80% of everything is crap anyway, no matter which tech stack. But I think something was lost, not everything is a database, but ever since Microsoft started ignored MS Access, nothing is a database. Or rather, Excel is used as a database. That can't be good either.
Oh 100% agree on Excel - it's no substitute for those dBase/Clipper/Fox systems.
Y'know what? It's probably true that niche needs filling again as long as it isn't the dBase file format. I had to deal with one system that blew the documented max file size for dBase III but for some bizarre reason, the original dBase III executable didn't care.
However, you couldn't load it with any of the ODBC drivers it would fail. Except for one obscure Sybase based driver I have forgotten the details of.
Yeah, this is totally correct. What was great is the ability to do things like `SELECT name FROM NameOfForm` (in Foxpro, `forms` where stored in tables, so you can do sql on them), but what I say is that is the "free" query interface that is great, but if the actual thing is stored as json, csv, sqlite or whatever is orthogonal.
In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished. Partly because it was founded (in part) by oppressed minorities fleeing states where the were constantly harassed by authorities. (Irony - the US's approach hardly fixed the issue).
But is it OK to risk punishing a few innocent people if it greatly reduces the amount of suffering caused by crime?
> Partly because it was founded (in part) by oppressed minorities fleeing states where the were constantly harassed by authorities
Nah, it's a principle that was brought in from English common law. E.g Blackstone's Ratio[0] was published at roughly the same time as the American revolution was playing out, and cited plenty of earlier formulations of the same principle. Habeas Corpus was codified in the Magna Carta, but predated it as a concept.
Now I'm entertaining myself by reframing the rebel barons (magna carta) as an oppressed minority, fleeing into their castles where they get harassed by siege engines.
> In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished.
That's a rather rose-tinted view of criminal justice here... I do hear that sentiment a lot here, but it's just words, and as you sort of hint at, the reality doesn't match the words.
> But is it OK to risk punishing a few innocent people if it greatly reduces the amount of suffering caused by crime?
That's a big philosophical question. I argue that no, that's not ok, and I'd rather guilty people go free (and possibly hurt others) than put an innocent person behind bars.
My wife was traveling in Central America last year, and befriended another traveler from a nearby country. This woman told my wife that her country used to be fairly dangerous (both for locals and tourists) due to the proliferation of criminal gangs, but that the current president had mobilized the police/military and aggressively cleaned things up. She mentioned that a large number of innocent people got caught in the crossfire and and were now rotting in jail, but if that was the price of safety for everyone else, she was ok with it.
I had a very visceral negative reaction to this story, and found it disappointing that someone would hold that opinion. But I suppose it's a lot easier to take that stance when it's not you or someone you care about being falsely accused and sent to prison.
So I think that's another way to look at your question: would you be ok going to prison as an innocent person, as a known, understood, and societally-accepted side-effect of a safer society? If the answer is no, then you can't expect anyone else to do it. And even if the answer is yes, that's still a personal decision/opinion, and still can't expect anyone else to do it.
(For the record: hell no, I would not be ok with that.)
> I had a very visceral negative reaction to this story, and found it disappointing that someone would hold that opinion. But I suppose it's a lot easier to take that stance when it's not you or someone you care about being falsely accused and sent to prison.
I have to imagine that from her point of view, it's a lot easier to take the stance that you'd rather see guilty people go free than put an innocent person behind bars when it's not your neighborhood with the dangerous criminal gangs....
Basically you’re talking about implementing The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Many innocent people have been sentenced to death in the US. The idea that jail or punishment solves crime also has no basis in fact.
> In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished.
In the US, just as in Japan, as soon as you are arrested they begin punishing you. If there were a real assumption of innocence, jail would be pleasant and comfortable, and if you were WFH you wouldn't miss a day. There is a material presumption of guilt, even if there's some sort of ethereal theoretical presumption of innocence.
Instead, you're in a horrible cell, eating horrible food, dressed in a humiliating way, treated in a humiliating way, and exposed to dangerous people. Unless you can pay a bond which you will never get back (because you are too poor to pay bail.) You haven't been convicted of anything. The fine you're facing might be lower than your bond, and the time you're facing might be shorter than the time you'd have to wait in jail to go to court.
>if there were a real assumption of innocence, jail would be pleasant and comfortable, and if you were WFH you wouldn't miss a day.
At some point, you have to hold the person and figure out if they're a danger or not. Not everything is an unpaid ticket, and jail is probably unpleasant because everyone involved is unpleasant. Has it ever been otherwise?
>pay a bond which you will never get back (because you are too poor to pay bail.)
Why would you not get your bond back if you went to court as required? It would be forfeit if someone stops showing up to hearings, which is a requirement of their bond. It's to get them to return to court instead of just fleeing.
Back in the 19th century. De Tocqueville talks about American justice favouring the rich since they could post bail and the poor could not. I have seen documentaries about US bail hostels and some of them seem like horrific places as bad as prisons in some other countries and this is before you've been found guilty of anything.
Fascinating - apparently they are for people who need a “suitable address” to qualify for bail, generally because they are otherwise homeless. The US doesn’t require any fixed address for bail in general and only the most organized and progressive court systems do anything except let them out the jail door wearing whatever they were arrested in, and lock it behind them: frequently around 10pm once someone gets done with the paperwork.
The US only requires a jury to believe someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is accepted that there will be false positives where an innocent person will falsely get convicted due to this, but the hope is that the trade off is worth it.
It's actually not. You can be arrested and then released without charges, which is not a conviction but does not factor into the conviction rate statistic.
I was going to say the same thing. OP in this case would not count toward either percentage, what you have to wonder is how many people get charges dropped who get put through the ringer.
It also makes the act of accusing incredibly powerful, and you have to wonder what threshold there is and whose accusations matter, because this severe punishment for dropped charges feels extremely powerful.
Arrested is not the same as convicted. I lived in Japan for a few years, and I have heard of similar situations to what the article describes.
In Japan you can be arrested while an investigation is in process, only afterwards you will be indicted. Additionally, Japan does not permit defendants to post bail prior to an indictment.
Yes Japan has a really high conviction rate, but that is because they indict only cases were a conviction is likely.
Arrests don't need to lead to the person being indicted.
Not sure why you were downvoted. From the last paragraph:
"I spent a total of 35 days here. The first arrest was 3 days of processing, the initial 10 days followed by the 10 days extension for a total of 23 days before my case was dropped. But the same time my case was dropped my accusers found a another reason to issue a second arrest keeping me there for an additional 12 days!
Both cases were ultimately dropped and the second arrest was essentially tied to the first and shouldn’t have even been possible."
But it's a small sum of money for potentially a large screwup with potential permanent side effects, like losing a cross border job. Of course, cross border anything is less and less likely these days.
It’s not threaded here but the responder made a comment about this affecting liberals more than anyone, to which I countered by saying statistically conservative states suffer more from poverty.
Fully aware it’s not as a black and white as this, but on surface they are just wrong to tie a political party to poverty when it affects everyone.
reply