I Got Myself Arrested So I Could Look Inside the Justice System | Hacker News Reader

I Got Myself Arrested So I Could Look Inside the Justice System

theatlantic.com

834 pointsilamont472 comments

I'm sorry to be a curmudgeon but I don't like this guy at all. He wasted valuable city resources on an experiment the outcome of which he should have predicted, being a criminal attorney in Roxbury.

Why were the police and the criminal justice officials apparently angry with him? Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police profile people and to "prove" that getting arrested and jailed can be a violent and unfair experience, someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a cash register.

It's not so much that he prevented one of these other cases from being pursued, but that he seems so oblivious of the effects of his actions. Thus, it seems perfectly natural and reasonable for them to say, "OK, you make twice the salary we make yet you wanna be a petty criminal? Poof, you're a petty criminal. Enjoy sleeping in the bed you made, and here's hoping you will be permanently cured of f##king with us in the future, a##hole."

The police are set upon from all sides. If they bend the rules, they are severely punished. If they don't bend the rules, and the rules don't always apply the way liberal suburban white folks might imagine they do on the street, then they get castigated for not "doing their job" i.e. catching the bad guys. At the end of the day, not catching the bad guys is the biggest sin in law enforcement, because it's the mission. If you fail the mission, you're facing demotion, punishment, deprivation of public support and sufficient budget, and the public will view you with contempt and disgust.

I'm not justifying that that diabetic guy who wanted his sugar pills should be denied his pills. I'm not justifying that the police handle the lower socio-economic cases more brutally, giving them bruises and cuts that the suburban white boy somehow was spared. I'm not justifying racial profiling.

Yet, to walk a mile in their shoes, both the police and the criminal justice system as a whole, is to see the world a little differently from the average Atlantic Monthly reader or Hacker News reader.

Just my 2 cents.

Since when are police severely punished for bending the rules? Must be a different city than the ones I've lived in.

And of course, police would NEVER prioritize enforcing petty laws at the expense of catching dangerous violent criminals. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/16/police-made-o...

It's easier and safer to make your quota by arresting a pot smoker than an armed robber or a street gang member.

At the end of the day, the police clock out and go home to families just like anyone else . They want to stay alive just like anyone else.

If people think the police should be risking their lives more than they do, then let's pay them 4x what they get today -- I'm willing to pay higher taxes -- but let's not pay them a 5-figure salary and have unrealistic expectations of how far they should stretch.

Then, too, there's the Giuliani tactic still being applied in a lot of places of arresting people for the tiniest offenses such as spitting or loitering, in order to clean up the streets and convey an impression that the police were in control. It worked in NYC, at least.

>They want to stay alive just like anyone else.

Being a police officer is safer than being a cab driver, a house painter, or working in a convenience store. Might have to do with the gun, the stick, and the permission to use them.

> Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police profile people and to "prove" that getting arrested and jailed can be a violent and unfair experience, someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a cash register.

You're missing the point that police profiling is already focusing attention on people not committing those crimes, or that plenty of people are getting away with the same behaviour but not facing any consequences for their actions.

Police stop and search someone because that person is black - they're missing the real crook.

Police don't take actions against white kids - they're missing real crooks.

> I found myself spending most of my time prosecuting people of color for things we white kids did with impunity growing up in the suburbs. As our office handed down arrest records and probation terms for riding dirt bikes in the street, cutting through a neighbor’s yard, hosting loud parties, fighting, or smoking weed – shenanigans that had rarely earned my own classmates anything more than raised eyebrows and scoldings

Whether these crimes deserve any police attention is something that could be discussed, but surely we can agree that prosecuting black kids but not white kids is something that drives inequality in society?

What solution are you proposing?

Ideally, treat drugs as the health problem they are, not a crime problem.

Stop putting people in jail or prison for minor offences.

Stop including weird restrictions in parole orders.

Stop making community service being about "punishment" and move it towards "rehabilitation", of the offender and of their area.

>>Whether these crimes deserve any police attention is something that could be discussed, but surely we can agree that prosecuting black kids but not white kids is something that drives inequality in society?

Yes, we can agree on that.

> but surely we can agree that prosecuting black kids but not white kids is something that drives inequality in society?

Only if we're punishing them under the same circumstances, which I don't agree is necessarily the case. I think we should punish someone who marks graffiti in order to mark gang territory or intimidate others more harshly than someone who does it as a prank.

> Only if we're punishing them under the same circumstances, which I don't agree is necessarily the case. I think we should punish someone who marks graffiti in order to mark gang territory or intimidate others more harshly than someone who does it as a prank.

This feels like it should make sense, but I think misses the forest for the trees. It's an example what I'd refer to as first-order thinking, or looking only at the immediate situation.

We need to be striving for higher order thinking. That is, we need to be looking at follow-on effects, which I'll analogize to looking at the second and later derivatives of a function, or looking at other elements in an interconnected feedback system (in the control theory sense).

What does this even mean?

Is not asking whether the graffiti was intended to intimidate somebody considering the follow-on effects?

It's considering an immediately adjacent effect, sure. But we can take one more step back and look at a still wider context: what led to the tagger to be in the habit of tagging to begin with? What will happen to the tagger and their community in the long run if all taggers are punished with the full force of the law? Is there some other course of action that would lead to a better outcome for both the individual tagger and the community as a whole?

Like an after school chess club? What if the tagger chooses not to go?

> Like an after school chess club?

Sort of. How about an after school "chess club" where the kids who attend get free dinner, and there are a variety of educational activities to choose from in addition to chess? How about a free camp where you bus all the kids out to the nearest wilderness every weekend to learn archery and play sports, and the kids who attend don't have to worry about not having food and shelter for two days out of the week?

> What if the tagger chooses not to go?

Not all of them have to go. You don't have to solve the entire problem at the same time. And if it doesn't work, you keep trying things until something sticks.

The key point is that you need to be willing to spend the resources keeping kids out of jail that you would spend keeping them in jail.

> "How about an after school "chess club" where the kids who attend get free dinner"

These sorts of clubs exist in some places, such as in my school [0]. They include everything from tutoring to other academic activities to free meals to summer programs.

[0] http://www.bgcmd.org/clubs/beacon-neighborhood-centers

You're rambling about math but I think based on your second paragraph, you should change the first paragraph to just "This makes sense" instead forest/tree stuff.

That's almost akin to instituting thought-crime. Wouldn't one actually need to commit those acts of intimidation (or some other harmful consequence thereof) before you decide they need a harsher punishment? Until that happens, a prank is a prank.

I think if you looked into this problem, it's hardly thought crime in the sense you mean it.

Because if you're black you're in a gang and if you're white you're just joshing around.

I agree with the general point, but "riding dirt bikes in the street" is possibly not as innocent as it may seem.

In rural areas riding dirt bikes on the street might conjure up images of a couple of brothers tearing around a few fields, generally making a mess but ultimately just doing it to have fun. In cities however there is often (by no means always, but often) something else going on.

At least in Philadelphia, gangs use dirt-bikes and 4-wheelers to 'patrol their turf' and flee the police (who are largely powerless to stop them, as they travel in groups of 10 or more, and all split the second a cop turns his lights on). In these instances it isn't harmless fun, they are basically neo-'biker gangs'. It is a big problem in north and west Philadelphia.

That seems besides the point in this case though since the author himself describes these as 'shenanigans that had rarely earned my own classmates anything more than raised eyebrows and scoldings.'

To be clear, I don't think what I am saying detracts from the authors point, I just find it plausible that specifically the dirt-bike related arrests/fines/probations were legitimate.

The author probably was not in a dirt-bike biker gang when he was a kid, as far as I know that phenomenon is new.

(And honestly, I am surprised that the police were able to catch any of them in the first place. Chasing them down city streets would be extremely dangerous...)

The writer was(is) a prosecutor. These aren't hypothetical cases, these are actual things he experience and actual cases he tried. If it were a bunch of kids in a gang riding bikes to terrorize a neighborhood, I think he is probably the person most likely to be aware of that and the differences from his youth. I'm not sure you can challenge his authority on the matter and argue he just doesn't know whats really going on considering his position as part of the criminal justice system.

The writer is interested in pushing a narrative (one that I happen to support, just so that we are clear here). The dirt bike thing is slipped in with some other clearly unreasonable stuff, but I fear he is either stretching with the dirt bike example to pad out that section, or is aware of the problem but is giving those kids the benefit of the doubt an assuming that they had nothing to do with the dirt bike gangs.

Even if those kids had nothing to do with those gangs, riding dirt-bikes in a city is clearly anti-social behavior that needs to end. If there is a racial bias in the enforcement of those laws, that needs to end too, and the white kids need the book thrown at them too for it, but I really don't believe that the author use to get away with riding dirt bikes around in cities. That isn't standard teenager shenanigans.

This is the problem with black and white statements, there's always someone ready to jump in and prove there's middle ground. I am a well off white male and I've ridden a beaten up old dirt bike in the street plenty of times. Why? Because I like to ride off road, but you don't get to do that without tune ups, repairs etc. During riding season I am sure I annoyed neighbors with a weekly ten minute ride around a few blocks (and a large abandoned lot in my old city neighborhood). I even skip the helmet often during this so I can hear sounds as I diagnose a problem.

If you were doing that in a city, I think it would be more than reasonable for cops throwing the book at you. In underpopulated areas the concept of there being a victim starts to disappear, but you still should not be doing that.

"throw the book at you" should be applied to non-victimless crimes, not things that you just don't like or agree with. Misdemeanor? Ridiculous. Moving violation with a fine? That's fine, I accept the consequences of my actions when they are proportionate to the action.

then how do you apply that law to everyone? only white people can ride dirt bikes? only people not in gangs can? the arrest should be for riding dirt bikes in a gang then, because part of the burden of the law is making it clear what it stands for

Obviously everybody should be busted for riding dirt bikes in cities, particularly in gangs (riding in gangs inherently means that several other traffic laws are being broken as well, and when they scatter when police try to stop them you throw in all sorts of additional crimes...)

In unpopulated areas? I'm sure the local police have methlabs to worry about, but sure, arrest them too if they ride on the street or trespass.

I am not saying that a racial discrepancy in enforcement is acceptable. I am just saying that the police taking issue with somebody riding around the city on a dirt bike is not necessarily the police making a mountain out of a molehill. If they are arresting only black people that do this, then the problem is that they are not also arresting white people that do it.

Over here in The Netherlands, about 10 years ago, there was a lot of commotion about a group of white supremacy-gangs wearing Lonsdale bomberjacks, and people wearing those were banned from certain clubs, etc.

According to your logic, in this case, everyone wearing a Lonsdale bomberjack would have to be arrested, and they would have to be banned by law? Isn't that outlawing the symptom, instead of outlawing the actual problem?

EDIT: Apparently this was not just an issue in The Netherlands, but more widespread: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/147...

> "According to your logic, in this case, everyone wearing a Lonsdale bomberjack would have to be arrested, and they would have to be banned by law? Isn't that outlawing the symptom, instead of outlawing the actual problem?"

What? No. Just no.

It may be different in the Netherlands, but in the US riding dirtbikes on public streets is illegal. The bikes themselves are not street legal. The bikes don't have plates, turn signals, mirrors or horns. They are not registered with the DMV. In Pennsylvania they are wildly in violation of noise laws for motorcycles (they drown out conversations indoors when they pass on the streets). Totally unlicensed and almost certainly therefore uninsured (which is again illegal). Riding bikes of any sort in gangs is further illegal, breaking all sorts of traffic laws.

This going after dirt-bike riders is not about going after a symptom or superficial attribute of some other crime. It is the crime. It is the actual problem.

If I were saying "go after cars with spinney wheels" (which are perfectly legal) or "go after people wearing only red or blue" (which is perfectly legal) then your comparison would be apt, but that is not what is going on here.

You might want to just clarify since I could imagine it being a regional language issue- a "Dirt bike" is a type of off-road motorcycle, not a human-powered bicycle.

Ah, good point. A dirt-bike is basically a stripped down off-road motorcycle. Fast, loud, and cheap.

That clarifies it for me. I was imagining a bicycle.

A motocross bike would be a good term.

Not only this, but it's also very dangerous and intimidating. More than once here in the UK I've been faced with yobs riding dirt bikes at very high speeds in pedestrianised areas or on paths in public parks. The people who do it have no consideration for the safety of those around them, and often drive close by people on purpose just to scare them.

This was also an issue in Baltimore recently.

Yeah, I've personally seen it in Philadelphia, and heard about it in Baltimore and NYC. I've yet to hear about anything like it in Seattle though.

Give me a cross street and I will burn some donuts in ur lawn.

Yes, some youth riding dirt bikes will be gang members, and something needs to be done about that.

What the percentages are is up for discussion. The usefulness of taking a gang member and making it even harder for them to get employment is something that needs to be discussed.

Gangs are a symptom of other problems. Tackling gangs without tackling those other problems seems odd to me.

The article's comment in context is that in his previous experience as a prosecutor, urban blacks were doing the same thing he was as a youth, yet the outcomes were different.

We don't have to invent scenarios to explain away the different results - they are his experience as a prosecutor and he has identified them as being identical. It's not an account from a newspaper where we don't know the details; it's cases he has personally worked on, and hence knows the intimate details we never hear of.

This comment is essentially the same as another, this reply applies equally here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6924774

TL;DR: I think the writer is either somehow unaware of the issues with dirtbikes in cities (unlikely), or is banking on his audience being unaware of the problem. Either way, I think he is being disingenuous. I do not believe he actually got away with that sort of thing as a teenager.

Because a blanket statement saying that "[non-criminal] riding dirtbikes in a city is clearly antisocial behaviour that needs to end" isn't being disingenuous?

There is no such thing as "[non-criminal] dirt-bike riding in cities". Riding dirt-bikes in cities in the US is illegal. People who do it are breaking numerous traffic and road laws.

Asserting that doing this is anti-social is hardly disingenuous.

Even if it were legal, the noise pollution alone would make it unquestionably anti-social as far as I am concerned. I'd rather have tractor trailers using jake brakes in my neighborhood, that's how unreasonably loud these bikes are.

(In case there is a misunderstanding here: dirt-bikes are stripped down light-weight motorcycles meant for off-road use only. They are not street legal. Similar I believe to a motocross bike.)

This bit of cultural knowledge is important.

I was thinking of dirtbikes as their UK equivalent. Here, youth ride scooters / mopeds and some of them are styled as like dirtbikes. And there are probably road legal dirt bikes of more than 125 cc.

The gang context is also really important.

I guess my real problem was you calling the author disingenuous, when the author specifically identified 'riding dirt bikes on the streets in the suburbs' and you explained this away to actually being 'riding dirt bikes in paddocks in rural areas'. The author's point is that this was the same crime, but suburban whites were not pursued for it - and you're saying "it's not the same crime, the whites were riding around on farms, not streets".

To put this into context there is a documentary coming out about dirt bikes and 4-wheelers in Baltimore.

http://12oclockboys.com/

I have personally gotten fairly close to hitting a 4 wheeler in ATL and see gangs of them roaming my neighborhood. It seemed to me like they were just having a good time, certainly disturbing the peace and creating dangerous road conditions though. Then again that isn't all too unusual in my neighborhood.

>>> Whether these crimes deserve any police attention is something that could be discussed, but surely we can agree that prosecuting black kids but not white kids is something that drives inequality in society?

Except when you take into account blacks commit far more crime than whites:

"According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery."

Also keep in mind, these are usually not black on white crimes, but usually black on black crimes. It would foolish to think we should simply start prosecuting more white people simply because there is some form of perceived inequality in the justice system.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the fact more blacks end up in the system (when its already too late), maybe we should take a harder look at WHY they end up in the system and work on preventing them from ever getting there in the first place.

LOL your argument against black people being targeted for arrests is percent of arrests as proof of black people "committing more crimes"? Holy shit it's like an Onion article came to comment.

The reality is that for some types of crimes, African Americans, especially 18-39 year-old-males, are over represented. For example, roughly half the 32,000 gun homicides annually are committed by black males (see bjs.gov for the numbers). (Most of their victims are also black.) Most white gun deaths are from suicides. Latinos are also high up on this unfortunate list.

These numbers aren't made-up or based on biased arrest patterns; they're pretty much reality, sad but true.

No but there are reasons why these numbers are high for them and they are as much to do with how society treats them and what their prospects with regards to making it are.

Can you expand on your point a little? Does any other group behave this way because of "how society treats them"?

No because society doesn't treat them that way.

So there's only one group of people society treats badly? What about other demographic sets of people with higher-than-average crime rates?

I'm white, from Switzerland.

The only time I experienced racism was taking a vacation in Spain, in a place where there are a lot of french tourists. They get a lot of hate, and me speaking french got me treated like one of them.

I'm a very laid back, cool guy, and I'm usually the last one to get angry. But being at a restaurant and being made fun of randomly by the waiter, and then wondering if someone spat in my food, and having this impression that everyone hated me for now reason...

It was a terrible feeling. But I knew the only reason they were like that was because of a misunderstanding. All I had to do was mentioning I was Swiss or speak Spanish and it would stop instantly.

Now if I had been french, and I had no way to defuse the situation, I can imagine how frustrating it would have been.

Then I can see how things being like that your whole life must feel, specially when its something that stands out as much as your skin color.

I've been extremely frustrated on rare occasions in my life, and I've done things I would never thought I would. Karma is a thing. If people give you shit without a good reason, you'll do the exact same, probably to someone else, just to balance things.

How is this argument any different than the absurd Affluenza argument that gained popularity this week? Successful/great people rise above all kinds of adversity and come from all sorts of backgrounds. Criminals likewise span every demographic in the U.S. The "poor" in our country live an order of magnitude better than many in the world and some of our most affluent groups have some of the highest suicide rates.

I don't even know what my point was anymore... I just get so tired of hearing everyone blame everyone else except themselves for the directions of their lives.

> Successful/great people rise above all kinds of adversity and come from all sorts of backgrounds.

Bullshit, almost every rags to riches story has a "And I got lucky and _____" it isn't someone overcoming adversity, it is luck that got their talent noticed. I am not saying those who face hardship don't have talent, just saying it rarely gets noticed due to biases.

> Criminals likewise span every demographic in the U.S.

The poor are extremely more likely to commit crimes. You have to exclude economic factors or you cannot compare anything about crime, it is that large of an impact. Heck the "black problem" you list is 90% due to being poor much more often than other groups.

