Wisdom and happiness are often boring (try reading the meditations of Marcus Aurelius, I loved it but occasionally yawned). "Success" at any cost, extremes, pain, murder, 168 hour code sprints are more thrilling.
"So then I downed the fifth Red Bull that hour and wondered whether I better change that for loop into a while loop because the first operand was empty anyway."
he found no meaning being a lawyer, but he found creativity and love being a kids musician. Suffering leads to nothing, it's the meaning leads you through suffering.
I think it's implied in this OP that the author did not see any meaning in his lawyer job, there's nothing "bigger than him" he's working for, just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison. There's no "bigger" purpose in that.
As a party clown/musician there is purpose - he can make kids happy, he knows that "something in his future is expected of him", his work is extremely meaningful to the kids, he catches glimpses of that (whether he actually understands that is hard to say, he'd have to be able to 100% become a child to see the child's point of view).
"just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison".
If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).
It is perfectly fine to judge. Having been a juror in criminal cases involving repeat offenders and lived in cities with crime problems, I can tell you that actual criminals being found "not guilty" or guilty and given probation (nothing) is MORE common than justice being served. The system is comically far from perfect.
Can you tell us how you know that some people found not guilty really were guilty? Was it a case of the jury thinking that the accused was more likely guilty than not, but there was still reasonable doubt? Or did the accused admit to an act which many laypeople would consider a crime, but then got acquitted on a technicality? Or were you privy to information and insight denied to your fellow jurors?
> repeat offenders ... actual criminals being found "not guilty"
One does not have to be guilty of the crime for which one is being tried, to be a criminal.
Regardless of the result, if a repeat offender is on trial, then there is a criminal in the dock. If said repeat offender is found not guilty, then, regardless of actual guilt of the offence in question, a criminal has been found "not guilty".
However, it would be appropriate to take angdis to task on the claim that this is "MORE common than justice being served", as that would require one to chart the difference between actual guilt and verdict for a significant majority of trials. That would be very tricky information to come by.
If your interpretation of angdis' comment is correct, I'm even more at a loss. What is wrong with people being found not guilty of one offence even though they've previously been convicted of others? In what way is it an example of justice not being served?
angdis doesn't say that the correct acquittal of repeat offenders is not justice being served, just that the total number of acquittals of criminals is greater than the total number of times that justice is served.
Justice is the sum of all correct results. (i.e. where the accused is guilty and found guilty, and where the accused is innocent and found not guilty)
The number of Criminals found not guilty is the sum of all incorrect acquittals of all offenders (guilty but found not guilty), and correct acquittals of repeat offenders.
Consider an example:
Given 10 trials of repeat offenders, made up of 5 guilty and 5 innocent.
If every trial ends with the correct result, then justice has been served 10 times, and 5 criminals have been found not guilty.
However, If they are all found not guilty, then justice has been served 5 times, but 10 criminals have been found not guilty.
In that case, and assuming (1) the correctness of angdis' contention that criminals are found not guilty more often than justice is served and (2) a conviction rate of at least two-thirds in the court system he/she is talking about (which is not a high bar), there are more wrongful convictions than correct ones.
Yes, given 9 cases, and 3 wrongful acquittals, the remaining 6 guilty verdicts can have at most 2 instances of justice being done (i.e. true positives), meaning that the remaining 4 are false convictions. If any of those acquittals were the correct result, then even more people need to do porridge in order to make angdis' assertion correct.
I'm not saying that angdis isn't wrong, just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point. In fact, as I stated in my first response, proving the assertion requires information that one simply couldn't have, i.e. a chart of actual guilt vs verdict. Plenty of guilty convicts will protest their innocence, and no one, having been acquitted, will then go on to say, "Well, actually, I did it, so long suckers!" I'd add that, as you point out, this is a pretty outrageous claim, so the burden of proof truly lies with the one making it.
In fact, I've oversimplified, because there was actually another clause in angdis' original assertion, "or guilty and given probation (nothing)", this adds another set of results to the group that makes up the "more than justice" list: any probation sentence, which could be an appropriate sentence for the convict (which is justice, so it cancels out), repeat offenders being found guilty of a crime of which they are innocent, but sentenced appropriately for the charge (not justice, but also still a guilty verdict) or inappropriately lenient ( not justice). By making the latter claim, one is declaring oneself a greater authority on sentencing and its goals and outcomes than the judges whose business it is to know all about sentencing.
This means that false guilty verdicts for minor crimes could still go on the left, if the accused is a criminal.
[Replying to myself r/than frozbozz as I seem to have hit some kind of nesting limit.]
> just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point
It's more that I'm questioning the interpretation you've put on angdis' initial comment. Your logic is impeccable, but it leads to conclusions that are so at odds with the tone of his/her post that I feel you are crediting him/her with too much coherence and consistency.
Obviously, I used emotional hyperbolic language and I admit it. There's no way I (or any observer after the fact) can definitively tell if any one person is guilty or not, let alone make a factual statement about many people.
