This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Pennsylvania Becomes First State To Use "Pre-Crime" Statistics In Criminal Sentencing
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
Criminal sentencing has long been based on the present crime and, sometimes, the defendant’s past criminal record. In Pennsylvania, judges could soon consider a new dimension: the future.
Pennsylvania is on the verge of becoming one of the first states in the country to base criminal sentences not only on what crimes people have been convicted of, but also on whether they are deemed likely to commit additional crimes. As early as next year, judges there could receive statistically derived tools known as risk assessments to help them decide how much prison time — if any — to assign.
– From the Five Thirty Eight article: Should Prison Sentences Be Based On Crimes That Haven’t Been Committed Yet?
As technology generally continues to advance, one thing you can be sure of is the criminal justice system’s use of innovative new “tools” will grow exponentially. This can be a good thing, but it can also be a very dangerous thing. Pennsylvania’s new law that permits the use of data showing whether people are “deemed likely to commit additional crimes” in criminal sentencing, is a perfect example of how an over reliance on technology can be a threat to liberty and due process.
Rather than explaining my position on the matter right here, I think it best to make my points within excerpts from the article itself. From Five Thirty Eight:
Criminal sentencing has long been based on the present crime and, sometimes, the defendant’s past criminal record. In Pennsylvania, judges could soon consider a new dimension: the future.
Pennsylvania is on the verge of becoming one of the first states in the country to base criminal sentences not only on what crimes people have been convicted of, but also on whether they are deemed likely to commit additional crimes. As early as next year, judges there could receive statistically derived tools known as risk assessments to help them decide how much prison time — if any — to assign.
Risk assessments have existed in various forms for a century, but over the past two decades, they have spread through the American justice system, driven by advances in social science. The tools try to predict recidivism — repeat offending or breaking the rules of probation or parole — using statistical probabilities based on factors such as age, employment history and prior criminal record. They are now used at some stage of the criminal justice process in nearly every state. Many court systems use the tools to guide decisions about which prisoners to release on parole, for example, and risk assessments are becoming increasingly popular as a way to help set bail for inmates awaiting trial.
But Pennsylvania is about to take a step most states have until now resisted for adult defendants: using risk assessment in sentencing itself. A state commission is putting the finishing touches on a plan that, if implemented as expected, could allow some offenders considered low risk to get shorter prison sentences than they would otherwise or avoid incarceration entirely. Those deemed high risk could spend more time behind bars.
There are more than 60 risk assessment tools in use across the U.S., and they vary widely. But in their simplest form, they are questionnaires — typically filled out by a jail staff member, probation officer or psychologist — that assign points to offenders based on anything from demographic factors to family background to criminal history. The resulting scores are based on statistical probabilities derived from previous offenders’ behavior. A low score designates an offender as “low risk” and could result in lower bail, less prison time or less restrictive probation or parole terms; a high score can lead to tougher sentences or tighter monitoring.
The risk assessment trend is controversial. Critics have raised numerous questions: Is it fair to make decisions in an individual case based on what similar offenders have done in the past? Is it acceptable to use characteristics that might be associated with race or socioeconomic status, such as the criminal record of a person’s parents? And even if states can resolve such philosophical questions, there are also practical ones: What to do about unreliable data? Which of the many available tools — some of them licensed by for-profit companies — should policymakers choose?
Even some supporters of risk assessment in bail and parole worry that using the tools for sentencing carries echoes of “Minority Report”: locking people up for crimes they might commit in the future. In a speech to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers last August, then-Attorney General Eric Holder said risk assessment tools can be useful in directing offenders toward rehabilitative programs, allowing them to shorten their prison sentences. But he criticized the use of such tools at the sentencing phase. “By basing sentencing decisions on static factors and immutable characteristics — like the defendant’s education level, socioeconomic background, or neighborhood — they may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society,” he said.
Wow, I actually agree with Eric Holder for once. For him to take such a decent position, it must mean bank profits aren’t threatened.
Fosque’s objection underscores one of the central questions in the risk assessment debate: Is it fair to look at the behavior of a group when deciding the fate of an individual? Statistics, after all, can’t say whether Fosque will commit another crime, and he believes he’s doing everything possible to avoid further run-ins with the law.
