This is a very good example of psychopaths taking advantage of government's irrational response to hurt others.
Irrationality here is the War on Drugs. I think that should be talked about in more details in this case. Granted, if it was shorty after a terrorist attack they said she was making bombs in her basement, maybe sprinkle some fertilizer residue on her car.
This always happens, it is a common pattern. I remember being told how during Stalin's time it wasn't uncommon for neighbors to rat on each other and say "so and so is against Stalin and making jokes", and magically the whole family disappears after an early morning visit from NKVD. Well they shouldn't have been letting the cows graze that close to the fence, that'll teach them.
If War On Drugs wasn't there and cops and society wasn't twitchy and irrational about it, the criminals would have a harder time. This just made it all too easy (and the real reason this is news is because she got way and by strange coincidence the detective wanted to look deeper into the story).
I've been thinking for a while now that police overresponse and internal surveillance and control are similar to immune disorders: a hyperactive defense mechanism turns against that which it ought be protecting in the first instance.
This is sort of tangential to the rest of the article, but I'm glad it was mentioned:
> Duff considered the possibilities. In so many places, he thought, it would have gone differently. If the attempted frame-up had happened in one of the gang neighborhoods of Los Angeles where he used to prosecute shootings, rather than in a rich, placid city in Orange County ... if the cop who found the stash of drugs in Kelli Peters’ car had been a rookie, rather than a sharp-eyed veteran ... if she had been slightly less believable ...
I know there's a lot of talk about inequality and such on HN lately, but if you're from the US and this paragraph doesn't catch you for a second, in my opinion you need to reexamine your values.
Highly illustrative example of privilege. Over and over we're told that Kelli Peters is the perfect victim, that anyone else would not have been believed, yet nowhere other than that one sentence does anyone even come close to pointing out how wrong that is.
The whole affair is also an example of the fallout from over-criminalizing everything when it comes to the "War on Drugs" -- mere possession is enough to destroy entire lives, making it easy (and apparently tempting) to use it against one's enemies. Statements from former members of the Nixon administration[1] confirm this is of course intentional, and mainly targeted at minorities.
"...They had put 20 detectives on the case against Kent and Jill Easter at one time or another, and the lead investigator had spent six months on it exclusively."
If the woman had lived in a bad neighborhood, exactly one cop would have been involved: the arresting officer. She would have been convicted at trial on nothing more than his testimony that he found drugs in her car. Instead, they put 20 detectives on a case that was as much about exonerating the woman because she didn't fit the profile of a drug dealer as it was about catching the couple that planted the drugs.
That said, given the high probability that someone found in possession of illegal drugs will deny that they knew the drugs were there, what would you propose we do in the alternative? The resources simply don't exist to give all such cases this kind of attention. Would you prefer that no such cases be allocated these kinds of resources, which will lead to an increase in innocent people going to prison?
The special handling of this case based on where this woman lives certainly feels wrong. But I also don't know of a better solution than having cops focus their limited resources on investigating scenarios that statistically make the most sense, a strategy which undoubtedly relies at least in part on racial/socioeconomic profiling. If anyone knows of a reasonable one, I'd love to hear it.
This took place in a low crime community that was fortunate to have some very smart and experienced law enforcement professionals who were able to see through the Peters' ruse.
Certainly, had this happened in a high crime area, the police would simply not have had the time to properly investigate. The victim would not have been believed, and might well have done some prison time.
One way to look at this asymmetric justice system is that the Irvine standard is what all cities should aspire to. We should provide police departments and courts with the resources to solve cases and pursue justice at the same high level as was done in the Easter case.
In the long run, this would increase people's confidence and faith in the criminal justice system to treat everyone fairly and equally, and consequently there would be a commensurate increased respect for the law.
> One way to look at this asymmetric justice system is that the Irvine standard is what all cities should aspire to.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd want to know if a black janitor caught up in a similar situation at the same school would've received the same benefit of the doubt and resources dedicated to exonerating them.
True, but he probably stands a better chance of receiving justice in Irvine than he would in south LA, especially if the school and the parents vouch for him, as they vouched for Mrs. Peters.