> The "poor" in our country live an order of magnitude better than many in the world

Pointless argument. Let me turn it around on you. The poor don't have to worry about starving to death nearly as much as elsewhere, but because of this they have a ton of spare time. How many things can you do that are illegal and are entertaining + cheap? I bet you can make a long list. This could just as easily be used to explain why being poor is a bigger problem in the US when using the level of logic this thread is using.

> I just get so tired of hearing everyone blame everyone else except themselves for the directions of their lives.

Are we talking about one singular person? Take the OP, he never claims he shouldn't have been treated as a criminal, his only complaints are that he should have been able to see his family, and he shouldn't have gotten 3 years parole for a non-violent offense.

Are we talking about a group, like poor blacks? You can't blame individual things like this for an entire population, it doesn't make sense. We aren't saying Johnny didn't go to college because he is poor, we are saying the poor on average go to college this much less, which for these reasons is because they are poor.

Regarding only your first point... I can't agree with that.

Aside from the lotto and other truly marginal edge cases, I'd say that hard work is not sufficient for success but it is required.

That is, if you take 100 successful people, you'll have 100 who needed some luck to get where they are. And of those, you'll have 99 who also had to work their ass off.

Many people work hard and never make it.

Many people build great products and never make it.

Many people build a great business but it doesn't last.

Luck doesn't determine whether you are able to make it but it does often have a lot to do with whether you get the chance.

If you don't work hard, don't build great products, and don't build a great business, you aren't giving luck much of a chance to help you.

If you have a great business you are by definition successful so that makes no sense.

With regards to the other sure but none of them will guarantee you a great business.

My apologies, I did not at all mean to imply the opposite of that. Hard work is certainly required to succeed.

However most people talking about the American dream are talking about it being sufficient, which is what I was talking against.

Statistically you don't get lucky and get rich (guess what happens to lottery winners a year after they win most the time?) and you rarely work hard and get rich. You can get a little lucky and live a good life working hard, and you can get really lucky, work really hard, and get rich.

Well that is your problem that you are sick and tired of it. It is pretty well established though that if you live in a poor black community your chances of making it to middle class are many times lower than making it to jail.

Make of that what you want. Perhaps black people are just lazy, stupid? Is that your point? In that case I don't think we will agree on much in life.

> It is pretty well established though that if you live in a

> poor black community your chances of making it to middle

> class are many times lower than making it to jail.

To what cause or causes do you attribute that?

> Make of that what you want.

I'd rather not make of that what I want; I'd rather try to determine the cause(s).

Compared to where? Denmark? Sweden? Norway?

You seem to be forgetting that the US system is based around money first and foremost.

If you have money you will be able to attend the right university.

Of course their social status is not the only reason but it's a big part of it and especially the fact that it's very hard to get out of your social-economic status. Add to that an industry that actually makes money when people go to jail and you have the perfect spiral.

I think you're misreading the symptom as the cause. What's claimed is that black people are arrested more, even if they don't commit more crimes. Thus, the statistics will not necessarily reflect reality, but rather the alleged bias in arrest and prosecution.

I agree with your final paragraph, though. We as a society have an obligation to try to correct all forms of injustice, whether it's biased enforcement and prosecution, cultural isolation, or financial immobility.

> "According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery."

Arrests. Not convictions, and certainly not "crimes perpetrated."

> Perhaps instead of focusing on the fact more blacks end up in the system

...institutionally racist police officers arrest them for minor offences, and that arrest and conviction fucks any chance of employment, meaning that gangs are the only employer left?

Yes, what I got from it was that they were irritated by this journalist for wasting their time when they could have been wasting their time targeting other innocent people. At least this way we got some investigative journalism out of it.

Other groups of people who are "set upon from all sides": The poor, members of minority groups, politicians, attorneys...well actually this list keeps on going.

I was going to make a similar comment, you hit the nail of my opinion smack on the head. The only thing I'll disagree with is this:

> I'm not justifying racial profiling.

As an arab who has come across the 'wrong' side of this at airports and train stations more than once, I completely support racial profiling. Ignoring good data because its politically inconvenient is ridiculous imo.

However what is described in the article is not racial profiling - its violent racism, and there is a very big difference. By all means search me, question me, hassle me for my race - but don't go beating me up for it.

This is a terrible way to think and only furthers racism in the world. You need to have more self-respect for yourself, and expect it more from others than what you're implying in this comment. I, as a black man, do not welcome being hassled for my race. That "good data" you're talking about is corrupt because they focus on black people while non-blacks get away. We already know there are things made illegal for the purpose of oppressing brown people(see why weed is illegal), we already know the police are watching black people more than other races. We know the justice-system is not exactly balanced in terms of race, so I see your "good data" as heavily bias data designed to make one reach the conclusion the data-gathers want you to conclude. Furthering racism, furthering unfair jailing, furthering lining the pockets of those who benefit from jails being full, war-on-drugs, and starting wars.

You should probably watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQnxnYEVp4U

> That "good data" you're talking about is corrupt because they focus on black people while non-blacks get away.

I never really thought about the sampling bias that way...

I'm sure there is racism as well - it is a big problem - but race is a real thing, I don't think we can pretend everyone is equal either. Certainly nobody should be underprivileged, but I still think discrimination is healthy.

I had a similar conversation before about profiling and I have to agree. I'm a male, 18-35 yrs old. If I go to the airport and they stop me, but let a 70 yr old Grandmother by because I look like the bigger threat, then I think they are doing their job.

This is how a scout leader ran drugs through an airport.

Surely terrorists/drug dealers would dress up like grandmothers if we think like this.

It takes a lot of skill to pass as an old person (e.g. walking the right way); our intuitions are good at spotting there's something "off". And anyone caught disguising themselves as a grandmother would immediately be under massive suspicion.

I don't disagree, Chechen bombings in Russia have used women for that exact reason.

It's a tired cliche, and I know it's not something you can do in the US, but Israeli's have a pretty good profiling system in place. You don't base it purely on race or gender, but they are factors with the biggest discriminator being your story under questioning.

"good data"

You're arguments are so poorly constructed that they don't deserve a thoughtful response.

>He wasted valuable city resources

There's real civic value here that greatly trumps any sort of tax payer whining. Especially considering that internal anti-corruption mechanisms clearly aren't working and so many jurisdictions are hopelessly corrupt. We need more money spent on stuff like this and less "Police Department announces new SWAT military vehicles" whose maintenance and lifetime budget over whats essentially war machines in our neighborhoods greatly trumps what this man did.

Also, he's white and educated and thus you're paying attention to him. See, its working.

"The police are set upon from all sides. If they bend the rules, they are severely punished."

I'm sorry, when have the police been severely punished for bending the rules?

Examples abound in the other direction, but generally they aren't even fired, let alone prosecuted, for "bending the rules".

Exactly my thoughts when I read that. The police, prosecutors, government officials at all levels get away with "bending" the rules all the time. In fact, they can out right break the rules and rarely get punished, and often are praised.

Example- in Missouri, the state constitution requires that ALL proceeds that come to government officials from asset forfeiture go to a fund for the public schools. Yet, routinely I see news articles praising county Sheriffs for using the proceeds from asset forfeitures to buy bullet-proof vests and other stuff.

Given, the police men are doing there jobs. Given, they have bad circumstances and are making the best out of it. Given, that many people want to serve the public ....

BUT: I think, this testimony is important, because it shows, how crooked the whole legislative system in the US stinks. It not only verifies the things we see in better documentaries, but shows, that the system is totally corrupt.

It shows, what happens, when race and wealth have become the main decision factor in a system that claims to give even rights to anybody.

In my opinion, this man was punished in this disproportional way, not because he deliberately did a crime or wasted state money (what a ridiculous argument!), but because he uncovered a corrupt system.

It has nothing to do with games or wasting resources, it has to do with dissent. Authorities doesn't like when you challenge their righteousness.

In dictatorships you're arrested by the secret police, accused of immoral acts, tortured, made to confess and made an example of anyway.

In the US you're arrested by the intelligence unit, accused of "related" charges, thrown in custody for 34 hours, made to accept a plea bargain and made an example of anyway.

Disfavor, smear, pressure, self-incriminate and then abuse. Same pattern.

The apologist is strong in you.

> If they bend the rules, they are severely punished.

No they aren't, they get paid vacation days until another cop lies and says they're innocent under a so called investigation. They should be fired when found to break the law; they should be investigated by outside agencies rather than internal investigations. You can't enforce the law justly if you can't even follow the law.

> If they don't bend the rules, and the rules don't always apply the way liberal suburban white folks might imagine they do on the street, then they get castigated for not "doing their job" i.e. catching the bad guys. At the end of the day, not catching the bad guys is the biggest sin in law enforcement, because it's the mission.

The mission is enforcing the law, not catching the bad guys. More importantly it's not up to police to determine who the bad guys are nor should it be. The rules do always apply and there's no justification whatsoever for breaking them. Better criminals go free than innocent people be harassed by police who think they're on an episode of 24.

> If you fail the mission, you're facing demotion, punishment, deprivation of public support and sufficient budget, and the public will view you with contempt and disgust.

False conclusion from a faulty idea of what the mission should be.

And I have walked a mile in their shoes because I'm an ex-cop. Just my more informed 2 cents.

"Paid vacation days" is easy to demonize, but 1) we don't want to take away people's livelihood before making sure there is a problem, and 2) we don't want potentially corrupt officers with their hands on policework.

Not saying it's ideal, but it's a response to two real pressures.

That's why you stick them on a desk, or guarding a prisoner, or doing something unrelated to and away from the public while under investigation. They could still be doing something useful rather than getting a vacation whenever there's a complaint against them. The military doesn't give you time off for this stuff, they just change your job until the shit's figured out and the same should apply to civilians who work on my tax dime.

> "Paid vacation days" is easy to demonize, but 1) we don't want to take away people's livelihood before making sure there is a problem

Sure, but this is what happens in any other job, you don't get paid when under investifation.

A friend of mine was on paid leave from her public school job just a couple weeks ago, due to an investigation that she'd violated a school policy.

[details: she set a misbehaving 3 year old on a stool. Officially, it's not permissible to "use force" on a child unless it's to prevent them from causing physical harm to themselves or others; placing a child on a seat where they don't want to sit qualifies as "using force" in some peoples' eyes.]

Really? Then I'm happy I don't live in the US. If I was under investigation for something and my employer stopped paying me, I'd sue. And win.

  He wasted valuable city resources on an experiment the 
  outcome of which he should have predicted, being a 
  criminal attorney in Roxbury.

See, I think the opposite - how can upstanding members of society like me claim to hold an informed opinion about the justice system when the closest I've ever come is watching the TV show 'Prison Break'?

You don't learn to program by watching a movie - you learn by trying it, getting hands-on experience. You don't learn to dance or do sports by reading a book - you learn by getting up and moving, getting hands-on experience. You don't become a judge without seeing the inside of a courtroom. You don't become a poet or a film maker or a musician without trying it. You don't qualify as surgeon without hands on experience or qualify as a pilot without hands on experience or train as a mechanic by watching 'the fast and the furious'.

In all these areas, we acknowledge that fiction and second hand reports aren't a substitute for first-hand experience.

So how can you and I claim to know anything about the justice system if we have no first hand experience?

Don't all of us who care about law and order have a responsibility to inform ourselves about how the system works, as the author of this article has done?

But if we were to follow your position to its logical conclusion, we'd all be running around committing misdemeanors. What will we do if we are curious about homicide investigations.

Sometimes we have to accept tradeoffs. Having a journalist do something and help inform us seems like a quite reasonable tradeoff.

There is literally no such thing as "bad guys."

People that see the world in only black and white believe those that are "bad" deserve legal punishment and extra-legal abuse.

Yes, I am a lawyer. I have to respectfully disagree with you. The story kindly submitted here is fascinating reading, and I'm glad the author did his experiment. I've long thought (perhaps because I had interpreting work before I attended law school that brought me inside courtrooms and jails and prisons as a visitor) that everyone who works in the criminal justice system needs to see the system as suspects and convicted offenders see it, at least briefly. Some of our imagination about the system is dispelled if we experience the facts.

I agree with your suggestion that members of the general public should also become more aware of the working conditions of the police. Many police departments in the United States allow members of the general public to go on a "ride-along" in a police car on patrol (that usually involves signing release forms and promises not to misbehave while on the ride-along) and that too is a good learning experience. Basically, it's good for everyone to understand better how the other half lives.

You did not read the same article as I. Or, rather, you read the same article with a filter of bias, bigotry, and media fueled fear. To wit, you believe they are "purse snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a cash register" and you comically believe police are severely punished for bending the rules.

>Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police profile people

I infer from your belittling description of his activities as his "little game" and putting "prove" in skeptical quotes that you don't see the value in this particular piece of journalism and aren't swayed by the evidence presented therein. So while I doubt you can swayed otherwise, I will say that I did find it to be valuable and his experience adds another anecdote on the collective pile of evidence that the cops and prosecutors treat brown and black people vastly different for comparable infractions of the law. And both as a native New Yorker, and moreover as a citizen of the United States, I think this is a very big problems worth paying attention to.

>I'm not justifying that that diabetic guy who wanted his sugar pills should be denied his pills. I'm not justifying that the police handle the lower socio-economic cases more brutally, giving them bruises and cuts that the suburban white boy somehow was spared. I'm not justifying racial profiling.

Yeah, but you kind of are; in your very next paragraph in fact.

> Yet, to walk a mile in their shoes, both the police and the criminal justice system as a whole, is to see the world a little differently from the average Atlantic Monthly reader or Hacker News reader.

We really need to get over the cops-jobs-are-so-dangerous-we-can't-question-anything-they-do mantra. The statistics show, in fact, it isn't nearly as dangerous as they'd like us to believe, and even if it were, it still wouldn't justify the kind of double standards the article was shining a spotlight on.

And for those that, quite frankly, don't really care one way of the other about racial profiling (I imagine because it won't ever affect them), I'd argue that everyone should care when the justice system clearly retaliates against a citizen for exposing problems in it's institutions. It shouldn't be okay for a judge to hand down a harsher than normal punishment because screw you for embarrassing/pissing us off.

>It shouldn't be okay for a judge to hand down a harsher than normal punishment because screw you for embarrassing/pissing us off.

I think you missed my meaning. Cops, prosecutors, and judges are only human and they're going to react emotionally because that's what we humans are, hormonal emotional creatures.

In the case of the OP, he deliberately set out to test the system by committing a misdemeanor to see what they would do. It was so out of context for a white male in a nice suit to be doing graffiti that the first responders couldn't believe their eyes. They literally just tried to wave him off. Shouldn't have, but did. I imagine that you or I would have reacted similarly in those circumstances -- or are you perfectly rational in all your decisionmaking and split-second reactions? Highly doubtful.

I don't think it was embarrassment that he had exposed racism or profiling behavior or whatever he was obviously digging for. It was just that he was "one of them" and had betrayed their trust. They gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was not actually behaving like a 19-year-old gang banger, when in fact that was precisely what he was doing. Thus, they ultimately had to book him, take him downtown, fingerprint him, write up the charges etc. By the way, that's work. Lots of paperwork. And knowing that he's a criminal lawyer, they probably had to be extra fastidious -- the slightest little mistake or omission and for all they knew he was going to taking them to court.

I think it's perfectly natural that they reacted angrily to this guy, and threw the book at him, because it was as if he was trying to provoke an angry reaction. Thus as I said, he made his bed and now must sleep in it.

If you want to term this "retaliation", I suppose technically you're right, but your characterization disregards the fact that they're human, with human emotions. I think one of the great mistakes people make when debating the flaws of the justice system is to assume that its people are somehow on a higher ethical pedestal than the rest of society, that somehow they should and must behave more correctly. Unfortunately, they don't, and so it's easy to find biases and injustices in the system.

> If you want to term this "retaliation", I suppose technically you're right, but your characterization disregards the fact that they're human, with human emotions. I think one of the great mistakes people make when debating the flaws of the justice system is to assume that its people are somehow on a higher ethical pedestal than the rest of society, that somehow they should and must behave more correctly. Unfortunately, they don't, and so it's easy to find biases and injustices in the system.

Which is why there should be an accounting when someone reveals these humans letting their emotions get the best of them. To act like everyone has the same emotional control is absurd -- put people with better emotional control in power and not these people.

I agree with what you have to say about the police. Not only that, but people forget that most of the people police come into professional contact with are, in fact, criminals. Quite a lot of informal but institutionalized racism results from taking people out of middle class neighborhoods and plunking them into the middle of very poor, broken, homogeneously black or hispanic neighborhoods, and then making them a magnet for every bad thing that happens in those neighborhoods. It should surprise nobody that people placed in that situation act the way they do.

To me, that suggests that we need sweeping and creative reforms not merely to make the police more effective or impartial, but to actively combat the psychological effect that policing has on veteran officers. Instead, we seem to be pulling them off foot patrols and sticking them into cars to create rapid response forces. That may work as an emergency triage against violent crime outbreaks, but it exacerbates the damage the job does to the professionals who have to do it.

On the other hand: 90% of what was upsetting about this article was the result of judges and the probation system. I have much less sympathy for a judge than I do for a police.

Urban criminal judges are almost completely unaccountable. Chicago judges are elected, and each election cycle, papers and blogs run horror stories about incompetent judges who no rational elector could vote for. And every election cycle, the exact same slate of horrible judges gets reelected. A civic-minded hacker that wanted to improve the criminal justice process in the US could make a large dent in the problem by coming up with something that would help the electorate handle judicial elections. For virtually everyone living in a big city, judicial elections are entirely opaque; city papers don't even cover them.

All it takes is an unrebutted affidavit to get a Judge to retire, or have disciplinary action taken against him. It's a wonder more people don't hold them accountable.

It's because people don't know this.

Can you provide more information?

This first page of google results is full of tax evasion quackery.

Do you have a handy link explaining this?

Sure, I'll do your homework for you. Start here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Affidavit

> Not only that, but people forget that most of the people police come into professional contact with are, in fact, criminals.

Really? You think that most of the people police come into contact with are criminals? How many arrests does a police officer make on an average night (X) and how many people does the officer contact (Y)? I'm guessing Y >> X.

Gonna argue that it's trivially true because everybody is effectively "a criminal", that is, guilty of some crime or other.

You're arguing semantics and contributing nothing to the actual discussion.