There is little question that well-designed risk assessment tools “work,” in that they predict behavior better than unaided expert opinion. Over the past several decades, dozens of social scientific studies have been published comparing professional predictions of risk to predictions made by statistics. When implemented correctly, whether in the fields of medicine, finance or criminal justice, statistical actuarial tools are accurate at predicting human behavior — about 10 percent more accurate than experts assessing without the assistance of such a tool, according to a 2000 paper by a team of psychologists at the University of Minnesota.
But to critics, just because a trait predicts crime doesn’t mean it’s fair to use it in sentencing decisions. Pennsylvania’s proposed tool will take into account factors like sex and age that are beyond an individual’s control. It will also include a question on where offenders live and, in some cases, penalize residents of urban areas, who are far more likely to be black.
Perhaps most controversially, the Sentencing Commission’s draft assessment tool will factor in an individual’s history of arrests, not just convictions. Even using convictions is potentially problematic; blacks are more likely than whites to be convicted of marijuana possession, for example, even though they use the drug at rates equivalent to whites. But arrests are even more racially skewed than convictions, and public defender groups in Pennsylvania think their use to determine sentencing may be unconstitutional.
Using risk assessment in criminal sentencing is a thornier issue. “It’s a higher-stakes decision point in terms of someone’s liberty,” Kurtz said. “It definitely makes me a little bit more uncomfortable.”
This is the main point. We are discussing whether or not to use statistics on “potential future crimes” in determining how much time a person will remain involuntarily locked in a cage. Obviously there will be errors, and any error that leads to someone spending more time in prison based on a flawed prediction is ethically indefensible. If you want to use such statistics to only reduce punishment I could be in favor of it, but to use it to justify harsher sentencing seems like a horrible idea.
In Pennsylvania, at least, such policy discussions have drawn little public attention despite the best efforts of the Sentencing Commission, which in addition to publishing its detailed reports has held public hearings across the state. Those hearings drew so few people that Bergstrom, the commission’s executive director, extended the public comment period through the end of the year.
Sad.
Based on the work the commission has done so far, Bergstrom says he’s leaning toward using the tool to identify outliers — low-risk individuals to defer from prison altogether and high-risk individuals to flag for extra time or treatment. That would be a fairly limited approach, but it wouldn’t avoid the central question of whether offenders should spend more time behind bars simply because of how statistical tools say they will behave in the future.
Reading the above made me think of an article I have been meaning to write about for several weeks. It was written by Zoltan Istvan, a so-called “futurist” and presidential candidate for the Transhumanist Party, and published at Motherboard. Here are a few excerpts:
The death penalty is one of America’s most contentious issues. Critics complain that capital punishment is inhumane, pointing out how some executions have failed to quickly kill criminals (and instead tortured them). Supporters of the death penalty fire back saying capital punishment deters violent crime in society and serves justice to wronged victims. Complicating the matter is that political, ethnic, and religious lines don’t easily distinguish death penalty advocates from its critics. In fact, only 31 states even allow capital punishment, so America is largely divided on the issue.
Regardless of the debate—which shows no signs of easing as we head into the 2016 elections—I think technology will change the entire conversation in the next 10 to 20 years, rendering many of the most potent issues obsolete.
For example, it’s likely we will have cranial implants in two decades time that will be able to send signals to our brains that manipulate our behaviors. Those implants will be able to control out-of-control tempers and violent actions—and maybe even unsavory thoughts. This type of tech raises the obvious question: Instead of killing someone who has committed a terrible crime, should we instead alter their brain and the way it functions to make them a better person?
Where to begin. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, or a “solution,” is either incredibly naive or a certified statist control-freak. In the case of Zoltan, I think he’s probably both.
First of all, since the state will be administering these lobotomies, they will have to come up with definitions for “unsavory thoughts.” They also will have a monopoly on deciding what characterizes a “better person.” In the name of fighting “unsavory thoughts” and making people “better,” the government can go in and change your entire brain. This is a solution? No, this is a dystopian nightmare only a complete statist could support.
