"I am fascinated by this backstory and like doing legal research for fun on Saturday nights, so I put down the $10 to run a few searches on the LA Courts site.
In June 2013, four months after the restraining order was granted, Pritchard is charged on two counts of "willful violation of a court order" under California penal code section 166(A)(4). Guilty on one count, dismissed/not prosecuted on the second count.
One year after that, on June 23 2014, Pritchard is charged again, this time under 273.6(A), a different section than before. Someone more familiar with the California penal code will have to help me understand the difference between the two. Since this was a repeat violation, perhaps a different statute applied. She is found guilty.
The next day, on June 24 2014, Pritchard is charged with two more counts: one guilty, one dismissed/not prosecuted.
So, from what I can tell, the offense for which Pritchard was incarcerated was not her first violation. There were multiple violations before this one, not to mention whatever conduct resulted in the protective order being issued in the first place. This doesn't even come close to telling the whole story – I, for one, would like to know if there was ever a relationship (professional or otherwise) between the two, or if they truly had never met at all – but it certainly helps to clarify what went on prior to Pritchard's experience in jail."
I think the point of the story was to inform the reader what a jail experience is actually like, with the added benefit that the author was a cartoonist.
I don't know HN's policies, but I think you should re-consider your post, and edit/delete it.
I wrote my suggestion to you not based on the "rules", so much as good taste. The author of that piece never wrote of anything that would have been affected by why she landed in jail. What value does it add?
Whether people have the right to look at the records or not is a separate question from whether it is polite or appropriate to direct attention at them.
I was interested in why she was there, given that most of her self-referential imagery has her depicted as an innocent toddler, and most other inmates have unflattering depictions. Was she in for something that would generally be seen as 'not a crime' by the wider public? That was my curiosity.
And it's not exactly a 'random person' - the author is specifically announcing an article on her personal experiences. She's trying to draw attention and in this context is a public figure. It's not like this question came out of the blue for someone trying to keep their time inside on the quiet.
That is my point, it was out of pure curiosity. The equivalent of rubber necking. Her article is on prison conditions, are you going to believe her more based on her crime or something? It has no relevance.
If she'd done something relatively minor and ended up in jail because the system just grinded along, she'd have more credibility.
The fact that she repeatedly broke laws and intentionally disregarded court orders and never seemed to really acknowledge the reality of her situation does reduce her credibility.
Would you really judge someone in each of those situations as equally trustworthy? Really?
> If she'd done something relatively minor and ended up in jail because the system just grinded along, she'd have more credibility.
Human rights are called human rights because they're universal and apply to every human being, no matter the circumstances.
And I personally don't care about how exactly one landed in prison - for minor offences or major, that inmates do not have the right to shower daily is just fucked up. Or that sexual violence or drug dealing in prison seems to be widespread.
As a general rule, any fact you derive from a person's credibility is not a fact. Humans are unreliable and relying on their authority/credibility/good looks to establish the truth value of a proposition is a logical error.
We accept this error when we have to do some fast thinking and the consequences of being wrong are small, but the moment you make this flawed logic the general rule is the moment you lose any chance at establishing the facts.
'fact' generally excludes unreasonable uncertainty. Otherwise you've wandered into an area of philosophy where nothing is a fact. And that is not the general meaning of the word.
And credibility is a measure of how close their assertions are to the truth, how is that a logical error?
> Otherwise you've wandered into an area of philosophy where nothing is a fact.
Or, rather, the area of philosophy where only the class of facts which can be certainly described as such are the facts of having particular present sensations (whether the kind that present as sense-data or the kind that present as memories) is a fact, and all other ideas about the world are either axioms or conclusions supported on the basis of either axioms, sensations, or a combination of the two.
Of course, when you leave that area of philosophy, you are in the area of fuzzy and imprecise thinking, so its not a bad area of philosophy to be in.
You've generated something of a catch-22. If her information is already well-known, she doesn't need credibility - in which case, why bother with the article in the first place? But 'facts are facts', and if she had new information, then she would need credibility in order for it to be considered 'fact'.
In any case, my curiosity had nothing to do with her credibility. I was curious about how she drew herself versus how she drew others. Why she was in jail speaks to some extent as to who she is, and fills in a little more of the mental picture of her.
Indeed. How dare I be curious about the background to an experience someone is writing about, given her disconcordant self-depiction in that experience. How dare I have a question about an article that is not directly related to the primary point.
I admit to secretly wondering why she was incarcerated. She described herself as 'landing in jail' as if she fell out of the sky and whoops! in jail. No idea that maybe she deserved it, or did something that precipitated it - just 'landed' there.
I understood her depiction as "helpless" rather than "innocent" toddler. There is nothing in her writing that indicates that she sees herself as innocent.
>But because I had no money and an overworked public defender, I knew I’d have to serve time for my violation.
an animator in LA can't pay for a lawyer to fight 2 month of jail (i.e. supposedly something relatively minor). Are animators there doing that bad? (i'd expect it to be more like programmers in SV)
"Animator" could have lots of interpretations/types of jobs, and many people that have pursued careers in the arts may have spent money on special purpose art colleges that cost a lot, but definitely don't always translate to high paying jobs.
Also, anecdotal evidence from friends in the digital animation field (think Pixar, Dreamworks, etc) is that even those jobs can be relatively low paying for years because they are dream jobs, hence high supply of workers.
