@Gdanning's banner p

Gdanning


				

				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 05 13:41:38 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 570


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gdanning


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 13:41:38 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 570


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Should someone who is 1% likely to have committed a crime have to serve 1% of the sentence? No, they're either guilty or innocent,
The issue is NOT whether they are 1% likely to have committed a crime. It is whether they are 1% likely to be convicted of the charges against them.  Those are not at all the same; someone who is found to be 1%, or 50% or even 90% likely to have committed a crime is 100% likely to be acquitted.






the whole point of the system is to find that out.
No, the whole point of the system is to determine whether the prosecution has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty.  And unlike "guilt" or "innocence", there is no black or white answer that question. The exact same evidence might be seen by one juror as crossing the threshold of reasonable doubt, but by another juror as falling short. That is particularly true given that many, of not most, trials are not whodunits, but whatdonits, and whatdonits are often all about the defendant's mental state: Did he intend to kill, or merely to injure? Was he in fear for his life, or not? And, to make things even more complex, some elements of some crimes and some defenses have no existence outside the judgment of a jury. For example, a person can successfully assert compete self-defense only if the jury finds that a reasonable person in his situation would have felt in fear of his life. Similarly, in Oklahoma, a person is guilty of reckless homicide if he acts with reckless disregard of the safety of others, which "is the omission to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the lack of the usual and ordinary care and caution in the performance of an act usually and ordinarily exercised by a person under similar circumstances and conditions." Again, what a reasonable person would do is purely the creation of the judgment of the jury, so it is impossible to say whether a defendant is "guilty" or "innocent" of that crime until a jury has ruled.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


For other rights the government doesn’t get to coerce or charge you for them




Again, if you are framing the longer sentence as a "charge" for having a jury trial, then you are assuming that the sentence in the plea deal was the "correct" sentence.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The 2008 election was determined by 1)the economy; and 2) the fact that the incumbent party had been in power for two terms.  There was essentially no chance of the Republican candidate winning in 2008.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Right, which is why under the plea deal some charges were to be dropped, and some enhancements not argued at sentencing. The guilty plea would yield a different conviction than would a jury verdict.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that the plea deal reflects the "true" level of guilt, and that hence any punishment greater than the offer is unjust. But you have no basis for that assumption.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


ll basically received double max sentence of plea deal.




Not quite. The plea deal specifically says that the Government can seek an upward departure (and the defendant can seek a downward departure).


More importantly, a comparison of the deal with the sentence is meaningless without assessing the strength of the case.  Suppose the probability of conviction was 50%. If so, the offer of 50% of what they got is exactly the expected sentence, so there is no "trial penalty" at all. If the probability of conviction was higher, then the offer was great deal. If the probability was lower, then the opposite is true.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think the left is making a mistake with these massive sentences
Rather odd to assign responsibility to "the left", given that the sentencing judge is a Trump appointee.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


f we assume that the Government of Texas doesn't believe that any crime has been committed




    

  1. It isn't about a crime being committed. it is about being held in contempt for defying a court order.  There will be no dispute on either side that that is exactly what he is doing.
    2. 

  2. If it comes to that, Abbott will either comply, or he will quite happily go to jail, because going to jail for his supposed principles would be very, very good for him politically. Far better than provoking some sort of armed conflict between state and federal authorities, which is not going to be very attractive to swing voters (or, to be more precise, it will convert some Republican voters into swing voters).
    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
    

  1. As I understand it, most of these migrants are people who have arrived at a US border and applied for asylum; hence, they are not in the country illegally.
    2. 

  2. As for those who are in the country illegally, a state law declaring that to be a crime would almost certainly be preempted by federal law under Arizona v. US, 567 US 387 (2012).  And although a state can probably arrest someone for violating federal immigration law, they do not have jurisdiction to maintain them in state custody, in the absence of a federal detainer order.
    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Obviously not all of these people are democrats




Probably, very few are. Staten Island voted 57-42 for Trump in 2020, and the demographics that tend to vote Democratic do not seem very well represented in those pics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Maybe Congress was too old to risk bold policy in the face of uncertainty.




Alternatively, perhaps they were too wise to risk bold policy in the face of uncertainty. Although it seems to me that Congress in fact did quite a bit.