Moving along…
Recently, the commercially available Thync device made headlines for being able to alter our moods. Additionally, nearly a half million people already have implants in their heads, most to overcome deafness, but some to help with Alzheimer’s or epilepsy. So the technology to change behavior and alter the brain isn’t science fiction. The science, in some ways, is already here—and certainly poised to grow, especially with Obama’s $3 billion dollar BRAIN initiative, of which $70 million went to DARPA, partially for cranial implant research.
Some people may complain that implants are too invasive and extreme. But similar outcomes—especially in altering criminal’s minds to better fit society’s goals—may be accomplished by genetic engineering, nanotechnology, or even super drugs. In fact, many criminals are already given powerful drugs, which make them quite different that they might be without them. After all, some people—including myself—believe much violent crime is a version of mental disease.
To better fit society’s goals? Who do you think will be determining “society’s goals” Zoltan? The people? I think not. It will be decided by a handful of oligarchs who will be able to choose who gets their brains carved up. If anyone has mental disease it might be you.
With so much scientific possibility on the near-term horizon of changing someone’s criminal behavior and attitudes, the real debate society may end up having soon is not whether to execute people, but whether society should advocate for cerebral reconditioning of criminals—in other words, a lobotomy.
One other method that could be considered for death row criminals is cryonics. The movie Minority Report, which features precogs who can see crime activity in the future, show other ways violent criminals are dealt with: namely a form of suspended animation where criminals dream out their lives. So the concept isn’t unheard of. With this in mind, maybe violent criminals even today should legally be given the option for cryonics, to be returned to a living state in the future where the reconditioning of the brain and new preventative technology—such as ubiquitous surveillance—means they could no longer commit violent acts.
He seems to think ubiquitous surveillance is a great thing. As I said before, the only one here with a truly dangerous mental disease seems to be Zoltan. That disease is statism.
Remember this article? Florida Man Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Jail for Having Sex on the Beach.
Seems like he’d be a great candidate for a Zoltan administered lobotomy to remedy his “unsavory thoughts.”
Or what about this one? Bilderberg 2015 – Where Criminals Mingle with Politicians.
I think it’s safe to assume that the Bilderbergers would escape the brain knife.
What complete stupidity.
»
- 19009 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
" why are you beating that man, officer?? "
" I don't know, but it's a fact that HE does. Now back away or it's the taser! "
Back in the day, a human called a "judge" used a mysterious cognitive process called "judgement" which was based on "experience" to come up with sentencing, within guidelines and precedents and statutory dictates of their times.
Actually heard Elton John's "Philadelphia Freedom" this morning....Comedy man, pure comedy
Minority Report much? Will HFTs be running this system?
It's great to see all these movies made into reality........first James Bond, then 1984 and now Minority Report........what an amazing time we live in, I just hope they can keep up the pace so we don't get bored of losing all our freedoms anytime soon.
This will result in sentencing every two year old to least 30 years jail time.
So we need some expert blackhat that can make their Senators come up as drug peddling child fiddlers.
Better yet, this will soon morph into pre-crime Cvil Asset Forefiture. Mark my words.
"Your assets are worth too much", will be the election campaign of the future.
Thank God... I was starting to worry about the agist bullshit lack of diversity in our prisons (which are entirely too empty in general).
Forgot you sarc tag
So they're going to sentence people for crimes they haven't committed yet? Hmmm...okay. Sounds logical, at least in theory. In practice? Yeah, right.
**cough** Fifth Amendment **cough**
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." ~ Han Solo
Han later went on to father two lords of Sith, one of which that destroyed several star systems... Great example to follow...
Yes - and of course his judgement included how likely the prisoner was to commit more crimes. Thus it was 'pre-cime' without the computer mumbo-jumbo.
Next up, "re-education" camps. It's for your own good after all.....
If you have been a regular on Zero Hedge, your future prison sentence in Pennsylvania just doubled.
Truth is treason in an empire of lies
Tripled if you ever pointed your finger like a gun in first grade.
Squared if you ever made the pussy sign at a playmate of your same gender, so mocking their courage.
Cubed if you know how to think critically.
Fortunately, few people do anymore.
Logorithmic if you've purchased PMs online in the past ten years. Gotta go, someone's at the door!
Exponential if you post on ZH and your avatar is a nail gun, noose, or guillotine.