Without knowing socio-economic background and life history, I could easily see a creative type in LA choosing a short jail term over the financial hit.
Also, there aren't very many "high-level" animator jobs at the end of the line, either.
The ideal career path for an ambitious, hard-working, and politically savvy animator is to switch over to the producer track as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
Pretty sure that animators are paid more in line with musicians than programmers.
Also, think about going to jail for 2 months. 2 months where you're locked up and have absolutely no liberty. If this thing was minor, there's still 2 months you'll never get back. Not to mention the job you probably lose during this stint. I don't wish prison sentences to anybody, not even my worst enemies.
I wouldn't feel as bad that we feel so strongly about locking people up if the conditions weren't so absolutely awful. I'm sure there's a way to make prisons more survivable without sacrificing the "making sure people are inside the box"-ness.
>If this thing was minor, there's still 2 months you'll never get back.
There is no argument what jail time is bad. It is the offense that seems to be minor (and thus easy to fight for a lawyer) - while IANAL, my understanding from what i see and hear around, misdemeanor resulting in 2 months of county jail without a lawyer is really not that big a deal, on par with second DUI, something what with a lawyer can be on the scale of like a month or two of community service, etc...
After googling around, i even more convinced that not having a lawyer (whether by choice or due to not being able to afford it) was her great misfortune as while legally she seems to be a violator, personally i got the impression that at the social level she was kind of a victim, or more precisely she happened to be too weak for (and was broken by) the relationships and the people (much higher-ups in her professional and social hierarchy) she allowed herself to be involved with. Basically she needs counseling, and instead the society comes with all the power of law upon her and throws her in jail (the events do seems to had gotten somewhat out of hands, so something needed to be done, the issue here is what should have been done - the good lawyer would probably was able to turn it into correctional/rehabilitation/treatment direction instead of the pure punitive).
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you thought this was acceptable. Guess this is another one of those 'used car dealer' things: the sticker price might be 2 months of jail, but any lawyer can lower that immensely.
There are a lot more people who want to be animators than there are jobs for animators in LA. I used to be one of them.
A lot of the work is seasonal at best; you're hired for the duration of one production, and let go when it's over. If the show gets renewed and the folks running it like you you may get offered your job back next year.
You can make a decent living but not working for Bakshi or Kricfalusi; you work for those two because you want the prestige of Having Worked Under A Legend. Or because you worked with them back in the day, have a decent amount of money to fall back on, and they've approached you with a new project that will give you a lot of creative freedom because they trust your sensibility.
(I mostly worked for John K when I was hanging around the industry, so I saw this first-hand.)
After a few minutes of Googling, apparently she was in jail for violating a court order that stemmed from her stalking famous cartoonist John Kricfalusi. He kept getting harassed by Elana and that he had to get a restraining order against her.
Being a stalker doesn't make you crazy. In our pop-culture world we have plenty of stalkers and I'd bet they're not completely out of their minds; just suddenly obsessed over a particular person(s).
Also, I don't know how many HNers have actually interacted with a person who is locked-up because they've been labeled insane. I can say that my dad & wife have interacted with many in their line of work and what I've learned from them is that even a lot of those that are locked up are not totally out of their minds. Usually it's some kind of environmental stimulus that triggers their "madness". But in a controlled facility (sometimes with medication as well) they can tell very coherent stories of their childhood, what school(s) they went to, what they did yesterday, about their parents/siblings, etc.
Don't automatically discount the views of a crazy person. More often than not they're not totally 100% crazy, just have certain issues that make them unable to function in our society.
I personally believe her illustrations are mostly accurate if for no other reason than the "unnatural" rush of comments trying to discredit her.
Why is it that when HN talks about the TempleOS guy, we're all careful with our terminology, but now we're totally cool to call this person "fucking crazy"?
I get that in the former, the man fits the mold of "misunderstood bit-twiddling genius" or related mythologies of the craft, but the latter is no less of a person. Show some humanity.
Besides, what did putting this person in 2 months of jail do? I doubt this accomplished anything other than spending more of taxpayers dollars. If she's "fucking crazy", then do you think 2 months of jail is a deterrent to stalking somebody? Or just something to make sure she's more careful when stalking?
Throwing people with mental illnesses into jail is as effective as spanking a baby. Sure, they might be conditioned to associate certain behaviour with punishment. But it won't fix underlying causes like behavioural patterns, addiction, or value systems.
Because it fits the gender stereotypes people use. Male stalkers don't need to be attributed as crazy, since all males are portrayed in culture as stalking rapists. A female stalker cant' be directly explained by her gender, so the attribute "crazy" is used instead, which then fits into an other gender stereotype.
What? When is a stalker ever not referred to as crazy? I've heard about plenty of stalkers of either gender, and while male stalkers are portrayed as more dangerous I have not seen them portrayed as any less 'crazy'.
The comment you're replying to is word-for-word copied from a highly upvoted comment on reddit yesterday (but is now deleted) by a user with a handle I won't repeat here. [1]
So what you're seeing is cross-pollination. I'm honestly surprised to not see this comment down-voted, as it's pretty impertinent to the conversation and is textbook ad hominem. ("Crazy lady says prisons are terrible: who cares she's crazy").
One cartoonist gets obsessed and implements the creepy-stalker pattern on another cartoonist, which results in having to stay in a creepy American jail.