HOWEVER, having lived in cities and neighborhoods with crime problems (eg Baltimore,Philly), I am aghast at how dysfunctional the criminal justice system is. If you look at public court case records of offenders, you'll see a peculiar pattern. Robbery, Burglary and violent crime offenders are RARELY limited to ONE case. Usually, there are several or even more offenses. The outcome of these cases is almost never a clear-cut "guilty" followed by prison time. Instead they're a convoluted series of pleas, followed by a drastically reduced sentence or PBJ (probation before judgement). A PBJ is effectively nothing to a repeat offender, because many continue to be charged with crimes WHILE ON PROBATION, and there are virtually NO additional consequences for those violations of probation.
The kinds of problems I am talking about are described in detail by Paige Croyder (http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com/). If you're interested how criminal justice "works" in Baltimore, she's the best resource.
The angst felt by the laywer who quit to become a clown, is not a surprise. Anyone who has a conscious will have a difficult time with being a lawyer in a criminal case (this goes for both sides).
person committing a crime is a criminal, no matter if justice system finds him guilty (I mean come on, we all know similar cases). reciting some law textbooks seems a bit ridiculous in face of reality
Sure but in the absence of other evidence, only one person really knows the truth. How can you be sure that a person you think is criminal is actually one? If you have the evidence to know that, then you should be able to convict them.
what is "reality"? the law is what makes someone a "criminal". the law is what determines if that person committed a crime. not "whatever saiya-jin seems to believe is reality", which is an awfully frightening idea given the nonsense you have been spouting.
I know the feeling; I've had some great jobs and some bad jobs in my career (albeit "only" 10 years as a professional). The most fun ones were energizing and are (to be honest) the things I seek out when looking for a new opportunity. The #1 thing that I ask when I look at a new job now is "Will I have fun?" #2 is "Is this good for me?" I'm still chasing after 2 different feelings:
1. Working with a couple of colleagues to finish an integration, finishing it, then booking a last-minute tee time to go play golf in celebration. It was a rewarding moment.
2. Getting together with teammates every couple of days for "Halo-thirty," where we'd break, get together in the afternoons for some halo3 in our teamroom, goof off for a bit, then get back to work. That team was remarkably-fun to be in and around.
I've actually found it a bit liberating now that I know what i'm looking for. In certain contexts at work I speak my mind more freely, decline or accept certain assignments, etc, and Nothing Bad Has Happened (yet).
While i wouldn't personally become a clown (matter of preference), i really admire this guy's courage. I frequently think about upping and leaving the security of a cushy job, and it's a lot easier said than done. Freedom is scary!
nah, it isn't. just the first step towards it is hardest. each next one is more and more simple, but we tend to create mental barriers to protect our comfort zone, maybe remnant from times when life was more about plain old survival
Becoming a lawyer is different than let's say becoming a doctor. The lawyers I know barely make a living. The profession is not the ticket to "the good life", like it was in the 50's.
I don't know what school he graduated from. Why he ended up as a criminal attorney? How good/ethical of an attorney he was? (I throw in ethical because it's not judged by the typical client, like I feel it should? Maybe, their really isn't a good way to judge a person ethics?)
Anyway, he made a life change. He can always go back to law, so in reality it's not that heroic of an act. He still has his degree, and passed the bar in his state. He definetly has a fallback. A fallback most of us don't have? It's very common to lawyers to pass the bar, and never practice law.
I just switched jobs because of my daughter. Left a job that I liked but didn't pay very well so I could stop having to work 2 shifts.
I'm a programmer btw. It drives me nuts everyday, but this keeps me going https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/Simpson...
This is a huge issue. One you have kids, it becomes far more difficult to walk away from your income, even for a transitional period. Another complicating factor is health care.
I'm always interested in these stories, kids or none, but I think it changes the equation dramatically. Like you, I'd really like to read more stories about people who did this with the additional obligation of supporting children.
Perhaps having a kid should motivate you more. Can I myself in the mirror in the morning? But also, can I look my kid in the eye and tell her to do the right thing, while not doing so myself? And what are you teaching your child by financing better education or better healthcare for her through a job that may be increasing inequality for other children, thereby reducing the quality of life, education and healthcare for them?
I'm not saying those are the choices you are making. But on the other hand, a lot of people are but cognitive dossonance prevents them from seeing that.
Lookup "The Banality of Systemic Evil" and "Matthew Effect" for more thoughts.
Achieving yourself and seeking fun in work comes after you put food on the table and provide safe home to your dependant. The question for many is not whether providing better teaching, better healthcare, but to provide teaching or healthcare at all if you loose or give up your job.
44 comments
[ 573 ms ] story [ 2446 ms ] threadThriller of the century.
"So then I downed the fifth Red Bull that hour and wondered whether I better change that for loop into a while loop because the first operand was empty anyway."
Can't wait for the novel!
As a party clown/musician there is purpose - he can make kids happy, he knows that "something in his future is expected of him", his work is extremely meaningful to the kids, he catches glimpses of that (whether he actually understands that is hard to say, he'd have to be able to 100% become a child to see the child's point of view).
