6 ms·

>A criminal record in the US is a curse for life The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is th

by s_dev 6y ago

>A criminal record in the US is a curse for life The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is that we've criminals being called in to court with literally hundreds of prior convictions and then they're let off with suspended sentences and then go straight back to what they were doing. Equally frustrating -- to see the guilty just walk off and laugh as it is to see the redeemed struggle having conceded their mistakes. Justice is very important, hard and complex. I don't doubt that but their clearly is room for improvement on both sides.

jonny_eh 6y ago
As with everything, there is a balance. It requires everlasting vigilance.
meheleventyone 6y ago
Out of interest what proportion of criminals let off with suspended sentences have hundreds of convictions?
- s_dev 6y ago
  I don't have statistics but there are incidents like these that are regularly reported in Irish and International Media: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-most-convictions-ireland-jennifer-armstrong-dublin-shoplifting-a9006896.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-most-c...
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    Sounds like that lady needs care more than she needs more prison time. Particularly after a 16 month sentence and the petty nature of the actual crime. Incidents like these get in the national press precisely because they are rare and hence interesting. Do you think there are tens of people, hundred of people or thousands of people with >100 criminal convictions?
    - luckylion 6y ago
      In Germany, that would Intensivtäter (literally intensive perpetrators). It's not rare to have young men with dozens of convictions for assault, breaking and entering, mugging etc. They typically don't get any jail time and will collect more indictments between being arrested and seeing a judge. For Berlin they're having a list of 500 people, almost all male.
      - ponker 6y ago
        I wonder how much better you could make society if you managed to take the worst 1% of scumbags and remove them.
        justincredible 6y ago
        The power vacuum would soon be filled by the ambitious among the remaining 99%.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Significantly worse, I'd say.
        tyho 6y ago
        Western Europe did pretty much that for hundreds of years. > Through its monopoly on violence, the State tends to pacify social relations. Such pacification proceeded slowly in Western Europe between the 5th and 11th centuries, being hindered by the rudimentary nature of law enforcement, the belief in a man’s right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church’s opposition to the death penalty. These hindrances began to dissolve in the 11th century with a consensus by Church and State that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300...
saagarjha 6y ago
> Equally frustrating -- to see the guilty just walk off and laugh as it is to see the redeemed struggle having conceded their mistakes. That of course depends on your value system. There are many that consider sending an innocent person to jail far worse than letting a guilty person walk free, and I’m sure you can apply a similar worldview here as well.
- ponker 6y ago
  Getting guilt right and what punishment to dispense to the guilty are different questions. For example you could have 100-member juries with unanimous verdicts required, but also execute anyone convicted of any crime.
  - avisser 6y ago
    > Getting guilt right and what punishment to dispense to the guilty are different questions. I disagree. If your legal system executes people, they are inseparable questions. I would generalize to say that the more severe your sentences, the more those two questions are related.
    - _jal 6y ago
      It sounds like you two are disagreeing over the unmentioned error rate. If I get a parking ticket unjustly, it may piss me off, but it isn't a big deal. If I am convicted of a serious crime unjustly, it matters far more. Whereas the grandparent, I think, is asserting the guilt or innocence is (or should be) an objective fact independent of what anyone does about it.
    - bjt 6y ago
      I think you're arguing a different point. Sure there's a relationship, but these are not the same question: "Did Joe kill Dave?" "Given that we've decided that Joe did kill Dave, what should Joe's punishment be?"
      - unionpivo 6y ago
throwaway894345 6y ago
> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is that we've criminals being called in to court with literally hundreds of prior convictions and then they're let off with suspended sentences and then go straight back to what they were doing. FWIW, it's not evenly distributed in the US. We have jurisdictions like Chicago where violent offenders are released on probation after a few months or years only to reoffend. Further, these violent crimes aren't evenly distributed across Chicago, but rather they disproportionately affect poor, typically minority communities. It's well-known that crime (esp violent) is driving businesses (and jobs) out of these communities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Presumably these light-on-crime policies (and similarly "defund the police") are a misguided attempt to help these communities, since the criminal justice system is biased against the poor and minorities (and men, but that seems to not factor into any calculus); however, they're exacerbating the very problem they purport to solve. Indeed, Chicago appears to be on track for its most violent year since the gang wars of the early nineties, after decades of consistent, remarkable, commendable progress. For me, this underscores the importance of properly understanding the dynamics of the problem we're trying to solve--it's not sufficient to be well-intentioned or to have the right bumper sticker. It also highlights the importance of free-speech and open inquiry, since we can't collectively understand these dynamics without the kind of robust debate that proponents of political correctness and cancel culture aspire to suppress. And note that their intentions are presumably good--they don't want (at least some) hateful talking points to be espoused; however, the well-being of these communities isn't worth trading in exchange for the suppression of hateful talking points (never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?") and moreover prior to the mainstreaming of restrictive-speech ideals (let's say circa 2014-2015 but this is all pretty fuzzy), this really wasn't a problem--American society did a pretty good job of marginalizing those who would openly espouse hateful viewpoints (although some will advocate for a meaninglessly broad definition of 'hate' or would argue that any speech from anyone they don't like can fairly be considered a 'racist dogwhistle', but those kinds of bad faith arguments notwithstanding...) and things were gradually improving for everyone. Anyway, I apologize for going a bit off track. Hopefully this stream-of-consciousness prompts productive discussion and introspection.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
The difference is that crimes are usually done against other people. I as a citizen can usually defend myself against wrongdoing by other people, but I can only defend myself against state wrongdoing in the state's courts, with the state's rules. Being imbalanced one way is not as equally harmful as being imbalanced the other way.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Giving petty criminals a chance to reform is important since most petty crime is driven by factors other than inherent criminality of the individual but it should not be possible to just keep racking up petty offenses to the detriment of everyone who's victimized by them.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    Yes, but the argument of "detriment to everyone" is only used to further lengthen sentences, but never address any of the inputs that lead to such crime. And that's because of the draconian character of the US concerning law and punishment.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      I agree that we need to work on the frontend problems that are driving so much crime and that we should prefer to be rehabilitative instead of punitive in our approach to crime; however, it's not obvious to me how being punitive dissuades us from addressing inputs--could you elaborate? (note that I'm a different 'throwaway' than the OP)
SquishyPanda23 6y ago
> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient The US system is overly harsh to some groups of people and overly lenient to others, and the imbalance creates its own set of problems. I would love to see sane prison reform based on data and science.