The NSA, Facebook, Google implement regular creepy-stalker patterns (sometimes milder, sometimes more worrying) as part of their regular {mission,business plan}, and they are awarded with profit?
> "Okay, the last thirty-seven comments didn't win him over, but the next one is going to totally make him want me!"
Ahh, yes, we can't forget to include the Comcast-style marketing department and their robo-dialers.
/* /sigh/ stalker behavior isn't good, of course, and the comparison has several flaws. Regardless, dual-standard still exists. */
Yes, but you forgot the other important part in her article where she writes:
>But because I had no money and an overworked...
Time = money in the US so it makes sense that if you don't have the money, you gotta do the time.
That being said though, I sincerely hope her publication of her jail adventure and her kick-starter take off so she can derive some value from this otherwise dismal experience.
I don't think anybody can fault her for lifting the Ren and Stimpy style - everybody has influences and she's obviously a fan. It's not like she stole his characters.
And yeah, she broke the law and is in jail. I figured she wasn't there for cartooning. So it was stalking. Okay, right then.
Still tells a good story and makes nice illustrations to accompany them.
This comment received a bunch of up and down votes - roughly seven each.
I stand by it.
"She's fucking crazy" is not an accurate description of her. It assumes her behaviour is pathological when there hasn't been any suggestion of illness from any source. It then assumes a narrow type of illness, when stalkers could have any of a wide variety of mental illness (or no mental illness). So, it's pure bullshit speculation that is inaccurate about the person and inaccurate about mental illness.
Worse is the blatant stigmatisation of mental illness. This is a simple logic fail. You hear the behaviour and think "stalker with a mental illness" and not "stalker". This is the "conjunction fallacy". The clearest explanation of that fallacy is "the Linda problem" where readers are presented with a short bio of a young woman ("Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.") and are then asked to select the most likely of two options ([1] Linda is a bank teller or [2] Linda is a bank teller and a feminist). People usually chose [2] even though [1] is more likely.
Speculation on the mental health status of an offender is as ignorant as suggesting that an offender is probably black.
I don't care one bit for what got her in jail or how terrible a person you think she is. What matters is that she went there and that either what's in those cartoons is a credible representation of what being in jail in America as a woman is like. If it is then those images should be reason for wholesale reform.
Even if she was a murderer it would still be reason to go and make some drastic changes.
Even if they're inmates, they are still people and with the number of people in American jails running in the millions and taking into account that the men probably won't have it any better it's a thing to be very much ashamed of.
Whatever she did has nothing to bear on the information in the article, it's either true or it isn't.
Red State recently featured an article calling for prison reform, which I thought was an encouraging development[0]. Conservatives, historically, have taken a hard line against criminal justice reform in any way that might appear soft on crime[1]. For a prominent conservative site to come out in favor of reform is a step in the right direction.
Reading the Red State article, I get a sense that the author is walking a tightrope to frame the argument in terms that conservatives would favor:
>I have relatively little sympathy for violent criminal offenders in terms of the punishments they receive.
>However, all these efforts are opposed by powerful interest groups that give almost invariably to Democrats – including police and jailer unions who want to protect the jobs of their members.
>I am not advocating for free HBO for all prisoners and for government sponsored gender reassignment surgery or anything of the like
And so forth. He pretty much covers all the bases. I think that shows a high level of awareness. I also think that going to such lengths suggests a strong desire for reform to actually occur (disclaimer: I had never heard of the author before reading the article).
I feel like I should add, conservatives are in no way unique in demanding that scary ideas come with a popsicle. I personally prefer cherry.
Being a Conservative, albeit a Libertarian, I am all for punishment, provided it fits the crime. I and I am sure many others like me do not believe in exploiting prisoners or such, but I also do not believe in coddling them either.
Right now we have another government regulated and implemented disaster. People bitch and moan over the issues the VA has and that institution is supposed to HELP people, yet they don't want to look at the penal system which is supposed to help society. Both are examples of a government to big to be held responsible. Both are just minor examples of government regulation permitting abuse and neglect.
Yet people want more regulation, more government, and such. Why should government improve when you want them to step in and do everything you don't like being done by others (internet, health, etc) We get what we deserve
There are countries where not as many people are locked up, prison sentences are shorter, and as a result the people locked up are given a minimum of humanity.
By beating it into the minds of everyone (especially in more privileged classes who won't come within 500 feet of somebody who has seen the inside of a jail in their lifetime) of how absolutely dehumanising prison is, we could maybe stop demanding people be thrown into jail for 25 years.
Some people deserve to be in prison for 25 years, or the rest of their lives. This is not to discount your first point that we may well be locking too many people up.
25 years (if that's what it takes) of therapy to fully understand why he did it, how we can make life better for everyone so the next person doesn't feel this is their only option, and perhaps after a couple of decades of empathy he will realize why what he did was wrong and we can all move forward in peace and greater knowledge. Instead of primal vengeance that makes us feel better while learning nothing.
If we're going to spend the effort and money to incarcerate someone for that long, I don't see how turning it into intensive therapy instead is any more work -- and it's certainly more beneficial to society.
The deal is, who does it help? I live in Denmark, have norwegian friends and family. I might think he is the devil, but it does not make sense to punish him; it helps no one but my ego.
There is certainly a case to be made that he is too dangerous to let outside, no way I will disagree with that notion. But having him fight for toilet paper is pointless cruelty, and there is no sense in fighting the pointless cruelty of killing with pointless cruelty poor living conditions.
