But an apology, even from the prosecutor, is all he gets, Strickland is still in prison."

This is fucking terrible. It brought tears to my eyes as it's both horrific and so tragic. It's no wonder that much of the world looks on American Justice with much askance and suspicion in that its implementation of 'justice' is so hypocritically at odds with stated American values—and even the Constitution. One wonders why so many American citizens actually tolerate this situation and do so little about it.

For heaven's sake why aren't people on the streets protesting for change?

I wonder if returning soldiers from D-Day and Iwo Jima would have allowed themselves to be crushed in similar circumstances. I doubt it very much.

(Seems to me both the zeitgeist and ethics have changed greatly in the past 75 years. The question is why.)

BTW, I note this story is now here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28079154

Considering the fact that the US prison population is heavily skewed in one direction, that the US has the highest per capita prison population, that prison populations are used as forced labor, I'm quite convinced it's intentional. The small number of people that are accidentally targeted unintentionally are just collateral damage nobody really cares about.

Regardless, there isn't even a need to find some shadowy special interest to explain the high incarceration rates in the US, when the laws that led to those high incarceration rates were passed very publicly for very straightforward reasons: to curb the late-20th-century crime wave of the 1970's-1990's. This was a major, high-profile political issue, and the majority of voters at the time favored "tough-on-crime" measures that led to mandatory sentences, longer sentences, three-strikes laws, and fewer judicial prerogatives. That's why they elected the people who promised to pass those laws before getting elected and kept those promises after being elected. And just like every other well-intended law that's ever been passed, there were unintended consequences that we can and should fix.

There’s a reason some one people like Bernie Sanders were against the 1992 crime bill. Which many republicans and democrats were for. To say the people for it were well intentioned when Bernie and others were telling them of the consequences and having already seen the negative consequences up to that point shows these were not unintended and not well intentioned.

It can interest me when parts of a [sub]group do something. However it doesn’t have to mean anything too concrete or logical or line up so perfectly and neatly as your last sentence states.

I often hear "oh well {criminal justice system, healthcare, insert other bad industry} is not a failure because it's doing its intended purpose, which is profit". No, that's the current goal of the system running it. The actual, intended purpose, in a functioning society, is to {serve fair punishments and rehabilitate, enhance quality of health, etc}.

I'm not sure which history books you've been reading, but modern police were invented in the 17th and 18th centuries as brutal forms of population control. In America, the "actual, intended purpose" was to be a genocidal force that clears the land of Amerindians, to patrol the slaves, to terrorize the workers, and so on. In the South, you can trace the history of police departments directly to Confederate troops, who, immediately after losing the war, rounded up people and threw them in prison on fabricated charges. To a lot of people, it was as if the war never happened. The fact that there was no reign of terror in the south tells you everything you need to know. And the slavery continues to this day. So I have no idea what you mean when you talk about this fantastical "intended purpose".

The US instance is one.

Robbert Peele's "Peelian Principles" (UK) are another, which is how the UK ended up with a largely unarmed and civillian institution "policing by consent". (It also has its darker elements, but that's the thumbnail sketch.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

A French "gendarme" is literally a "man at arms", and is derived from military forces, representing a third tradition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie

I was recently reminded of this due to a strange story having to do with covid and a shortage of license plates in Washington state, due to "social distancing" in the DOC. So that state contracted with another state whose prisoners were still incarcerated and still hard at work making license plates.

> The DOC has experienced issues since last summer, when compliance with social-distancing requirements slowed production, according to spokesperson Rachel Ericson. To address the issue, the agency has increased staffing and started outsourcing some production on July 31.

> License plates first began to be manufactured by individuals incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla in 1923. It’s now one of 43 prison factories around the country that produce plates for 40 states and the federal government.

Original: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-g...

Outline (no paywall): https://outline.com/YnDVG6

No judgements! I only mention because it was a boon when someone pointed out i had a similar habit

Thank you for putting words to this. I think it's something I've struggled with as well.

Which doesn't say much. Most complex organisms on Earth go extinct.

I believe to think otherwise is hubris.

Could we change? Sure. Will we? Who knows.

Just a few hundred years ago people were burned at the stake, impaled, cut open alive in front of a crowd.

Every war kills off the most violent and aggressive. The next big one should wipe a lot of them.

Then again, push someone hard enough and they'll turn against you. Don't even need violence and death, a miserable existence in fear and doubt can be a way better punishment. The sociopathic rich prove it works.

The number of hoops VZW made me jump through was stupefying. Multiple notarized documents, utility bills, property tax records, as well as the police report.

And then they said "Our initial review says that the account stands as-is, that we are satisfied that it was in fact you that opened the accounts, based on the documentation you provided, and the documentation that was provided on account opening".

Great (not really), I say, in that case, "I want to see the documentation 'I' used to open the account."

"We can't do that, for customer privacy reasons."

"You just told me that you determined -I- am the customer. Are you telling me it's a breach of my privacy to supply documents you've stated on the record -I- supplied you, to me?!?"

"Well, you may not have opened the account..."

Apparently, Schrodinger's cell phone account. Mine when they need the bill paid or sent to collections, and "possibly not mine" when it comes to them revealing what crap they accepted in order to open the account in the first place.

It finally got sorted out, but took a lot more back and forth.

I get the sense that a lot of things that used to be easy to resolve, easy to deal with, easy in general, are actually quite painful and difficult today.

If they can find a technicality to hide their own mistakes and general incompetency, why would they not try to influence the judge to proclaim their fantasy as the prevailing “truth”?