Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

You tell me! I'm a medieval historian. But if you do find something, let me know.

Edit: Maybe start here? Seems a promising article.

But over the course of just two decades, the crime of vagrancy, virtually unquestioned for four hundred years, unraveled. Profound social upheaval in the 1960s produced a concerted effort against the vagrancy regime, and in 1972, the US Supreme Court invalidated the laws. Local authorities have spent the years since looking for alternatives to the many functions vagrancy laws once served.

[jipehog]

The most abusive law enforcement officials are the generally the ones most imbedded into their communities, the City/Village Cops.
It's their job to move the "riff-raff" out of town.  The locals WANT them to beat up the "riff-raff". The locals don't CARE if there are fatalities, until it hits the news.

[..]These laws frequently saw idling black men persecuted, though on memory I don't believe Foote's study mentions race.

No doubt about that, there a "rich" history of indignities suffered by blacks (and other minorities) by the system. However, that doesn't necessary means that laws handling "riff-raff" are inherently wrong or racial.

Also from my cursory understanding of USA issues, one of the common solution argued for ostensibly systemic racist policing is community policing, but here in the last story we saw police brutality committed by local black cops, meanwhile EuchreJack claim that the most abusive law enforcement officials are those imbedded into their communities.

Ultimately, many of the vectors of the problem are caused by those with high social standing and wealth.

When a law is just, those people have methods of keeping the police from taking action against them or their spawn.

The law has never been just, its not some dry math formula but social contract that is riddled with public subjective perception.

Speaking of perception, given that USA seen wage stagnation for decades and prediction that younger generations are for the first time poorer than their parents, maybe there is something else going here and this is just popular outlet for lost trust elsewhere.

[TD1]

However, that doesn't necessary means that laws handling "riff-raff" are inherently wrong or racial.

I didn't say they were inherently racial. I'd say that blackness serves as a multiplier of 'riff raff,' or perhaps a subset of it. But a well-dressed and clean black man would probably be treated similarly to his white counterpart - you're too clean to be here, get out.

Whether it's wrong is an entirely different matter. It's certainly open to abuse, and the terminology is usually so vague and misleading as to make what constitutes 'riff raff' a matter of personal opinion.

Personally, I'd say it is wrong, profoundly so, to set the judicial system on individuals for the outward signifiers of their socio-economic standing. (On, essentially, 'how they look.') It's inherently classist and discriminatory.

[EuchreJack]

I'm a bit worried how this story is going to evolve:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/02/14/us/msu-suspect-gunman-anthony-dwayne-mcrae/index.html

Specifically: A black man committed a mass shooting* at a major American State University. In his past, he had been racially profiled and his gun taken away. He basically went insane with grief from the death of his mother, a fate any longtime player of Dwarf Fortress should recognize.
What horrible, horrible laws is this going to generate?

[nenjin]

Why? So far he sounds like another "troubled soul."

[EuchreJack]

Why? So far he sounds like another "troubled soul."

My edit explains my concerns, ninja-san

I will say, I have never sympathized with a mass shooter more.
And I truly see it as a mental health crisis.
Stepping off my 2nd Amendment soapbox, the fact is there are too many guns readily available in the United States to just put a ban on them. Contrary to what lawmakers think, guns don't just disappear, regardless of what laws get passed. The genie's out of the bottle.
Putting back on my 2nd Amendment hat, if people didn't have guns, they'd just use cars...

[None]

i don't think schoolchildren have ever been run over with cars within school hallways

or dozens dead from nightclub ramming attacks

also, apparently the suspect shot himself, so this isn't really abusive policing

[MrRoboto75]

What horrible, horrible laws is this going to generate?

Probably none.

[EuchreJack]

What horrible, horrible laws is this going to generate?

Probably none.

I wish that I had your naivete...

i don't think schoolchildren have ever been run over with cars within school hallways

or dozens dead from nightclub ramming attacks

also, apparently the suspect shot himself, so this isn't really abusive policing

Valid points.
But it was abusive policing that took his first gun away.

[Grim Portent]

Common sense in this sort of thing would be laws making it easier to get mental health support for people who need it. Mandatory state funded councelling, that sort of thing. Maybe tightening up gun restrictions on people with mental health problems.

Odds are nothing is going to happen as a result though. Mass shootings aren't exactly uncommon after all, they don't all result in new laws.

