).
If, for instance, the you-know-which Trump pardons hadn't happened, then they absolutely deserved to be punished. Similarly, tax offences at scale and (say) trying to overrule a result in Georgia...
If it weren't for my existing beliefs about the death penalty, I almost believe in capital punishment for treason - specifically espionage. Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are unbelievably lucky to be alive.
You give far too little credit to pure recklessness. It takes a hundred practiced bad decisions to eventually decide it is okay to drive drunk. At that point you are essentially gambling with people's lives.
If someone habitually rolls a die where a six gets someone killed, and they eventually roll a six, you got to ask why they were rolling the die so many times to begin with. In a very real sense the consequence is premeditated.
> It takes a hundred practiced bad decisions to eventually decide it is okay to drive drunk. At that point you are essentially gambling with people's lives.
True, but Alcoholism is a disease and can be treated. I don't subscribe to the, frankly, beastly view of my government that the poor and imprisoned aren't mostly determined by their nurture rather than their nature and "decisions" (We don't live in a vacuum).
If that is your logic then even the premeditated crimes should be only given slaps on the wrist as their "decisions" are as much of a product of their environment as anyone else's. They don't live in a vacuum either.
It is, in fact, a rather patronising view to believe only the poor and unfortunate lack personal agency to make good decisions. As if bad circumstances shut off their brains and makes them incapable of doing anything.
Personally I'd want them to not have executive jobs where they have influence over peoples lives. Not as a punishment, but as an actual deterrent.
However I'd personally prefer to root out why right-wing extremism is on the rise. I had this discussion a few days ago about what should be done about the capitol terrorists, and I don't think they should face severe jail/policing.
I know of a few leftist circles that also banned any mention of FBI tiplines etc, because those individuals were just a symptom of a problem. And punishing the symptom does nothing to the disease.
> I know of a few leftist circles that also banned any mention of FBI tiplines etc, because those individuals were just a symptom of a problem. And punishing the symptom does nothing to the disease.
Arguably leniency is precisely why the problem is what it is today. Laws are laws, the only reason why the Capitol incident happened is that the American far-right is in Q-induced fever dream completely unchecked by any feedback.
To the person who deleted their question, yes most institutions prefer you ship straight from Amazon. Make sure the inmate has the book pre-approved to prevent SNAFUs.
It’s unfortunate that so many here are advocating for harsh prison sentences for some perceived deterrent value.
The US has the highest total number of people in prison, as well as the highest per capita rate [0], and yet we still have high rates of crimes we throw people in jail for decades for.
Clearly this system isn’t having any deterrent impact, and it is having a huge cost to both the lives directly deprived of freedom and to the families around them.
You’re right, but when referring to harsh prison sentences I think most people mean the fact the non-violent offenses like drug related ones can get you significant time.
There are crimes of desperation and crimes of selfishness, most people I think have less tolerance for one than the other.
I read the question and answers and felt a little cheerful at the idea of someone turning his life around and even thought to myself that maybe the system works sometimes.
Then I came back here and read a few of the comments, particularly those by the new throwaway accounts (except for the top one). I shouldn't have read the comments, particularly those by the new throwaway accounts (and not because they might have changed my mind about the question and answers; they didn't, far from it).
I commented how I already read the comments (particularly those by the green usernames) and they didn't change my mind about that particular situation; I don't understand what is going to be accomplished by yet another comment simply repeating that.
Yes, he killed two people, and he's doing the time while clearly taking the process of rehabilitation very seriously. That's the whole point of prison, or at least it's what it was supposed to be.
this case makes me wonder - are there reasons that no govt agency nor NGO has offered computers to jails... with restricted connectivity to only specific domains like Coursera, Edx, etc?
I understand the need to prevent criminal activity via internet access, but that seems like a trivial technical problem... or is it ?
I'd think such an initiative would impact re-incarceration rates, which for the price of a few laptops, seems like a steal (pun intended)
Probably the thinking is that any online platform likely has some roundabout way to be used to communicate with people on the outside. Internal message boards, group chats, help desk, etc. The software would have to be usable completely offline to be acceptable.
I'm beyond disturbed that you think a suggestion to proselytize your religion without any other discussion or interest in this person's life is a useful and empathetic action here.
Please don't do this. Think more before you speak.
My father has several degrees, including a doctorate. He is highly intelligent, has an incredible work ethic and is a very kind and considerate person.
He went to prison for 6 months for a minor financial crime, something that was very out of character for him. The judge did not wish to send him to prison (she said that in court) but the prosecutor insisted that the prosecution would appeal any non-custodial sentence. So the judge gave him the minimum 6 months. That custodial sentence ruined my father's life, made him basically unemployable, despite his brilliance and integrity, and ruined my family's life too. Now my parents live in poverty and I have $23 in my bank account, with rent due tomorrow. I expect to be homeless by next week. Not a great situation for somebody with clinical depression.
Intelligent, good people can and do end up in prison and it can ruin lives (and not just the person behind bars, but also the people who love them). Good people do sometimes make terrible mistakes. My experience of this taught me so much. The really hard way.
For anyone who has a family member in prison, or has a similar story to mine, I feel for you.