[glommer]

I am the one who hired Preston. Whatever he has done in the past, I have all the evidence in the world in front of me to assure me that he has a transformed heart. It is not a common thing to see, but here the fruits are clear.

We are happy to have him with us.

[ilc]

Good man. I've worked with a man who did time. I never knew until he told me, and once he did, I didn't give a rats ass.

I knew the person, and whatever was done in the past. Is the past. He's done his time. It is not mine to add penalties over what the state imposed.

[svennidal]

If there wouldn’t be chances after transforming, there wouldn’t be any reason to transform.

Thank you for making society a better place.

[busterarm]

Thank you for having a strong constitution here.

It's obvious from the comments in the thread that the internet hate mob still wants its pound of flesh and for Preston to be judged for life regardless of current circumstances.

They don't realize how damaging their posts are to people who have done wrong in the past and want to change their lives. Once again I am ashamed to be part of the Hacker News community, but thank you for your fairness and goodheartedness.

[b3lvedere]

Thank you for giving the man a chance.

[giraffe_lady]

So you've spoken to the wife?

[glommer]

If you are asking me if I spoke to whoever before hiring Preston... why would I? Whatever he did wrong in the past, he had 10 years to atone for it.

[giraffe_lady]

I just presumed "all the evidence in the world" was a little more expansive I guess.

[glommer]

speaking to whoever Preston wronged in the past would give me information about whatever he did 10 years ago.

He has had more than enough time to pay for all of it, and he clearly has a transformed heart.

[ty6853]

The vast vast majority of DV complaints are unsubstantiated, so speaking to the wife is generally a poor predictor of whether the presumption of innocence will be overcome.

[qingcharles]

DV is a very complex legal minefield. I have years of working with defendants. I would say that a majority of DV complaints are valid in some way, and that many times the DV goes both ways (but it's rarer for the woman to get charged, even if the instigator).

The biggest issue is that once the perpetrator is removed and/or charged the victim often petitions the prosecutor and police to drop the charges. The prosecutors I know will generally not do this and will push for a guilty plea or trial. It's hard for the prosecutor to know whether the victim is being manipulated into asking for the charges to be dropped, and regardless, a crime has probably been committed, and in the justice system the plaintiff is the state, not the person who was battered. This can lead to a stand-off where the victim refuses to come to trial to testify, and where the prosecutor has a Hobson's Choice of whether to arrest the victim and jail them until trial to get them on the stand or let the case drop.

DV cases are hard.

[ty6853]

Some say that prosecutors in your jurisdiction are so reluctant to drop charges, that they may keep a man in jail for nearly a decade without trial, isn't that right 'years of working with defendants' jailhouse lawyer charles? I hope someday you receive compensation for this tyranny that was imposed upon you.

[BryantD]

Cites, please? A quick skim of the literature doesn't support this and I'm dubious, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[ty6853]

Here's an example in connecticut[].

DV applications: ~8800

DV ex parte granted (no chance for defendant to defend him(her)self): ~5100

DV final order granted after defendant able to defend him(her)self): ~3200

So for example in CT on just a civil standard, only 2/3 of the accusers were able to get even a temporary order when the defendant had zero chance to tell their side of the story. Once the defendant was able to come to court and defend themselves, only about 1/3 of them made it to a final order. And that was by the much weaker civil rather than criminal standard.

[] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tYBTsF7-px-3lCnBFOol...

[BryantD]

Sincere thanks!

Some notes: in Connecticut, restraining orders can be granted for a variety of reasons, not restricted to domestic violence alone. Fairly close correlation but it does include, for example, stalking.

It seems unwise to assume that restraining orders alone represent the entire count of domestic violence complaints that reach the legal system. For example, surely domestic violence arrests should be counted? Which seem to be a much higher count than restraining order applications -- 24,850 DV arrests in 2011 vs. 9033 DV applications. I'm not sure how to count the 32,111 "Family Violence Protective Orders" in 2011; are they the result of arrests? Are they yet another possible outcome of law enforcement involvement, separate from either a requested restraining order or an arrest?