To infinity and beyond!? Also, can we use this to our advantage and make childbirth illegal if the future spawn may one day commit a crime.
base criminal sentences not only on what crimes people have been convicted of, but also on whether they are deemed likely to commit additional crimes.
I sure hope memebers of CONgress don't get caught committing crimes in Pennsylvania. They ain't got a prayer once this goes into effect. (SARC)
Pennsylvania judges have a bad track record. This should get interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/11/pennsylvania-judge-gets-28-years-in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
Here's a quick way to have a trial and get a verdict.
I reckon that would have a 95% success rate, ie they are actually guilty of whatever they're in court for.
As for the 5% or less that get wrongly convicted, well, you're guilty of being an complete twat and having ink on your neck and/or hands.
The above might be in jest but I can tell you it would work very well in practice.
"The law is good for you."
.
-The felons
Anythng to make money, and thats what this is all about money.
An up the ass tax...
Rest assured that these statistics are well thought out by the private prison corporations that funded them.
It's all about money until they consolidate power, money is the tool and a damn good one at that. Otherwise it doesn't make sense because the parasite will eventually kill the host. The parasite is either really stupid or money isn't the end game.
I automatically assume that since I'm a card carrying NRA member white male Christian that I am therefore a terrorist.
The jury selection process in Oakland had several pages of questions related to the jurors exposure to guns, gun culture, gun organisations, gun incidents, gun opinions and so on, to select for a gang murder trial. The prosecutor threw me off the jury in his second round of free rejects. The judge demanded that jurors not read the Constitution until the trial was finished. That was in response to my indication that I would not hold to a law that I personally viewed as unconstitutional, or to an interpretation that is.
My personal ticket out of jury duty is to ask any attorney if they understand Jury Nullification.
Loser. Why deliberatley get thrown off a jury? The last line of defense against a currupt justice system is the jury... it's YOU. Don't avoid it. YOU make sure unconstitutional laws are not enforced.
Again, the only way is to do so through Jury Nullification...
Which is illegal to talk about in a courtroom. Hmm...it makes you think...
For real?
I agree. Anyone running for office should be incarcerated. They are all corrupt or want to be.
My state, Pennsylvania. We brought the heavy hand of state policing to the country, so why wouldn't we be the first to bring this fascist piece of Orwellian delight to the USofA?
I'm glad I'm not black and a resident of this state.
Pennsylvania is poisoned with chemtrails. Noticed that your friends are all drooling? Notice the absense of birds around the buildings downtown? Move to Texas.
I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the criticism. Sure the guidelines and statistics could result in biased outcomes. But at least they are concrete guidelines that are subject to review, discussion and reform. If a judge doesn't have sentencing guidelines, does that eliminate racism and bias? No. Maybe you prefer three strike laws? Just lock everyone up, since it's better safe than sorry? Maybe we should just execute everyone? There is no system where you can have mercy and discretion without risk (certainty) of bias. At least with a statistical system, it is amenable to review and redress. How can you review a judge to tell whether he is (was) biased against blacks, or if he just had a courtroom that really was full of hoodrats?
"Sure the guidelines and statistics could result in biased outcomes. But at least they are concrete guidelines that are subject to review, discussion and reform."
Right, right, this might fuck people over and grossly violate their rights, but at least it's concrete and we can talk about it. Maybe have a brain-storming/reform/discussion/review meeting/panel/informal gathering?
Do you really buy that trademarked, government-grade horse shit? Like, for real, for really reals? Wot you been doin here 5 years mate?
Must need more prison labor. Raise minimum wage so states just incarcerate more people so they can have a workforce that gets paid $0.85/hr. via private prison. Clever model.
'Darpa'...?
Remedial translation:
Implants for conscripts that short-circuit empathy and remorse pathways. Then again, we sorta already found a way around those little inconveniences. The 'chip' will simply enhance the capabilities.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=193557
We're doomed as we all were born with original sin! sarc! Also, I thought PA was a commonwealth and not a state.
Pre-crime is understandable for a parent of a heroin addict...once a kid is hooked, they rebound through treatment, then shortly relapse, then steal all sorts of shit until death finally shows up and relieves one party or the other from years of misery...
