4 ms·

Right. I'm never going to get arrested or be on trial (statistically), so why defend the civil rights of those accused? I'm much more likely to be a victim, so

by tdhoot 7y ago

Right. I'm never going to get arrested or be on trial (statistically), so why defend the civil rights of those accused? I'm much more likely to be a victim, so why vote against my own interests?

arcticbull 7y ago
To be clear you are the victim in this case. It’s also in your interests as an individual to reduce incidence of crime and strict policing and minimum sentences don’t, prison reform does. That would in fact lead you to vote for whatever reduces the likelihood of your being victimized too, and that’s Scandinavian prisons and policing. You should vote for reduced recidivism and a functional rehabilitation system and not a punishment system that’s so utterly failed.
- tdhoot 7y ago
  What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc.? My point being sometimes people vote or defend ideas that they believe are fundamentally right -- regardless of whether they themselves benefit from those ideas.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc.? I'm suggesting that as someone who doesn't want crime to happen to them, this is the kind of thing you'd optimize for anyways. Jailing people in and of itself doesn't reduce crime, in fact, the US recidivism rate is so high, if you locked up innocent people and people guilty of low-level crimes you'd probably increase the crime rate. That's how ineffective America's police/prison industrial complex is at reducing crime. As such these procedures are something you'd want to keep people out of America's wildly ineffective prisons. > My point being sometimes people vote or defend ideas that they believe are fundamentally right -- regardless of whether they themselves benefit from those ideas. Sure. However, a rich man refusing to let the people of California onto their beach in support of exercising their constitutional rights isn't one of them. I'm not saying rich to engender animosity against his wealth, he earned it, that's great. I'm pointing out how many other options he has. He could literally use his money to build his own synthetic ocean in the middle of California and put a beach house on that. Instead, he's chosen to spend his largesse to keep Californians from being able to exercise their constitutional rights so he can have a slightly better view. That's the definition of a dick move.

by tdhoot 7y ago

Right. I'm never going to get arrested or be on trial (statistically), so why defend the civil rights of those accused? I'm much more likely to be a victim, so why vote against my own interests?

arcticbull 7y ago

To be clear you are the victim in this case. It’s also in your interests as an individual to reduce incidence of crime and strict policing and minimum sentences don’t, prison reform does. That would in fact lead you to vote for whatever reduces the likelihood of your being victimized too, and that’s Scandinavian prisons and policing. You should vote for reduced recidivism and a functional rehabilitation system and not a punishment system that’s so utterly failed.

tdhoot 7y ago
What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc.? My point being sometimes people vote or defend ideas that they believe are fundamentally right -- regardless of whether they themselves benefit from those ideas.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc.? I'm suggesting that as someone who doesn't want crime to happen to them, this is the kind of thing you'd optimize for anyways. Jailing people in and of itself doesn't reduce crime, in fact, the US recidivism rate is so high, if you locked up innocent people and people guilty of low-level crimes you'd probably increase the crime rate. That's how ineffective America's police/prison industrial complex is at reducing crime. As such these procedures are something you'd want to keep people out of America's wildly ineffective prisons. > My point being sometimes people vote or defend ideas that they believe are fundamentally right -- regardless of whether they themselves benefit from those ideas. Sure. However, a rich man refusing to let the people of California onto their beach in support of exercising their constitutional rights isn't one of them. I'm not saying rich to engender animosity against his wealth, he earned it, that's great. I'm pointing out how many other options he has. He could literally use his money to build his own synthetic ocean in the middle of California and put a beach house on that. Instead, he's chosen to spend his largesse to keep Californians from being able to exercise their constitutional rights so he can have a slightly better view. That's the definition of a dick move.