Using Breivik as an example does not further the discussion though, as it is such an extreme case. It's fear mongering, and you're disregarding Hegelian dialectics by arguing in such logical extremes. I think we can all agree that lobbing the dysfunctioning members of society together in a desensitized and unsanitary confined area is no way to produce functioning, productive members of society.
'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions'
Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation.
"As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious."
Everything depends on everything; could you elaborate? Just to further the discussion a bit. Being a deterrent has nothing to do with morals, which I see as the main argument for punishment so I'm curious where you're getting at.
>Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation.
Possibly revenge. You might want nobody to ever face that person again, etc. Even if it's revenge that doesn't mean you want them to suffer in any particular way. Take away their freedom and turn them into an inert ignorable abstract in a box somewhere. You could stick them in an average motel room and the result would be the same.
>could you elaborate?
Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
> Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution.
That's...debatable, and varies considerably between different approaches to Christianity, even within individual denominations/sects.
> While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
This is only true of Christianity in general if you define "bad people" extremely broadly; Christianity in general holds that essentially infinite punishment is deserved by (or, in some formulations, the natural consequence of) sin, of which all humans [0] are guilty. Christianity is -- in pretty much all formulations -- very much about God eliminating this deserved punishment or bearing (through Christ) in the place of sinners this natural cost.
So, one could argue at least as convincingly (if not more) that the central theme of Christianity is refraining from retribution even where it is "deserved" as one could argue that "Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution".
[0] with either 1 or 2 (exactly, not as a figurative form for "a small number") exceptions, ever
I am intentionally being very broad, yes. I'm only trying to support my claim that 'deserving' punishment depends on your moral system. Maybe I should focus on Judaism? I'm really not trying to get into any specific systems.
>refraining from retribution
That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place.
> That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place.
I don't think that's the important thing here; I think that whether it is appropriate for any person to exact it is at least as important in discussing whether punishment (which is an action) "makes sense". Even if a cost is viewed as earned within a moral system, if that moral system equally holds that it is immoral for any person to impose that cost on the one that deserves it, retributive punishment does not make sense in that moral system.
Once it's accepted that some people think retributive punishment is moral, it's a small and obvious step to realize that some people think it's right to have humans dealing out that punishment. Especially people influenced by earlier-mentioned moral systems that don't believe in an afterlife.
Once it's accepted that some people think retributive punishment is moral, it's a small and obvious step to realize that some people think it's right to have humans dealing out that punishment. Especially people influenced by earlier-mentioned moral systems that don't believe in an afterlife.
Once it's accepted that some people think retributive punishment is moral, imo it's a small and obvious step to realize that some people think it's right to have humans dealing out that punishment. Especially people influenced by earlier-mentioned moral systems that don't believe in an afterlife.
> You could stick them in an average motel room and the result would be the same.
I guess this thread of discussion is getting moot and semantic, but I do find it curious that someone would say "that person deserves to be in a motel room", without that motel room indicating some kind of punishment (revenge). "deserves" indicates that he should suffer somehow, i maintain.
> Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
Excellent point! You are speaking in strictly logical terms though, which is why i referenced dialectics earlier. It is very hard to discuss this subject meaningfully if you're ignoring all the intricacies of real life. I.e. we do not send people to prison to do gods job of retribution.
"'deserves to be in prison' does not imply 'deserves terrible living conditions'" - It might not, but that is what this article is about. His comments are entirely appropriate.
"makes sense" has nothing to do with morality. It's to do with likely outcomes and cost. Also, if your "morality" is based on revenge, it's not moral.
>Using Breivik as an example does not further the discussion though, as it is such an extreme case.
I was supporting the grandparent post's suggestion that maybe some people to deserve to be in prison. The argument against this is implicitly an argument that no-one deserves to be imprisoned, and such an argument may be refuted by showing a single instance of someone who deserves imprisonment.
> After that, beyond basic bar soap, you’re on your own. You have to order supplies through the commissary system, a sort of monopoly drugstore run by the Keefe Group out of Missouri. This is where you purchase everything from hygiene supplies and chips to a Styrofoam cup. You place orders once a week, and the following week a delivery guy shows up with a cart piled high with plastic bags of stuff. If nobody on the outside puts money on your “books” (inmate account), you can order a second indigent kit. But as soon as someone sends you money, Keefe deducts that cost. And with a 20-cent pack of ramen costing $1.18, just like most monopolies throughout history, goods are sold at an inflated rate.
This is one of the parts of prisons I find particularly distressing. I'm trying to find (but can't recall the name of the company) an article, perhaps posted here a few months ago, about a company that handles inmate "bank accounts". The percentage they took was absurd. Between what the financial company took and the prisons, $100 sent to a prisoner might end up only being $50 by the time they could spend it. Paired with the high prices in the commissary they can barely afford "essentials".
EDIT:
JPay. Here's an article, but not the one I was looking for:
My father is currently in a federal prison. I do not want to reveal sentencing, names, etc. but I deal with Jpay on a daily basis.
Their core currency is 'stamps' if you are technologically literate.
It is $4.50 to be able to buy 12 'stamps'
It takes one stamp to send an email, plus one stamp per attachment.
Beyond this, there are music 'credits', video call 'credits', etc.