I'd say Heroin addicts are definitely 'Precrime' candidates..but thats just me talking from 35yrs of experience as a parent to such a child...fixing to enter another round at the moment...I know the signs and have developed a good spidey sense....the hair on the back of my neck is at attention..should be any day now...keep y'all posted how this one goes down...
Dude, I cant even imagine how hard that must be to watch.
My thoughts and prayers are with you. All the best
I can't imagine going through that as a parent. I feel for you. Had a sister-in-law that I was damn near sure we lost on more than one occasion. Tried to steal her mother's jewelry, ask for 'grocery' money, living on the streets, (fill in addict cliche here). Anyway, being female, she went to an all girls rehab in another state. After failing about 3 other programs - the last one did it and she cleaned up! Finished her schooling and now works at hospitals and the city as a social worker dealing with addiction. Don't think a male addict could be helped in the same way.. but there IS a chance things click right and someone can kick it. Maybe the out-of-state program, to get them away from familiar places and people. Scary shit for sure.. (meanwhile Afganistan continues with record breaking harvests - thanks CIA). (wonder how many years this comment would buy me?) peace. you can only do so much.
wow, that's gonna be viewed as racist, and I've got to agree that it is.
I wonder if they will apply it to bankers.
Becoming a banker would be the first indication that in the future you would commit a crime.
Politician would be a close second.
Even money.
This would be a useful tool in giving harsher sentances to banksters who show a prediliction for committing crimes...if they were ever indicted, arrested or God forbid, sent to jail.
Life imitates Art. This is Tom Cruise's 2002 movie Minority Report. It's Pre-Crime without the pre-cogs. Truly a step in the wrong direction.
At least the pre-cogs were right...not so sure about anything .gov dips its stick into.
Better then guidelines is to feel the bumps on the perps head; 99% accurate for guilt. If any doubt exsits, and that is very small, then simply cut open a chicken and read the entrails. Then you'll be 100% accurate. Never fails.
Sounds like "profiling" It won't be accurate because the programmers won't be allowed to enter the "race" of the perp.
You are assuming some special groups won't get a social justice adjustment built into the equation.
You may very well find that the final guidelines achieve a very different result than we are all assuming.
Seems like that quote from Eric Holder is awfully close to the protests against the Federal Reserve Act by banksters back then. Their words don't match their actions. Number one sign of a sociopath. That's why the Act passed.
Im deffenatly getting a BJ from the "deemed likely to commit additional crimes" comment..........I mean for christ shake we live in a military/prison/medical industrial complex.........I saw a youtube clip with the director of the NSA saying he could get every american on 3 felony charges with in a week of being spied on..........My luck I will get busted for running my mouth by a bunch of pussy ass males that walk around with the same look as my ex-gf when she see a cute puppy. You know because they care.......... Yeah, care so much they could bust you for a crime in less time then it takes to deliver a pizza...........The USA is a bunch of fucking retarded bitch males who act like they care but are to stupid to look at their own action. May I point out the Boston Marathon Bomber that WERE LET IN THE COUNTRY ON THE ANIVERSERY OF 9/11............You work for law enforcement FUCK YOU!!! You punk ass mother fuckers need a cartoon animal to get you to act like a god damn man, just like you retards needed smokey the bear to get you to put out a camp fire and donal duck to get you to pay taxes..............Just face it you country is toast............there is nothing the "terrorist" have to do to you that you arent doing to your damn self..........ENJOY IT WHILE IT LAST AND DONT BREAK YOUR HIGH HEELS HOOOOORRRRRAAAAAA
I've been yearning for a donut all morning and not one Bavarian Cream has appeared at my door. Work on it.
All crimes are commercial. '90% of all prisoners are in jail by concent' paraphrased, Robert Bork. Americans have been trained to disregard the law (real law), and instead substitute the 'will of the legislature'. The legislature are the servants of the people. Why do we let the servants rule the master? Ignorance is why. Do you know how not to consent?
Because of fear.
Some think Independant thinking, viewing oneself as an individual, believeing the rights protected in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are given to man by God, resisting Allah and Satan and Christianity...etc... are mental illnesses of which such a drug or devise lobotomy may cure.
So pretty much our penal system doesn't reform.
PENnsylvania - The Lock-Up State!