There are way more reasons a restraining order might not make it to a final order besides "the requestor was proven wrong." I'd want more detailed data here before reaching a conclusion. Otherwise, this assumes that failure to grant a restraining order proves lack of DV. I am not sure that it would change the percentages you've shown significantly -- we're all aware of cases where restraining orders weren't granted with very bad results, but there's always a tendency to report on the most clickbaity outcomes. Still, worth digging into that one a bit more.

Again, appreciate the cite.

[ty6853]

Yes I'm sure we could keep digging up more. I've been down this rabbit hole before so I know how it always ends: I provide a data driven take backed by source after source which ends in endless nitpicking and scrutiny and rejection of the sources, meanwhile unsourced hot takes go completely unchallenged without the demand sources, as seen in your sister comment.

This is the key of this two-pronged approach, one commenter can bury the data driven comment in source rejection (without being beheld to prove a counter point, since the asserter has the burden of proof) while the sister comment can drive the more approved comment unchallenged. Of course we really know, in many cases, the two separate commenters are advancing the same line of opinion, but using this split strategy both are compartmentalized in their burdens.

Although, the truth is, the scrutinizer is rarely offering counter sources of their own, which they of course are under no obligation to provide. But barring that, we're left at worst with "I don't know" which is a terrible standard under which to assume the word of the wife is predictive of guilt, thus even if all the sources are rejected you leave from a practical perspective no off no better than you started in predictive guilt.

[fwip]

Note that it's not trivial to demonstrate that a restraining order is necessary, even in cases where domestic violence has occurred and has a reasonable risk of recurring.

I understand that you're simply using this as a proxy for the actual unknowable data, but I think it's worth pointing out that the map is not the territory.

[ty6853]

It is trivial in many states and jurisdictions to get a temporary order. One was obtained against David Lettermen just by a woman in a different state claiming he was sending her secret messages through the TV.

The final order is more difficult, but quite often (i.e. in divorce / custody court) the only goal was to evict them from the home and disrupt custody to get the upper hand in hearings, so temporary is all that's needed to do the job and then no need to actually defend the claim made 14+ days later when they're already homeless and with the baseline of out of the kid's life.

http://www.ejfi.org/PDF/Nestler_Letterman_TRO.pdf

[abxyz]

If you're going to extend kindness to Preston then perhaps a little kindness towards others wouldn't go a miss either. Preston isn't rare, the prison system is filled with normal kind hearted people who were unfortunate in life and things went awry. Everyone deserves a chance, not just someone who can provide economic value to you.

[kelstar18]

Showing compassion to one person doesn’t deserve criticism for not saving everyone.

[abxyz]

I'm responding to the claim that it's uncommon for someone in prison to have a good heart.

[kelstar18]

Purporting that to be a "claim" would be - in my opinion - an incredibly disingenuous reading of the poster's comment. Remember the HN commenting guidelines: "Assume good faith."

[abxyz]

That is the good faith reading. The comment isn't open to interpretation. What could the meaning be if not that Preston is an uncommon example of a prisoner?

[kelstar18]

If you don't believe that language is open to interpretation I'm not sure there is anything more to be gained from this dialog. Have a good day.

[glommer]

You seem like a very bitter person trying to find issues where there are none.

[abxyz]

You could have said this:

"I am the one who hired Preston. Whatever he has done in the past, I have all the evidence in the world in front of me to assure me that he has a transformed heart."

Instead, you had to drag down others, the people who you haven't blessed with your benevolence.

"It is not a common thing to see."

You are being praised for showing kindness to one of us (a nerd, a programmer) while disparaging the others. You can show kindness to Preston without condemning the others. Ask ChatGPT to explain exceptionalism to you if you still do not understand. Every person in prison is a person who can change given the opportunity.

Preston isn't uncommon, Preston isn't rare or exceptional, Preston is the average prisoner: someone who, when given an opportunity, has been able to reform. You can celebrate Preston without disparaging his less fortunate cellmates.

The only rare thing here is that he was given an opportunity (and for that you should be praised).