And my point is not about old versus young.  It is about your professed, and it seems to me, rather thoughtless, preference for "virile, strong, responsive, and bold" action, "even if wrongheaded."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We need a ruling class that is virile, strong, responsive, and bold.
So, we want a ruling class of adolescent males?  Weren't the COVID policies that so many here complain about examples of virile, strong, responsive, and bold policies?  As was crossing the 38th Parallel.




Perhaps we need a ruling class that is thoughtful, levelheaded, and wary rather than virile, strong, responsive, and bold.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
First, we dont know that the supply contracted. Certainly not over the last ten years. See data re existing home sales and new home sales


Second, I don’t know what you mean about people losing their jobs. The trend over the last 10 years has been the opposite.


Remember, we are talking about your claim that "for the last 10 years," there has been "an unusually high percent" of people unable to get mortgages.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, of course it is not as high as in 2008 -- The years leading up to 2008 were the subprime years, in which they were giving mortgages to anyone with a pulse. You are looking at an outlier and thinking it is the norm.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It depends. If mortgage rates remain high, I expect real home prices to fall eventually, at least relative to income.  Because home prices are in part a function of mortgage rates, and we have already seen some evidence of that happening.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am not sure why you say that an unusually high percent of people have been unable to get a mortgage for the last ten years. It seems unlikely, given mortgage rates over the last ten years.  Do you have data on that?


I am usually quite critical of not starting the y-axis at zero, but when the point is that numbers have been generally within a narrow band, starting above zero is not misleading.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 27, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The real monthly median mortgage payment has been remarkably stable for decades, so I expect that home ownership will not remain "unaffordable" for long.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Jussie: I think shouting "nigger" or "faggot" during the underlying crime is insufficient. I think we're going to need Mississippi Burning style evidence.




Well, I think it depends on the context.  I seem to recall a hypothetical online in which a guy grabbed a woman's purse and, when she resisted, said, "let go, bitch." That does not seem to be evidence that the crime was motivated by gender. OTOH, if someone is minding his own business and some stranger assaults him out of nowhere, and calls him "nigger," that is stronger evidence that his race was a motivating factor.




Oberlin: Like the ADL, they are using "hate crime" in the colloquial sense, not necessarily the statutory sense. It's hard to imagine they are recommending students make a legal determination of a hate crime.




    

  1. I don't see how you can infer from the link what they meant
    2. 

  2. It is perfectly reasonable to encourage students to report what they think is a hate crime, and then let the police sort out whether it really is.  It is pretty standard operating procedure to encourage people to report if there is any doubt. Eg: "see something, say something."
    3. 





I also believe that without the constitutional protections in the US, hate crime statutes in Europe adhere more to the colloquial sense.




The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination actually requires ratifying countries to "declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;" although countries can enter reservations thereto, as the United States has.




Note further that the FBI (not necessarily a statutory authority) was quoted in one of the linked pieces:




A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.








T H O U G H T C R I M E




I don't know about the link, but this 2021 FBI statement says:




A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. The FBI defines a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”




So, again, an obvious example is the assault in the Wisconsin v. Mitchell case.  I don't know why that is "thought crime."  It is not the thought that is being penalized, but the action and motive. Most people, I think, consider a crime motivated by racial hatred to be more morally culpable than a crime motivated by most other reasons. And it is not unusual to add punishment for particularly morally egregious motives. See, eg, the list of special circumstances that, in CA, render a murderer eligible for the death penalty: Murder carried out for financial gain; murder of a govt official in retaliation for the performance of his duties, murder for the purpose of silencing a witness; murder to further the interests of a street gang.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think they are largely describing a thought crime on top of a purported actual crime of assault or whatever.




I think you need to be more clear about what renders some crimes motivated by the victim's group membership a "thought crime" and others not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Spray painting a swastika on the side of a building is a hate crime




No, it isn't. It might be evidence that the victim was chosen because of their religion, but simply spraying a swastika is not a hate crime. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).




It looks like the typical rape is a hate crime in NJ.




The law in NY is the same. Again, courts are not stupid.




Take the Jussie Smollett hoax. Widely described as a hate crime




An odd example, since the fake facts, had they been true, would IIRC have been  evidence that he was targeted for his race or sexual orientation.




Note ADL says the crime must be inspired by hate




They are wrong. Did you see my quote from the DC Court of Appeals, describing how most states define hate crimes?  Who do you think knows the law better, the ADL or the DC Court of Appeals? Who has an incentive to be inaccurate?




Here's Oberlin College




I don't understand. The link doesn't define hate crime.




