There was a similar case in the US.
In the 70's, there was a crooked cop who was convicted (for some lewd acts) and had to surrender himself to prison. He chose to run instead and spent 22 years in the forest.
Eventually he couldn't take it anymore and surrendered himself. He was then given a suspended sentence citing that he already has been through enough.
Though nobody really knows what happened to him, and I think he's still on the FBI's most wanted list - here in Arizona we have the case of Robert Fisher:
Yep - he's still on the wanted list - going on 18-19 years now. It's unclear whether he's dead, hiding out, or what; all signs point to him at least escaping and "going into the wilderness". What's happened since that point is anyone's guess.
For that matter, though, the whole escapade has a lot of questions if you research it. The official story is that one day, he snapped, and decided to kill his wife and kids, then blow up their house (natural gas explosion - leveled it) - supposedly to try to hid the evidence of the murder. Then he took the dog with him in their SUV, ran off into the wilderness - then vanished. The dog and the SUV were found, and that was it.
There were questions (at the time) - theory, conspiracy, you name it - but I don't know what to make of them; it was all one weird thing in what would turn out to be a tumultuous year, and quickly overtaken by events and somewhat "forgotten".
The questions still remain as to why and what really happened - the official case states marital trouble, but none of it seems (but who knows what his mental state was) to rise to the level of what occurred, though the background seems a convenient explanation after the fact.
It sounds like he used the power of his job to rape several women. Now that he is free, it says he is helping fight police corruption and donates to organizations that help victims of sexual assault, but if I was one of his victims, I don't think I would feel justice is served just because he hid in the woods for 22 years. This is a pretty tricky scenario imo.
There are a lot of people who feel like the primary goal of what we call the criminal justice system is making the victims feel like criminals are treated poorly enough. While perhaps satisfying to some individuals, it results in high rates of recidivism, which makes society less safe for everyone.
A criminal justice system centered around reform results in a safer and more humane society for everyone.
Right or wrong, a large function of the prison system is to ruin someone's life in a sufficiently public way for performing actions outside of the given society's norms and values to serve as a deterrent to those who would follow in their footsteps.
Except that has never proven to reduce recidivism, and in the US seems to increase it. The Swedes seem to have much better luck with education, training, and rehabilitative options.
It's intended* function is to act as a deterrent. The jury is still out on whether it actually functions effectively as a deterrent. For instance, do active criminals know the potential punishments for their transgressions? Do they know what life is like for current or former prisoners? If yes to either, does it actually deter active criminals or do they just consider it a risk, a cost of doing their "business?
Deterrence is a nice in theory, but it depends on awareness among the general populace, and depending on people being aware is not a good start to any policy.
If exile was seen as ruinous enough in the public eye, that could provide a humane alternative to imprisonment.
Racist sentimemts could be exploited for this in a very humorous way. Imagine hackers being exiled to Mexico, and being let in on the precondition that they spend the first X years working on improving Mexico's public infrastructure.
He wasnt "alone". He was getting food somewhere. He had lots of stuff he couldnt make himself. And someone had contact enough to report his location. Id bet he was stealing from locals.
The other side of the punishment is to show to the victims and law abiding citizens that justice is carried out.
The criminal has decided to break the social contract, our agreed rules and impinge on our peace and freedom; therefore society will now impose a sentence on him, restoring some balance, easing minds.
It's the same if not better compared to the alternative, right? Person isn't bothering society and the state isn't subsidizing their imprisonment. Exiling people kinda sounds like the best option unless you like punishment.
While I'm kind of on your side, there is an argument to be made for hauling him back in. If you know he's there and let him live there, you set a precedent: "It's OK to escape from prison as long as you live in the woods."
The article says he was imprisoned for "trafficking women and children." Assuming that's accurate and not Chinese propaganda, I'm fine with the idea of permanently cutting him off from potential victims.
I don't know in China but in many countries not only do they take you back to prison to resume time where you left off but evasion is a further offence that gets you extra time.
It's unclear from the article what his crime was, only that he escaped from a prison camp. It could be that his only crime was being Tibetan or Uighur or a member of Falun Gong or that he said something against the government. It's China, so the only 'victims' might be the prison guards on whose watch he escaped.
His crime is sufficiently distateful that I dont want to defend him specifically. But the overall subject raises interesting questions about enforcement of laws and their applicability as enforcement approaches perfect. (ie 100%)
For example consider speeding laws we can actually approach perfect enforcement using GPS data and engine management. But then the question becomes how does the archaic law morph when perfectly applied? Should _every_ driver who _ever_ speeds be charged the fine? That is roughly every driver every time they drive whom uses the highways near me. And how often should they be charged? Each time they exceed the speed limit (for example if speedlimit is 65 and I brake to 64, then speed to 66 several times, is that several tickets?) ...
I suspect that most of our laws have been written without grace/forgiveness knowing that we used to only catch a small percentage of perpetrators, and likely the most egregious of them (assuming frequency & magnitude would increase probability of being caught). What ought do if that percent sky rockets, but the laws were designed for the former value?
> I suspect that most of our laws have been written without grace/forgiveness knowing that we used to only catch a small percentage of perpetrators
Or that we can choose not to prosecute in order to use their testimony against a bigger fish. It's called prosecutorial discretion, and it seems reasonable at first, but it's responsible for the slow encroachment of government in all aspects of private life. After all, why change or protest a law you break every day if it will never be used against you?