Most of the people the officers come into contact with on a regular basis that have meaningful impacts on the way the officers view those around them are criminals. Will the cop remember the young man who helped an old lady across the road, or the young man who stabbed and raped the same old lady?

I come into contact with literally thousands of people every week, but the same 20-30 have an impact on my life, and are the ones that I would say I actually come into contact with. Don't argue semantics, it genuinely adds nothing to the conversation.

This is a very good point, given the number of casual interactions a typical cop might have on a given day.

Still, based on what I know from having worked with cops and having cop family members, the job can change you. Cops are prone to seeing a side of life most of use are lucky to only read about.

I think we all like to believe that were it us we would not become cynical and jaded about humanity but that seems to be tougher than one might expect.

It's sadly common for too many cops to start thinking that everyone they meet is guilty of something and they just haven't been caught (yet).

Not to put words in tptacek's mouth, but I believe that assertion was related to his subsequent point about the recent trend of officers moving from "the beat" to patrol cars where they primarily respond to crimes. In the past, it was far more common for the bulk of the police force to spend time patrolling on foot and interacting with law abiding citizens and criminals alike.

Whereas now, except for certain exceptions such as in more "progressive" police forces or in downtown urban areas, most cops are somewhat detached from the public, except when responding to a crime.

> the recent trend of officers moving from "the beat" to patrol cars ...

Isn't this a 30 year old complaint, at least?

True enough. Recent defined as <35 years. Which in US historical terms, is still not so long.

The LAPD started doing this in the 50s-60s, under Bill Parker.

Parker's experience with the larger by per capita force of his early career led him to estimate that fewer but more professional officers would mean less corruption. Additionally, the strategy of changing the beat posture to one of mobility led to change from foot patrols to one which favored police cars. Not incidentally, this also furthered Parker's belief that isolating his officers from the streets would reduce opportunities for corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Parker_(police_offic...

"Professional contact". I chose my words carefully.

Unless you effectively narrowly define "professional contact" to mean situations where they are responding to a crime, I don't for a second believe you're right.

Almost, modulo the fact that the police are called into situations that may/may not involve crimes, but either way involve something bad enough that the police are called.

The CPD in Englewood don't spend a lot of time giving directions or registering bicycles or helping get cats out of trees.

Either way, my point was clear. If you disagree with it, I'm happy to hear why. But I'm not interested in this semantic argument.

> Not only that, but people forget that most of the people police come into professional contact with are, in fact, criminals.

The UK sometimes has anti drink-driving campaigns. Police forces increase the number of breathalyser tests. They're only allowed to use a breathalyser if they have reason to suspect someone is drunk - they saw them leaving a pub or driving erratically.

(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...) Page 77

> • During 2009, there were 813,288 screening breath tests carried out. This is a 14 per cent increase from 711,658 in 2008. This increase coincides with the introduction of new digital recording equipment, which may have streamlined breath test procedures for many forces.

> • The number of positive or refused tests in 2009 increased by three per cent from 91,666 in 2008 to 93,973 in 2009 after a three year decline.

> • The proportion of tests that were positive or refused in 2009 was 12 per cent, one percentage point lower than in 2008.

It seems that traffic officers come into contact with very many people who they think are criminals but who are not criminals.

It's gonna depend on location. Cop in the rich white suburbs might spend all day writing traffic tickets (civil), cop in the urban ghetto might spend all day investigating armed robbery (criminal).

A traffic ticket is not a civil offense. At least in Texas, it's a Class C Misdemeanor in the penal code.

I think it's entirely dependent on the area, and using breathalyzer tests in one city as a proxy isn't very convincing. I grew up in a mostly white, upper middle class, Boston suburb with next to no violent crime. All I've ever seen the police do is harass teenagers, such as myself for J walking many years ago, or breaking up house parties.

I spent freshman year of university in The Bronx, an borough in NYC which has highest poverty rate of any urban area in the States and by far the most dangerous of the NYC boroughs. I remember early on being afraid of seeing cops outside the bar we all wen't to that openly served minors, but they had more important things to do, such as protecting us on the walk back to campus. J walking is almost encouraged just so you keep you moving. The people police have to deal with are some of the scariest I've ever seen.

Further, every couple days we get an email about students getting mugged or worse, and every time the assailant is black or Hispanic. Without fail, despite 50+ notices at this point. Please, tell me how a cop can put away racial prejudices with statistics like that? Should they? Of course, but it's not that simple.

Ultimately I think the largest problem is the militarization of the police force. An army is supposed to fight an enemy, the police are supposed to protect citizens and mixing up the two becomes very dangerous very quickly.`

*Edit Typos and clarity

> Ultimately I think the largest problem is the militarization of the police force. An army is supposed to fight an enemy, the police are supposed to protect citizens and mixing up the two becomes very dangerous very quickly

Completely agree with this.

Over the past few years I have noticed this militaristic attitude creep into the Australian police force (and private security businesses, as they always copy what the police do). It is as though they are all just waiting for some massive global uprising that's never going to happen.

What bothers me is the attitude that comes with this new uniform tends to provoke responses from drunk idiots that are inline with these unspoken fears.

> Over the past few years I have noticed this militaristic attitude creep into the Australian police force

Then you will not be surprised to know that this is happening in the US too. Apparently the police in South Carolina need a "mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle"[1]

[1] http://benswann.com/sc-police-department-gets-u-n-blue-tank-...

That's all over the US right now. With Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, the Army has a bunch of unneeded MRAPs sitting around and they've been giving them away to LEOs.

>They're only allowed to use a breathalyser if they have reason to suspect someone is drunk

That is a weird rule.

It sure doesn't seem weird to me. Breathalyzers are invasive.

Different perspective I think.

Here (I live in Europe) they make routine breath tests during the holidays and week end for every car in X place (not surprisingly close to bars and clubs, but not always).

As a driver, I'm glad they try to reduce drunk driving, and I don't see how they could do it without regular tests (which are less invasive, than say, car that don't turn on if you fail the breath test inside the car. Yes, that was proposed at some point)

...car that don't turn on if you fail the breath test inside the car....

From what I've heard, these already exist for repeat DUIs.

They're called an ignition interlock [1]. And now all 50 states allow them for a DUII penalty in some form.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device

It's an inconvenience, but the thing that makes me most averse to that system is that it presumes guilt. Here in the US, cops are not allowed (though enforcement is lax) to detain you for any reason without reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime.

The US supreme court ruled that DUI checkpoints, where drivers may be stopped for a brief (~30 second) questioning to see if they appear drunk, but no answers are legally required, are legal here. This was a controversial decision and several states either passed laws or their existing state constitution prevent dui checkpoints.

The idea of a forced breath test without any evidence of intoxication is simply mind boggling to me.

I think people are okay with it if police are friendly and polite, and if there's some benefit.

Mass breath-testing programme always get a few complaints, but I think they'd get a lot more if people realised how few drunk drivers are caught, or if police were rude. Blowing into a tube for X seconds is invasive, but sobriety tests (walking a straight line, touching your nose, etc) feel weirder to me. (I realise that in both US and UK neither of these can be done unless they think you're drunk, and GP post was talking about tests done with no suspicion of drunkeness).

If you're driving a 5000 pound vehicle on public motorways, I don't see any problem with it. Driving is a privilege that's contingent upon following the rules, not a right.

Actually, your worldview is wrong, and mine is right, and driving is a human right that is not contingent on giving up privacy rights, right to not have your car searched, or other rights.

Are you serious?

Where did you get the idea that driving is a human right?

Use your brain and try thinking of one of the many plausible ways one might come up with that opinion.

Blunt force trauma?

Perhaps from the UN? "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State."

In the US, for probably 90% of the country there is no easily accessible public transit, cabs are financially infeasible for the working class, and attempting to walk down roads without sidewalks is very dangerous, and outright illegal for interstates and some highways. For a large percentage of the population, taking away the "privilege" of driving would entirely remove their right to move about the country freely.

When there is no alternative to driving to reach a grocery store, your place of employment, etc. can it really be considered a privilege?

By that reasoning, people who either can't afford cars or can't be trusted with them (DUI convicts) have no ability to travel freely. There are lots of infrastructure changes that should be made to fix that problem, so enshrining the right to drive cars around is neither a complete solution nor an especially efficient or safe one.

Not being able to afford a car is an entirely different matter from the government forbidding you from driving one. As for DUI offenders etc, once they've served their sentence they should have the right to drive like anyone else. During their jail or probation sentence, obviously they forfeit many civil rights.

It's a far easier problem economically to focus on those who can't afford a car than to build out public transportation networks. Perhaps in the future when there are driverless cars everywhere, driving could be a privilege. As it is now, and for the foreseeable future, driving is a requirement for many americans. I moved to a city with public transit to avoid driving, but not everyone has that option, and it's important to remember that.

> It's a far easier problem economically to focus on those who can't afford a car than to build out public transportation networks.

That's a very shortsighted statement. The costs of universal driving in terms of property damage, human injury and death, unproductive time spent commuting, traffic, inefficient urban design, resource expenditure, road maintenance, etc. are significantly higher than those of public transit.

And if you don't believe me about people who simply can't afford to drive, what about people who physically can't drive, like the blind? Or people who physically shouldn't drive, but are sometimes forced to do so, like people who suffer from narcolepsy or get intermittent seizures?

The only reason people don't have the option of avoiding driving is because of poor public infrastructure decisions and in some cases poor personal decisions when we can easily afford to do otherwise. Why do we make these poor decisions? Because we think driving our fat asses around in 5000-pound behemoths is a "right" that needs to be accomodated everywhere, but walking and cycling aren't. It's not science fiction--people managed to do without cars for thousands of years.

Setting all of that aside, if you're operating a motor vehicle that could easily kill people out of inattention, you're putting the public at risk and you have a responsibility to demonstrate you can do so competently and responsibly. Not being killed by cars is a more important right.

If you have your own private motorway or racetrack with no one else on it, fine. But operating a vehicle on public streets and highways is a privilege. Not being run over by your drunk ass--that's a human fucking right.

You seem so angry at the notion that somebody might have a different view than yours.

Maybe he got a little annoyed being spoken to by someone so smug they used the line "your worldview is wrong, and mine is right" without trying to be funny.

My entire original reply was about philwelch blithely spouting his opinion as if it were relevant at all and that jmccree needed to hear it. It's a blatant replication of his smugness.

That's not how it came across to me at least. His reply came across as a reasonable part of a discussion, and you came across as being a total asshole. Your assertion it was a "blatant replication of his smugness" just reinforces that impression to me.

If that's not the impression you want to give, you might want to reconsider your approach.

I'm not interested in people's impressions of me (and it doesn't bother me a bit if they think I'm an asshole -- I guess I'm just selfless that way).

That doesn't make you selfless, that makes you selfish, because you only care about what you think of your self and ignore what others think of you.

Enjoy it while the delusion of being right lasts!

Actually, his worldview closely matches the world out there, and yours doesn't, so technically his worldview is right.

Different perspective: I see it it as a requirement of holding a license and operating a motor vehicle that I have agreed to demonstrate I'm in a state capable of doing so safely when asked to do so in a manner that causes only minor inconvenience.

I'm in Australia, random breath tests have been around for many years and they have helped a lot with a culture of getting drunk and driving home.

> Different perspective: I see it it as a requirement of holding a license and operating a motor vehicle that I have agreed to demonstrate I'm in a state capable of doing so safely when asked to do so in a manner that causes only minor inconvenience.

What overly broad reasoning. Flip it around and apply it to other things that you could do to hurt people and you can apply that reasoning to all parts of your life.

Nah driving is way too dangerous to not have safety requirements involved like random breath testing. Driving kills far more people than it should, and drink driving is part of the reason.

Another perspective - what if they just followed cars leaving those bars and clubs for 1 mi., then returning and starting over after observing the driver's behavior?

I'm actually not opposed to breathalyzers inside of the car - it seems far less invasive than cops doing it for you, with the authority to ruin your life. If the car won't let you drive, call a friend or a taxi.

In any event, I'd prefer to avoid the hassle and feeling of being a suspected criminal that accompanies being stopped on the way home at a checkpoint. Papers please? (jk...?)

>Another perspective - what if they just followed cars leaving those bars and clubs for 1 mi., then returning and starting over after observing the driver's behavior?

You might notice someone being completely drunk that way, but not someone who's just moderately drunk reacting 10 times slower; unless something happens, of course, but you don't want that either.

> • The number of positive or refused tests in 2009 increased by three per cent from 91,666 in 2008 to 93,973 in 2009 after a three year decline.

Why are refused tests counted with positive tests?

I can't speak to the exact legal background, but this article explains the process well: http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breat...

From what I've heard in any other state I've lived in (US), it is the same or similar there.

Wow, that's a lot harsher than I was expecting. Suspending someone's license for a year, even if they don't drink, because they refuse a breathalyser? It seems kind of like a 5th and 6th amendment violation.

Judges and juries and awful politicians have been carving out little chunks of those amendments for the past 200 years. There's very little left to chip away.

Are you sure that that's the only circumstance in which an officer may breathalyse? From my memory of Traffic Cops, they routinely breath test anyone stopped for most other reasons to determine if it's a contributing factor.

Without another incident, they'd require a suspicion of erratic driving before arbitrarily stopping someone for drink driving.

Yeah, I got knocked off my bike by a car and mildly concussed; the addending police breathalysed both me and the driver. I suspect this happens routinely at minor accidents. I guess they're using "there was an accident" as evidence that there may have been erratic driving.

(in the UK)

I imagine that knocking someone off their bike counts as "erratic driving".

As a cyclist (and driver), it is as likely to be the cyclists fault.

Not so. A study by Westminster Council found fault with the cyclist in only 20% of collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758...

Well, the link I supplied quotes the law.

> Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police can require a person to take a screening breath test if they have a reasonable cause to suspect that:

> ● the person is or has been driving or attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with alcohol in their body (section 6(2) and 6(3));

> ● has committed a moving traffic offence (section 6(4)); or

> ● has been involved in an accident (section 6(5)).

> The subsequent evidential test carried out at the police station can be submitted as evidence in court.

> The prescribed alcohol limit is 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, which equates with 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100ml of blood.

> It is an offence to refuse to take a breath test when required to do so by a police officer unless there is a reasonable excuse. Court penalties for refusing an evidential test are the same as being above the prescribed limit.

Sure, my point was just that a low proportion of failed/refused tests doesn't necessarily imply that the officer originally believed the person to be intoxicated, and wrongly suspect them of criminality.

We seem to have exactly the same thing going on in Johannesburg, South Africa. Cops / Metro police stop people all the time and start an inquisition about how much a person has been drinking etc, threatening a breathylzer, jail etc.

Of all the times it's happened to me, I've actually completed one breathylzer test (it was zero).

It's borderline harassment at best, at worst solicitation of a bribe. I always ask, "what caused you to stop me or aroused your suspicions that I have been drinking?" and I never get an answer.

> Urban criminal judges are almost completely unaccountable. Chicago judges are elected, and each election cycle, papers and blogs run horror stories about incompetent judges who no rational elector could vote for.

I don't exactly how it works in Illinois, but in many states, the bulk of judges on the bench were appointed due to a midterm vacancy, and only run as an incumbent. In Oregon, at least, this is a sort of unwritten rule, and retiring judges will leave during their term to assure a gubernatorial appointment.

As you say, judicial elections tend not be publicized or greatly contested. So this has the effect of creating an appointment-for-life due to the minimal likelihood of an incumbent loss.

Check it out, a well-off white guy apologizing for the police on Hacker News. At least he's got some rage for The Man, in the form of elected officials he does nothing about. Gross and sad.

More like, a well-off white guy castigating another well-off white guy for writing an article about how he deliberately fucked with some working class cops to prove …whatever.

This is a beautiful and insightful comment. I used to live in the ghetto and knew cops that worked there, and after spending a couple of years listening to their stories the only thing that surprises me is how they're all not completely insane racist psychopaths. (A similar result comes from knowing some landlords.)

A little late to the party but the irony in your statement is that those people who the police are regularly in contact with were likely in regular contact with criminals themselves, often not of their own free will. Imagine a young man who grows up in the projects. The men he is in regular contact with are likely criminals, at least a large percentage of them. This would have the same psychological effect that policing has on veteran officers. If we need sweeping and creative reforms for police, we certainly need it for the poor minority kids who are destined to become the next generation of criminals those same police are going to have regular contact with.

We hold police to a higher standard because they are THE POLICE. They have take a job and a sworn oath to uphold the law. Yes they are human. Yes it is a largely difficult and thankless job. But under no circumstance does that obviate the fact that they chose to be officers. People born into the projects had no similar choice.

I have sympathy for the police and the situations they find themselves in but the fact remains that they are sworn to uphold the law regardless of the humans they have been in regular contact with.

I don't think this comment is responsive to anything I wrote.

I guess it's not, more of an observation that I find interesting. It doesn't negate or confirm anything you said.

I agree that he sucked up resources, including what could have been my tax dollars if this happened near me. Still, I'm finding myself entertained by the story. If he'd asked to subsidize the cost of his whacky experiment, I'd have chipped in a few bucks.

> He wasted valuable city resources

I don't think it was a waste, I think the information we all have received is more valuable to New York than the resources used to prosecute him. I think prosecuting acts of civil disobedience is an extraordinarily important and valuable function that the city performs. Dollars spent as intended.

Who do you think waste most money?

The author of this article or the police department for wasting taxpayers money incarcerating people left and right, giving the sentences way out of proportion with what they did and so on.

>He wasted valuable city resources

He provided a priceless civic service, that had significant personal and presumably financial costs to himself.

He is heroic.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. The whole point of this story is about how cops waste enormous amounts of time profiling, harassing and arresting people of color.

I find your priorities peculiar. This guys so called "waste of valuable city resources" was very well spent. He unconvered how enormous resources are being spent prosecuting and pestering people who are not really criminals and the cruelty of the system. You really think exposing this and getting attention brought to this problem is not worth the resources of processing one guy for spraying grafitti?

Something has to be obscured for it to be "uncovered" -- the unfairness and disparities in the justice system is common knowledge to anyone who has had to live it (and that's a lot of us), to anyone who has bothered to ask someone who has lived it about it, or to anyone who has looked into any sort of comprehensive scholarly analysis of it.

I have "been through the system" and it wasn't by choice, nor did it result in any charges being filed. Some people view that as luck, but given how common that outcome is, the real injustice is that I was ever arrested to begin with.