It's a
"no-brainer" to use modern scientific biometrics, data collection, and psychology
to redirect predicted anti-social behavior and tendencies.
But why expect our leaders to wait and use modern science
only after the first crime has been committed?
Will they not want to prevent the first crime from ever happening?
Obviously, such scientific methodology could be robustly applied
to secure approved behavior in nearly all areas,
education, employment, issuing driver licenses, gun permits, travel permits, and even marriage licenses.
We can all anticipate future measures beyond the current practices
used to restrict air travel, interrogate and detain suspected extremists,
and for student threat management.
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/marked-schools-assess-students-thr...
This inane stupidity stems from American Experimental Psychology and the Behavioural Psychology camp of NeoBehaviourist Theory promulgated by pseudoscientists in places like Quantico Virginia, and the FBI Criminal Behaviourist School of Criminal Behaviourism. These AssClowns are followers of B.F. Skinner, and they ignore that which is not observable because functional retards have no capacity to think outside of the Skinner boxes(tm) that they think within.
B.F. Skinner donated to the Police Union whilst he taught at Harvard because he was always afraid of the Police State from a bad experience he had whilst growing up in a demented household with derranged parents that threatened him if he stepped out of line with incarceration in the community jail. B.F. Skinner was raised by a very disturbed father that was an Authoritarian WACKJOB deluxe. Mommy Dearest was disturbed too, but Harvard thought it was best to promote his disturbed psychopathology and inflict it on civilization in order to CONTROL human beings like pigeons or rats in a Skinner Box(tm). It's really quite profitable to manufacture Psychometric Testing in Experimental Psychology and then charge Government for the assessment tools much like banksters charge fees for everything under the sun.
Correlation does not mean causation.
In Experimental Psychology the saying goes... 'correlation does not lead to causality'.
There's a redundancy. "Experimental Psychology". Since the entire field is based on conjecture and assumption (and very little, if any, science) it is all experimental. The patient is paying the *cough*practitioner charlatan*Cough* to experiment on them. The only thing for certain is that if you reduce the amount of protein in a diet to zero and then never leave the patient alone you can get them to believe anything.
We often liken Experimental Psychology to be suffering from 'Physics Envy' from within Experimental Psychology. The 'Objectivists' cannot tolerate the 'Subjectivists' in the discipline. The 'Subjectivists' are happy to torment the objectivists because they are naturally dim witted specimens worthy of study from an evolutionary perspective.
Philosophically, war is FUN, theoretically, it's always in the background. Realistically, it's inevitable over the long run.
Oops there goes Washington D.C. in the tank.
Pennsylvania has a large segment of private owned, "for profit", prisons. Got to find a way to make those profits grow.
Next stop - Minority Report. That's what this is, isn't it. Punishing someone because you think they might commit a crime in the future. Sort of eliminates the notion of free choice and personal growth. (Bush or Clinto, you muppets. Choose!)
Why is Florida on the cutting-edge of all this new police state technology?
Forever Florida, the "sustainable development" group there, have used Agenda 21 to take 10% of the land. They've now turned them into theme parks!
http://foreverflorida.com/
@Mike Krieger: Your opening question is mis-stated
(Should Prison Sentences Be Based On Crimes That Haven’t Been Committed Yet?) It should read; "Should prison sentences be based on the probability that the defendent will commit additional crime? That answer is a resounding YES ! Why? It the difference between putting(for example)a rapist back on the street or a serial rapist back on the street. Or a DUI convict or a serial DUI convict back on the sreet? So your question is designed to unfairly manipulate and provoke outrage. The fact is that judges have always included "probability of danger to public safety" as a guideline in determining appropriate sentencing. And of course they would; it would be stupid to do otherwise. And so your poorly premised article should be ignored by all readers.
Funny - I live in PA 6 months of the year and have not seen a single notice of such a hearing on this new tool. Wonder where they post the notifications ? Dinosaur media ? Word of mouth ? They don't and they're just lying about it ?
It is time to leave the USSA. This is 1939 when the smart kikes left before the SHTF.
Well, this is one German that sees the writing on the wall, and the stage is being set for this country to become the most tyrannical the world has ever seen.
I am actively working on leaving.
I'm gonna go citizen-arrest some new bankers and pols for some pre-crimes.