[exabrial]

I don't know even what to make of this... The preamble suggests that Kazakhstan justice was superior to American justice, but after reading the whole story I'm like... dude, grow a sense of self-responsibility. It's not like your visa expiring was a surprise... you knew exactly when it was going to happen, and YOU CHOSE to violate it without giving yourself any wiggle room. Then you willingly participated in a corrupt system, rewarding those who profit from it.

It would have been so much easier and involve less questionable ethics to just leave more than 24 hours in advance.

[coldtea]

I find this response, and the suggestions, exemplifying why Kazakhstan justice (as expressed in the story, I don't know how it's in general) is superior to American justice.

It's the ability to take the law and regulations lightly, when they're not that serious, and be humane about it.

I mean writing: "YOU CHOSE to violate it", with added emphasis, as if having a visa expiring on the same day you leave a place (and literally while you're on a vehicle leaving it) is some kind of huge crime...

[jules]

All this does is provide random and selective justice for those who can pay the bribe.

What about the visum expiring the day before you leave? Two days? The law has to draw a line somewhere. It is the obligation of the person to stay clear of that line. If the visum duration is too short, just make all visa valid for 16 days rather than 15 days, and then enforce that line equally for everybody. Once corruption has taken a hold it tends to encroach on everything.

[whack]

> "All this does is provide random and selective justice for those who can pay the bribe."

That was actually the most heart-warming part of the tale. The guy initially tried to bribe the police and get out of trouble, but the new computer systems prevented him from doing so. The cop who initially tried to collect a bribe from him, then returned the money, befriended him, and went to bat for him, with no financial incentives whatsoever.

[coldtea]

>All this does is provide random and selective justice for those who can pay the bribe.

The ability to pay your way out of it, usually comes together with the ability to talk your way out of it, and with the ability of police and such to bend some things on their discretion if they seem BS.

[addition] To quote John McAffee's guide on the matter:

"In order to make the most of your travels, you need to first understand that, throughout much of the Third World, there is a smoothly functioning “system” in place that has evolved over centuries. From the First World perspective it is a “corrupt” system, and indeed, at the higher levels there is no other word for it (...) at the lower levels, however, the system contains an element of grace and humanity, and this lower lever is all that most people will ever encounter. You might still call this lower level “corruption”, but that’s not a helpful word if you want to acquire the most effective attitude for dancing with it. I prefer “negotiable”."

>What about the visa expiring the day before you leave? Two days? The law has to put a line somewhere. It is the obligation of the person to stay clear of that line.

And it's an attribute of a good attitude towards the legal system to not be jerks about it, since "expired last day and I'm on a train leaving the country" is just as good as "it will expire after I leave".

Even if the "law must put a line somewhere", people should be served by the law, not be slaves to it, and enforce it according to its spirit, not merely its letter.

Of course with this mindset you don't get to be 4% of the world's population but have 25% of it's prison population.

There's a name used in some parts of Europe for the kind of legal anal retentive mindset that everything must be 100% according to the letter (and not the spirit) of the law, that someone is like "Javert" (from Les Miserables).

He ends like that in the book, btw (spoiler alert):

For the first time in his life, Javert is faced with the situation where he cannot act lawfully without acting immorally, and vice versa. Javert is unable to find a solution to this dilemma, and horrified at the sudden realization that Valjean was simultaneously a criminal and a good person—a conundrum which reveals deep flaws in his ethical system, and suggests to him the existence of a superior moral system. He feels that the only possible resolution for himself is in death, and— after leaving for the prefect of police a brief letter addressing lapses in the Conciergerie— he drowns himself in the river Seine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javert

[jules]

> The ability to pay your way out of it, usually comes together with the ability to talk your way out of it

No it doesn't. Hardly anybody would pay a large bribe if they could simply talk themselves out of it instead.

> Of course with this mindset you don't get to be 4% of the world's population but have 25% of it's prison population.

No, that is the result of crazy harsh sentences. That is a problem, but applying justice selectively to rich people is not the solution to that problem. The solution is to decrease the punishment for crimes that aren't serious, and then apply it equally. A prison sentence for a 1 day visum overstay is ridiculous, of course.

[coldtea]

>No it doesn't. Hardly anybody would pay a large bribe if they could simply talk themselves out of it instead.

That's the case in game theory terms.

Fortunately real people don't act like that.

