What's the cleaning cloth cost?
Part of the premise of the criminal justice system is supposed to be that the system is designed to occasionally fail to punish the guilty if it protects the innocent. That's often expressed as, "it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison."
You might just have to accept that you can't always be completely sure that someone's internet usage is sanitized. Could they reoffend awaiting trial? Possibly. Same as letting an alleged mugger walk the streets until trial or an alleged rapist be around women. Innocent until proven guilty means that, as it stands right now until a verdict otherwise is returned, an innocent man and his family are having their right to use a very basic feature of modern existence, the internet, infringed upon.
It’s more efficient, certainly. But telling someone pretrial in 2023 they can’t use a computer isn’t realistic.
Oh totally. And they’re not even alleged to have done anything wrong.
The prosecutor will say “well they could have lived in a Four Seasons instead of with their father.” Prosecutors are seldom reasonable people.
Computers are remarkably efficient but at the dawn of the Gutenberg press, you could have made similar observations. For the first time with paper, it was possible to commit crimes in the privacy of your own home merely by writing things down and sending them to a publisher.
Absolutely.
In 1950, if you were told as a pretrial release condition, you weren't allowed to use paper because your alleged crime involved a book, no one would have thought that reasonable. Today, devices are the equivalent of paper.
So confidently predicting an outcome is the problem?
That's a problem that could emerge with any system used to predict the outcome of any election.
If you make a prediction, you're arguably telling people not to vote.
What is he, a religious leader now?
He was a good modeler and handicapper. His model happened to work well for the 2016 election. That's it. He's not a fucking oracle.
he chose to agree to be monitored and they chose to continue living with him” was uttered
That got me too.
"The alternative is that they could have rented a separate house while the breadwinner of the family was in jail. They agreed to it!"
Utterly absurd. I also think, especially for the 14 year old, that level of surveillance is itself a form of abuse.
Not to mention the fact that any reasonable person would say that its use constitutes a punishment in and of itself.
We need a standard for pretrial release where if any measure could, if taken in isolation, be considered punitive, prosecutors are not allowed to ask for it.
view more: next ›
They're trying to juice up their stats for advertisers. More registered users = more surveillance capitalism.