This is a really intriguing article, though not for the reasons I think it was intended.
I think it demonstrates how impoverished our thinking about what accountability is or can be, and how that inhibits efforts to push for deeper, more substantial changes.
The crime here is serious, and that no one died or was seriously hurt is fortuitous.
Trent set fire to his ex's apartment at night while she slept, out of anger. She and her roommates escaped, but... that doesn't always happen.
Ends up serving 6 months.
Here's what makes it so intriguing.
Trent himself admits he did something wrong. Trent himself feels like he needs to atone more, take more accountability.
But our options (conceptually) are basically: prison, or nothing.
It def seems like there is no public safety gain from incapacitating Trent more. He's owned up to what he did, has acknowledged the hurt, has a social network that appears to be supportive/encouraging.
But there also appears to be little other ways to formally address his harms.
We have come to equate "accountability" w "prison." But there are so many more ways to go about this, ways that likely work better for Trent AND the victim.
What was likely meant as a piece to accuse Mosby of being soft of crime is really a plea for more restorative justice.
And there are far more Trents out there than our dehumanizing tough-on-crime rhetoric would have us think.
Lots of ppl who hurt others feel regret and remorse. Which means prison is not the only way to achieve accountability.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Unless I'm way off, the instances where Bragg plans to (systematically) plead around the "unless required by law" mand-mins for all viol felonies higher than Class E are:
1. A narrow set of commercial robberies where no one is at risk of real injury.
(b) isn't a violent crime (not how we count weapons charges), and doesn't involve guns. Anyway, in 2019 a grand total of 55 ppl were sent to prison from Manhattan for 265.02.
(c) and (d) lower the felony to D--still mandatory prison time.
(e) is about drug possession.
"He's not going to send anyone to prison for violence anymore!"*
* For one narrow category of case, under some situations, and supervisors can override for "extraordinary reasons," which includes prior criminal history.
Gotta say, the more I think abt it, the angrier I get abt the CDC saying life expectancy at birth fell by 1.8 years from 2019 to 2020.
We had a huge spike in mortality, yes. And one in morbidity that will def shorten lives in the future.
But the number here is total gibberish.
To start, Covid might have ~0 impact on expectancy AT BIRTH. Maybe it will—maybe kids exposed at birth or in utero will be sicker. Or maybe it made them longer, by jumpstarting mRNA therapies.
But a static accounting based on 2020 data is … beyond meaningless.
It’s faux quantification of a health shock not easily reduced to a single headline number. Easily repeated, seemingly meaningful… and completely meaningless—at best.
What, exactly, does the decline mean? I read the CDC report, still don’t get it.
The major cause (obv!) is Covid, but a 1.8 yr decline at birth doesn’t mean we actually expect a baby born in 2020 to live less bc of Covid, does it? There’s no way the data they have can say that.
How can mortality data from 2020–a year w/out vaccines for most of it—predict mortality outcomes ~80 years from now?
Or is it just dawning on me that life expectancy estimates based just on mortality data without a LOT of extra modeling rest on a lot of stability assumptions?
It also attributes some of the AT-BIRTH decline in life expectancy to the rise in homicide, which… again. The homicide rate could move a lot in the 10-15 yrs, which is when it’ll impact the life expectancies of kids born in 2020.
If I have one goal for 2022—I’m keeping my expectations REALLY low this orbit—it’s that the word “preprint” gets shredded, set on fire, launched into the sun, and purged from all uses past, present, and future.
Just call it a “working paper.”
“Preprint” sounds so official. First time I heard it, I honestly thought it meant the on-line version of a piece that was accepted for peer-reviewed publication, posted to the journal’s website before the hard copies come out.
I just means “working paper.”
It just means “potentially unreviewed pile of words and analysis anyone with access to an on-line repository can throw up on the internet and then use a needlessly misleading term to make sound more vetted than it is.”