I'm glad he got a break, for his sake and his family's, but if he had turned himself in in 2005 he would probably still be in prison. I like that this sentence encourages people to turn themselves in though, but I feel like it also rewarded him for running from the law. I think our sentencing is too harsh even for violent criminals. Even once violent people can change their life around.

> if he had turned himself in in 2005 he would probably still be in prison

My first impression is to agree with you (and I'd cite Abbie Hoffman as a similar case), but the article notes that Waymond's partner Ben spent only 7 months in jail for the same crime. However, the article says that Waymond had 13 felony counts against him, so maybe he had pending charges from different crimes as well?

Abbie Hoffman[1] did indeed benefit from going underground for 7 years. The 1960's activist was charged with conspiracy to sell cocaine in 1973, fled and stayed hidden until 1980, and served only 4 months in jail after he turned himself in.

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

> the article notes that Waymond's partner Ben spent only 7 months in jail for the same crime

It only says that he served a 7 month sentence, not necessarily for that crime.I think there's a good chance "Ben" got away with the armed robbery entirely.

Yes, being a getaway driver is a much lower offense then a entering a domicile with a gun and robing people. You can't compare the two at all.

I agree if it's a one off thing like this. Gang and organized crime members, no way. The social aspect of organized crime makes it super hard to reform.

[citation needed]

Read about organized crime, specifically Latin American gangs and American Mafia. The organization gets deeply ingrained in your family and friend support structure such that it is very hard to get away from it, even if you want to.

Even though it is fictional, "The Godfather" is a very good illustrative example of this phenomenon.

> ...if he had turned himself in in 2005 would probably still be in prison.

I think that's highly unlikely. He was not even arrested, let alone judged. And conviction itself is extremely contingent on many factors that have little to do with the actual crime itself. When someone says that a crime gets "40 years to life", they have no idea what the actual sentence will be (assuming there's a even a conviction for any/all of the charges from the crime).

I cannot make a choice that's truly my own when confined in a system and without my choice being effected by the system. More simply put everything is predetermined. So I think our sentencing is fundamentally too harsh when we're punishing humans that didn't have control over their birth into a life that will have whatever outcome that cannot change. I think the justice system should keep that in mind when designing the process it functions under. Although I think people prefer ignorance instead of reality.

If that's true for some criminals, then isn't it true for all of them? If not, how would you distinguish the ones who used free will from the automatons? It sounds ripe for unfairness. "Oh, my poor client was abused as a child, so it's not his fault raped and tortured that toddler. Let him off lightly please, your honor." while some other defendant can't think of a sob story because his problem is an innate undiagnosed brain defect so he gets a harsher sentence.

Or are you advocating for lesser sentences for all crime in general? That's something I think should be decided by measuring its effectiveness not people feeling sorry for/angry at criminals, which is more a function of what the TV shows them than reality. I'd like to see ongoing measurement of the effects of sentence durations so they naturally adjust to suit changes in society. Maybe that could be done by applying a random delta to each sentence duration then measuring recidivism rates and continually adjusting the mean sentences duration to minimize recidivism. Just at a guess.

> then isn't it true for all of them?

Nobody can alter fate. Cause & effect starts at birth and is metaphorically chained to the present outcome.

> Or are you advocating for lesser sentences for all crime in general?

One thing I'm certain on. The justice system shouldn't label a person a criminal after the rehabilitation. Typically, I think crime needs to be thought of like catching the flu. The outcome is more severe than the flu but the process for treatment should be similar ideology. We have someone that ended up in a bad situation without fault and even though people are socially conditioned to think otherwise. That's something I believe should be changed as well. People should be educated of how they didn't have "real" control over the outcome of their life. Although I think the average person finds it hard to grasp at first.

You mention undiagnosed brain defect and there has been a case where a tumour resulted in a married man having sexual feelings for an underage girl. The feelings were gone once the tumour was removed. The feelings did come back though but same as the tumour and in the same exact spot on the brain. Thought you might find that interesting if you haven't read about it.

> The justice system shouldn't label a person a criminal after the rehabilitation.

Except it doesn't usually provide rehabilitation. If it did, that would be great. But as it is, somebody released from prison really is at high risk of reoffending so people do need to be warned of their danger and protected from them. If you could find a way to actually rehabilitate criminals, then I'd agree, they'd become like normal people afterwards.

If it turns out that crime rates are unaffected by the reduced deterrent, then good. But it does have to actually keep crime down, not allow it to increase and I think that effectiveness of the justice system needs to be measured all the time not just set at the height of public frenzy then forgotten about like it is.

>...somebody released from prison really is at high risk of reoffending so people do need to be warned of their danger and protected from them.

I think you've reiterated the OC's comment that you're replying to, without realising it.