I'm not complaining about the author's use of public resources - the public resources were wasted by the police, not the author. But I don't think we should pretend that the author discovered anything new. I do think his decisions were a little reckless - people can learn about the justice system without exposing themselves to it first-hand, and exposing yourself to it can be quite dangerous. Sure it's less dangerous if you're white, but police kill white people under suspicious circumstances too.

First, fine, waste the resources. NYC deserves it. Second, the police deserve to be consequences for not succeeding in their work, as do we all. And they ought to punished punitively for betraying the publics trust.

> someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a cash register.

It doesn't work this way, unless it he tried his experiment at the busiest time of the day, and even then it is not 100% sure.

> The police are set upon from all sides.

We all are, we can all take the easy route by bending the rules, and risk getting in trouble.

> someone else was getting away with a purse snatching

Oh... and that's bad because? Letting petty crimes go unpunished is way better for society than jailing every other black young male (as the US have elected as their policy).

> At the end of the day, not catching the bad guys is the biggest sin in law enforcement

There are no "bad guys". There is no "evil". There are just people trying to get by.

> to see the world a little differently

Look at the incarceration rates in the US; no other country jails (or has ever jailed) as many of its citizens as the US (NO OTHER COUNTRY, whether democratic, despotic or theocratic). So "the world" is more like what HN readers see than like what you think you see.

I don't expect to convince you with just this little comment, but try and think about it. Try to argue that bad guys don't exist and see what arguments you come up with.

(PS: In the 40+ years I've been on this planet, I've been robbed, mugged, assaulted -- twice in NYC; in retrospect, nothing that was super-life threatening, but it sure felt real enough at the time.)

Petty crime? Many on HN seem to be a-ok with crime for sone reason ... maybe not many victims here?

No bad guys? You've got to be horribly naive.

> Thus, it seems perfectly natural and reasonable for them to say, "OK, you make twice the salary we make yet you wanna be a petty criminal? Poof, you're a petty criminal. Enjoy sleeping in the bed you made, and here's hoping you will be permanently cured of f##king with us in the future, a##hole."

Is petty vengeance a natural and reasonable reaction you expect and accept from the people that have power over you and almost everybody else?

It's hard for me to be sympathetic at all toward police, it's a known bias of mine. I grew up very poor in bad neighborhoods and it felt very much like living in a police state. Once, as a kid (maybe 11 or 12 years old) I was taken in for questioning for drawing with chalk in my own driveway. I have many other anecdotes about being discriminated against, witnessing brutality, etc... Growing up, I learned not to even bother going to the police when you needed them, they were unhelpful and usually treated us as suspects without cause (Maybe their own prejudices, given they may be based on their own personal experiences). But after getting a CS degree, making money and moving to better parts of town it's like I live in an entirely different country where police treat people like human beings. It isn't surprising those environments produce more criminals, it's a vicious cycle, something has to change. Given my background, my candid, unfiltered thoughts after reading your comment were, "Fuck them [the police], I'm glad he wasted their resources to help expose some of their bullshit so they can't be as busy making other people's lives miserable." Obviously posting that candid response would've been unhelpful for discourse but thought it was worth sharing if I provided a backdrop for my thoughts.

> He wasted valuable city resources

He should have been booked immediately, followed by being given the standard fare for the crime. Potentially upgraded due to having being pompous initially.

He can't be blamed for the fact that they turned it into a full trial (they only offered him jail time for a non-violent crime), nor for the parole time (the duration was way above what is normal), nor for the polices' time (he literally walked into the precinct and then they decided to drive him around town).

> someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a cash register

He walked into a precinct, who inside of a precinct is out stopping these things? They could have offered him a year parole and 10 days community service and he would have taken it, being orders worse than the usual penalty.

> Enjoy sleeping in the bed you made

He didn't actually complain about his situation, he complained about those around him. The guy wanting sugar pills, the guys being cramped with another cell available, the beating up suspects. He did a minor complaint about being driven around town to make it seem like they did their job, but that was more related to the absurdity than his time.

> If they bend the rules, they are severely punished.

Protect the Blue doesn't exist in your world? I will not claim that officer's aren't held to a higher standard, but there is plenty of evidence that police standards could be higher given their position of power.

> At the end of the day, not catching the bad guys is the biggest sin in law enforcement

This needs to change. 100% coverage is not obtainable nor a lofty goal. Coverage as good as reasonable standards for everyone involved is what we want.

Isn't that the entire point of this article? Whether you agree with him or not, that is what he is achieving here.

Guvante's reply is really important, because many people who are disagreeing with blisterpeanuts are none the less taking for granted that "he wasted valuable city resources" and so forth. And the point is, he didn't. He turned himself in. He was willing to accept standard no-trial sentencing. He paid a larger-than-typical fine to compensate the city for the expense of dealing with his graffiti.

The city wasted its own resources trying to teach this guy a lesson for disrespecting their authority.

But he wasted their resources first. He picked this fight, not the city.

They were wasting their resources long before he showed up; he picked the fight because of that.

Any attempt to show the priviledged how unfair others are treated and how broken is the justice system will only lead to denial, anger, accusations and rationalizations from the priviledged.

whoa you believe the knockout game is real? ouch.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/montgomery.asp

Have you actually read your own link?

> The police are set upon from all sides. If they bend the rules, they are severely punished.

Are they? I see a lot more police-brutality videos than I do reports of police being punished for brutality.

Incredibly disappointed that this is the first comment. I honestly expected more from HN readers.

The justice system is so disgustingly broke that we absolutely need dedicated, level-headed people to do these types of "social hacks" to prove it.

It takes willful acts of civil disobedience to create real change, to bring awareness in a way that's difficult to ignore.

Catching the bad guy is not the only thing that matters in law enforcement, but sadly that's what the militarization of police forces is creating: a system where the ends justify the means. You would not be so dismissive if you were the habitual target of police laziness. It takes a lot of work to catch the bad guys without breaking the rules.

Frankly I think you're being less level headed than the comment you're replying to. The justice system is flawed, but you're presenting a very simplistic view that doesn't do a lot to help correct it. The OP and the comment you're replying to, on the other hand, are both part of a successful conversation.

We can't fix the system if we start from the assumption that the people running the system are basically criminal because they're doing their jobs the way they've always been done.

Demonizing people who are, for the most part, trying to do the right thing with limited resources doesn't help them do their job better, and it doesn't help us talk about how we can change the system to be better. Dialing down the militarization of the police force isn't a matter of humanizing the criminals - we have to humanize the police as well. Calling the police lazy and disgusting dehumanizes them and reinforces the idea of police as shock troops.

What's a social hack?

Bullshit. The whole process this guy went through to report on the state of affairs is valuable because it puts the depth of reality on what is otherwise a known but relatively abstract situation. We all know that the judicial system is unfair in an abstract sense, but without seeing actual, real-life examples it does not get driven home nearly as strongly.

This article has good parallels with the NYT reporters who feigned being asylum seekers to travel to Australia by boat and document the horrible treatment experienced at all stages by those who take this journey [1]. I could easily imagine you arguing that these NYT reporters were terrible because they could have been on board a boat that sank and caused search and rescue people to go out and waste their time trying to find them. Equally, I could imagine you arguing that they denied a few genuine asylum seekers the room on a boat and therefore they're still stuck in a dangerous situation. However, that's completely missing the point.

The point is that without people undertaking these experiences and documenting them, the harsh reality of the situation is never quite realised. You don't end up humanising the debate around how these situations are handled, so people show less empathy towards the situation. This is a terrible situation to be in, because we then forget that we're dealing with actual human beings and not just nameless, inert objects.

In the case of the judicial system, it's one thing to know that the system mistreats and punishes people but it's another thing to actually hear the stories about the diabetic being denied proper medical treatment because of some power-tripping guard. That's why you had to go out of your way to clarify that you weren't justifying their ill treatment of him - it was humanised and put into real-world context.

In the case of the asylum seeker report, it's pretty widely known that they experience harrowing conditions and receive pretty repulsive treatment by the various governments in an effort to deter their coming to Australia. But without actually hearing the stories of the hopeful children excited about the journey as they kill time in a refugee safehouse playing in the pool with literal spare parts of broken equipment as toys, or the blind hope of the guy wanting to make a better future for his kids whilst simultaneously denying to himself that he won't just be chucked in a jail on a third world island, you don't experience the same empathy for their situation.

It's a direct counter to the rhetoric used to de-humanise the whole situation. In the case of asylum seekers, they go from being 'asylum seekers' to 'boat people' because the thought of turning away people fleeing some war-torn hellhole to find a better life is harder than turning away a few people who decide one day to hop on a boat to 'jump the queue'. The re-humanising of the whole argument through actual stories and events is the strongest way to put some emphathy back in to the argument and highlight that we are in fact dealing with other human beings, capable of thinking for themselves and having their own families and loved ones.

In the case of the judicial system, it's that these people are criminals who exist in some isolated void without family or former childhoods or any of that and simply must be dealt with so that they can't commit another crime, rather than humans with a story and a life larger than the crime they allegedly committed. Hell, the author himself said that when he was practicing, he always assumed he was trying actual guilty criminals and that once they'd been dealt with, it was all over. It was only afterwards that he started wondering about the broader implications of what he was doing.

So because of that, I completely reject your statement that it's a waste of resources and time to undertake these sorts of investigations. Does it divert theoretical resources away from the ideal task that those resources would be addressing? Sure. But it's an extremely valuable use of those resources to highlight the broader issues at play and put some human empathy, so often sorely missing, back in to the debate.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/the-impossible-re...

The guy vandalised property, wasted police and court time so he could "have an experience." This is why his sentance was harsh. The judge wanted to deter this nonsense going forwards and the judge is right to do this. I have little sympathy for his treatment.

> The whole process this guy went through to report on the state of affairs is valuable because it puts the depth of reality on what is otherwise a known but relatively abstract situation. We all know that the judicial system is unfair in an abstract sense, but without seeing actual, real-life examples it does not get driven home nearly as strongly.

The key point here is that you get can get real-life examples by interviewing people caught up in the legal system. There are plenty of them, it isn't difficult to fact check the circumstances of their arrest. All this is possible without wasting police time.

Then people like you would dismiss that "unreliable source". Like how the mass surveillance stuff had been leaked previously even by insiders, but was dismissed for years.

> people like you

What kind of person do you think I am?

Does the "send a message" thing work? Other than the obvious disconnect to whatever message is thought to be sent and whether that message is received let alone understood, any apparent examples I've encountered only make me consider possible inherent unfairness or corruption, not anything else.

Either the "system" is responding fairly and accurately to the level of "wrong" or it's just a bunch of power brokers in exercise, not contemplating justice.

> All this is possible without wasting police time

How many police officers are there in New York city? How many people do they arrest or otherwise spend time on every single day? How many hours did his case take out of the total hours spent? 0.001% ?

That's not "waste" in any meaningful way of the word, and not even an argument in this discussion.

How can you defend someone who repeatedly vandalises a public space just so he can prance around a cell and say how horrible it is? It is easy enough to find people who have had these experience and document them.

I am sure the math could be done on the actual cost of this persons misadventure. The cost of reporting the incident, trawling through CCTV, looking for the person responsible, holding the person responsible in a cell, processing the paper work, the courts time, cleaning up after him etc.

It is likely to be tens of thousands of dollars when everything is said and done. Such a waste of resources just so someone could write a story about his experience..

Imagine if more people wanted to spend their weekend in a cell just to see what it is like.. its rediculous and takes the police and prosecutors away from dealing with real criminals.

Granted some light has been shed on the state of the system in this article but the author could have achieved the same effect by interviewing people who have been through it.

> How can you defend someone who ..

I didn't really, I just pointed out that the "wasting of resources" argument is pretty silly since he actually used very little resources, in the scale of things.

I do however think he did (try to) do something worthwhile, at a personal expense.

> Imagine if more people wanted to spend their weekend in a cell just to see what it is like..

Yeah, call me when that happens.

Also, it doesn't matter that it would be bad if everyone did it. What would happen if everyone decided to take the subway at 10.00 tomorrow? IT WOULD BE CHAOS!! Does that mean I can't take the subway at 10 tomorrow?

> the author could have achieved the same effect by interviewing people who have been through it.

No-one would read that.. I'm sure I can dig up thousands of pages of reports like that.. not exactly making the headlines.

> Such a waste of resources just so someone could write a story about his experience..

Dude...he didn't do it so that he could write about the experience, he did it so that we could read about it. That's a qualitative difference.

While I agree in general with your assessment, some people don't understand until they see "someone like them" i.e., not a poor unfortunate soul or a criminal.

Someone who steps out of their comfort zone, and gets "the experience" has a more visceral feeling - for those who can't imagine themselves poor, unfortunate, or having to turn to crime, this is the only way they can truly "experience" it.

I'm not without reservations about the utility of this man's approach in documenting the harsh criminal "justice" system, but it does add another angle.

> The guy vandalised property, wasted police and court time

The DA wasted court time. The judge was accepting the plea bargain and the DA decided to waste time. They could have easily fined him to more than make up for any wasted time it took to track him down after he turned himself in.

Why is it better that your perspective is humanized? I would think you make better decisions by reading statistics and trying to improve the numbers, than by reading stories and acting on your emotions. On the other hand I can see that stories can be useful for highlighting problems in your model so that you can improve the model, but I have a hard time seeing their usefulness apart from that.

Because you cannot treat a humanitarian issue without considering the humane aspects of it. As you said, your 'model' needs to consider the humane aspects of the problem at hand. We're dealing with humans, so it sort of by definition of the term requires a humane approach. That humane approach is about understanding how the system as a whole affects all parties involved in it and their motives for their actions.

The de facto situation in a worryingly large portion of people involved in debate about these topics is that it's not humanised to them, because it's at arm's length and they don't see it happen or feel any effect from it. It's no different to why seeing video footage of some atrocity is far more shocking than reading about it in a paper. That's why stuff like the OP and the link I posted is important - it's the next closest thing to shoving someone there themselves.

Think of the OP as a laywer dogfooding the judicial system he helps operate.

As an aside, there was a series on TV here a while ago called "Go Back to Where You Came From" [1]. It took a bunch of people, including some prominent anti-asylum political commentators and actually took them over to Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Congo, etc. and showed them first-hand what life is like for the people fleeing these places. Unsurprisingly, their reaction to it in person was markedly different to their reaction to it when they're sitting in an office at home reading about it in a paper.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Back_To_Where_You_Came_From

>We're dealing with humans, so it sort of by definition of the term requires a humane approach.

This argument is wrong. Let me rephrase it to make that more evident.

>We're dealing with humans, so it sort of by definition of the term requires [we treat them well].

or maybe

>We're dealing with humans, so it sort of by definition of the term requires [we don't reduce them to a statistic].

It clearly does not follow by definition.

>is far more shocking than

>their reaction to it in person was markedly different to their reaction

Yes. But is that better?

> If they bend the rules, they are severely punished.

Huh. Ever heard of the "Blue Shield"?

Check out the "bad cop no donut" subreddit sometimes. There's some petty stuff posted on there, but also quite enough to make the hair on the neck of any thinking, feeling person stand up.

Did you read the article at all?

As an ex-prosecutor, the guy clearly knew nothing about the justice system, sure.

The author begins with a litany of ways that unneeded, necessary prosecutions work to injure the neighborhoods of people of color based on his own years of experience on the job. The point is that a lot of the average activity of the police is counter-productive. If this guy preempted the cops from, say, arresting a black convenience store clerk from "trespassing" at his own store, he's hardly derailing crucial activity.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/3769823/in-miami-garde...

And would you berate Edward Snowden for the "valuable government resources" that surely have been spent on his behalf? Somebody has to be willing to document the abuses of our system, and I'm glad he did it.

Treating an entire group of individuals as criminals is bound to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Between confirmation bias and people living up to expectations you are guaranteed to see what you expected to see. To believe in the rule of law you must believe the law is fair, and large numbers of people see every day that it is not.

> Why were the police and the criminal justice officials apparently angry with him? Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police profile people and to "prove" that getting arrested and jailed can be a violent and unfair experience, someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a cash register.

All of those things would've happened anyway. Every single one of them. If you read the story (did you?) you'd see that the cops routinely ignored him to chase after darker-skinned "criminals" instead, anyway.

>He wasted valuable city resources on an experiment the outcome of which he should have predicted, being a criminal attorney in Roxbury.

Its not a waste of time if he's a report, reporting on a social condition that requires attention - and that is exactly what this is all about. The fact is that there is a police state industry in the USA and any light being shone on it is positive.

"He wasted valuable city resources on an experiment the outcome of which he should have predicted, being a criminal attorney in Roxbury."

No. He used city resources to audit a city activity buy running an experiment to prove a hypothesis.

This "should of predicted" point is bullshit. Its like those people who say, "So what about NSA spying, we (smart arses) knew all along". Well, no they didn't. The thought they knew, but they did not know until it was proved with the Snowden leaks. Like wise this prediction you expected this person to make.

To many people think they know things then really they dont, they just believe them, and they cant know anything until its proved. This guy proved it.

OK, my use of the word "prove" is probably going a little too far, but you get my drift. He has at least added to a body of evidence. Which is a damn good use of city money.

As for the reaction of the authorities, well that is a disgrace. Presumably this guy is a local tax payer, and there for paying for these authorities. He has every right to discover if he and his fellow tax payers are getting value for money.

Yea, let's never question authority/malpractice/racial profiling, because it may mean someone gets away with a petty crime. That's super logical...

> He wasted valuable city resources on an experiment the outcome of which he should have predicted, being a criminal attorney in Roxbury.

I'm not sure he is the one that wasted resources though. Wasn't he about to plea bargain before they decided to "make an example of him" at the expense of wasted resources? They could have fined him to easily cover those "wasted resources." It really revealed that personal vendettas are easily carried out by DAs, police, and judges when it comes to sentencing and treatment.

> The police are set upon from all sides. If they bend the rules, they are severely punished. If they don't bend the rules, and the rules don't always apply the way liberal suburban white folks might imagine they do on the street, then they get castigated for not "doing their job" i.e. catching the bad guys...the public will view you with contempt and disgust.

It's hard to have sympathy when your excuse is that you're worried about being seen with contempt and disgust, so you have to strive to ruin lives as much as possible.

> here's hoping you will be permanently cured of f##king with us in the future, a##hole."

