10 ms·

I see where you're coming from. But you have to keep in mind that there a myriad of offences that you're not susceptible to commit if your living standard is ab

by yoo1I 10y ago

I see where you're coming from. But you have to keep in mind that there a myriad of offences that you're not susceptible to commit if your living standard is above a certain threshold. Say, loitering, because maybe you have no home or a crowded one, so it's better to spend more time of the day on the street. Or petty theft, for people who're really poor. If you're a druggie and need money for a fix. Or say you're in the country illegally. And I am sure we could come up with more. The point is none of these behaviors (well, except loitering, I don't get why that should be criminalized) are desirable for society as a whole, but it's not correct to pretend that the laws applies to all citizens equally, when there a forces that prod some people towards classes of crimes. That goes the other way too, for example considering tax evasion. The question becomes then how to we manage these behaviors, and I'm not sure that an increased pressure by the state to enforce existing laws on a vulnerable population, actually solves anything. Yeah you might have some moral ideas about whether "getting yourself hooked on drugs" is a good idea, from a policy standpoint that's irrelevant, what matters is to manage the fallout that this has on society right now and how to deal with it in the future.

icebraining 10y ago
Or as Anatole France put it, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
- mjolk 10y ago
  That's cute, but the law also forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from committing violent crimes, which is what we're actually talking about.
  - yoo1I 10y ago
    I'll try with an example: In Europe currently they're housing many refugees in very crowded shelters, where by the sheer concentration of people, arguments and violent conflict are more likely to break out. This has has little to do with what kind of people you put in this housing, and a lot more with, among other things, the absence of any space for people to retreat back to. The problem there isn't one of personal character, which you are trying to make it, but living conditions. My argument is, that similar dynamics are at play at a larger scale. And you won't be able to fix those problems by trying to stay blind to that and just try to look at people individually.
    - mjolk 10y ago
      You're coloring outside of the lines. We're talking about policing crime in San Francisco, USA and not the living conditions and behaviors of economic migrants and refugees in Europe.
      - yoo1I 10y ago
        If you're really unable to see how one easily understandable, concrete example can serve as an illustration of a generally more complex instance of a related problem, then I don't think this conversation is going to get us anywhere. I hope you have a crime-free day.
        mjolk 10y ago
        You've repeatedly fallen back to a wider position; you're not giving "concrete examples." You're blowing the discussion out of scope (trying to drag in something happening 6000 miles away with a totally different context) -- crime in San Francisco is not closely related to cultural differences, self- and by-policy segregation, and fear of policing/censorship happening in Europe. I wish you the best as well.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - threatofrain 10y ago
    A more explicit phrasing of the argument may be that structural explanations better explain a phenomena than unique individual factors, and that the "unique" individual factors might not be that unique. So what you end up punishing is (personal factors) x (structural factors), but we don't get to know how much each weigh. If we're using punishment or removal of a human from society as a way of getting rid of bad social phenomena rooted in bad personal factors, then it's in our interest to punish uniquely bad personal factors, or else common personal factors interacting with a bad situation will continue to output bad social phenomena. Additionally, structural fixes seem to me like lower-hanging policy fruit than throwing a person in jail and subjecting them to severe financial disadvantage. Society's fixes for individual behavior are crude, and quality human resources are extremely finite and being spent elsewhere. But for our emotional sense of justice we look for the high-hanging fruits first. And let's say among the bad personal factors population there are gradients of badness. Why do we seek to irritate that badness by exacerbating structural factors of crime, i.e., by throwing them into an awfully managed and abusive system where they don't get real sustained access to professionals, and why do we financially impair them?
refurb 10y ago
Yes, but there are many very poor folks who commit no crimes at all. I'd say probably most of them. It still comes down to a person's choice to commit those crimes. However, I do agree with your comment about police harassment and then like.
mjolk 10y ago
Lowering your expectations for low-income households and treating people that come from them as if they're too stupid and/or broken to not commit crimes is wrong is offensive. There's a difference between acknowledging the value free education, cheap housing, and money for food and outright turning a blind eye to opportunists and criminals. >If you're a druggie and need money for a fix. How is that your or my problem? You get yourself addicted to drugs. If someone mugs my girlfriend and trades her phone for some heroin, I don't understand why I'm supposed to shrug it off, feel sympathy for the criminal, and let that junkie make someone else live in fear so they can get high. >there a forces that prod some people towards classes of crimes. That goes the other way too, for example considering tax evasion. Muggings, rapes, and violent crime have drastically different effects on people than the taxman putting a lower number in a ledger. Trying to conflate crimes that happen to a person with financial loopholes is apologetics for violent criminals. >Or say you're in the country illegally. Then don't come to the country illegally if you're going to do destructive things against the people that you want to help you.
- yoo1I 10y ago
  I'm not turning a blind eye, I'm acknowledging that different classes of people have different classes of problems and commit different classes of crime. I am not conflating these different types of crimes; what I am saying is that "crime" is really just a tool to deal with behavior that is detrimental to a societal good. And maybe that it's possible to deal with these problems in more appropriate ways then just trying to enforce laws with higher pressure. And while you're right, that tax evasion is different from mugging someone on the street, don't pretend that white-collar crime is a victimless crime. And again, increased pressure to enforce existing laws, might not be the best answer there either. And again: If I am a druggie and need a fix, then it's more likely that this problem has a better solution that just throw me in jail. It makes a whole lot more sense to treat a serious drug addiction as an illness. But that needs a little bit more empathy than your approach of "You knew the risk when you went out skiing, don't complain to me that you're on the ground with a broken leg now" - sure there is some truth to it, but that doesn't help anyone.
  - mjolk 10y ago