Let's assume someone gets arrested for a felony and does their time (e.g.: pays their debt to society). At the point of release, in theory, they should have no hindrances to reintegrating into society; yet, we know that this is not the case for people in the states because things like a felony record can keep you getting employed.

So, we've released a person from prison, who can't find a place to live (depending on jurisdictions) and can't find gainful or meaningful employment enough to survive on their own.

Is it any wonder, then, that the resultant might be that they commit more crime? At the very least, if they get caught, they have a guaranteed bed and meals; which is a really shitty alternative, if you think about it.

Let's not forget that the system is incentivised for them re-offend because putting bodies in the cells is what keeps the for-profit prison-industrial complex running.

I don't pretend to have an answer, to be sure, but I think that a plausible avenue of probing might be to truly treat an individual as if they've actually paid their dues to society, once they've left the system. For example, a person with a felony 10 years ago shouldn't still be disbarred from employment, as if it happened yesterday.

To continue to punish them, indirectly, is - obviously - not going to work in anyone's favour, not the person who committed the crime and not society - who should be as concerned with their re-integration with society as much as they're concerned with the offender being "punished to maximum extent of the law".

I don't know much about this subject, but I'm under the impression that this:

> somebody released from prison really is at high risk of reoffending

is rather dependent on the country, among other factors.

Which suggests the method of rehabilitation is important, and that some juristictions are more interested in finding good methods than others are.

> I cannot make a choice that's truly my own when confined in a system and without my choice being effected by the system. More simply put everything is predetermined.

To follow this line of thinking—is not then sentencing predetermined?

Double predestination, or the double decree, is the doctrine that God actively reprobates, or decrees damnation of some, as well as salvation for those whom he has elected.

To answer your question, yes and I think society needs to change for the better from awareness to what you wrote. Similar how we used to think the world was flat, acknowledgement brings progress and advancement for humanity.

If there's double predestination of that kind, then it's meaningless to say that society needs to change, as it's all predestined anyway.

I take the view that it isn't double predestined, and society, and ourselves, need to better ourselves. But to better ourselves, means giving criminals second chances, while protecting other people. After all, what you said about birth conditions and so on has some (i.e. nuanced) truth to it.

> If there's double predestination of that kind, then it's meaningless to say that society needs to change, as it's all predestined anyway.

You're making an assumption regarding "meaningless" and that's arguable but off-topic. People can think everything is predestined and even use it as an awful excuse. Although, a difference exists from being educated about determinism and continuing to think everything is okay with unjust punishment compared to the current today of what's happening now with the incorrect assumption of choice exists. So I theorize there is the possibility for change because people live with the assumption of fault existing from making choice. Lastly, whether everything is predestined doesn't take away from right or wrong in the sense of people wanting to do the right thing compared to doing the wrong thing when knowing the truth.

I don't believe in double predestination either, in the religious sense. Some people just get a bad deal from the shuffle. You thinking what I say has "some" nuanced truth to it makes me think you're naive and deluded.

Thanks for "naive and deluded". That's a strong thing to say, especially in response to a comment whose subtleties you don't appear to be trying to understand.

By "some", I mean that I do not think you are correct to assert predetermination or double predestination, and those are both parts of your assertion, so whatever truth ought to be taken from it by your reader, it's partial and nuanced.

Since you say you don't believe in double predestination either, it appears you agree with me on that.

If you believe in "simply put everything is predetermined", while not believing in double predestination and wanting people to choose a different future, I would say that is an extremely subtle and nuanced view you have there, that many would call contradictory.

Boiled down, I think you are saying it's wrong to believe anyone had a choice, and you want people to make a choice. Which really sounds contradictory on the face of it.

I'm not judging your ideas, and my intuition says I agree with your underlying thinking, and with your moral/ethical compass on this point, although the communication is pretty screwy.

I don't believe in the aspect of God from the term.

The justice system is part of the system. You choose not to commit crimes because harsh penalties are a possible consequence.

You don't realize that part of the system (the justice system) doesn't matter for the people that end up locked away. They didn't have any control in the outcome.

> sentencing is fundamentally too harsh when we're punishing humans that didn't have control over their birth into a life that will have whatever outcome

You need to spend a few nights in lock up. I did once in NYC during a holiday weekend. I wasn't scared because I can defend myself --really well... ridiculously well actually. But I asked one fellow what he was in for (Never Ever Do That btw), and he said casually "I offded some nigger".

Maybe it was self defense like he said, IDK. But people who live on the fringes Are different then those who don't, and if they feel violence or the threat of violence is a solution to the problem, then that's the path they take. Typically I don't get fucked with--something in my gaze cuts off that shit 99.99% of the time, but not always, and I count myself as lucky the few times serious shit went down in my life, I didn't lose.

Sounds like you carry a gun or are also strong, can read patterns at a glance and are really good with your hands. Most people aren't like us though.