Fifty years ago, forget it, he'd be thrown in prison. But today, in some ways, police are even more careful around minority suspects out of fear of lawsuits, riots, protests, and other career-ending events, a few tragic officer-involved shootings notwithstanding.
Any stats I've seen have suggested that any time Police are given leeway to choose who they pick on, then minorities and the poor are chosen, for the very rational reason that they are relatively powerless, which seems to contradict your tale of police officers walking on eggshells around them. Around the rich and well connected on the other hand, yes that seems plausible.
yes, for sure, totally agree. Which reminds me of the number one rule - don't talk. Shut up and ask for your attorney. She got lucky and is a prime example of an exception to the norm as many of us know what that means. Again, don't talk to cops. She was foolish to consent to the search without a warrant.
Refusing to talk wouldn't work if you were black or brown though. Either the cop would have looked in the car and found the drugs anyway, or they would have gotten the warrant and found the drugs.
At which point you would be threatened with a trial that might not even be that winnable by the prosecution, but that they'd use as a stick to bully you into taking some kind of plea bargain, maybe even without jail time, but now at least you're on probation and/or have a criminal record.
simply not true. refusing to talk removes the cop's ability to use what is said against you. Talking to them gives them ammunition. Don't take it from me. See what a lawyer and a cop both say:
That's easy to say with some distance, but I can certainly imagine why you might take a different decision in the heat of the moment, when you're sure there's no contraband in your car.
It needs a little perspective, though. That advise is from defense lawyers, and it is intended to make it easier for them to exonerate you and/or get a good plea bargain after charges have been filed. But it's a much better outcome to not have charges filed at all. This may involve actually engaging with the officer on the scene, telling him what he wants to know, letting him see the full situation.
In this particular case, if she had pulled the whole "I don't give consent to search anything", "Am I being detained", "I want my lawyer" bit, she most likely would have been searched anyways, had the possession charge filed, and been convicted of it, no matter what kind of lawyer she had, because there were in fact drugs in her car. On the other hand, engaging with the officer and behaving in a way he would expect somebody who is actually innocent to behave allowed him to take a closer look at things and decide that the evidence doesn't quite match up with an open-and-shut possession case, and that it deserved being looked into further.
That's not to say this is a good idea in every situation. The lawyer advice often is a good option, particularly if you are in fact guilty of the crime that you are suspected of.
On drug charges, I would love to see some data backing up that stereotype because I don't believe it's true for a second. All kinds of rich people do all kinds of drugs. Hell, at Columbia University an entire fraternity was shut down for running an LSD selling ring.
My point was not that she turned out to be innocent. My point is that she actually got fair treatment in the US justice system and support from her local police department. The doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", combined with the equal-protection clause, ought to ensure that all US citizens get those two things. The fact is that if you are non-white, or poor, or heaven forbid both of those things at once, you simply don't have access to those same things. It has nothing to do with probability of guilt, because by law it shouldn't.
This is the kind of reporting I grew up with from the LAT - normally I wouldn't think of Irvine as a place of righting wrongs, or even justice - but clearly more than just wealth prevailed here.
If more peoples interactions with the justice system went like this, we'd be better off.
(To be clear I'm an Orange County Native - one does not think of South Orange County as a place of great crime - largely speeding tickets, and minor violations.)
Yes, it was a brilliantly written article and very engaging right to the end. A great read and I had a real sense of justice done against those two by the end of the piece. That Easter woman was insane.
The 911 call claimed his name was 'Chandraskhar' (I assume a vowel got dropped in there and they meant Chandrasekhar), which isn't a name I'd expect someone to produce at random. But it's a pretty notable one if you have a physics background; Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar won the 1983 Nobel Prize for physics and the 'Chandrasekhar limit' is a well known number in astrophysics. So, I was wondering if someone in all of this would have some connection to astrophysics and lo and behold the crazy wife's dad is an astrophysicist. Makes me guess who wrote the script for the 911 call.
That PTA lady was fortunate. This kinda thing happens all the time with class divides, power struggles, etc.
The world ain't civil, and the US simply changed the methods people use. There is so much tit for tat, eye for an eye, you wouldn't be wrong to think it is still the old testament.