It is a fucking racketeering ring. I literally keep a Windows laptop so that I can have video calls with my father because its incompatible with OSX and Linux (Ubuntu 14.04 in my case)
Would love to hear a way to make a difference here...I've thought of nothing.
Sadly the only way to a make a difference, presuming you're in America, is to get a movement going to reform the penal system. The reason it's sad is that for many Americans the point of prison is punishment rather than rehabilitation. So they're happy with people going through hell, 'cause you know, they deserve it.
Your best bet is to find an existing rights group to pursue the changes. It will be a hard sell since the US moved to a private system. This means that the states and fed will have less direct control of things. More red tape and contract negotiations.
As a country we need to improve treatment and reduce the number of people imprisoned quickly.
If there is anyone located in San Francisco or northern south bay that wants to get together and do a hackathon with the focus of building something that generates either awareness or solves a particular problem we should meet up for coffee. I can meet anywhere in the Mission to discuss it. (Contact info in profile). I am currently swamped running my business but I would figure out a way to take a weekend off to build something.
i agree, but in a world where "going viral" determines what people pay attention to (almost always stupid shit), maybe figuring out how to make socially valuable things go viral is an important approach.
Though the US has some private prisons, they are a minority by a wide margin. And other countries use them as well; the UK has 11% of its prisoners in private prisons and apparently are working on expanding (according to Wikipedia).
The county jail referenced in this piece is almost certainly not privately owned.
> find an existing rights group to pursue the changes.
If you're fine hanging out with a mix of Christians, Agnostics and Atheists who occasionally quote scripture in support of their cause, check out the Quaker Prison Fellowship.
In addition to virmundi's suggestions, find your state and/or federal representative and talk to them about it. While it's not likely to make a big impact, these are the people who have the most sway in this regard, and you never know what might 'take' with them.
I will suggest that one obvious answer is to try to develop a competitor for Jpay and see if it isn't possible to arrange for people to have another option, even if individuals in prison don't get a choice, maybe a few prisons would take the option and then at least a subset of prisoners would be less screwed over by this system.
JPay et al. are the worst scum. One of the justifications though is that our dear leaders expand definition of "crime" and "criminality" but do not expand budgets for incarceration so it falls on the Jailor and/related staff to get finances. They typically bring in these JPay kind of shady dealers who promise a cut per person in jail. So JPay takes a cut but shares it with the Jail or department. To give the kind of commission promised to the Jails they rob the inmates - its that simple. So we not only hold an inmate for crime but his family for ransom. This is sad because people do not have empathy for in-mates. One of the many "criminal" faces of the Criminal Justice System.
When $0.20 ramen and basic hygiene products (kind of required for the sanity housing of anybody) are not provided, it kind of makes you wonder[1] where the several-hundred dollars per-day we spend to keep most people in jail[2] is actually ending up.
[1] rhetorical question; we know, more or less, where the money goes.
There's nothing fancy about where the money goes - it was paid to the police/jailers involved along with any contractors or other people on the receiving end of the "jail" budgets.
The point is that running a jail should be easy on $250/day/person-in-jail (or more!). The cost of bulk toothbrushs or ramen is basically in the noise. It says a lot about the character and values of a person that would choose to pocket this kind of spare change just to make their income very slightly bigger.
This article is about woman: "Cartoonists draws her experience in jail and sheds light on much needed prison reform."
If the cartoonist was a man: "Stalker makes light of his experience in prison by drawing about it, tries to exploit his crimes to publicize his Kickerstarter campaign."
It's worth mentioning that many people in jail are there waiting for adjudication. For felonies, this can take months. For misdemeanors, a day or two is common.
In other words, in accordance with basic human rights, they're innocent as their accuser has not yet proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
119 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 78.3 ms ] thread"I am fascinated by this backstory and like doing legal research for fun on Saturday nights, so I put down the $10 to run a few searches on the LA Courts site.
On the civil side, Kricfalusi filed for a restraining order against Pritchard back in February 2013: https://filetea.me/t1ssXXWqsTGQuOTDqmnxDNZWA (Sorry these links haven't been working. Alt link: http://imgur.com/sq02It3)
Here's where it gets interesting. On the criminal side, we have a bit more activity: https://filetea.me/t1sxAsrJwP6Tj2iTPaxbiMShQ (Alt link: http://imgur.com/HcpORhq,5PpNd6f#0)
In June 2013, four months after the restraining order was granted, Pritchard is charged on two counts of "willful violation of a court order" under California penal code section 166(A)(4). Guilty on one count, dismissed/not prosecuted on the second count.
One year after that, on June 23 2014, Pritchard is charged again, this time under 273.6(A), a different section than before. Someone more familiar with the California penal code will have to help me understand the difference between the two. Since this was a repeat violation, perhaps a different statute applied. She is found guilty.
The next day, on June 24 2014, Pritchard is charged with two more counts: one guilty, one dismissed/not prosecuted.
So, from what I can tell, the offense for which Pritchard was incarcerated was not her first violation. There were multiple violations before this one, not to mention whatever conduct resulted in the protective order being issued in the first place. This doesn't even come close to telling the whole story – I, for one, would like to know if there was ever a relationship (professional or otherwise) between the two, or if they truly had never met at all – but it certainly helps to clarify what went on prior to Pritchard's experience in jail."
I don't know HN's policies, but I think you should re-consider your post, and edit/delete it.