If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).
One does not have to be guilty of the crime for which one is being tried, to be a criminal.
Regardless of the result, if a repeat offender is on trial, then there is a criminal in the dock. If said repeat offender is found not guilty, then, regardless of actual guilt of the offence in question, a criminal has been found "not guilty".
However, it would be appropriate to take angdis to task on the claim that this is "MORE common than justice being served", as that would require one to chart the difference between actual guilt and verdict for a significant majority of trials. That would be very tricky information to come by.
Justice is the sum of all correct results. (i.e. where the accused is guilty and found guilty, and where the accused is innocent and found not guilty)
The number of Criminals found not guilty is the sum of all incorrect acquittals of all offenders (guilty but found not guilty), and correct acquittals of repeat offenders.
Consider an example: Given 10 trials of repeat offenders, made up of 5 guilty and 5 innocent.
If every trial ends with the correct result, then justice has been served 10 times, and 5 criminals have been found not guilty.
However, If they are all found not guilty, then justice has been served 5 times, but 10 criminals have been found not guilty.
I'm not saying that angdis isn't wrong, just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point. In fact, as I stated in my first response, proving the assertion requires information that one simply couldn't have, i.e. a chart of actual guilt vs verdict. Plenty of guilty convicts will protest their innocence, and no one, having been acquitted, will then go on to say, "Well, actually, I did it, so long suckers!" I'd add that, as you point out, this is a pretty outrageous claim, so the burden of proof truly lies with the one making it.
In fact, I've oversimplified, because there was actually another clause in angdis' original assertion, "or guilty and given probation (nothing)", this adds another set of results to the group that makes up the "more than justice" list: any probation sentence, which could be an appropriate sentence for the convict (which is justice, so it cancels out), repeat offenders being found guilty of a crime of which they are innocent, but sentenced appropriately for the charge (not justice, but also still a guilty verdict) or inappropriately lenient ( not justice). By making the latter claim, one is declaring oneself a greater authority on sentencing and its goals and outcomes than the judges whose business it is to know all about sentencing.
This means that false guilty verdicts for minor crimes could still go on the left, if the accused is a criminal.
> just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point
It's more that I'm questioning the interpretation you've put on angdis' initial comment. Your logic is impeccable, but it leads to conclusions that are so at odds with the tone of his/her post that I feel you are crediting him/her with too much coherence and consistency.
HOWEVER, having lived in cities and neighborhoods with crime problems (eg Baltimore,Philly), I am aghast at how dysfunctional the criminal justice system is. If you look at public court case records of offenders, you'll see a peculiar pattern. Robbery, Burglary and violent crime offenders are RARELY limited to ONE case. Usually, there are several or even more offenses. The outcome of these cases is almost never a clear-cut "guilty" followed by prison time. Instead they're a convoluted series of pleas, followed by a drastically reduced sentence or PBJ (probation before judgement). A PBJ is effectively nothing to a repeat offender, because many continue to be charged with crimes WHILE ON PROBATION, and there are virtually NO additional consequences for those violations of probation.
The kinds of problems I am talking about are described in detail by Paige Croyder (http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com/). If you're interested how criminal justice "works" in Baltimore, she's the best resource.
The angst felt by the laywer who quit to become a clown, is not a surprise. Anyone who has a conscious will have a difficult time with being a lawyer in a criminal case (this goes for both sides).
That's not a bad thing.
1. Working with a couple of colleagues to finish an integration, finishing it, then booking a last-minute tee time to go play golf in celebration. It was a rewarding moment.
2. Getting together with teammates every couple of days for "Halo-thirty," where we'd break, get together in the afternoons for some halo3 in our teamroom, goof off for a bit, then get back to work. That team was remarkably-fun to be in and around.
I've actually found it a bit liberating now that I know what i'm looking for. In certain contexts at work I speak my mind more freely, decline or accept certain assignments, etc, and Nothing Bad Has Happened (yet).
For some of us there isn't a choice. sad clown face
I don't know what school he graduated from. Why he ended up as a criminal attorney? How good/ethical of an attorney he was? (I throw in ethical because it's not judged by the typical client, like I feel it should? Maybe, their really isn't a good way to judge a person ethics?)
Anyway, he made a life change. He can always go back to law, so in reality it's not that heroic of an act. He still has his degree, and passed the bar in his state. He definetly has a fallback. A fallback most of us don't have? It's very common to lawyers to pass the bar, and never practice law.
http://www.movingtothebeat.net/about-robert.html
Anyone like this do it, and survive? I would love to see more motivational stories.
Those who transitioned to professional clown work appreciated!
I'm always interested in these stories, kids or none, but I think it changes the equation dramatically. Like you, I'd really like to read more stories about people who did this with the additional obligation of supporting children.
I'm not saying those are the choices you are making. But on the other hand, a lot of people are but cognitive dossonance prevents them from seeing that.
Lookup "The Banality of Systemic Evil" and "Matthew Effect" for more thoughts.
Guess it takes all kinds.