The story itself is exceptional because she was fortunate there were 20 detectives with nothing better to do. Try to tell a story like this in any other neighborhood. In most cases, police are just trying to prevent those kinds of people from getting violent, and that is if that department is even functional.
That reminds of Orwell's account in "Homage to Catalonia" of being shot in the Spanish civil war:
“No one I met at this time -- doctors, nurses, practicantes, or fellow-patients-- failed to assure me that a man who is hit through the neck and survives it is the luckiest creature alive. I could not help thinking that it would be even luckier not to be hit at all.”
People can be selfish, delusional, and cruel. If you take the Western ideals of individualism, a person would be lucky not to have to deal with people like the easters. Matter of fact is, everyone will have to at one point in their life or another.
I don't think that's a coincidence. People copy what they see -- even if only unconsciously and because it's the first idea which comes to mind -- and for people who have no direct experience with crime, TV dramas make up most of what they have seen about it.
I'd guess it's the other way round. I see a lot of fiction which is ripped from the headlines. People are endlessly creatively crazy and ripping off real life is a lot easier than making stuff up.
I've seen a few instances of similarly irrational behavior, and the world may be watching a version writ large in the form of Donald Trump.
While there's an appeal in holding out hope for a rational explanation, I think that's often simply not the case. Take Timothy McVeigh -- executed relatively shortly after his conviction (I believe he didn't appeal the sentence). One thing we never got was a clear explanation for his actions. But then, I don't think that Sirhan Sirhan or Charles Manson surviving decades of imprisonment did much either.
That was my takeaway as well. If we haven't gotten an answer yet, we never will. Honestly we're spoiled by the internet and way too used to "getting answers" as it is :)
The single-episode self-contained television serial, where all questions are wrapped up within 55 minutes (or is it now 36 with ads?) of airtime may contribute to this as well.
I'm finding looking at unquestioned answers somewhat more rewarding than unanswered questions of late.
"Duff was struck by how thoroughly the Irvine police had investigated a crime in which the victim had suffered no physical harm."
She definitely suffered the threat of physical harm. As we've seen over and over, contact with the police can have fatal consequences for the civilian. Furthermore, being jailed and incarcerated is a physical harm.
It's like the investigating police actually recognized this!
I'm not so sure that's justice in this case, or in general. If someone has already spent time in jail and has a felony on their record, erasing the possibility of utilizing their law degree, do we need to punish them further? What does "paying one's debt to society" mean?
The civil penalty would hopefully go to the woman they harmed and not to society in general. It's not about paying their debt to society in the abstract but rather about making their very concrete victim whole.
I read this, and I was honestly shocked anyone could be so petty.
That said, I have a weird story about a neighbor.
I'll keep it short, and change some of the details. I don't think they would ever be on this site, but who knows? They weren't bad people, but they just suprised me. Here goes--
Years ago a young couple moved in to a house adjacent to ours. Nice young couple. They even brought over a gift. I thanked them, and said, "If you need anything, I'm here a lot. I'm self-employed right now."
They seemed to want me to know they were both Architects.
They must have told me three times they were both Architects--in a few minute conversation?
They were definetly a differnt generation than mine, and I remember the "What do you do" introductory questions. I never liked them. I remember really tiring of them them in the bar scene. "And what do you do?" I once told a young lady, I was a Proof reader in the pornography industry. Another, "A professional Drinker." Her, "Ewe", or something like that.
Back to that first encounter, I figured they were just glad to be finished with school, and trying to network. They were proud of their professions, and that's fine.
I knew right away I had nothing in common with the male Architect. We were just two different people. I remember I was working on my car, and my hands were filthy. I knew he wasen't the type of guy who ever got his hands dirty. That's fine, I'm just one of those guys. I try not to pay people for stuffI can do myself, and I was always just getting by financially. I couldn't afford to hire anyone for anything.
There was just something about him, but I couldn't put a finger on it. Outwardly nice, but something seemed phoney.
I was inwardly hoping they wouldn't invite me over for any socials. It turned out they weren't social.
Anyway, I never gave them much thought.