And it's not exactly a 'random person' - the author is specifically announcing an article on her personal experiences. She's trying to draw attention and in this context is a public figure. It's not like this question came out of the blue for someone trying to keep their time inside on the quiet.
The fact that she repeatedly broke laws and intentionally disregarded court orders and never seemed to really acknowledge the reality of her situation does reduce her credibility.
Would you really judge someone in each of those situations as equally trustworthy? Really?
Human rights are called human rights because they're universal and apply to every human being, no matter the circumstances.
And I personally don't care about how exactly one landed in prison - for minor offences or major, that inmates do not have the right to shower daily is just fucked up. Or that sexual violence or drug dealing in prison seems to be widespread.
In my opinion, zero. Facts are facts, and it's not exactly new that prisons in the US tend to be shitholes.
We accept this error when we have to do some fast thinking and the consequences of being wrong are small, but the moment you make this flawed logic the general rule is the moment you lose any chance at establishing the facts.
And credibility is a measure of how close their assertions are to the truth, how is that a logical error?
Or, rather, the area of philosophy where only the class of facts which can be certainly described as such are the facts of having particular present sensations (whether the kind that present as sense-data or the kind that present as memories) is a fact, and all other ideas about the world are either axioms or conclusions supported on the basis of either axioms, sensations, or a combination of the two.
Of course, when you leave that area of philosophy, you are in the area of fuzzy and imprecise thinking, so its not a bad area of philosophy to be in.
In any case, my curiosity had nothing to do with her credibility. I was curious about how she drew herself versus how she drew others. Why she was in jail speaks to some extent as to who she is, and fills in a little more of the mental picture of her.
I must remember to be less curious.
an animator in LA can't pay for a lawyer to fight 2 month of jail (i.e. supposedly something relatively minor). Are animators there doing that bad? (i'd expect it to be more like programmers in SV)
Also, anecdotal evidence from friends in the digital animation field (think Pixar, Dreamworks, etc) is that even those jobs can be relatively low paying for years because they are dream jobs, hence high supply of workers.
Without knowing socio-economic background and life history, I could easily see a creative type in LA choosing a short jail term over the financial hit.
The ideal career path for an ambitious, hard-working, and politically savvy animator is to switch over to the producer track as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
Also, think about going to jail for 2 months. 2 months where you're locked up and have absolutely no liberty. If this thing was minor, there's still 2 months you'll never get back. Not to mention the job you probably lose during this stint. I don't wish prison sentences to anybody, not even my worst enemies.
I wouldn't feel as bad that we feel so strongly about locking people up if the conditions weren't so absolutely awful. I'm sure there's a way to make prisons more survivable without sacrificing the "making sure people are inside the box"-ness.
There is no argument what jail time is bad. It is the offense that seems to be minor (and thus easy to fight for a lawyer) - while IANAL, my understanding from what i see and hear around, misdemeanor resulting in 2 months of county jail without a lawyer is really not that big a deal, on par with second DUI, something what with a lawyer can be on the scale of like a month or two of community service, etc...
After googling around, i even more convinced that not having a lawyer (whether by choice or due to not being able to afford it) was her great misfortune as while legally she seems to be a violator, personally i got the impression that at the social level she was kind of a victim, or more precisely she happened to be too weak for (and was broken by) the relationships and the people (much higher-ups in her professional and social hierarchy) she allowed herself to be involved with. Basically she needs counseling, and instead the society comes with all the power of law upon her and throws her in jail (the events do seems to had gotten somewhat out of hands, so something needed to be done, the issue here is what should have been done - the good lawyer would probably was able to turn it into correctional/rehabilitation/treatment direction instead of the pure punitive).
A lot of the work is seasonal at best; you're hired for the duration of one production, and let go when it's over. If the show gets renewed and the folks running it like you you may get offered your job back next year.
You can make a decent living but not working for Bakshi or Kricfalusi; you work for those two because you want the prestige of Having Worked Under A Legend. Or because you worked with them back in the day, have a decent amount of money to fall back on, and they've approached you with a new project that will give you a lot of creative freedom because they trust your sensibility.
(I mostly worked for John K when I was hanging around the industry, so I saw this first-hand.)
Read her comments on his personal blog: http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2014/03/more-mileys-for-your-...
She's a delusional stalker who blatantly rips off Kricfalusi's style of illustration.
Basically, she's fucking crazy.
"Okay, the last thirty-seven comments didn't win him over, but the next one is going to totally make him want me!"
Also, I don't know how many HNers have actually interacted with a person who is locked-up because they've been labeled insane. I can say that my dad & wife have interacted with many in their line of work and what I've learned from them is that even a lot of those that are locked up are not totally out of their minds. Usually it's some kind of environmental stimulus that triggers their "madness". But in a controlled facility (sometimes with medication as well) they can tell very coherent stories of their childhood, what school(s) they went to, what they did yesterday, about their parents/siblings, etc.
Don't automatically discount the views of a crazy person. More often than not they're not totally 100% crazy, just have certain issues that make them unable to function in our society.
I personally believe her illustrations are mostly accurate if for no other reason than the "unnatural" rush of comments trying to discredit her.
I get that in the former, the man fits the mold of "misunderstood bit-twiddling genius" or related mythologies of the craft, but the latter is no less of a person. Show some humanity.
