Comments on: Tough Luck

Tough Luck

noway — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:15:20 -0800

The public shaming of Orange County billionaire Henry Nicholas continues apace. While his financial crimes may not have drawn more than a passing reference, his drug use and other, more unsavory acts, have gotten widespread coverage -- as early as last year. Perhaps, it's because Nicholas was famously involved in supporting tough sentencing laws (his sister was murdered by her boyfriend in 1983.) However, some of the "tough on crime" policies he has backed as recently as a few months ago are said to unfairly worsen the punishment for those who commit crimes much less serious than those for which he was just indicted.

By: djgh

djgh — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:33:06 -0800

Three strikes and out is disproportionate, because it takes into account persistence rather than seriousness, thus possibly delivering a wholly unwarranted sentence. The use of sentencing frameworks, such as in California, also threatens to remove discretion from sentencers, as they have to mechanistically apply the rules. It seems to be a move on from deserts-based sentencing which was designed (especially in Minnesota, often seen as an example) to reduce injustice by making sure that the sentence was proportionate to the crime - that the punishment was predicated upon the idea that punishment should only be retrospective in scope (i.e. address the offence), rather than consequentialist (i.e. address the effects of releasing the offender etc.), and thus the idea that this was a greater guarantor of fundamental human rights, and also treated offenders as rational moral agents in their own right, punishing them only for something they had done rather than something that they might do. Three-strikes is a classic illustration of one of the weaknesses of desert, in that an ordinal scale can be created, but the anchoring point is a serious issue in possibly creating overly harsh sentences. It also brings to the front the discomfort desert has with previous convictions, unlike more teleological theories such as incapacitation and deterrence. It also serves as an example of how difficult it is for a criminal justice system to strive for multiple objectives (deterrence, fairness etc.) at the same time.

By: neuron

neuron — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:01:38 -0800

The public shaming... I read that as public shaving...

By: FelliniBlank

FelliniBlank — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:09:40 -0800

Hey, where's the schadenfreude tag?

By: chillmost

chillmost — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:49:10 -0800

Uh...

By: gingerbeer

gingerbeer — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:04 -0800

My favorite part: "On a drug-fueled 2001 private plane flight--during which Nicholas allegedly used and distributed narcotics--the pilot was forced to don an oxygen mask due to the "marijuana smoke and fumes."

By: wendell

wendell — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:17:50 -0800

No, I think this may be "3 strikes and you're IN"... It is framed somewhat better than the previous two (not PERFECT, but hey, I didn't write it). Now, we were talking about this Henry Nicholas guy and... and... I got nothin'.

By: wendell

wendell — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:24:23 -0800

Although this might be a good place for me to repeat for the umpteenth time my story about being a "staff comedy writer" for a radio show (not TV) in the 1980s and the only one on the staff who was NOT funnier when stoned (the main reason I have never gotten into pot) and having to spend most of my time outside the smoke-filled Writers' Room. It killed my writing career at the time, but there was a secretary outside typing up the writers' notes who I got to make out with.

By: cortex

cortex — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:30:51 -0800

There's a lot more collecting of actual coverage here compared to the previous not-great and the initial just-awful post. We're letting it stand. Go crazy with the actual thread-having.

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:06:03 -0800

heh... it's gonna stay, eh? the problem is that I keep reading the articles in this post, and the guano articles from the last post, and it all starts to sound the same.... but it does get fun if you just reverse the words guano and Nicholas in all the articles.....

By: BostonJake

BostonJake — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:10:12 -0800

Not sure how this works, would stay awake for four days in a row, fueled by heroin and cocaine that he then forced others to ingest, but if he was making people eat his boogers he should be shamed. That ain't right.

By: zog

zog — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:00:52 -0800

Just on cursory reading to me it sounds like someone is piling on a pile of lurid stories that may or may not be true to help make a more boring bunch of charges get some traction.

By: eriko

eriko — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:56:04 -0800

The use of sentencing frameworks, such as in California, also threatens to remove discretion from sentencers, as they have to mechanistically apply the rules. Worse, it moves the discretion to the prosecutors, who get to pick the sentence by changing the charge. So, the same crime rates either probation or a mandatory ten years, depending on what charges they actually file.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:41:18 -0800

Three strikes and out is disproportionate Besides that, has anybody noticed how batshit insane it is to base a get-tough crime policy on a frickin' baseball metaphor?

By: cortex

cortex — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:54:03 -0800

Seriously, that kind of intercontextual crosswind makes it just that much harder to put the split-knuckle of law enforcement into the strikezone of justice.

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:30:03 -0800

Seriously, that kind of intercontextual crosswind makes it just that much harder to put the split-knuckle of law enforcement into the strikezone of justice. The idea is to make the punishment fit the criminal - not so much the crime. Obviously, for some people, calling strikes ain't enough. They keep crowding the plate of lawful behaviour. So society adds another pitch to its selection: a little chin music called three strikes and you're out. The baseball metaphor makes it easy to remember so that the criminal element in society might have a chance to understand it.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 01:08:41 -0800

those who commit crimes much less serious Perhaps it's just me, but I can't think of *any* crimes less serious than hiring hookers and buying free hits of recreational drugs as party favours for your pals.

By: dozo

dozo — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:49:41 -0800

Damn, I want to hang out with this guy.

By: Enron Hubbard

Enron Hubbard — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:31:34 -0800

The indictments paint a bizarre picture of a successful entrepreneur, who allegedly used much of his fortune to fund drug parties in airplanes and luxury homes and to build a secret tunnel and room beneath his mansion in Laguna Hills. I've always wanted to do that. The baseball metaphor makes it easy to remember so that the criminal element in society might have a chance to understand it. Nah, it's for the clueless voters to remember come election day.

By: cortex

cortex — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:35:00 -0800

So society adds another pitch to its selection: a little chin music called three strikes and you're out. Which, of course, only exacerbates the problem of malfeasants clogging the basepaths of the incarceration industry.

By: fuq

fuq — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:30:31 -0800

The baseball metaphor makes it easy to remember so that the criminal element in society might have a chance to understand it. Yeah that's because criminals are a lesser type of human ~~like africans or the blind~~; they are simply stupider than the rest of us good upstanding citizens of better breeding. Obviously, the only reason that anyone would commit a crime is because they are mentally deficient compared to us ~~privileged folks with computers~~. Perhaps if these fools had better breeding they would understand not to commit crimes or get in trouble with the police. Please think about what you say and what it implies. Thanks.

By: the Real Dan

the Real Dan — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:57:27 -0800

I wonder if this lurid sounding prosecution (to use another's word) has any political motivation. The timing of the prosecution and the involvement of Broadcom with network products and this administrations drive to firmly establish common carrier surveillance makes me wonder if this isn't some kind of political payback for a lack of cooperation or complicity in a crime.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:19:11 -0800

I imagine Broadcom's products are too low-level to be directly involved in surveillance stuff. They sell things like processors and ethernet chips, not devices with firmware. Evilness tends to lurk in software.