So they want to be viewed with contempt and disgust or not? That is a pretty disgusting view.

That's not why this guy is an asshole. This guy is an asshole because that story doesn't need him to tell it; there are all the people who are actually oppressed by the terror system, some of whom he met. Tell their story. Help them tell it if no one takes it seriously. This guy is just like the author of "Black Like Me": completely unnecessary and insulting to the folks who actually suffer the tyranny of a system that's designed to hold them down. Also, you are too sympathetic to the thugs who enforce the tyranny.

This is simultaneously the funniest and most tragic thing I've read in a long time. It's nearly unbelievable.

It reminds me a bit of Eddie Murphy's skit for SNL where he dresses up in white-face so he can experience society on the other side. This is almost as funny as that skit, no exaggeration. The tragedy is that this story is true.

What part of this did you find funny?

The part where he got three years probation because the judge was pissed off about his shenanigans.

I hope I'm not remiss in perceiving strong dry humor throughout the first half of the story. My favorite part is where he looks at the cop in the car and keeps right on spraying:

As I moved the can back and forth, a police officer in an Interceptor go-cart saw me, slammed on his brakes, and pulled up to the curb behind me. I looked over my shoulder, made eye contact with him, and resumed. As I waited for him to jump out, grab me, or Tase me, he sped away and hung a left, leaving me standing there alone.

And in the next paragraph...

I woke up the next morning and Fox News was reporting that unknown suspects had vandalized City Hall. I went back to the entrance and handed the guard my driver’s license and a letter explaining what I’d done.

Fox News, unknown suspects... Maybe it's just me, but this had me laughing out loud.

I bet the police dispatch described the suspect as a young black man wearing jeans and a black hoodie.

African-american male Between 5'5" and 6'2" between 16 and 30 years old about 150 to 200 lbs.

Sprinkle some crack on him Johnson...

I'm glad someone else made this reference. The first half of the story reminded me of Chappelle's "I'm sorry officer - I didn't know I couldn't do that" bit

Same thing...

Have you seen American Psycho? (Of course you have...)

I always had this 'alternate theory' that the movie is about how the top of society can pretty much do as they please.

Alternate theory? That's a very popular interpretation of the film. Nobody notices anyone is dead because everyone looks the same and they don't care enough to learn who anyone is (the lawyer's response to Bateman's phone monologue), or nobody cares that anyone is dead (the landlord of the apartment Bateman murdered and cut up people in).

Trying hard to get arrested in a "tough on crime" system and failing miserably is funny in a tragic way.

I was amused by the part where the cop saw him spraying the second stencil onto City Hall, ignored it and drove off. And the part where he tried to turn himself in five times and wasn't allowed to.

It reminds me more of Bonfire of the Vanities, in which a bonds trader gets the book thrown at him to make an example.

  The judge [...] ordered three years of probation, a $1000 fine, a $250 surcharge,
  a $50 surcharge, 30 days of community service, and a special condition allowing police
  and probation officers to enter and search my residence anytime without a warrant.

Wow. Perhaps I'm naive, but I was unware that a first-time, nonviolent misdemeanor could be grounds for removing your 4th amendment rights.

Yes, the judicial system can destroy your life once it touches you... even if you're innocent.

So were you under the impression that incarcerated persons could not have their cells searched without a warrant, too?

The 5th and 14th amendments provide that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". He was convicted of a crime. The punishment can include random searches, drug tests, ankle monitors, etc., as long as it is provided for by law.

Actually I have no idea why you think I'm under that impression. I know that (for example) convicted felons can lose their voting rights, but I did not know that committing a misdemeanor would cause you to lose protection against searches in your own home after your release, potentially forever.

This was a total surprise for me as well. I did not know that you could even lose that right. I guess anything is legal as long as there's a law that says it is.

He was convicted of a crime. The punishment can include random searches, drug tests, ankle monitors, etc., as long as it is provided for by law.

When I read the parent comment, I didn't see someone surprised that it CAN be done, but someone surprised at where the line of when it is an appropriate remedy had been drawn.

So you are saying that crime is a crime even if it's first-time, nonviolent misdemeanor and you can be deprived of life, liberty or property if due process of law happened?

That horribly low standard for a justice system. Especially that due process of law basically boils down to judge deciding what tickles him the right way.

While an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind, most people believe that the justice system should react to the crime based on the magnitude of the crime.

In this case the value of his life and liberty given his lack of background is probably worth more than the protection the state gains by being able to search his house at will. Which is the entire purpose of the 4th amendment.

So do you think that crimes should have no legal punishments? Really?

I think crimes should have punishments proportionate to the damage done. At the same time I'd like punishmeants themselves to cause as little damage as possible.

Why would you put someone in prison for a first time non violent offence?

In most US jurisdictions misdemeanors are punishable by up to a year in jail and/or $1,000 fine. Some states are worse. Considering how many things are crimes in the US, most of us commit enough to theoretically get life in prison every year.

hm ... So you commit a lot of crimes?

See the book and surrounding discussion of "three felonies a day". The Congressional Research Service cannot even produce an accurate count of how many federal crimes they are. Most estimates are over 100,000 different offenses. Add in state, county, municipal, further governmental subdivision crimes, etc. and it's totally impossible to know all the laws of the land.

They say ignorance of the law is no defense, but when the government can't even supply an accurate count of the number of the laws, maybe we should re-think that. We all commit a lot of crimes.

No I think this is cute but it is just hyperbolic.

I don't "get" this article.

The beginning seems to be him talking about how difficult it was for him to get the police to think he was suspicious. The article was really interesting, and it seemed to be a point about racial/socio-economic profiling.

But once he got into the system, he was treated terribly. Probation, not being allowed to visit his family, for a misdemeanor.

Honestly, his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied evenly, it's just that it was harder for him to get the police's attention while he was wandering around in a suit and tie.

He was making two points, the first that it isn't being applied evenly (just because it's applied evenly after a guilty verdict, that doesn't change the fact that the system is less willing to find certain people guilty in the first place). The second point is then that people are treated badly after being found guilty, regardless of race.

And that this is what he was up against as a suit wearing white person. Others get it much worse.

his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied evenly

He is one of their own who had gone out of his way to make them look foolish. Once that was clear he was treated more harshly than an equivalent first offender, not less. edit - and not equally.

How do we know this? Why would we assume that the prosecutor would have gone to the trouble of digging that deep over a misdemeanor graffiti charge?

The prosecutor recommended the standard dismissal before noticing the sticky attached to his/her file that presumably said something like "troublemaking asshole - smash this guy".

Mockery of justice, that.

Enough to make one doubt the legitimacy of any verdict, much less that particular one.

> The district attorney’s office, responsible for prosecuting offenders, asked the judge to dismiss my case with three days of community service. This is standard practice for first-time, nonviolent misdemeanor offenders. The judge read through the paperwork and agreed, though he raised the number of community service days to five.

> I accepted the sentence and the clerk began reading it into the record.

> “Your honor, wait!” the assistant state attorney interrupted. Startled by the outburst, the judge looked up and scowled as the attorney read something written on her file. She blushed and continued, “I’m sorry, I have to withdraw my offer.” As the judge shook his head and set a date to return, I felt an odd pang of empathy for her. Once, as a rookie prosecutor, a judge had humiliated me in open court for being evasive about a file that had an ominous yellow “do not dismiss” sticky note on it.

I dunno, maybe because we read the article?

I thought the same thing as you. The police he encountered possibly weren't 'used' to the sort of behavior he was exhibiting, and the way he was going about the crime. It's difficult to conclude that it was necessarily tied to his class / color, and I wonder if the author didn't go in with an idea in mind, and simply saw what he wanted.

>The police he encountered possibly weren't 'used' to the sort of behavior he was exhibiting

They aren't supposed to be used (e.g to crime being black).

They are supposed to use their eyes and investigate.

That's their work.

"But once he got into the system, he was treated terribly"

Compared to what? And where else has he personally has experienced?

While I'm sure it wasn't a walk in the park (or a stay at the Four Seasons) even reading hotel reviews different people can say wildly different things about the same hotel on different days.

He had the basis of a good article here though no matter what. A good experience or a bad experience gives him the basis for something that people would find interesting that have never been arrested before.

Compared to the customary practices of light sentences for nonviolent offences that he was accustomed to seeing __in his career as an ADA in Boston__. Compared to the plea that the DA was originally willing to extend to him, and later rescinded.

No, it was not applied evenly. Most people in his situation would not have had their plea deal revoked at the last second. The state's attorney and the judge singled him out and piled on extra charges because he publicly embarrassed the justice system. His real "crime" was bringing a reporter along to witness him handing over his signed confession.

The instant he did that, he lost all hope of seeing how justice works for normal folks. How is anyone to know whether his ill treatment was due to his actual crime or due to the pseudocrime of creating bad publicity for the powers that be?

>Honestly, his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied evenly, it's just that it was harder for him to get the police's attention while he was wandering around in a suit and tie.

Not really. The idea is the system is flawed both ways:

At first, he was ignored because he was white, well groomed and such. (Racism).

In the second part, he was punished harshly not because suddenly the system made a u-turn and decided to "apply justice evenly", but because they didn't appreciate him making waves and questioning their practices.

To be fair it would be nice for a black journalist do the same in a suit and tie.

I hope that was a joke because I don't see how that would be a smart thing to do even for the purpose of investigative journalism. Unless he or she has a way to quickly call mayday if things start to go wrong which they most likely will. The criminal justice system is fairly dangerous for blacks, especially men.

It's not a joke, but I do take your point. I just think investigative jounalism is the best way to expose this shit. Frankly I'm pretty isolated and don't see or take for granted this level of racism. It shocks me.

I think some hardcore expose work will have to happen. And I Mean seriously hard core. Like sacrifice an eye to hold an embedded camera type hardcore.

Wishful thinking, I know.

It's not a safe endeavor for a black journalist to do what this man did. I'm sure he would have been arrested early on, and probably even charged with a worse offense out of spite (such as resisting arrest). That would probably result in significant jail time. (Max jail time of 6 months in some states, max 2 years in others... and 'unlimited' fine amounts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV__Y_JcFVc

Rights Advocate Maintains Police Beat Him in a 'Sting' He Arranged

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/16/us/rights-advocate-maintai...

Alleged Police Abuse Case Is Settled : Litigation: Long Beach will pay $170,000 to Don Jackson and friend over a secretly videotaped confrontation with officers after a traffic stop in 1989.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-12/local/me-49365_1_long...

Exactly. I'm sure the reason he wasn't being arrested in the beginning is not solely because of race but also due to his _attire_ and _calm behavior_. Cops are used to street criminals looking shady, behaving strangely; not just being black and hispanic (for the most part). So yes, if a black journalist in a suite quietly painted graffiti on a street — would he be treated _much_ differently than this guy did?

Although we will never know for sure, I don't think he was necessarily punished extra-harshly in the second part. His point is that if you're poor, and black or hispanic, once you're in the system (which is easier to happen to you), these are the restrictions that get put on you and we wonder why opportunities for these groups are quashed.

> Although we will never know for sure, I don't think he was necessarily punished extra-harshly in the second part.

He doesn't come out and say it, probably to avoid the perception that he's complaining about something he did voluntarily, but reading between the lines that's exactly what's going on.

He points out that standard practice for a simple non-violent misdemeanour would have been dismissal with a slap on the wrist and a tiny bit of public service. The justice system couldn't handle the volume of cases it does if every misdemeanour graffiti case got probation.

Having his file flagged 'do not dismiss' by higher ups at the DA's office and the judge come down abnormally hard on him (more than what the DA was asking for) is almost certainly retaliation for them being aware he was doing it for a story.

the selective enforcement of laws and punishment is a well known form of tyranny hiding under pretense of "law and order". The wide discretion given to police, DAs and courts combined with extremely tough laws - carrying a spray can is a misdemeanor (obviously in the real life it is a misdemeanor only when you're black or have saggy pants) - is the foundation of that regime and is clearly depicted in the article.

I don't disagree with you in any way, but I wonder if there's any other real option. I often see cases where mandatory sentencing causes miscarriages of justice too.

I guess the solution is more mandatory sentencing, but make the mandates better?

The first big step is to reduce the number of laws, and things that are considered criminal. When we stop legislating morality and inconvenience much of this discretionary enforcement goes away.

I agree that was the main point, but the description of his court hearings strongly suggests that both the prosecutor and the judge were retaliating.

I disagree. The police don't consistently arrest people for committing minor infractions. For example, spitting on the sidewalk is a violation in NYC, but the NYPD isn't issuing thousands of summonses. It doesn't make any point re: the police and race.

This guy is a professional agitator. He didn't get arrested for carrying graffiti tools, so he tagged city hall. The officer present decided to not deal with a political speech issue and moved along. Then he decided to be a smart ass and annoy people who have the power and broad discretion to apply the letter of the law upon him. When you do that, you tend to attract harsh treatment.

The second part isn't a problem per se -- the District Attorney's office and Probation Department are legally invested to use their own discretion. I suppose that if he built a rapport with the PO and had his requests granted, that he would be complaining that he received favorable treatment for being white.

I always wondered, why are those laws that are being ignored by most of the police force (spitting, jaywalking and such) not being removed? Is there any reason to keep them besides having a reason to arrest anyone at any time?

>Is there any reason to keep them besides having a reason to arrest anyone at any time?

A former NYC ADA mentioned that this was a popular way for the cops to arrest people because they felt like it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/nyregion/minor-offense-on-...

Most people voluntarily comply with the law. Think of laws as requirements that society engineers around. Enforcement by police is the most intrusive and expensive way to get compliance with the law.

Having a law against, say jaywalking helps to make sure that things like crosswalks and other pedestrian safety features get engineered into projects.

I agree this whole piece comes down to discretion.

The article describes the imbalance of policing white and black communities.

It then describes the stupid sub-optimal workings of the punishments, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion about how someone subject to those restrictions is supposed to move away from crime.

It is stupid that a non-violent misdemeanour offence can prevent someone from travelling outside an area.

Yes you didn't and No the conclusion is not that justice is being applied evenly.

Be white professional == not get arrested. Expose the system == get inordinately punished as severely as possible even if (or maybe more so) you are white professional.

The system is unjust and abuses its authority to intimidate / curtail anyone pointing that out (or otherwise embarrassing the system, it's components or people).

It fits together perfectly. At first they couldn't notice him, then they arrested him and embarrassed with their incompetence, they inconvenienced him as much as they could (they couldn't beat him up because if he said they did people would believe him). After that they prosecuted him diligently for a long time (because that's what they thought will look best). But in the end prosecutor dared only to demand 15 days of community service for him. But the judge (whose basically a god in justice system) got annoyed and on a whim locked the poor guy inside New York for 3 years out of spite and allowed police to pay him a visit any time if they'd like to harass him a bit.

You could say that justice has been applied evenly but only if you average out severe neglect at the beginning and revenge at the end. If he didn't piss of the judge (by being who he is) he'd get 15 days of community service after long trial and if he didn't influence the prosecutors (by being who he is) he'd get 3 days without much fuss.

So as a non-lawyer white guy he'd get arrested (if he wanted to be), inconvenienced and get 3 days of community service. As a black guy, he'd get snatched of the street much earlier, get beaten up, and get much more severe sentence (maybe year of probation).

I think the point is that it is a contrived and arbitrary circus. No rhyme or reason. Filled with prejudice, brutality, and inhumanity.

Interesting aside about the author's accidental ability to elude two members of the NYPD counterterrorism division:

"Two Intelligence Unit detectives arrived and testily walked me outside to a waiting unmarked police car. Court papers show that they’d staked out my apartment to arrest me, and that I unwittingly kept eluding them. In one dramatic instance, two officers had tailed me as I walked down Eastern Parkway. I’d entered the subway station at the Brooklyn Museum, unaware that I was being followed. One of the officers had followed me through the turnstiles while another guarded the exit. The report states that the officers then inexplicably lost contact with me."

Not that it's much less embarrassing this way, but... why would you assume they chose people from a counter-terrorism division to go after a graffiti artist?

That's what the Intelligence Unit is.

Yep. You never know what kind of secret communist/terrorist intelligence you will find in street graffiti.

Isn't it more likely to be in graffiti than via Morse coded gnome hops? I hope the NSA is getting photos of all that graffiti it sounds dangerous.

>>Isn't it more likely to be in graffiti than via Morse coded gnome hops?

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/12/11

Fair point, seems it's called "NYPD Intelligence Division & Counter-Terrorism Bureau" - I'm clearly no expert on NYC police!

Intelligence Unit may include counter-terrorism duties, but they are also involved in surveillance of organized crime, robbery suspects, and witness protection, among other things. (Though these duties may differ from city to city).

... and the guy who tried to turn himself in for spraying a graffiti it appears.

There's a lot of NYC cops that don't seem fit enough to chase someone taking a brisk walk. :-)

I wonder if the "inexplicable" part has to do with the desire not to be the officer who has to deal with the hassle (paperwork or whatnot). "Oh yeah, gee I dunno, we lost him."

That's exactly it. The guy was about to get on the subway and go who knows where. The cop probably wanted to make sure he got home for dinner.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/09/46357.htm

Alternative take on what has happened here.

>>> This reporter accompanied Constantino on one of those trips, watching as the lawyer handed a guard his passport and driver's license. After calling City Hall staffers from inside the guard booth, the officer told Constantino to come back the next day.

>>> Instead, Constantino dramatically turned himself in at Manhattan Criminal Court that Friday, after the stop-and-frisk protesters were convicted of disorderly conduct.

>>> "Your Honor, I refuse to leave this court," Constantino told the judge. "I am choosing in peace and love not to leave this court."

------------------

The purpose of getting arrested was to protest the Stop and Frisk laws in NYC. It seems like Bobby Constantino is milking the story for all its worth though, and turning it into something else.

Not that it is a bad perspective or anything, but I think it is important to remember his original purpose for getting arrested.

Wow, I wish I could upvote this a dozen times. No surprise here, the guy painted the story in the most supportive light possible.

This is not news, this is a political piece. He's free to publish such a thing, but people need to be more discriminatory when giving so much weight to his "facts".

This is a great article, and I really appreciate this paragraph:

> But in between the important cases, I found myself spending most of my time prosecuting people of color for things we white kids did with impunity growing up in the suburbs.

However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are dangerous, namely gang activity.

In not going after the author, the police simply did the analysis they are required to do: is this guy a threat within the spirit of the law?