[MrRoboto75]

What horrible, horrible laws is this going to generate?

Probably none.

I wish that I had your naivete...

No, I don't really subscribe to the usual NRA propaganda.

Especially when the last 20-30 mass shootings didn't result in any changes.  And the next 20-30 probably won't either.

[hector13]

What horrible, horrible laws is this going to generate?

Probably none.

I wish that I had your naivete...

No, I don't really subscribe to the usual NRA propaganda.

Especially when the last 20-30 mass shootings didn't result in any changes.  And the next 20-30 probably won't either.

Correct.

There’s a lot of bluster from both sides, gun control needs to happen and thoughts and prayers and mental health bollocks, but in the end, war gun violence never changes.

[jipehog]

However, that doesn't necessary means that laws handling "riff-raff" are inherently wrong or racial.

I didn't say they were inherently racial. I'd say that blackness serves as a multiplier of 'riff raff,' or perhaps a subset of it. But a well-dressed and clean black man would probably be treated similarly to his white counterpart - you're too clean to be here, get out.

Whether it's wrong is an entirely different matter. It's certainly open to abuse, and the terminology is usually so vague and misleading as to make what constitutes 'riff raff' a matter of personal opinion.

Personally, I'd say it is wrong, profoundly so, to set the judicial system on individuals for the outward signifiers of their socio-economic standing. (On, essentially, 'how they look.') It's inherently classist and discriminatory.

I agree with each of the above points, but from my term of reference it is not wrong and even desirable. Every society/system has rules, every rules can be abused and it is a constant battle to find consensus on what is fair, and strict laws that leave no place for interpretation just open another venue for abuse.

Anyone who ever build a life from scratch likely understand what I am talking about, especially in lower socio-economic standings when you can't afford to pay for better quality of life.

[EuchreJack]

However, that doesn't necessary means that laws handling "riff-raff" are inherently wrong or racial.

I didn't say they were inherently racial. I'd say that blackness serves as a multiplier of 'riff raff,' or perhaps a subset of it. But a well-dressed and clean black man would probably be treated similarly to his white counterpart - you're too clean to be here, get out.

Whether it's wrong is an entirely different matter. It's certainly open to abuse, and the terminology is usually so vague and misleading as to make what constitutes 'riff raff' a matter of personal opinion.

Personally, I'd say it is wrong, profoundly so, to set the judicial system on individuals for the outward signifiers of their socio-economic standing. (On, essentially, 'how they look.') It's inherently classist and discriminatory.

I agree with each of the above points, but from my term of reference it is not wrong and even desirable. Every society/system has rules, every rules can be abused and it is a constant battle to find consensus on what is fair, and strict laws that leave no place for interpretation just open another venue for abuse.

Anyone who ever build a life from scratch likely understand what I am talking about, especially in lower socio-economic standings when you can't afford to pay for better quality of life.

This reminds me of the War on Bail Reform going on in New York.

1) In the beginning, there was an injustice where individuals were more likely to be held in jail on bail they couldn't afford pending trial for a crime they might be 100% innocent due in large part to the color of their skin, and to a lesser part to their socioeconomic background.
2) Then, New York passed a law setting strict requirements that severely limited the ability of Judges to impose those bails.
3) There was great outcry by the Prosecutors, Judges, and Cops that their precious discretion was stolen.
4) There was a minor reform to so that those who were abusing the bail reform could in fact be held. But it was so much work, said the lazy ass Prosecutors, Judges, and Cops. Many didn't even bother trying.
5) So now, there is a great push to repeal the whole thing.  Give us back our right to discriminate _{against black folk}

 

P.S.: Plenty of people plead guilty under the old system just to get out of jail.  Were they innocent or were they guilty? Doesn't matter, they plead guilty!

[TD1]

Every rules can be abused and it is a constant battle to find consensus on what is fair, and strict laws that leave no place for interpretation just open another venue for abuse.

I disagree profoundly. An exact, well-defined law is infinitely preferable. Exact law is subject to peer (and public) review and is consistently (and therefore fairly) executed. There will always be an element of interpretation in the implementation of law, but clear definitions and wording mitigate excesses.

If legislation is left vague, we must wonder why. Its implementation usually provides an answer. I refer you back to Caleb Foote's account of proceedings. Was there an undercurrent? Who lost, and who benefited? One thing is certain: Justice was not on the magistrate's mind.