In my neighborhood, we don't know eachother. It might sound weird, but you get used to it, and kinda of begin to like it.
We shared a property line. One day he wanted to replace a fence, but he claimed I was encroaching on his property line--by a few inches. I was kinda shocked. I asked him, "How do you know?" Oh---I can just tell. You know, "I'm an Architect?" Yea--I was shocked. I felt like telling him, "I'm an inactive general contractor", but dummied up. He caught me off guard. (I knew new when these houses were built, the set back linewas 5 feet, and 6 feet for two story homes. He was in a one story ranch style home. If anything, he was on our property?)
I told him get a survey, and put the fence wherever the line is. I walked away thinking, that was kinda weird?
A few years went by. He got a survey. Never heard from him.
They had a kid.
Maybe five years went by, and I honestly forgot their names.
The then got another survey. I think it was a friend of his, because he was helping--holding the markers, etc.
I knew I wasen't on his property, but he seemed determined to get a survey proving me wrong.
A few more years went by.
They had another baby.
In all the years I lived next to them, we would wave, say hi on garbage day, but we really didn't know eachother.
I just knew his wife worked, and he took care of the kids. I thought that was great. I thought he was a great father. They were a great couple! They seemed so normal. Never a fight. Just a quiet couple. He liked to wear a tie though. Never got that one. Why wear a tie around the house?
One day, I was walking home from work, and saw a sign.
"Free baby monitor. It works."
I thought of my next door neighbors, and picked it up.
I knew I wasen't going to knock on their door, but I might just put the monitor on their driveway. Plus--I like to fix disgarded electronics, or see how they are made. I was thinking of taking it apart to see how it was built, or maybe scavage any caps, resistors, etc. They didn't seem the type to have anything used, and I get that, but this baby monitor still had the stickers on it. It didn't look used. Put shrink wrap on it, and it would be new. I decided to keep it. They probally would want it.
So, I'm at my workbench, and device this is just too nice to take apart. I decide to give it to my neighbors. I did want to test it before I put it one their property though.
It's about 6 in the afternoon. I turn it on, and I hear people talking. "Wow!!" I was startled. It literally scared me. Then it kicked it; they must have a baby monitor, and it's on the same channel? Horrid security though!
I immediately turned it off, but I couldn't help myself. It was just so clear. I was impressed with the radio's frequency power.
So---I turned it back on. I thought I will just listen a little bit. I then heard my name. I thought they couldn't be talking about me. We have talked maybe three times in 10 years?
But they were talking about me. I heard, "If he doesn't shut that dog up, I'm going to call the humane society." "Did you see his hair lately?" "Who's that new girl that comes over late?"
I was floored. I didn't think they knew my name.
I thought, what are the odds they just happened to be talking about me at that point in time? They must dislike me? Or, they are people I will never quite "get".
I honestly didn't want to know, or listen.
I turned that radio off. It really did hurt my feelings though. I actually thought they liked me.
Well--I threw the baby monitor away.
They ended up moving. They see me sometimes at Safeway, and both have huge smiles. I wave back--hoping my hair looked o.k.. I get in my car, and try to smooch down my poofy hair.
There's an episode of American Dad (I Can't Stan You) where he goes through the same experience, and like you, ends up thinking that others dislike him. Until he realizes that everyone talks smack about everyone else, and that it doesn't really mean anything except that people like to gossip.
Like him, you just happened to stumble upon something that happens every day, everywhere.
Irrationality here is the War on Drugs. I think that should be talked about in more details in this case. Granted, if it was shorty after a terrorist attack they said she was making bombs in her basement, maybe sprinkle some fertilizer residue on her car.
This always happens, it is a common pattern. I remember being told how during Stalin's time it wasn't uncommon for neighbors to rat on each other and say "so and so is against Stalin and making jokes", and magically the whole family disappears after an early morning visit from NKVD. Well they shouldn't have been letting the cows graze that close to the fence, that'll teach them.
If War On Drugs wasn't there and cops and society wasn't twitchy and irrational about it, the criminals would have a harder time. This just made it all too easy (and the real reason this is news is because she got way and by strange coincidence the detective wanted to look deeper into the story).