Now, obviously there are shortcomings in the heuristics the police are using here. It's not okay to conclude that someone is a threat because they're a black teenager in a hoodie and aren't a threat because they're a white professional in a suit. But I don't think we really want a mechanical justice system that follows the mere letter of the law instead of the spirit. We don't want police to ignore the distinction between someone tagging a public building to make a point, and gang members tagging a private building to "make a point."

> In not going after the author, the police simply did the analysis they are required to do: is this guy a threat within the spirit of the law?

I don't think we know that. Maybe it's true, but I can't rule out other possibilities.

Like what?

>However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are dangerous, namely gang activity.

Millions of people do graffiti -- and very few of them have anything to do with "gang activity".

This "proxy" notion doesn't hold. Neither would such retribution to such "offences" be fair even if it was so.

In fact, sending people to jail for such trivial stuff is a more effective introduction to serious crime than their initial offences.

The conditional probability that someone will tag given that he is a gang member is high. Gangs mark their territory in this way. The legislators, probably not even knowing who Bayes is, feel free to reverse the conditional and say that the probability someone is a gang member given that he tags is also high.

At the least, they are not fully independent events, so it's not totally idiotic. If you combine that with broken window theory, it makes a lot of sense [to the cops] to rely on such statutes as a way to fight gangs at the same time as other petty crime.

you've reversed the condition. what matters is the probability they are a gang member given they tag. in gang fueled areas this probability will be high. at a general average, it's probably very low.

Legislators are bad at math. Didn't you know?

    Millions of people do graffiti -- and very few of them have anything to do with "gang activity".

I imagine that depends on where the crime takes place. If you're in the ghetto tagging a wall it's far more likely to be gang related than it would be if it were some kid in the suburbs.

I'd like to see the statistics that lead you to believe that very few of the people that "do graffiti" have anything to do with gang activity. Perhaps you mean the fully commodified art form which is practiced on building walls with the owner's full permission but with a certain kind of serif and flare? Or maybe you mean the occasional lewd remark on a bathroom wall? Certainly, you are not referring to the vast majority of graffiti you might see in public places in New York, LA, Chicago, Oakland, Detroit, Baltimore, or any other giant city which is in fact a log of blood, death, and hatred committed in service to gangs.

Not sure why this has been down-voted. I think you're obviously right about this case. We know for a fact that the author presents no great threat to society. So, in this case we can say that the officers that witnessed his conduct were correct in their assessment that he was no threat.

The problem is that the only people who seem to benefit from laws being enforced based on their spirit not their letter are white people. Minorities on the other hand don't seem to enjoy the same benefits.

And getting past the issue of faulty heuristics, the authors experience post-arrest was pretty ridiculous.

How is anyone or anything served by treating arrested people like that?

Keeping in mind that hypothetically you are innocent until proven guilty. You should not be punished until you've been convicted of something.

That isn't how law and justice works however.

There are 5 ways to commit a crime: * Accidentally (usually not a crime) * Through negligence (Malpractice) * Recklessly (Manslaughter) * Knowingly (2nd Degree Murder) * On Purpose (1st Degree Murder)

In the case of murder, all 5 cases leads to someone innocent dying. But the justice system is completely designed around figuring out the state of mind of the individual, and then punishing them either more severely or less severely... based on the state of mind.

We are looking at a man who premeditated and purposefully committed a crime. The justice system will be exceptionally harsh on him.

You never accidentally or "in the heat of the moment" graffiti a building. It's always premeditated. Even with that in mind, he was punished well above and beyond the usual amount for that particular crime.

I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Your scale seems somewhat accurate in terms of situations in which a person is killed, but would seem to have next to nothing to do with the case in point.

In what percentage of cases of vandalism that could be called tagging could the person be said to have committed the crime accidentally? Virtually none[1]. This crime is more or less always committed on purpose. Not always with journalistic intent, but still.

The author was punished more harshly because (it seems) he embarrassed people. That is unjust.

Not to mention the generally deplorable conditions in the holding cell where he was kept, filled with other people who presumably were guilty of nothing.

[1]Please. I understand that you could create any scenario in which anything happens. But the vast majority of people who commit a similar crime (spray paint on unowned surface) certainly are doing it on purpose.

My point is that the _state of mind_ of an individual plays the most important role in determining the individual's punishment.

This was no schoolboy on a dare, this was a political activist making a political point. The author was punished severely, but do not trust his reasons for it. (Last year, it was because of Stop and Frisk. This time, he doesn't even seem to have a political excuse... it seems more like a call to a generic "$%#$# the police").

He did NOT seek to "learn about the justice system", he explicitly tried to get arrested to protest the stop and frisk laws that were being implemented in New York City. Jailtimes and Probation are the expected risks you take when you a political dissident like that.

Besides, there are less obtrusive ways of protest than spray painting a public building.

exist not because the acts themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are dangerous, namely gang activity.

How does that work exactly? Surely if you want to target violent gangs, you target the violence. Arresting them for painting seems to be about the most backward thing imaginable.

What were they finally able to pin on Al Capone? Tax evasion.

The reasoning is that if you can't nail them for the thing you can't prove, you wing them with the thing you can.

Save us from the argument that it worked for Capone.

Firstly, Capone was doing tax evasion and the crime of tax evasion had not been brought in to deter gang violence, which is the argument being used here about grafitti, but was considered a serious matter in and of itself.

Also the fact that one major crime boss was once able to be jailed through using tax evasion laws, does not therefore mean that this is a broadly applicable tactic and also does not mean that entire areas of law should be made harsher on the idea that some of the people you are doing for grafitti might be murderers. It is just pure nonsense.

Nevertheless, lesser offenses are routinely selectively enforced against people whom the police find to be suspicious or even merely annoying, and ignored for everyone else.

If you're open carrying a gun in Alabama and carrying an ice cream cone in your back pocket, guess what you will be arrested for--the ice cream cone, the thing that's actually illegal. Never mind that the police were called out in the first place for the gun.

I haven't found any evidence that anyone has ever actually been arrested in Alabama for having an ice cream in their back pocket, the nearest I could find was that it was possibly once a tactic of horse rustlers or alternatively is possibly made up. As for folk being wrongfully arrested in Alabama for openly carrying arms, well there's the guy who walked into a bank with a handgun who is appealing his arrest. He got a $200 sentence and no jail time though.

The reasoning is that if you can't nail them for the thing you can't prove, you wing them with the thing you can. reply

And the problem with that reasoning is that it conveniently ignores the point that once you start down that path, you start catching a lot of people who aren't Al Capone in your net.

You seem to think that they care about that. A police state is a great place to live in, if you're a cop.

Nah, I don't really think they care. But a few people still do. Probably not enough though. :-(

> How does that work exactly? Surely if you want to target violent gangs, you target the violence. Arresting them for painting seems to be about the most backward thing imaginable.

The idea is to find something that is sufficiently common and easy to prove that people you are likely to want to punish for other reasons are likely to engage in (whether or not people who engage in it are likely to be people you want to punish for other reasons), so that you have a lever for prosecution and don't have to do the hard work of proving the actual offense of concern. Its essentially a hack around the Constitutional requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.

>>However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are dangerous, namely gang activity.

I hear Banksy is the head of a premier criminal gang in the UK.

The proxy angle is interesting, but I don't think that's main factor here. What's walking through someone's lawn a proxy for? The cops see a kid who looks like trouble and who's technically breaking the law and they arrest him, whether the specific crime is a proxy for anything or not.

And then there's the question of what "the spirit of the law" means. The courts wouldn't allow a blanket prohibition on "gang activity," even if that may be what legislature had in mind.

> However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are dangerous, namely gang activity.

Right -- and that's the problem. Because once you start down that road of criminalization of proxies for bad acts, you end up with proxies for proxies, like when the city I lived in criminalized -- no joke -- possession of spray paint, marker pens, and other things by teens on public right-of-ways. Because graffiti as a proxy for gang activity was still not easy enough of a prosecution lever, so they wanted to prosecute possession of items which could in theory be used for graffitti (which itself was a proxy for gang activitty).

And eventually you just criminalize everything as a proxy for being bad -- and then criminal justice is no longer really driven at all by law (since you've criminalized all kinds of things that you don't want, or expect, to enforced against everyone), its about arbitrary determinations by police and prosecutors -- guided by personal biases -- about who really "needs" to be punished, and you always know you'll have a convenient lever to prosecute once that determination is made.

And the whole concept of rule of law and proof beyond a reasonable doubt becomes meaningless, because you no longer are prosecuting for the real offense, but for distant meaningless proxies for harmful activities chosen specifically because people are certain to violate many of them in ways that are easy to prove whether or not they are doing any of the acts for which they are notionally proxies.

> However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are dangerous, namely gang activity.

You are referring to the broken windows policy of policing, where minor crimes or infractions are pursued heavily under the notion that catching people that do this early will somehow curb harsher or violent crimes in the future. However, crime rates in NYC have been falling even before that policy came into existence in the 90s and that policy also has been applied in a way that ties in to racism.

Uh, what point is that? If there is evidence that a tag is actually part of a criminal conspiracy to perpetrate drug deals or murders or whatever, OK.

But otherwise a tag is a tag.

The author hypothesis is that criminal profiling is based on race. A simpler hypothesis is that such profiling is based on looks. Now, instead of wearing suits, if he wears baggy jeans that almost fall off his butt, puts on a few tatoos, nose rings to match, and starts doing seemingly illegal things. And if the cops still don't stop him, then maybe being white has something to do with it.

A simpler hypothesis is that such profiling is based on looks.

Are you trying to argue that the colour of your skin is not a factor in the perception of your appearance?

Surely, the color of skin is part of looks. How much is it? I don't know. But it is naive to say that skin color is the only thing.

Who argued it’s the only thing?

You are admitting here that you think it’s plausible that the police profile based on race (i.e. they are racist). That they also look at other things isn’t really surprising (but should nevertheless not be left unquestioned).

I have two middle-class white friends who have told me that they were busted by the police for dealing cocaine (when they were young - before I knew them - SoL has expired), had their stash confiscated, and told not to do it again. And let go - scot-free. Two independent incidents.

This small experiment doesn't have a control, but I believe that black drug dealers are given more than a mild verbal rebuke. In NYC, you can't even walk down the street while black.

> In NYC, you can't even walk down the street while black.

Where I used to work, in Chelsea, I used to see a trio of policemen frisking and/or questioning a different young, black man or woman at the entrance to the subway three out of the five days in the week.

Chelsea is a fairly wealthy (and white) neighborhood. Go out to East New York, and you'll see much worse.

Because kids in teh suburbs don't wear baggy jeans and hoodies. Wait, what?

> Now, instead of wearing suits, if he wears baggy jeans that almost fall off his butt, puts on a few tatoos, nose rings to match, and starts doing seemingly illegal things.

Even among those that dress this way, the stop and frisk profiling still overwhelmingly targets black and hispanic people. Tattoos, piercings, and casual wear are extremely common in NYC, far more than suits, esp. in Brooklyn.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're white. (Or at least, you're not black or Hispanic.) How'd I do?

[I strongly question whether "based on looks" is a simpler hypothesis than "based on race", by the way. Given the long, well-documented history of racial discrimination in the US, I might actually lean in the opposite direction.]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're white. (Or at least, you're not black or Hispanic.) How'd I do?

How is that relevant to his point?

>How'd I do?

You are wrong.

Allowing people to discriminate based on cultural markers like baggy jeans instead of skin color is creating a loophole. It's analogous to the voter disenfranchisement laws after the civil war. You can say that you're not barring black people from voting, that you're only barring people who fail a literacy test. But if the effect is that you mostly ban black people, then it's a de facto racial discrimination.

We're talking about a culture that esteems criminality - that jeans style is prison fashion. People don't get to choose their skin colour, but they do choose what they wear (and no, you don't need a $2000 suit to avoid police harassment, a $20 one will do just as well).

If you have to wear a business suit to avoid police harrassment then your society is fucked. And large sections of society adopting prison fashions doesn't tell you that those people are all criminal, it tells you that your society jails too many people.

Throughout the course of our lives, we have to make decisions based on "rules of thumbs". Cops have to make decisions based on "profiles" determined by such rules of thumbs based on statistics, experience and sometime hunches. Detective, investigative works have been based on profiling for ages. Call it data mining if you will. Clearly, if such profiling is based strictly & exclusively on race, then it is racist and perhaps stupid and ineffective as well. And the US history has witnessed a fair share of racial issues. Nevertheless, the content of this article appears to be race baiting, not honestly examining the issue of "stop and frisk".

I would agree with the fashion profiling argument, but I had a (black) friend arrested on his way to a job interview in a suit for switching subway cars. The only reason he switched the subway cars was due to a homeless person smelling up the car he was in. Pretty sure if he was a white male he would not have been arrested.

For switching subway cars? How's that a crime? He paid for the ride didn't he? Or do the people of color are still only allowed to ride in the back on the subway?

it is illegal to switch from one car to another car (regardless if the train is in motion or not). that's a crime/fact, in NYC of course.

Is that a joke? Why would anyone vote to make that a crime?

I through that three felonies a day is an exageration, but I'm definitely guilty of switching train cars.

http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm#restricted

See Section 1050.9 (d)

Your argument would have some merit if statistically the legal system hadn't been proven racist in pretty much every aspect over and over again. The ACLU has put it all together better than I can.

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice

Do we really need to punish people with prison for non violent crimes?

We might as well call in the Criminal Punishment System, or the Government's Justice System, as it doesn't engender my views of justice, and nor should it for you.

> Do we really need to punish people with prison for non violent crimes?

No, and when it comes to white people in the suburbs we largely don't do that (except serious financial crimes).

When it comes to the inner city and gang activity, that's not so clear cut. What are you going to do, issue monetary fines?

The point of the author is that non violent crime can get people jailed (or their freedom very severely restricted) if they are a certain skin color. Tagging hardly qualifies you as a gang member. Living in a city isn't a crime and shouldn't make result in you being treated differently than anywhere else.

> Tagging hardly qualifies you as a gang member.

In a suburb, probably not. In a city, I'd bet it's statistically likely that a tagger has a gang affiliation.

> Living in a city isn't a crime and shouldn't make result in you being treated differently than anywhere else.

Policing strategies must take into account the realities of living in cities versus living in suburbs. At the end of the day, nobody wants to go back to the 1970's where New York or Chicago were dangerous places (which was a major cause of the suburban exodus to begin with). Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you should live in fear of getting mugged, raped, etc.

When I lived in Chicago, there were flashmob attacks in my neighborhood: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/chicago-flash-mobs-.... Shit like that just doesn't happen in the suburbs, and requires commensurate police response.

>> In a city, I'd bet it's statistically likely that a tagger has a gang affiliation.

There are laws on the books for tagging and laws on the books for gang affiliation. Specifically, laws indicate what can and can not be legally done by an individual or group. They specifically do not talk about the statistical likelihood that since an individual is alleged to have done X they likely also did Y and so we can prosecute for Y.

One of the neat things about the law is that we are not supposed to apply laws based on the facts and not our superstitions of the types of associations we attribute to a person who looks a certain way or who lives in a certain place.

Similarly, police don't get to do whatever they want to protect an arbitrary group of citizens from another arbitrary group of citizens.

Legislatures don't get to decide that certain citizens have more rights, or more claim on the justice system, than other citizens, for any reason at all.

One of the great things about America is that over time, we get closer to achieving a usable reference implementation of a usable system of justice.

Thanks god we do not use statistical correlation in justice. I would not like to live in that world.

And I'm not arguing for laissez-faire, but simply for justice, which should be the same for everyone.

"except serious financial crimes"

Unless it's a serious serious financial crime in which case they get to remain the CEO of large financial institutions with bailouts and increased bonuses!

Are you implying that it is OK to buy the privilege to commit crimes?

Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any hell then good for you, I guess.

What are you going to do, prosecute black/brown teenagers with extreme prejudice while giving white teenagers a ride home and a stern talking to? And then wonder why the statistics wind up how they are, why so many black kids don't have a father in the house?

If more policy-makers had to deal with this situation in their neighborhoods, seeing their nephews get locked up with hardened criminals, the situation would change. They don't, so it doesn't, and young black men turn into statistics.

> Teenage boys are idiots

Especially those without guidance and mentoring. If we took a fraction of the funds used to deal with their crimes and spent it on proactive engagement we'd all be better off.

For example, programs like Midnight Basketball[1] should flourish throughout the land

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball

> Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any hell then good for you, I guess.

Yes. The difference is that in the inner city, they're idiots without fathers, without authority figures, living in an environment where that power vacuum is replaced by gangs. Teenage idiocy amounts to a qualitatively different threat under those conditions. It's unfortunate that black or Hispanic kids are far more likely to find themselves in that situation than white kids, but does that mean we should treat gang-related graffiti intended to intimidate the same way we treat some dumb suburban kids playing a prank?

I'm not saying that our approach is the best one. I'm saying that there is more to the story than "zomg, the police are oppressing minorities!"

Look, I live in one of the most inner-city inner cities (Wilmington, DE). It's a place where the murder rate is comparable to Bogota, Colombia, and where there was a shooting this year on Main Street (rumor is more than one, and in one case the target was a public bus) just blocks from the central business district.[1] It's a really complicated situation. On one hand I feel bad for the kids without fathers, etc. I lament the de-facto segregation and oppression that continues to exist as a direct consequence of de jure segregation and oppression.

On the other hand, this shit isn't all theoretical and academic, and life isn't all about idealism. I have a wife and a kid and we live here and sometimes walk home from work late at night, and I'm not going to complain if the police crack some heads in the process of keeping the gang violence to a low simmer. I think this makes me less morally culpable than the other middle/upper class people, who have just abandoned the city altogether and live in homogenous enclaves in the suburbs, just driving in for work and quickly shuffling the distance from their office to the parking garage every day.

[1] Once, my dad and I were driving around trying to return a rental truck late at night and he suggested we try again in the morning because the place made him uncomfortable. This is a guy who was in Yemen in the 1990's when the civil war broke out, was in Afghanistan in the shadow of Tora Bora while the U.S. was fighting the Taliban, was in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake...

There's a lot of implicit circular reasoning in this post.

1. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated harshly.

2. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must be a bad one. (goto 1)

The other circular problem that exists is this:

1. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on record) are probably going to do them again.

2. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are bad.