"Corrupted" third world officials and such are not profit-maximizing automata (well, a few are. Most are regular people trying to make a buck for the family on top of meagre salaries).

Even if you can afford a bribe and they know it (e.g. you look rich westerner etc), there's often tons of room for negotiation on the price. Including talking your way out of it, them getting a liking for you and just letting you go etc.

But I primarily talked about people who can't afford to pay and it shows. Sometimes what started as a probe as to whether you can pay them a bride even ends up as them getting out of their way to help you for free, if they see you cannot pay and they take sympathy on you.

Aside from "corruption" which might be all some westerner can see, those places also have ages old codes of hospitality and such.

>A prison sentence for a 1 day visum overstay is ridiculous, of course.

Well, if you can't change the law, another way is to selectively enforce it on someone's discretion (bribe or not). It might not benefit 100% of the people but it benefits massively more people than strictly following the ridiculous harsh law.

[dragonwriter]

> You might still call this lower level “corruption”, but that’s not a helpful word if you want to acquire the most effective attitude for dancing with it. I prefer “negotiable”."

The people I know who have lived significant periods of their life in these systems would describe them as "corrupt", not "negotiable".

Though "negotiable" does correspond to the way I've usually heard wealthy Americans who've encountered these systems describe them.

[oneloop]

You have a few typos there. The singular is "visa" and the plural is "visas". Don't be discouraged, your English is already quite good. You'll get there.

[zeroer]

> visum

Is this supposed to be some kind of faux-Latin plural? I defy you to find an English dictionary that contains this word.

[jules]

It's what we call it in Dutch. Singular: visum, plural: visa. It does indeed come from Latin. I didn't know that it is different in English.

[blowski]

Apparently, it is the singular of visa in German.

[kaeluka]

German, singular: visum or visa, both work. Plural: visa or visas.

[lotsofcows]

It's a pretentious but arguably valid Latin singular.

"Arguably" because the word comes to English from French not straight from the Latin.

[eric_h]

It's only pretentious if you're a native English speaker.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12142643

"I didn't know it was different in english"

[crispyambulance]

Yep. Exactly. There's something to be said for a little wiggle room outside of "the rules".

And for what it worth, he was "detained" (in a way) and had to pay a steep fine of $500, and had to face some significant stressful (and interesting) uncertainty. It was perhaps not as punitive as rules-oriented folks might like, but I think its safe to say that this guy is now careful to have his paperwork in order on foreign trips. What more can one expect?

[swhipple]

It may be too easy to look at this and be appreciative of the humanity and 'wiggle room' if one should be the person to benefit from it. Would a local be afforded the same wiggle room?

Recently, I read an anecdote about someone in the US arrested for drug possession. The family was well-known in the community. Charges were dropped due to minor procedural errors. Other cases with potential procedural errors are pursued and the accused are often recommended to take plea deals.

> What more can one expect?

Someone may find it great that the rules were bent for a not-so-bad infraction. Someone else may want a system that is evenly applied and by-the-book in all situations.

[crispyambulance]

> Someone else may want a system that is fair and by-the-book in all situations.

It is utterly unreasonable to expect or desire everything to be "by the book" all the time. If you do, you'll be sorely disappointed with the real world.

Your particular example actually works against your argument. The "minor procedural errors" were likely discovered and exploited by highly compensated lawyers who make a living negotiating with the "fair" rules. The real problem for both cases is getting arrested in the first place. Both actors likely spent a miserable night in jail. Could a little discretion from the police involved have averted the misery, expense, and absurd waste of resources grinding the gears of the criminal justice system over nothing much at all? I think so.

[swhipple]

I don't have the story around, but if I recall correctly, the minor procedural errors were forgetting to read Miranda rights. In the US, conviction can be based on possession without that form of evidence. Let's say for the sake of the argument that social status was an important factor here.

If going by-the-book is overly harsh, then the book needs to be amended. Bending the rules is not really praiseworthy, though it may end up with an good result in a particular case. It's not what I prefer in a justice system.

[wtetzner]

The problem is that it's basically impossible to come up with a book of rules that are reasonable to enforce in all circumstances. The world is too complicated for that, which is why it's necessary to look at each case individually.

[tptacek]

What you see as humanity, I see as corruption. The system where you have onerous laws that aren't enforced against normal people because they pay nominal sums to avoid enforcement is also the system where you have to pay nominal sums to get anything done, and where the price to avoid enforcement for "undesirable" people climbs to infinity.