Besides, what did putting this person in 2 months of jail do? I doubt this accomplished anything other than spending more of taxpayers dollars. If she's "fucking crazy", then do you think 2 months of jail is a deterrent to stalking somebody? Or just something to make sure she's more careful when stalking?
Throwing people with mental illnesses into jail is as effective as spanking a baby. Sure, they might be conditioned to associate certain behaviour with punishment. But it won't fix underlying causes like behavioural patterns, addiction, or value systems.
Because it fits the gender stereotypes people use. Male stalkers don't need to be attributed as crazy, since all males are portrayed in culture as stalking rapists. A female stalker cant' be directly explained by her gender, so the attribute "crazy" is used instead, which then fits into an other gender stereotype.
So what you're seeing is cross-pollination. I'm honestly surprised to not see this comment down-voted, as it's pretty impertinent to the conversation and is textbook ad hominem. ("Crazy lady says prisons are terrible: who cares she's crazy").
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/2r7y8h/when.... You can see it with something like http://uneddit.com/
edit: oh, I see my second paragraph basically did happen already in some flagkilled posts.
The NSA, Facebook, Google implement regular creepy-stalker patterns (sometimes milder, sometimes more worrying) as part of their regular {mission,business plan}, and they are awarded with profit?
> "Okay, the last thirty-seven comments didn't win him over, but the next one is going to totally make him want me!"
Ahh, yes, we can't forget to include the Comcast-style marketing department and their robo-dialers.
/* /sigh/ stalker behavior isn't good, of course, and the comparison has several flaws. Regardless, dual-standard still exists. */
>But because I had no money and an overworked...
Time = money in the US so it makes sense that if you don't have the money, you gotta do the time.
That being said though, I sincerely hope her publication of her jail adventure and her kick-starter take off so she can derive some value from this otherwise dismal experience.
And yeah, she broke the law and is in jail. I figured she wasn't there for cartooning. So it was stalking. Okay, right then.
Still tells a good story and makes nice illustrations to accompany them.
This is hate speech and has no place on HN.
I stand by it.
"She's fucking crazy" is not an accurate description of her. It assumes her behaviour is pathological when there hasn't been any suggestion of illness from any source. It then assumes a narrow type of illness, when stalkers could have any of a wide variety of mental illness (or no mental illness). So, it's pure bullshit speculation that is inaccurate about the person and inaccurate about mental illness.
Worse is the blatant stigmatisation of mental illness. This is a simple logic fail. You hear the behaviour and think "stalker with a mental illness" and not "stalker". This is the "conjunction fallacy". The clearest explanation of that fallacy is "the Linda problem" where readers are presented with a short bio of a young woman ("Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.") and are then asked to select the most likely of two options ([1] Linda is a bank teller or [2] Linda is a bank teller and a feminist). People usually chose [2] even though [1] is more likely.
Speculation on the mental health status of an offender is as ignorant as suggesting that an offender is probably black.
Even if she was a murderer it would still be reason to go and make some drastic changes.
Even if they're inmates, they are still people and with the number of people in American jails running in the millions and taking into account that the men probably won't have it any better it's a thing to be very much ashamed of.
Whatever she did has nothing to bear on the information in the article, it's either true or it isn't.
Reading the Red State article, I get a sense that the author is walking a tightrope to frame the argument in terms that conservatives would favor:
>I have relatively little sympathy for violent criminal offenders in terms of the punishments they receive.
>However, all these efforts are opposed by powerful interest groups that give almost invariably to Democrats – including police and jailer unions who want to protect the jobs of their members.
>I am not advocating for free HBO for all prisoners and for government sponsored gender reassignment surgery or anything of the like
And so forth. He pretty much covers all the bases. I think that shows a high level of awareness. I also think that going to such lengths suggests a strong desire for reform to actually occur (disclaimer: I had never heard of the author before reading the article).
I feel like I should add, conservatives are in no way unique in demanding that scary ideas come with a popsicle. I personally prefer cherry.
[0] http://www.redstate.com/2014/12/18/americas-desperate-need-p...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Pink_underwear
Right now we have another government regulated and implemented disaster. People bitch and moan over the issues the VA has and that institution is supposed to HELP people, yet they don't want to look at the penal system which is supposed to help society. Both are examples of a government to big to be held responsible. Both are just minor examples of government regulation permitting abuse and neglect.
Yet people want more regulation, more government, and such. Why should government improve when you want them to step in and do everything you don't like being done by others (internet, health, etc) We get what we deserve
By beating it into the minds of everyone (especially in more privileged classes who won't come within 500 feet of somebody who has seen the inside of a jail in their lifetime) of how absolutely dehumanising prison is, we could maybe stop demanding people be thrown into jail for 25 years.
Really, no.
If we're going to spend the effort and money to incarcerate someone for that long, I don't see how turning it into intensive therapy instead is any more work -- and it's certainly more beneficial to society.
There is certainly a case to be made that he is too dangerous to let outside, no way I will disagree with that notion. But having him fight for toilet paper is pointless cruelty, and there is no sense in fighting the pointless cruelty of killing with pointless cruelty poor living conditions.
Using Breivik as an example does not further the discussion though, as it is such an extreme case. It's fear mongering, and you're disregarding Hegelian dialectics by arguing in such logical extremes. I think we can all agree that lobbing the dysfunctioning members of society together in a desensitized and unsanitary confined area is no way to produce functioning, productive members of society.
As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious.
Yes it does. "deserves" very much alludes to revenge, not rehabilitation.