3. There aren't a lot of options or opportunities left but to do bad things. (goto 1)

Nothing circular:

> 1. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated harshly.

How people deserve to be treated isn't the sole consideration. It's also relevant how people must be treated in order to maintain a certain level of order.

> 2. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must be a bad one. (goto 1)

Did I say anything about sentences? My evidence was murders and shootings (on a per capita basis).

> 1. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on record) are probably going to do them again.

Yes, it's called "recidivism" and is an empirically measurable phenomenon.

> 2. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are bad.

I'd be happy to pay more taxes to support those things. But people like me who have the money to pay taxes aren't going to continue to live in a city if they feel like it's unsafe for their wives to walk home from work at night. It's a sad truth of life, but if you cater too much to the concerns of the poor, you'll drive out the people with the resources to implement the programs to alleviate those problems. See, e.g., Detroit or Wilmington or Camden, etc.

Yeah, but this all makes sense as long as it's someone else. "I don't care if there's gross miscarriage of justice for hundreds or thousands of other people as long as I feel safe" is what you're saying.

Not just me, but everyone who wants to live in the city and feel safe doing so. I.e. the hundreds of thousands or millions of other people. Life is messy, and human interactions are messy, and all that comes to a head in cities where people live in such close proximity. Creating sufficient order to let the majority feel safe is an important consideration that deserves its due weight. Ideally, that's achieved without trampling on anyone's rights, but a slavish focus on rights to the exclusion of security will just cause people to "opt out."

To put it another way, I grew up in a lily-white upper middle class suburb surrounding by morally righteous people who believed it was better to let 10,000 guilty go free than to send one innocent person to jail. That was easy to believe in a town where political assassination was more likely than gang-related crossfire.

I don't think you're the majority in your neighborhood, from what you described. I lived in the hood for a few years once, I knew what I was doing, minded my own business, and I didn't want police to crack other people's heads for me to feel safe. I get that it's different if you have a family, I don't live there anymore. But perpetuating the system through more hopelessness isn't going to work in the long term.

> I don't think you're the majority in your neighborhood, from what you described.

The majority of people in Wilmington are hard-working folks who deserve to live in a safe neighborhood as much as any suburban family. They aren't involved in gangs, and steer clear of the kind of activity that might get them hassled by the police.

> But perpetuating the system through more hopelessness isn't going to work in the long term.

You know what won't help the situation? Focusing so much on the rights of the people committing crimes that you ignore the mass exodus of middle class people looking for safer surroundings. Chicago has lost 200,000 black people in the last decade, and I guarantee you they didn't leave because of police profiling. They left because the police have utterly failed to get a hold of the gang activity pervading the south side. And of course these were the kind of people you didn't want leaving: the ones that can afford to.

They steer clear of walking down the street while black? Maybe it works different in Wilmington than in Brooklyn or the Bronx, but being teenaged and black is plenty to get hassled by police in NYC.

Just one minor detail you hear from people, young black boys/men have it drilled into them by their parents never to go walking around without ID on them, because it will make things more difficult for them if the police stop them. People's lives are full of details like that. Is that the kind of thing you're advocating other people go through so you feel safer?

Of course I'm not advocating for the full breadth and generality of the NYC's policies. And I'm not advocating treating people differently solely because they're black. But the example in the article? Someone painting graffiti? I think that person deserves greater police scrutiny in Wilmington or New York than in Greenwich, CT, whether they're black or white. And I don't think the fact that they're more likely to be black, just by the demographics of the place, in the former case is a reason, by itself, not to provide that greater scrutiny.

One of the things that's missing in these neighborhoods is any sort of authority structure to keep a check on this sort of behavior. To a certain extent, the police have to fill that void to keep things under control.

>They left because the police have utterly failed to get a hold of the gang activity pervading the south side.

I don't think this is even vaguely true. They left because of the property bubble raising prices, the crash shattering the black middle class, the dismantling of Chicago public schools, and having the half of the city that they occupy being utterly neglected by the administration.

Crime is bad in Chicago, but crime is down in Chicago.

>And of course these were the kind of people you didn't want leaving: the ones that can afford to.

No, it isn't. Most of the migration is people moving South, where they have family, because they can't afford to live in Chicago anymore. This city caters to upper-middle class white suburbanites and the cream of the small town Midwest to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

I don't think there is any argument that crime is a major factor that's driving people, predominantly blacks, out of the city. The neighborhoods with the highest population losses include some of the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-edit-x.... In some of these neighborhoods, crime is up in the last 20 years!

Moreover, the public school situation is intertwined by the security situation. There is never going to be an improvement in the quality of Chicago's schools until gang influence is removed from the school grounds. Kids can't learn in an environment where the gangs are bigger authority figures than the teachers and parents.

>I don't think there is any argument that crime is a major factor that's driving people, predominantly blacks, out of the city.

Other than that people started leaving the city before the latest rise in crime, and that crime is vastly

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Could-See-Fewes...

down since I was growing up here?

>There is never going to be an improvement in the quality of Chicago's schools until gang influence is removed from the school grounds.

I think you're mistaking the cause for the effect. It's the horrible schools that largely create the gang problem, a gang problem that has drastically declined since the 70s and 80s, post-crack.

Chicago lags other major cities when it comes to the overall decline in crime (and thus is getting more dangerous relative to other cities even as crime goes down). While New York had less than 1/5 as many murders in 2012 as it did in 1990, Chicago had only 1/2 as many murders in 2012 as it did in 1990. Moreover, crime in certain neighborhoods has even gone up since then: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-edit-x... ("The homicide rate per capita on the West, South and Southwest sides today is higher than it was 20 years ago, and the gap between safer and more dangerous areas is wider.", "The citywide homicide rate has fallen because certain areas — basically the entire North Side — are safer and mask the increases in the killing fields to the west, southwest and south. Some of those areas are now just as violent as or more violent than they were 20 years ago.").

> It's the horrible schools that largely create the gang problem

That's utterly absurd.

No. This is something you can only say if you've never ventured south of Cermak. Black and latino people can trivially afford to live in Chicago; vast swathes of the city are priced at Detroit levels. The problem is that those areas are cheap because they are completely overwhelmed with gang violence.

> [1] Once, my dad and I were driving around trying to return a rental truck late at night and he suggested we try again in the morning because the place made him uncomfortable. This is a guy who was in Yemen in the 1990's when the civil war broke out, was in Afghanistan in the shadow of Tora Bora while the U.S. was fighting the Taliban, was in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake...

I suggest your dad has some well tuned survival skills, and knew when to avoid trouble.

but does that mean we should treat gang-related graffiti intended to intimidate the same way we treat some dumb suburban kids playing a prank?

Same property damage, same punishment, IMO. "Justice is blind" and all that jazz...

On the other hand, this shit isn't all theoretical and academic, and life isn't all about idealism.

What is life "about" then? Do you have any principles, or is it just "let me get mine and f%#@ everybody else"?

I have a wife and a kid and we live here and sometimes walk home from work late at night, and I'm not going to complain if the police crack some heads in the process of keeping the gang violence to a low simmer.

Easy to say when it's not your head being cracked.

I think this makes me less morally culpable than the other middle/upper class people ...

I'd tell you what I think it makes you, but it would probably get me banned from HN.

> Same property damage, same punishment, IMO. "Justice is blind" and all that jazz...

Justice is a solution to a problem, not an end in itself. "Kids are marking up property as a prank" and "kids are marking up property to demarcate gang territory and intimidate people" are two different problems that are only superficially related, and warrant two different solutions.

> What is life "about" then? Do you have any principles, or is it just "let me get mine and f%#@ everybody else"?

Safer cities don't just benefit me, but the vast majority of people who live in them. I think the right of that majority to live free from insecurity and the collateral damage of gang violence is a bigger concern than the rights of individuals.

> Easy to say when it's not your head being cracked.

Sure, but that's easy to flip around too. It's easy to wax philosophical about policing methods when you're not the one getting mugged, you're not the one afraid to walk home at night, etc. It's easy to talk academically about the civil rights of flash mobbers when they beat and rob people on a different street than the one your girlfriend uses to walk home late at night.

Most people I've met who actually live in New York, Chicago, in the city proper, have a more pragmatic view of policing methods than people who would have to get in their car and drive to see a poor person.

I think the right of that majority to live free from insecurity and the collateral damage of gang violence is a bigger concern than the rights of individuals.

And this is why we will probably never agree on anything. :-)

As far as I'm concerned, the rights of individuals are far more important than "the right of the majority to ..."

>No, and when it comes to white people in the suburbs we largely don't do that (except serious financial crimes).

Well, except that is exactly what happened here. A white, presumably affluent (it sounds like he's a lawyer) guy gets arrested for a misdemeanor (graffitti), and enters the hellhole known as our legal system.

He wasn't punished with prison, he just spent a small amount of time in a police cell immediately after arrest.

Finish the article. No, he did not "just" spend a small amount of time in a police cell. He was sentenced to 3 years of probation, where he [mostly] lost the ability to travel outside of New York.

This comment chain is about spending time in prison - I wasn't saying he didn't get any punishment, just that his punishment didn't include prison.

> When it comes to the inner city and gang activity, that's not so clear cut. What are you going to do, issue monetary fines?

You can still issue monetary fines. Often the judge will ascertain the defendant's ability to pay, and then arrange for monthly payments to be made toward the total. Failure to pay those fines could result in a few days of jail time.

Isn't the lack of money a major part of these problems in the first place? Imposing monetary fines on people who are riding the poverty line doesn't seem like a good solution.

I agree. Stints in jail (even if short) hinder earning ability as well. If I knew of a good way to deal with petty crimes committed by people riding the poverty line, I'd tell somebody about it.

>> Often the judge will ascertain the defendant's ability to pay, and then arrange for monthly payments to be made toward the total. Failure to pay those fines could result in a few days of jail time.

I believe this practice has been deemed unconstitutional when tested. (Since it's essentially debtor's prison.)

A prison sentence isn't meant to be only punishment for the offender - it's also (theoretically) a deterrent to other potential criminals, a chance to rehabilitate the prisoner, and a method of preventing immediate re-offense.

We probably shouldn't send people to prison for first-time trivial crimes (which this might have been) but "trivial" and "non-violent" aren't the same.

> A prison sentence isn't meant to be only punishment for the offender

Well it does punish them. It punishes them with what many would consider torture, and again, my point is that most of these sentences are for non-violent crimes.

> it's also (theoretically) a deterrent to other potential criminals

Yes. Because people will stop smoking pot, stop being dumb drunks, and stop making non-violent mistakes, because of mandatory minimums, 3 strike laws, and horrific legal processes that threaten defendants with maximum sentences for confessions and settlements.

> a chance to rehabilitate the prisoner

Yes, sticking non-violent prisoners in with entrenched gang societies helps rehabilitate people. Also, we rehabilitate them with punishment. Great job state.

If you believe we should lock people up for non-violent crime, my statements stand.

It's a criminal punishment system that punishes not only non-violent and trivial crimes, but also meaningful dissent/experimentation that doesn't hurt anyone, with cruel and unproductive punishment. If we want to continue to "punish" people, and yet talk about "rehabilitation", then I believe there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance happening if you agree these things can coexist.

I think there should be kind of mystery shoppers for justice system. They'd commit misdemeanors and get arrested so they can report how they were treated to improve operation of police and justice system and to weed out personnel that doesn't obey the law or neglect procedures.

> From Brownsville to downtown Manhattan, I would estimate that I passed more than 200 police officers, some from a distance, some close enough to touch.

Wow, is police that common in NY / the states? That's more police than I have seen in my entire life.

We have over 35,000 police officers in the 5 boroughs of NYC. If you walk from Wall St. to Central Park you will see more than 200 easily.

had the same reaction. in german citys police officers are quite a rare sight. usually only found near train stations, or the odd criminal hot-spot.

To provide more context: in 1990, London and NYC were of a similar size (~8 million) though NYC was and is quite a bit more dense. London had 184 homicides. NYC had 2,262. This past year London was down to 86, versus NYC's 414.

Yup. We might expect NYC's population of officers to begin declining, but they had serious crime problems not very long ago.

To put that in more context, the murder rate in America is 10 times that of the next developed country.

The murder rate in NYC and Chicago is higher than Mexico City

That's because Mexico City's murder rate was so bad that the country plowed an avalanche of money into it, resulting in the world's densest police coverage; it also assumes that murders in Mexico City are reported as reliably as they are in the US, which is a dubious proposition.

Mexico's various other cities are world leaders in violent crime; Juarez has a murder rate over 147/10k, more than 10x Chicago's, and that again assumes that everything is reported in Juarez, which is extremely unlikely.

For whatever it's worth to you, neither NYC nor Chicago makes the top ten for the US. Chicago witnesses an astronomical number of murders, and is for that reason a national disgrace, but the rate isn't anomalous for the population. Chicago is a huge city.

NY has the largest municiple police force in the United States.

NY has the largest population of any city in the US, too.

IIRC, police force to population ratio (or at least, "on duty at any time" to population ratio) in the US tends to vary in a fairly narrow range among cities.

There is some variation though. For example, NYPD is 1 officer to 228 residents, LAPD is 1 officer to 426 residents. And if you consider the size of LA, police seem dramatically less visible than NY where there seems to be police on every block.

Some good info on police per capita here:

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-enforce...

NYPD is on the high side, and east coast seems to be more policed than the west coast.

For NYC, Sort of... maybe you'll pass the occasional cluster of ~10 cops on a subway platform, or other transportation hub.

But if you also count police in police cars, and the likelihood of undercover cops and unmarked cars, and pass a police station, well... that's a stretch, but you could pad your numbers with an amount of assumption.

Oh and by the way, to provide context, he was travelling from Brownsville, which, if by subway, might take an hour to reach.

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q...

But consider where he was headed: City Hall.

City Hall is an area teaming with cops. He might see 150 officers there alone, given their proximity to the courts.

I was shocked when I visited NYC and saw hundreds of police in the subway carrying very large weapons in their hands, and wearing what looked like some kind of combat gear.

I've never seen an assault rifle in my life, but that's what I assume they were, and I still find it very bizarre that's an every day occurrence for tens of millions of Americans

Let me guess, Penn Station or Grand Central?

Places like those are not "the subway," they're massive junctions that literally millions of people pass through 24 hours a day.

Same goes for Times Square. You'll see cops on horses with assault rifles in Times Square.

Oh yeah, and don't forget the Staten Island Ferry. Transit cops and the coast guard float around down there (literally).

3 years of probation for a single graffiti tag? Talk about proportions here.

The point of the 3 years seemed to me to be mostly making an example of the author to discourage civil disobedience.

And they call it "justice"

This guy purposely wasted the time of the legal system, i.e., he wasted or tax dollars to prove a point. I think it's obvious why a judge would not be overly happy about it. I'm not surprised he got more than the usual punishment.

Oh come on, you think the taxpayer dollars are the biggest issue on the judge's mind? So he throws 10x the taxpayer dollars at the problem by putting him on probation for 3 years?

Have you ever met real people? Ever seen someone make decisions because they're pissed off? The guy basically took a shit all over the (immoral) way the justice system works, that's why he was singled out and made an example of.

Not sure how you got the inside scoop into the judge's thought process, but yeah, I assume he was pissed for exactly the reasons I listed; his time wasted, police time wasted, money wasted. Who knows, maybe the judge is just a big jerk who is happy with the unfairness in the justice system, but you don't know that any more than I do and there are plenty of good judges and cops out there.

You also don't know how this guy interacted with the police and the judge. He may have been a jerk himself. No one knows, but I do know that the legal system is not run by robots, and if your intention is to piss people off who have the power to screw with your life then, well... prepare to be screwed.

This is in no way a commentary on the substance of the article, nor am I defending the judge's decision. There's plenty of unfairness in the legal system (I've been on the receiving end a couple of times in my youth) and it's not right.

The point was that putting someone on probation is expensive. If the judge was upset about tax money being wasted, and their response to that was to waste more tax money, then the judge

>wasted our tax dollars to prove a point

Ok, and your point is...? I never defended what the judge did, I just said that he should have expected the hammer to be brought down upon him.

"piss people off who have the power to screw with your life"

Silly me, I thought the whole point of a formal professional justice system was to fix that, not make it worse.

...Again, for the I don't know how manyith time... it's not about what should be, it's about what is. If you want to live your life in la-la-land then don't be shocked when things don't go how you thought they would. Did anyone actually read what I said without adding in their own assumptions about why I would post it?

Let me put it this way; I'm your boss, and you go out of your way to screw with me and make me look bad. Would you not expect retaliation? Would you expect the same treatment as every other employee? If you do then you're naive. Judges and cops aren't robots, they're human. You piss them off and, as most people would, they are going to cause you as much pain as possible.

Like it or not, these people have a lot of power, for better or worse. If you want to make a stand and expose those who may be abusing their power then great, but don't expect that they will sit idly by while you do it.

And also for the n-th time these are people who's sole professional purpose is to be be fair judges and protect us from abuse, and they are apparently worse at it than J random hacker off the street.

Thats the core of what makes it shocking.

Lets say we had a business division of people focused intensely and solely on the job of applying computer science principles to practical net positive business applications. Shockingly there might exist a regional dysfunctional group where no one knows how to plug in a mouse or fizzbuzz. You can't rationalize away the incompetence of that particular IT department by making comparisons to the proverbial grandma can't be expected to run Ubuntu and pro football players shouldn't be expected to hack Clojure because that misses the point of why those specific societal positions exist in the first place.

Maybe even more on topic for HN, say someone wrote a garbage collector that actually stuffed the heap more full of garbage than when it started, and then when bugs are filed, rather than fixing the bugs, we get spin and rationalization that 99% of non-garbage collection code also put trash in the heap so its not really a bug that the garbage collector generates more garbage than it removes, etc.

He committed a minor misdemeanor offense (tagging the building), but used his own attorney and only went to court to avoid jail time.

Sure there was a minor expense in dealing with the misdemeanor but the vast majority was not his fault.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was not defending the decision. What I'm saying is, if you commit a crime with the sole intent of being taken in to write an article which portrays these people in a bad light (right or wrong), then expect for them to be harsh on you. If you're surprised that they would punish you harshly then you're just naive.

Isn't the entire purpose of the justice department to give out fair unbiased rulings?

The cops being pricks is understandable, if a waste of everyones time, the judge being a prick is not. It is his only job to consider only the crime and the motives, and while his motives did warrant a stiffer penalty, they probably did not warrant that harsh of one.