This isn't theoretical: it describes plenty of corrupt governments that nobody would hold up against any western country.

[coldtea]

>and where the price to avoid enforcement for "undesirable" people climbs to infinity.

How's that latter part any different from any western country? There too, it's mostly the undesirables and those low down that get the full force of the enforcement. Those advanced countries just remove the part where less rich people can have a go at bending the rules, even if a little.

As for the equality of basic enforcement, that's illusory under the inequality of means and motivations. To quote Anatole France, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread".

[mwfunk]

Yes, he did choose to violate it, in the sense that waiting until you've got 24 hours left on a visa to leave is just straight up bananapants crazy, especially when you are in a place where all sorts of things can happen that could delay your exit, and the legal system is unusually unpredictable (and the consequences could be unusually bad for you).

Accepting a certain level of risk that something bad might happen is absolutely equivalent (in terms of personal responsibility) to choosing to make that thing happen.

Example: drunk driving is dangerous. If you've had a lot to drink, and you get in a car to drive someplace, and you get in an accident, you take additional responsibility for that accident because you chose to increase risk above a certain common-sense level that everyone is aware of. Regardless of whether or not the accident would have happened without drunk driving, the drunk driver will be held accountable in a way that they would not have otherwise.

Waiting until you've got 24 hours left on your visa to leave Kazakhstan is so far beyond any common-sense threshold of acceptable risk (that pretty much any rational adult would be cognizant of) that it is equivalent to choosing this fate.

[peeters]

I think the point is, it's only a stupid risk if you're dealing with stupid systems. When all the actors involved see his transgression for what it actually is (instead of just yelling BUT THE RULEZ) it's apparently not as big of a risk.

[coldtea]

>Yes, he did choose to violate it, in the sense that waiting until you've got 24 hours left on a visa to leave is just straight up bananapants crazy, especially when you are in a place where all sorts of things can happen that could delay your exit, and the legal system is unusually unpredictable (and the consequences could be unusually bad for you).

As far as risks people take go, this one is pretty inconsequential -- even in the worst case scenario, which would be a couple months in some jail.

[zeroer]

His visa expired the day before he left "the place". That his train would make it across the border in the wee hours of the morning is not legally relevant.

[coldtea]

The whole point of this thread is that what's "legally relevant" is not always what's morally or humanely relevant.

That's a millennia old distinction people have made. It's difficult for the puritan mindset to parse, of course.

Sodomy (and being gay) was not that far ago persecuted (still is in the books in some states). Blacks where not allowed in the same establishment as whites.

Slavery was the law once. I wouldn't blame Southern border guards looking the other way when blacks crossed to the North. Even if they took a bride.

And let's not forget the "I was just following orders"/"the law at the time" excuse that tons of military trials clarified that it is not a valid excuse.

[pessimizer]

It'd be better if sodomy and slavery were legal for people who could pay the bribe, but prosecuted in the cases of poor people and racial/religious/political minorities (aka people the official doesn't like and can't do anything for them)? It's a legitimate point of view to be an advocate for kleptocracy, but it's honestly rare to see one in the wild. I consider selective enforcement and latitude in sentencing the constant lurking enemy of Black people in the US; I think you've already got what you want there.

[coldtea]

>It'd be better if sodomy and [flee from] slavery were legal for people who could pay the bribe, but prosecuted in the cases of poor people and racial/religious/political minorities (aka people the official doesn't like and can't do anything for them)?

Compared to it being totally illegal for everybody and 100% enforced, yes, it would be better.

Compared to fully killing anti-sodomy laws and slavery, of course, not.

But in the real world, totally changing a law takes far more time (and influence) that merely being able to leverage some wiggle room/bribe/whatever.

>It's a legitimate point of view to be an advocate for kleptocracy, but it's honestly rare to see one in the wild.

The actual and powerful kleptocracy are people who have influence on government and on MAKING laws -- not those at the bottom taking some bribe or looking the other way for a friend etc.

[Kurtz79]

"It's the ability to take the law and regulations lightly, when they're not that serious, and be humane about it."

I agree that laws should be tempered by common sense, and each case judged taking into account context, but in a country with a serious state of law, those that are not serious or unfair should be changed, not "taken lightly".