by yoo1I 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

Or as Anatole France put it, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

mjolk 10y ago
That's cute, but the law also forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from committing violent crimes, which is what we're actually talking about.
- yoo1I 10y ago
  I'll try with an example: In Europe currently they're housing many refugees in very crowded shelters, where by the sheer concentration of people, arguments and violent conflict are more likely to break out. This has has little to do with what kind of people you put in this housing, and a lot more with, among other things, the absence of any space for people to retreat back to. The problem there isn't one of personal character, which you are trying to make it, but living conditions. My argument is, that similar dynamics are at play at a larger scale. And you won't be able to fix those problems by trying to stay blind to that and just try to look at people individually.
  - mjolk 10y ago
    You're coloring outside of the lines. We're talking about policing crime in San Francisco, USA and not the living conditions and behaviors of economic migrants and refugees in Europe.
    - yoo1I 10y ago
      If you're really unable to see how one easily understandable, concrete example can serve as an illustration of a generally more complex instance of a related problem, then I don't think this conversation is going to get us anywhere. I hope you have a crime-free day.
      - mjolk 10y ago
        You've repeatedly fallen back to a wider position; you're not giving "concrete examples." You're blowing the discussion out of scope (trying to drag in something happening 6000 miles away with a totally different context) -- crime in San Francisco is not closely related to cultural differences, self- and by-policy segregation, and fear of policing/censorship happening in Europe. I wish you the best as well.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- threatofrain 10y ago
  A more explicit phrasing of the argument may be that structural explanations better explain a phenomena than unique individual factors, and that the "unique" individual factors might not be that unique. So what you end up punishing is (personal factors) x (structural factors), but we don't get to know how much each weigh. If we're using punishment or removal of a human from society as a way of getting rid of bad social phenomena rooted in bad personal factors, then it's in our interest to punish uniquely bad personal factors, or else common personal factors interacting with a bad situation will continue to output bad social phenomena. Additionally, structural fixes seem to me like lower-hanging policy fruit than throwing a person in jail and subjecting them to severe financial disadvantage. Society's fixes for individual behavior are crude, and quality human resources are extremely finite and being spent elsewhere. But for our emotional sense of justice we look for the high-hanging fruits first. And let's say among the bad personal factors population there are gradients of badness. Why do we seek to irritate that badness by exacerbating structural factors of crime, i.e., by throwing them into an awfully managed and abusive system where they don't get real sustained access to professionals, and why do we financially impair them?

refurb 10y ago

Yes, but there are many very poor folks who commit no crimes at all. I'd say probably most of them. It still comes down to a person's choice to commit those crimes. However, I do agree with your comment about police harassment and then like.

mjolk 10y ago

Lowering your expectations for low-income households and treating people that come from them as if they're too stupid and/or broken to not commit crimes is wrong is offensive. There's a difference between acknowledging the value free education, cheap housing, and money for food and outright turning a blind eye to opportunists and criminals. >If you're a druggie and need money for a fix. How is that your or my problem? You get yourself addicted to drugs. If someone mugs my girlfriend and trades her phone for some heroin, I don't understand why I'm supposed to shrug it off, feel sympathy for the criminal, and let that junkie make someone else live in fear so they can get high. >there a forces that prod some people towards classes of crimes. That goes the other way too, for example considering tax evasion. Muggings, rapes, and violent crime have drastically different effects on people than the taxman putting a lower number in a ledger. Trying to conflate crimes that happen to a person with financial loopholes is apologetics for violent criminals. >Or say you're in the country illegally. Then don't come to the country illegally if you're going to do destructive things against the people that you want to help you.

yoo1I 10y ago
I'm not turning a blind eye, I'm acknowledging that different classes of people have different classes of problems and commit different classes of crime. I am not conflating these different types of crimes; what I am saying is that "crime" is really just a tool to deal with behavior that is detrimental to a societal good. And maybe that it's possible to deal with these problems in more appropriate ways then just trying to enforce laws with higher pressure. And while you're right, that tax evasion is different from mugging someone on the street, don't pretend that white-collar crime is a victimless crime. And again, increased pressure to enforce existing laws, might not be the best answer there either. And again: If I am a druggie and need a fix, then it's more likely that this problem has a better solution that just throw me in jail. It makes a whole lot more sense to treat a serious drug addiction as an illness. But that needs a little bit more empathy than your approach of "You knew the risk when you went out skiing, don't complain to me that you're on the ground with a broken leg now" - sure there is some truth to it, but that doesn't help anyone.
- mjolk 10y ago