I'm not sure what world you live in, but it certainly isn't this one. Judges are human. You go into court and decide to be a jerk to the judge? Guess what; you're walking away with a bigger penalty then you would have if you were nice. The judge did not go outside his authority as far as I am aware. He has discretion to go either way, and there are very good reasons for it(which is one reason that I hate mandatory minimums, but that's neither here nor there).

I'd be careful about assuming bias here. If a judge thinks that you deserve a larger penalty as a deterrent then that's not bias, he's doing his job. If he hands you the maximum penalty because you're his noisy neighbor then that's bias. I can't tell you what his motivations were.

> If a judge thinks that you deserve a larger penalty as a deterrent then that's not bias, he's doing his job.

There is no un-biased method of determining that the OP is likely to tag a building. Every single factor pointed to this being a one time event.

The only factor that you can pin a maximum sentence on is being indignant towards the process. He believes the process needs to be improved, and put himself in there intentionally to observe.

Doing it intentionally points to a harsher sentence, but going beyond the initial arraignment already put him into harsher sentence. The prosecutor asked for several times the typical punishment as well.

Although it is always possible we are missing something, typically it is the case the most obvious truth is the correct one. The judge thought that purposefully tagging a building was an afront to the justice system and punishable to the full extent of his power.

Not exactly acting like a judge is it?

All criminals "waste the time" of the criminal justice system, if that's your word for what I would call "justifying its existence".

Only a racist or classist asshole would single out one client of the justice system and accuse them of "wasting its time" because they seem like a different sort of person from the one the system is targeted towards.

Yes, but it's not the same as someone committing a crime solely to be processed and get a look at the inside of a cell.

If I'm a "racist or classist asshole" then you're a naive moron. You seem to have read too far in between the lines; I never once said that I agreed with the decision, only that it doesn't surprise me one bit.

Well, I disagree that it's not the same (from the point of view of how the imaginary perfect justice system in my head would operate) but I agree with you that the judge may have thought it wasn't the same.

I too worded my comment carefully: if the first sentence of your earlier post was to empathise with the mindset of the judge, then it seems to me that it is the judge whom I am calling a racist or classist asshole. I await my summons for contempt of court.

Then we disagree, that's fine, but I wasn't empathizing with the judge. I was pointing out that this guy should have expected to get smacked around for pulling a stunt like this.

Again, not saying that it was right or wrong, but the outcome should have been obvious.

I can't help but remember Aaron Schwartz when someone mentions "making an example". What can I do to try to discourage this practice of "making an example"?

Has anything changed since Aaron's death?

You know what I never understood? The concept of "making an example" out of someone in the justice system. How can we give one individual a sentence that is exceptionally harsher than the norm and not have that sentence be considered unusual as in cruel and unusual? The whole point is that their sentence is unusual for the circumstance. How is this in any way a just and equal, and legal for that matter, application of the law?

Because you can't catch everyone. So the severity of the punishment has to make up for the improbability of getting caught

(Not defending the specific magnitude, just the principle.)

(Not defending the specific magnitude, just the principle.)

It's a stupid principle. It totally fucking distorts the most basic idea behind a system of equal "justice".

So, in the 5% of cases where you get caught, you just have to give back what you stole?

Sure, if you get caught, you compensate / reimburse the victim. If you don't get caught... well, sometimes you get lucky. But that's no different than how we do things now. Not everybody gets caught. It sucks, but it's reality.

But the idea that we're going to "extra punish" a handful of people here and there to "make an example out of them" is totally incompatible with any reasonable notion of "justice" .

That's not "justice." That's blanket license for a violent minority to prey upon a law-abiding majority.

How so? And couldn't we make crime less profitable than not-crime by making not-crime more profitable and more accessible, instead of ruining the lives of the unlucky few who get caught?

The majority of people are happy living within accepted social norms. But there's 5% at each end of the Bell curve. At one end of the Bell curve, those 5% push social norms forward and eliminate things like slavery and segregation. At the other end of the Bell curve, those 5% flout social norms to their own advantage, and only violent reprisal keeps them at bay.

Can we (society) come up with some way other than violence to shift the bottom 5% into the acceptable range?

So you don't think criminals should have to reimburse their victims, or make some appropriate restitution? Just lock 'em in cells and make them suffer until they've paid their dues, or maybe put them on a chain gang? Gotcha.

I don't want anything to do with it. Locking people in cells, forced labor, etc. are for the (few) people who are simply so dangerous that they can't roam the world without representing an imminent threat to others.

So, law-breaking should be profitable. Got it.

It already is. It probably always will be. So we can ignore reality and live in some fantasy-land where everything is perfect and none suffer and everybody walks on gilded streets and has a pony... or we can accept reality for what it is. But if attempting to build this polly-anna'ish dream world involves violating the fundamental essence of what justice and equality under the law mean, then I - for one - want no part of it.

I don't know that the justice system as a whole has to account to anyone for handing out cruel and unusual punishments. I imagine in this case, they knew at the time of sentencing that the defendant was practically live tweeting his experience, and that a light sentence would be more likely to encourage others to disobey in a similar manner. It's not a justification, but 'making an example' is probably intended to serve as a deterrent to copycat criminals.

It really depends on what you're "making an example of".

The words "making an example" are just a way of describing deterrence, which is a core function of the criminal justice system.

Deterrence is intrinsically neither good nor bad. It depends on what you're deterring. If it's arson, deterrence makes a lot of sense: it's fun and easy to set fires, and very easy to underestimate or disregard the harm those fires will do to others. If it's political tagging, deterrence makes much less sense. The justice system needs to extract a penalty for damaging people's property, but politically-motivated tags are a low-intensity problem.

Beyond deterrence, criminal penalties must account for the inefficiency of policing and the rewards to crime. A 1:1 damage/penalty system is intrinsically ineffective; it makes crime a rational decision.

It's easy to agree here that 3 years of probation for tagging in a deliberate attempt to get arrested to make a political point is abusive.

This describes how deterrence is justifiable, not how it is fair.

What is the difference between justice and fairness?

"justifiable" - defensible, makes sense

"fair" - treating people equally

In other words, I interpret the original question as: "how is making an example not considered unusual?".

No, its because he uncovered how corrupt the whole system is.

One tag, plus all the ones that don't get caught.

And it's probation, not prison.

I thought you could only be sentenced for crimes you've been proven guilty of. Three years of not being able to leave NYC doesn't sound so bad, but if it were a city without job prospects it would be worse.

Sure, but punishments generally take into consideration what the crime means overall. For example if you sold cocaine to a friend once in your life then all logic says there's no need to prosecute you as a dealer (not that it wouldn't necessarily happen anyway), but if you were caught that one time the logic behind a serious punishment is the assumption that you're doing it more than once and thus affecting society. So even though they can't charge you with any more, the crime "selling cocaine" takes that into account with its sentencing already.

A tag on City Hall, deliberately in front of the police.

I would expect a more severe sentence if I keyed a cop car vs some random car on the street. While I'm uninterested in discussing the severity of the sentence (I have no experience or knowledge to be able to judge), it stands to reason that if you directly attack the justice system you will not be treated kindly.

> I would expect a more severe sentence if I keyed a cop car vs some random car on the street.

If everyone is equal, then so are the cops. It might not be... smart to pick a cop car, but I don't think it should make much difference in punishment.

In a similar vein, I would highly recommend the book Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing[1] by Ted Conover.

The author was a journalist who wanted to do a story on the prison system in New York State. The Department of Correctional Services froze him out and refused to give him any sort of access or interviews. To get the story, he actually took a job as a correctional officer officer in Sing Sing prison and worked there for a year. His account of the entire experience is fascinating. I think the whole discussion around these sorts of issues could really benefit from more accounts like this that introduce some transparency into the criminal justice system.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Newjack-Guarding-Sing-Ted-Conover/dp/0...

We avoided inner city streets because they were dangerous, and we relied on the police to keep people from those places out of our neighborhoods. Whatever they got, we figured they deserved.

i find the last statement just as disturbing as the rest of the article. carrying this sentiment around plays a big part in the apathy we see all around us, towards most of the atrocities being committed these days.

That's exactly the point, of course. He changed his view by experiencing criminal justice in the city.

Is there anywhere on the planet with a functioning criminal justice system? Where should I live if I don't want to live in fear?

Anywhere in western Europe is a lot better than the US.

Lots of places that have low violence, low social instability, high social homogeneity, high socioeconomic equality, etc, to begin with have correspondingly docile criminal justice systems.

Somalia.

Works bombs, mixing Works Toilet Cleanser and Aluminum foil in a 2L plastic bottle were popular in my high school. I can't imagine the charges the children would get today if they were brown. Lucky for them they lived in rural NC.

> "I can't imagine the charges the children would get today if they were brown."

The answer is "threatened with expulsion, arrested, and charged with multiple felonies". Google or HNSearch "Kiera Wilmot".

She was obviously guilty of CWB. (Chemistry While Black)

"Simply carrying those items qualified as a class B misdemeanor pursuant to New York Penal Law 145.65."

Are you serious ? And I make fun of Indian laws.

To me the whole problem comes down to one of discretion. The police officers in the beginning of the story had too much discretion. By not arresting someone defacing city hall, they trivialized a property crime. The author intimates this was because of his race or at least his appearance. Maybe so.

Next the judge exercises his discretion to come up with a non-standard sentence for the crime. Any non-instigator first offender would have gotten the slap on the wrist. A minority, we are lead to believe, probably much worse. Same crime but the discretion is wide in the sentence.

Later, the issue swings the other way. He has some real cause to go the rally in honor of the fallen student. Here, the discretion is taken away from the parole officer.

Discretion is power. In some instances, society grants too much discretion. In others, too little. We know this is the case but it still shocks us and we like to second guess.

The first officer had it right: "What are you, some kind of asshole?"

To sad, there is no link to down-vote a comment.

there is, you just need more karma.

This reminds me of the work I read about Nellie Bly (Elizabeth Cochrane) doing around mental health and institutionalization in the late 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly#Asylum_expos.C3.A9). It's not a complimentary comparison for our criminal justice system.

He made eye contact; he didn't run; and he's surprised the policeman left him alone? Hasn't he seen any real criminal behavior or maybe a painting of it in a fine art gallery? I'm glad he got his wish though, but for a minute I was worried he wouldn't.

Criminal justice system as it exists has lots to answer 1) What is the purpose? 2) Is it getting achieved 3) What kind of people are administering the system 4) Why biases exist? 5) What should citizenry and political authority do? 6) Ultimately - what is the true conscience of the society?

The article's description of racial profiling brings to mind a statistic that the ACLU reported a few weeks ago (it was also featured on HN): in U.S. federal courts, blacks are about twenty times as likely as whites to be sentenced to life in prison for non-violent crimes.

So, the author set out to prove how unfair the justice system is between races, and to some extent he did show that. But, didn't his experience also show that a white person was treated just as by the courts as any other person? Am I missing the point of this article?

He's just ranting aimlessly, probably because he's pissed off about his probation.

People could be assholes. I'm sure this sort of mistreatment happens all the time, and I'm sure that the reason for it is because people behave as described by the Stanford Prison Experiment.

There is a lot of BS in the PC thing with profiling. I'm an Eastern European. Almost all Polish people I know work in construction or baby sitting, etc. However, none of them or us Polish immigrants blames the United States for that. Or the Government. They know they aren't educated very well, so they don't finger point to any type of discrimination for their fate. But somehow there are people there, like some Latinos I know who just don't even try. They just want to be illiterate all their life. One Lady I know who is from Mexico doesn't even teach her children English. Doesn't want them to speak English in the US. But blames US for her shitty job and standard of living.

This is a little bit too much even for me (an immigrant) to stomach, you know?

If they voted Obama into Presidency… what racism? Bunch of racists and secret Ku-Klux-Klan lovers voted for a Black President? Like really, some people have way too much time on their hands. If I can be consulting for 60-100usd/hr after 6 years of living here, why some people need to steal and deal drugs instead is beyond me.

There is equality in Cuba and Canada. If these people are for real why don't they just immigrate there?

I will be honest. I see a Pole in the US I think he is doing construction or picking up garbage or baby sitting, taking care of elderly. I see a Mexican I suspect he doesn't speak English. I see a black person I check if my wallet is safe.

Everybody does that. Trying to change the way we think about Blacks without them changing their ways is never going to work. Not all Poles in the US are in the construction business. Not all Mexicans in the US are illiterate. Not all Blacks in the US are criminals. But big chunk of all these peoples are, so it's good to be opened minded and don't pretend that things like AIDS epidemic in DC being on levels with Sub-Saharian Africa aren't true. Because they are. And this isn't fault of anybody else but people who live there and make choices they do. I came to this country with 300usd in my pocket. I could have excuses to do nothing and portray myself as a victim too. But who does that in this country?

I think there is a lot wrong with this comment. Perhaps since you're an immigrant you're not familiar with the concept of institutional racism[1].

Regarding Obama's 2012 Election: according to [2]and[3], 62 million of 221 million possible voters cast their ballot for Obama. ~28% of citizens voting for you does not really signal the end of racism in the US.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#Institutio... [2]http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html [3]http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/pop_vote.h...

Amusing aside; if "none of the above" could have won that election it would have been a landslide victory.

Consent of the governed, yeah, right.

28% of citizens voting or number that's as low happens every election. And the reason for it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

And has nothing to do with racism.

If institutionalized racism in fact existed it wouldn't have allowed us to have a Black President in the first place. Actually, it wouldn't allow Obama to even be considered a contender. You can talk your talk but the facts speak for themselves. The Leader of the Free World (or however you want to call it) is Black. What type of institutionalized racism built in the system in the US would allow for that? Because the institutionalized racism is a myth, we do have a Black President. If you want to find out what institutionalized racism is look at apartheid system that existed in South Africa and not at the United States. IMHO, you are intellectualy dishonest to suggest racism in the US. Try having a black president in any of the European or Asian nations. Go doing shopping with a black person in Paris. You will find out what a real racism is. When I worked for IBM there was this Black Lady hired by us. She was late her first day for 2 hours. When gently asked by the Manager what happened, she started yelling at him and never showed up at the office. A month later we find out she sued IBM for racism on false accusations that the Manager didn't like her skin color. The Manager's wife is Black. There institutionalized racism if you talk about "affirmative action". That's the only example of institutionalized racism I can see in the US.

And any arguments instead of usual Marxist "there are a lot of things that are wrong in what you say" ????

No. I think the idea of inverted totalitarianism ridiculously abdicates the individual's role in our society, but I don't care to argue that point.

The point I was making is that you cannot use the election of Obama as confirmation that racism is dead. If the argument you make is that "Obama isn't elected if racism exists" you have zero facts behind you.

Giving you the greatest benefit of the doubt you could assert as fact that 28% of the voting eligible population isn't racist. Again, being as generous as possible to your (in my opinion horrible) argument 72% of the voting aged populous may or may not be racist.

That's a FAR cry from "no racism to see here, move along". You simply provide no facts at all to support your position. I grant you that racism is a difficult and nuanced issue, but dismissing it cavalierly is sad.

The point I was trying to argue with you was institutionalized racism not racism in general.

Again, as I said before, there is no institutionalized racism in the US. And the Obama success story is a great point to see that. US being racist society can be disputed if you want to. Personally, after living for a long time in the US, I can assure you that I couldn't see any racism in the DC area, but yeah some, very little, in LA area. In DC, people -- and really white people - take pride in being open. I mean like they are proud of this that there is no racism in their life. For me saying there is racism in DC is a ridiculous lie. In LA, maybe. Then maybe in places like Alabama it is common place. I don't know. But I'm not buying even for 1 nanosecond an idea of instituionalized racism in the US which is the claim you made and I responded to. And again, I can't even imagine 10% of Brits or Germans or French (forget Japanese) voting for Black President.

Again, from personal experience, I met a Black American in Paris. He was originally from Texas (San Antonio). He told me that the trip was life changing experience for him. Because he experienced what racist society is. In France. Not in Texas.It is just this bad in super-hyper-liberal Paris compared to backwards Texas. He said he has never, ever experienced racism in San Antonio. There are a little subtle hints, but it's not like you go to a restaurant and hear "Get Out!!!". Which happened to him in Paris. Just one incident. There were more. But then to be honest, I heard that too on occasion when in Strasbourg (France) talking Polish, so maybe they just don't like anybody who isn't white French. Again, I'm not making whole movement and covering my life in tears because of that. Somebody else made money that night on my meal, right?

Another thing you conveniently didn't address is affirmative action which is a great example of institutionalized racism in the US. The Law says if you are Black - purely based on race - it is easier for you to get to certain schools, or to certain jobs. And whatever the excuses you might have for it, if you are looking for examples of institutionalized racism - that would be great example.

And to give you full disclosure Poland is a racist as it gets. I have a good comparison. Yes, there might be still issues in the US, but to say there is instituinalized racism is a little too much. Maybe on a personal level some people are prejudiced or racist, I understand that and I'm not denying that. And it's a shame. But institutionalized?

I stayed overnight at friends place in New York, Brooklyn. I got quite bad allergic reaction about 3am and had to go outside. A lot of Black guys, really - if you forgive me - criminal type. Nobody cared about me. I was just wondering on the streets, the reaction was to cat, I couldn't go back to the apartment. I took a few pills and decided for a walk. Nothing happened to me, I was ignored. I wasn't even scared after initial 10 - 15 minutes. Then cops show up from nowhere. All white 5 of them. There are shady types all over the place, they approach me and on of them yells "And what is your fing problem?!". I explained, showed him the hives and they went their way. But I was the only guy stopped. Now invert the situation. Don't you think if you were the only Black there and others where White, you'd feel targeted by the cops. I know I was. Because clean and shaved, wearing nice clothes white guy isn't a common sight in this area of Brooklyn. That's why they approached. Am I yelling racism left & right? No, I don't give a crap, I'm happy I survived and I'm happy with my life and career. And some people just see racism everywhere they turn their heads to. No, there is no institutionalized racism in the US. Some people are racist. I'm not their psychiatrist, I can't help them.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

There's nothing new in the article. He proved nothing other than dressing decent makes a good impression, we all knew that. Nothing of race or the justice system in general was proved one way or the other in my opinion.

> ... unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon

Interesting new phenomenon: People doing an "audit" of the justice system by themselves arrested.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com