"As far as whether punishment 'makes sense', that depends on what moral system you use. I wouldn't treat it as so obvious."
Everything depends on everything; could you elaborate? Just to further the discussion a bit. Being a deterrent has nothing to do with morals, which I see as the main argument for punishment so I'm curious where you're getting at.
Possibly revenge. You might want nobody to ever face that person again, etc. Even if it's revenge that doesn't mean you want them to suffer in any particular way. Take away their freedom and turn them into an inert ignorable abstract in a box somewhere. You could stick them in an average motel room and the result would be the same.
>could you elaborate?
Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
That's...debatable, and varies considerably between different approaches to Christianity, even within individual denominations/sects.
> While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
This is only true of Christianity in general if you define "bad people" extremely broadly; Christianity in general holds that essentially infinite punishment is deserved by (or, in some formulations, the natural consequence of) sin, of which all humans [0] are guilty. Christianity is -- in pretty much all formulations -- very much about God eliminating this deserved punishment or bearing (through Christ) in the place of sinners this natural cost.
So, one could argue at least as convincingly (if not more) that the central theme of Christianity is refraining from retribution even where it is "deserved" as one could argue that "Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution".
[0] with either 1 or 2 (exactly, not as a figurative form for "a small number") exceptions, ever
>refraining from retribution
That's very true, but the important thing here is that it's deserved in the first place.
I don't think that's the important thing here; I think that whether it is appropriate for any person to exact it is at least as important in discussing whether punishment (which is an action) "makes sense". Even if a cost is viewed as earned within a moral system, if that moral system equally holds that it is immoral for any person to impose that cost on the one that deserves it, retributive punishment does not make sense in that moral system.
I guess this thread of discussion is getting moot and semantic, but I do find it curious that someone would say "that person deserves to be in a motel room", without that motel room indicating some kind of punishment (revenge). "deserves" indicates that he should suffer somehow, i maintain.
> Just as an example, Christianity is pretty big on the concept of retribution. While it does say that it's God's job rather than man's, that doesn't change that it declares bad people deserve punishment independent of the deterrence factor.
Excellent point! You are speaking in strictly logical terms though, which is why i referenced dialectics earlier. It is very hard to discuss this subject meaningfully if you're ignoring all the intricacies of real life. I.e. we do not send people to prison to do gods job of retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
And yes it's not done to take away God's job, but many people will tell you a key part of prison is retribution.
"makes sense" has nothing to do with morality. It's to do with likely outcomes and cost. Also, if your "morality" is based on revenge, it's not moral.
I was supporting the grandparent post's suggestion that maybe some people to deserve to be in prison. The argument against this is implicitly an argument that no-one deserves to be imprisoned, and such an argument may be refuted by showing a single instance of someone who deserves imprisonment.
This is one of the parts of prisons I find particularly distressing. I'm trying to find (but can't recall the name of the company) an article, perhaps posted here a few months ago, about a company that handles inmate "bank accounts". The percentage they took was absurd. Between what the financial company took and the prisons, $100 sent to a prisoner might end up only being $50 by the time they could spend it. Paired with the high prices in the commissary they can barely afford "essentials".
EDIT: JPay. Here's an article, but not the one I was looking for:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/30/15761/prison-banke...
My father is currently in a federal prison. I do not want to reveal sentencing, names, etc. but I deal with Jpay on a daily basis.
Their core currency is 'stamps' if you are technologically literate.
It is $4.50 to be able to buy 12 'stamps'
It takes one stamp to send an email, plus one stamp per attachment.
Beyond this, there are music 'credits', video call 'credits', etc.
It is a fucking racketeering ring. I literally keep a Windows laptop so that I can have video calls with my father because its incompatible with OSX and Linux (Ubuntu 14.04 in my case)
Would love to hear a way to make a difference here...I've thought of nothing.
Your best bet is to find an existing rights group to pursue the changes. It will be a hard sell since the US moved to a private system. This means that the states and fed will have less direct control of things. More red tape and contract negotiations.
1) Treatment of prisoners
2) Number of people in prison
As a country we need to improve treatment and reduce the number of people imprisoned quickly.
If there is anyone located in San Francisco or northern south bay that wants to get together and do a hackathon with the focus of building something that generates either awareness or solves a particular problem we should meet up for coffee. I can meet anywhere in the Mission to discuss it. (Contact info in profile). I am currently swamped running my business but I would figure out a way to take a weekend off to build something.
The county jail referenced in this piece is almost certainly not privately owned.
If you're fine hanging out with a mix of Christians, Agnostics and Atheists who occasionally quote scripture in support of their cause, check out the Quaker Prison Fellowship.
[1] rhetorical question; we know, more or less, where the money goes.
[2] prison is usually more expensive
Show us? It's publically available information I guess, where can we read about it?
The point is that running a jail should be easy on $250/day/person-in-jail (or more!). The cost of bulk toothbrushs or ramen is basically in the noise. It says a lot about the character and values of a person that would choose to pocket this kind of spare change just to make their income very slightly bigger.
If the cartoonist was a man: "Stalker makes light of his experience in prison by drawing about it, tries to exploit his crimes to publicize his Kickerstarter campaign."
http://www.elanapritchard.com/2014/12/jail-comics-deleted-sc...
In other words, in accordance with basic human rights, they're innocent as their accuser has not yet proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.