So Joe Random Blogger is going to somehow witness a "hate crime", including the watching of a racially charged movie beforehand and then the witnessed discussion to target someone because of their protected category, and be able to rightfully intervene?




The law does not provide a greater right to intervene re hate crimes.




For example, two women were charged with a hate crime for burning a Trump sign




Did you not see the link to the article saying that the charges were dismissed?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That is what I thought, until he explicitly mentioned hate crimes.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


By your standard, any typical rape of a woman is now a hate crime, as the female victim was chosen because of her membership in the group of women




It isn't my standard; it is what the laws typically say.  See Lucas v. United States, 240 A. 3d 328 (DC: Court of Appeals 20200 ["the District's Bias-Related Crime Act is different from most states' hate-crime laws, in that the "majority of [state] statutes define a hate crime as one in which the actor committed the offense because of,'by reason of,' or `on account of'" another person's race or other protected status." Zachary J. Wolfe, Hate Crimes Law § 3:8 (June 2019) (surveying statutes). Instead, the "demonstrates ... prejudice" language of the District of Columbia's Act does not expressly require a causal connection between bias and the criminal act and would appear to punish "the fact of being prejudiced," Shepherd, 905 A.2d at 262-63, thus raising constitutional concerns."]


And courts are not that dumb. Breest v. Haggis, 180 AD 3d 83 (NY 2019) ["not every rape is a 'gender-motivated hate crime'").




    

  • I believe the intent and wording of hate crime statutes go beyond your standard and presume to read the mind of the perpetrator
    • 





Yes, of course they ask the jury to read the mind of the perpetrator; almost every criminal law requires that, because they typically require the jury to determine [the mental state of the perpetrator[(https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html) (did he intend to steal? Did he intend to kill? Did he believe that his life was in danger? etc, etc, etc, etc). The issue is what mental state the law asks the jury to infer:1) the defendant's views about race/whatever (ie. wrongthink); or 2) the reason the defendant chose the particular victim.   it is number 2.


And the broader point is that your legitimate concern gets lost if you start throwing in hate crimes per se as a putative example.  See, eg, the facts of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993):




On the evening of October 7, 1989, a group of young black men and boys, including Mitchell, gathered at an apartment 480*480 complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Several members of the group discussed a scene from the motion picture "Mississippi Burning," in which a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. The group moved outside and Mitchell asked them: "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?'" Brief for Petitioner 4. Shortly thereafter, a young white boy approached the group on the opposite side of the street where they were standing. As the boy walked by, Mitchell said: "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him.'" Id., at 4-5. Mitchell counted to three and pointed in the boy's direction. The group ran toward the boy, beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.






Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. Wis. Stat. §§ 939.05 and 940.19(1m) (1989-1990). That offense ordinarily carries a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. §§ 940.19(1m) and 939.50(3)(e). But because the jury found that Mitchell had intentionally selected his victim because of the boy's race, the maximum sentence for Mitchell's offense was increased to seven years under § 939.645. That provision enhances the maximum penalty for an offense whenever the defendant "[i]ntentionally selects the person against whom the crime . . . is committed . . . because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person . . . ."




That is an example of someone's punishment being enhanced because of the basis on which he chose his victim, rather than because he held "improper" ideas about race .


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Simple examples of thought crime include hate crimes, hate speech, accusations of being a racist rather than doing a racism.




In the US, at any rate, hate speech is not illegal. And "hate crimes" are crimes in which the victim is chosen because of his group membership (real or perceived). No hatred or other ideas need be shown. In that sense, a hate crime enhancement is not very different from a gang crime enhancement. Neither is really a "thought crimes."  The problem is really the last one on your list, better known as cancel culture.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't understand why anyone cares. According to the Fed, median student debt is in the low 20K range, which is an amount that people routinely borrow [to buy cars}(https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanamounts).  And the larger amounts tend to be for professional degrees that lead to high income. This does not seem to be a crisis.


There are of course exceptions, such as people who borrow tons of money to attend various private schools, including some sketchy trade schools. Any reform should focus on reducing the incidence of that specific phenomenon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your source is re the SF Metro Area, not the city of SF. And it says that the metro pop was 1.8 million in 1950 and 3.3 million today. As for the city itself, per the Census Bureau, the pop was 775K in 1950 and 875K in 2020.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
NYC has very few unsheltered homeless people because it is legally mandated to provide shelter.