I spent a night in central booking for arson (charges were latter dropped). I got the impression at any given time the people in there are 60% DUI, 30% domestic abuse, 10% everything else. I didn't see anyone being "fucked with". That part must come after indictment if you aren't simply released and given a court date. How big of a difference is it between central and rikers?

Pre-paid debit cards. Also - buy from preppers. It's not like an iPhone with Facebook is a necessity. If you are looking for food, shelter and maybe a library, I don't think it is that hard. Maybe a little hermit-ey, but pretend you are living as a 1919 Wyoming homesteader, and you are still living a pretty decent (from 1750s standards) life!

I'm thinking that the streets of 2029 will be covered by cameras and scanners with ubiquitous recognition and tracking capabilities, and financial transactions will be much easier for government officials to access and monitor. Can a person like Waymond get by in an urban area like Oakland? I'm not seeing it.

Maybe, like you say, living as a 1919 homesteader in the middle of nowhere is possible, but that's not an option for people who need access to employment, family members, etc.

I’m thinking the streets of 2029 will be quite a lot like the streets of 2019. I don’t expect a massive change in surveillance or technology. I wouldn’t be surprised to see fewer cars (especially outside America). I expect the social problems would be different but I can’t guess how they would be different.

I think we’d be surprised what is already here. You can’t drive a stolen car through a medium town in Kansas (Lenexa) without the police chasing you down before you get out of town. Kansas!

You can drive a car with an illegitimate foreign license plate down I95 through some of the most authoritarian parts of the northeast without being bothered.

There's a lot more luck involved than the people selling the dragnets would have you believe. That said, I still am not a fan of all this surveillance.

So, ah, you can't just leave us hanging...

Quebec doesn't put registration year stickers on their plates so there's no way to tell without running the plate whether it's valid. If you just need to get a shitbox that moves under its own power from A to B it's a pretty cheap way to do it.

Do you think the streets of 2019 are similar to the streets of 2009?

There will be more potholes and falling bridges

Ah, well, I grew up 60 miles from the closest town, and 10 miles away from the closest neighbor, and the house didn't have a phone until I left for school at 15, so I guess my standards for acceptable-levels-of-existence are not up to the modern urban standards. I mean, all we did was grow our own food, and sell some of the excess to pay for land taxes and energy/fuel. And, no, I am not a boomer.

In 2029, with cash no longer accepted by major vendors including government, and with ubiqutous tracking of individual's physical movements and financial transactions, so most people won't want the repurcussions of dealing with you even if they could, how are you going to be able to sell any of your food and use it to pay for land taxes?

> Pre-paid debit cards

One major problem is that all your transactions with that debit card are now linked together. If you buy a cell phone with that card, all your calls, texts, and Internet activity get linked. If you buy a cab ride or bus ticket or subway pass, your travel is now linked. It would be extremely inconvenient and expensive to buy separate debit cards for every transaction. (Expensive because (a) there might be a card purchase fee and (b) you'll end up leaving residual amounts on each card after a single purchase per card.)

Furthermore, how would you pay for the pre-paid debit card? With cash of course. But as cash is becoming rarer, it's likely that the only way to buy a pre-paid card will be with a transaction from another card or account, linking it to other digital accounts. So you'll have a small degree of privacy with a pre-paid card, but nothing close to true anonymity.

There seems no way out of the surveillance universe as cash is marginalized.

I find your predictions of the death of non-digital fungible currency to be unlikely, but, who knows! We'll see, I guess.

It's started in a few places. Whether it will end up widespread remains to be seen.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18422422

"I'm a Norwegian who went to a Swedish music festival last summer.

I couldn't pay for a lot of things there, since the booths only accepted Swish (the only relevant Swedish mobile payment solution, it's a de facto monopoly). I couldn't sign up and use Swish on my phone, since it only accepts Swedish bank accounts. I couldn't borrow money from my Swedish friends either, since they didn't have cash (and it mostly wasn't accepted at the festival anyway).

When I could get someone to pay for me directly, transferring the money back to them was hard (since the festival didn't have any ATMs), so I had to go through the whole burdensome SWIFT procedure with getting their bank account number, their full name and address, their bank info, IBAN number of their bank etc, so I could send the money back when I got home to Norway.

Utopia my ass."

I would imagine crypto could fill this void.

Crypto is easily traceable.

Some are.

The ones that aren't, I'm starting to feel bullish on.

For myself, I think there's enough information available that something like the FBI could still trace even monero.

I'm wondering how they can trace it if you buy it from an ATM with a mask on, or via a VPN on a battery powered raspberry pi you put in the ceiling of a coffeeshop, then you tumble it constantly.

Even if they break the Monero encryption, and the tumbling, it's a dead end at the point of purchase.