Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickff | Hacker News Reader

There are many incentives that bias the ‘justice system’ in various ways that are unfavorable to prospective defendants, but it’s a very slippery slope. The prison guards’ unions have a very strong lobby for one. Another problem is that the way that misdemeanors and felonies work; it’s often more convenient for DAs to have people incarcerated for over a year (rather than less than a year). Even paying prosecutors money is an incentive to prosecute people. These are just a few examples that quickly came to mind; I’m not sure that it is possible to eliminate these biases without getting rid of the whole system.

View on HN

Just start by making profiting off of prisons illegal. Solutions don't need to be flawless, just better than what we have, which is an embarrassingly low bar to clear.

So the prison guards should work for free? Because the vast majority of prisons are public and the public employee unions lobby for harsher sentences: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/california-prison-guards_n_38...

Not sure why you're being downvoted.

The uncomfortable truth is that a portion of the union dues for those employed within the criminal justice system will go towards lobbying for harsher sentencing. Eliminating corporate profiteering will not eliminate lobbying for the status quo.

> Even paying prosecutors money is an incentive to prosecute people.

Unless you are paying per prosecution, it's not.

(I suppose the theoretical risk of laying off prosecutors if there is insufficient prosecutorial workload is a weak incentive of this type, though the fact that chief prosecutors are politicians and the political rewards for prosecuting in general, and for prosecuting those society dislikes in particular, are orders of magnitude stronger.)

> Even paying prosecutors money is an incentive to prosecute people.

>>> Unless you are paying per prosecution, it's not.

You are correct.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

A prosecutor is paid a salary. They want to keep (or improve) that salary. Until recently, it was presumed that prosecutors would prosecute, to justify their job and perhaps aspire to higher office. It seems that relationship is far more tenuous than expected because the tone is set at the top (Boudin in SF, Bragg in NYC). But the relationship still exists, as you pointed out.

The threat of layoffs is far less significant than the threat of

If only it were a slippery slope. You're describing something more like a sticky slope, where every step down is gummed up by a pile of other things to pay attention to.

I don't think we're at any risk of sliding too rapidly down this one, and I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to even if we could. Getting rid of injustices is a net good no matter how many other injustices there are.

How would people be prosecuted if prosecutors aren't paid money?

Many countries allow private prosecution of criminal offenses (though this is infrequently used in most of those countries for a number of reasons). If you eliminate public prosecutors/district attorneys, people could privately prosecute pro-se or with the assistance of private counsel.

That's just one example of many biases inherent to the current system, and I wouldn't focus on it too much.

so people rich enough could prosecute just about anyone they want, and people who are poor could likely never get any justice if they are a victim - and you think that is an improvement over the current system?

In such systems, the person bringing the charges must pay damages if the charges don't stick. Remember, the bar for criminal conviction is much higher than in civil court, and anyone can bring a civil case in our current legal system.

One major flaw in our current system is that only the government decides who gets convicted and as the old adage goes, if the king controls criminal punishment, the kings friends get away with murder. Think about the current national conversation on excessive police brutality.

The Romans had already tried this.. not a great idea.

Consider how the market for law enforcement might differ if prosecution was contractual rather than salaried.

Large numbers of prosecutions are carried out by contracted lawyers in many countries.

I said 'differ', not 'wouldn't exist'.

Yes, I agree, it is 'different'. You phrased it as a hypothetical, and I am telling you that many examples exist.

The OP is specifically about the USA, and that's the context in which my suggestion was offered.

Well Vitalant gives me enough loyalty points for a t-shirt once a year, but I give blood because I think it's a civic duty.

I'm guessing people think this is snark. but I do generally mean it. If something is worth condemning some one to prison for it's worth lawyering it for free.

That no one can imagine some one prosecuting a thief pro bono should be a clue

I agree generally, but I don't think paying prosecutors is a particularly strong incentive. Prosecutors aren't bonused or compensated based on their conviction rate (as far as I know), and they're generally undercompensated compared to private practice (but not as undercompensated as public defenders).

They don't get a bonus, but it can help them move up or get a better private job.

Yes, anybody who is good at their job is likely to be able to get a better (paying) one. But that itself doesn't incentivize DAs to aggressively pursue cases.

The incentives they actually follow (and there are plenty of them!) are much simpler: municipal politics (not wanting to be seen as "weak on crime") and power dynamics (wanting to come down with the "full force of the law" at every opportunity, as a disincentive to future criminals.) Plus, plenty are just plain cruel.

We should try to eliminate as many as possible, regardless of whether it has to be piecemeal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com