The moment you assume laws are not rules but "suggestions", and open to subjective interpretation, it's very easy for some people to find justifications for everything (classic example: taxes are not fair, so I'll just evade them).

[skewart]

But then he wouldn't have had a cool story to post on Medium. He wouldn't have gotten all this attention.

Alternatively, one could argue that he took one for the team - he did something risky and stupid so he could find out what would happen, see if he could get out of it, and share the experience with those of us too responsible and sane to try it ourselves.

Either way though your point stands. He clearly chose to put himself in the situation he was in.

[RangerScience]

> He clearly chose to put himself in the situation he was in.

The thing that always bothers me about that attitude is that it removes any and all responsibility from the people who make the situation within which the choice is made.

It actually reminds me of basic Bayesian considerations: just as you can't know what a test means without knowing the false positive rate (and false negative, and true positive and negative...), you can't pass any kind of reasonable judgement on a choice unless you know what the alternatives were (and the situation in which the choice was made, and whether the alternatives were known or unknown, or...)

So no. He did NOT clearly choose to put himself in that situation.

[bcook]

I would say he did not create the conditions of the resulting situation, but he did absolutely create the situation.

He had the most control. He could have left earlier.

[skewart]

That's a good point. We certainly don't know everything there is to know about the situation. There could very well have been circumstances beyond his control, or, circumstances that otherwise made the decision to push the limits much more reasonable.

That said, he doesn't explain any extenuating circumstances. He came across more like, 'And then my visa was about to expire that night. Crazy how visas expire all of a sudden, am I right?' If he didn't have much agency in the situation it doesn't seem to have bothered him enough to make a big deal about it.

Of course, he might have just felt rationalizing the situation wouldn't have added a whole lot to the essay, which it probably wouldn't have. Then again, who knows how much of the story is true and how much is entirely made up?

[awalGarg]

I am gonna sound like the devil's advocate here, but I'd take the risk:

He didn't intend to do anything malicious. He wasn't on drugs. Wasn't going to kill or rob anyone. He was maybe simply playing a mischievous kid, not a "bloody criminal". Are laws really meant to be taken so rigidly? Has he actually done anything immoral (except for the bribe part, which I also confidently despise of)? Laws are meant to help people live comfortably and save the innocents from criminal. Yes he could have left 24 hours earlier, but maybe he felt it was more comfortable to leave later. He chose his comfort for the cost of absolutely nothing except not following a law, hopefully made to ultimately give comfort to people. He didn't harm anyone.

The fact that such a non-malicious "crime" (read: mischief) did not have to face the brutality given to actual criminals is enough evidence for me to believe that Kazakhstan's law is indeed superior to American law - because boy do I hear so much ill of the American law punishing innocents every other day on the internet.

[vbezhenar]

Think about it. There's an electronic system in place. So he's registered as a passenger and border control police closed their eyes on his visa. But system will generate a notification and this notification will cause an investigation: why exactly is border control police didn't do their job properly? Did they took a bribe? They'll have to fill a lot of papers just to stay in their work and it's possible that they will be fired anyway.

They have clear instructions so they must follow them. If they don't follow the instructions, they might get in trouble, because there are other people who control them. So they did what they have to do.

On the other side, court made a right decision and let him go without any penalties, because court have the authority to make those decisions.

So overall I'm proud of Kazakhstan officials and I think that they did their jobs properly (except for a bribe episode, it's a real shame).

[aaron695]

He could have just stayed at home, much easier for everyone.

Oh wait, no, then he wouldn't have had an adventure and a interesting story to tell, so interesting other people actually enjoy hearing it.

I don't really get this comment at all, he never claimed to be hard done by.

He just told the story as it happened while giving us an insight into other cultures.

Visas are bullshit anyway, people should have the RIGHT to free travel wherever they wish, so BS on the ethics bit.

The only ethical issue is around using names (assuming they are real) and photos of people who helped him.

Other than that I suggest you get out and travel. You obviously don't, else you would know what it's like to get into situations that later seem so obviously could have been avoided. But to travel the world and have fun it's part and parcel of the experience.

[zamalek]

Honestly, he was just a student. People make mistakes in order to learn and I'm very sure that the author learned exactly this facet of responsibility.

[jmnicolas]

> dude, grow a sense of self-responsibility

dude relax and try to travel more. You sound like you could use some vacations.