Everyone probably breaks multiple laws a day without realising it.
If everyone that broke any law had to be charged and prosecuted, we would have a much more politically engaged populace, a much more efficient process to appeal judgements and repeal unjust laws.
I would also argue that having to mount a defense against an accusation is sufficiently punitive (can easily bankrupt) almost any individual in today's society (at least in north America).
Maybe it's easier to just pay the speeding ticket because to fight it would cost 10x in lawyers fees. That's not justice, it's just economic extortion.
Worth thinking about when this law came into effect and limitations of technology at that time. Given GPS data, it's possible to ensure the car never exceeds the speed limit and hence, perfect enforcement of the law may result in no more fines (or even less) as it does now. There is of course safety implications of forcing cars under a speed limit which the law would be taking into effect, which is yet another twist making the perfect enforcement unlikely.
I've watched "Alone" on the History Channel from time to time. One of the things that surprised me was how the contestants were affected mentally. Often enough they tap out not from lack of food, but from lack of human contact.
It's amazing this guy survived. It's close to a miracle he did it alone.
Establishing a new identity wasn't a huge task when we were paper based. A pretty common approach was finding someone that died young, roughly your age, in a rural or religious community that probably didn't file the right papers to document the death. Or somewhere small enough that destroying the single paper in a file accomplished the same.
Then bootstrap that up from a birth certificate to a social security card and so on.
Readit News
Eventually he couldn't take it anymore and surrendered himself. He was then given a suspended sentence citing that he already has been through enough.
Here's a podcast episode on that: https://snapjudgment.org/cop-out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_William_Fisher
Yep - he's still on the wanted list - going on 18-19 years now. It's unclear whether he's dead, hiding out, or what; all signs point to him at least escaping and "going into the wilderness". What's happened since that point is anyone's guess.
For that matter, though, the whole escapade has a lot of questions if you research it. The official story is that one day, he snapped, and decided to kill his wife and kids, then blow up their house (natural gas explosion - leveled it) - supposedly to try to hid the evidence of the murder. Then he took the dog with him in their SUV, ran off into the wilderness - then vanished. The dog and the SUV were found, and that was it.
There were questions (at the time) - theory, conspiracy, you name it - but I don't know what to make of them; it was all one weird thing in what would turn out to be a tumultuous year, and quickly overtaken by events and somewhat "forgotten".
The questions still remain as to why and what really happened - the official case states marital trouble, but none of it seems (but who knows what his mental state was) to rise to the level of what occurred, though the background seems a convenient explanation after the fact.
A criminal justice system centered around reform results in a safer and more humane society for everyone.
I wonder whether this is typical, or he was given special treatment.
https://www.npr.org/2015/05/08/405191537/cop-out
Dead Comment
Deterrence is a nice in theory, but it depends on awareness among the general populace, and depending on people being aware is not a good start to any policy.
Dead Comment
Racist sentimemts could be exploited for this in a very humorous way. Imagine hackers being exiled to Mexico, and being let in on the precondition that they spend the first X years working on improving Mexico's public infrastructure.
I’m not sure why so many people think it’s an equivalent punishment.
Don’t people think that he would’ve been willing to hurt others who crossed his path in order to keep his secret?
He was also living near his hometown. So “cut off” is a bit less likely than mostly under the radar.
The criminal has decided to break the social contract, our agreed rules and impinge on our peace and freedom; therefore society will now impose a sentence on him, restoring some balance, easing minds.
Give the condemned a backpack of provisions, the cut them loose into the Exile Zone.
“The 63-year old, named Song Jiang by the police, had been jailed for trafficking women and children but escaped from a prison camp in 2002.“
It is spelled out clearly in the article why:
> The 63-year old, named Song Jiang by the police, had been jailed for trafficking women and children but escaped from a prison camp in 2002.
So there is no tech or surveillance story here. Only the use of a relatively common high tech gadget aiding good old fashioned police work.
For example consider speeding laws we can actually approach perfect enforcement using GPS data and engine management. But then the question becomes how does the archaic law morph when perfectly applied? Should _every_ driver who _ever_ speeds be charged the fine? That is roughly every driver every time they drive whom uses the highways near me. And how often should they be charged? Each time they exceed the speed limit (for example if speedlimit is 65 and I brake to 64, then speed to 66 several times, is that several tickets?) ...
I suspect that most of our laws have been written without grace/forgiveness knowing that we used to only catch a small percentage of perpetrators, and likely the most egregious of them (assuming frequency & magnitude would increase probability of being caught). What ought do if that percent sky rockets, but the laws were designed for the former value?
Or that we can choose not to prosecute in order to use their testimony against a bigger fish. It's called prosecutorial discretion, and it seems reasonable at first, but it's responsible for the slow encroachment of government in all aspects of private life. After all, why change or protest a law you break every day if it will never be used against you?
Everyone probably breaks multiple laws a day without realising it.
If everyone that broke any law had to be charged and prosecuted, we would have a much more politically engaged populace, a much more efficient process to appeal judgements and repeal unjust laws.
Maybe it's easier to just pay the speeding ticket because to fight it would cost 10x in lawyers fees. That's not justice, it's just economic extortion.
It's amazing this guy survived. It's close to a miracle he did it alone.
Then bootstrap that up from a birth certificate to a social security card and so on.
I imagine it's not that simple anymore.