by s_dev 6y ago

jonny_eh 6y ago

As with everything, there is a balance. It requires everlasting vigilance.

meheleventyone 6y ago

Out of interest what proportion of criminals let off with suspended sentences have hundreds of convictions?

s_dev 6y ago
I don't have statistics but there are incidents like these that are regularly reported in Irish and International Media: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-most-convictions-ireland-jennifer-armstrong-dublin-shoplifting-a9006896.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-most-c...
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Sounds like that lady needs care more than she needs more prison time. Particularly after a 16 month sentence and the petty nature of the actual crime. Incidents like these get in the national press precisely because they are rare and hence interesting. Do you think there are tens of people, hundred of people or thousands of people with >100 criminal convictions?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    In Germany, that would Intensivtäter (literally intensive perpetrators). It's not rare to have young men with dozens of convictions for assault, breaking and entering, mugging etc. They typically don't get any jail time and will collect more indictments between being arrested and seeing a judge. For Berlin they're having a list of 500 people, almost all male.
    - ponker 6y ago
      I wonder how much better you could make society if you managed to take the worst 1% of scumbags and remove them.
      - justincredible 6y ago
        The power vacuum would soon be filled by the ambitious among the remaining 99%.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Significantly worse, I'd say.
      - tyho 6y ago
        Western Europe did pretty much that for hundreds of years. > Through its monopoly on violence, the State tends to pacify social relations. Such pacification proceeded slowly in Western Europe between the 5th and 11th centuries, being hindered by the rudimentary nature of law enforcement, the belief in a man’s right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church’s opposition to the death penalty. These hindrances began to dissolve in the 11th century with a consensus by Church and State that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300...

saagarjha 6y ago

> Equally frustrating -- to see the guilty just walk off and laugh as it is to see the redeemed struggle having conceded their mistakes. That of course depends on your value system. There are many that consider sending an innocent person to jail far worse than letting a guilty person walk free, and I’m sure you can apply a similar worldview here as well.

ponker 6y ago
Getting guilt right and what punishment to dispense to the guilty are different questions. For example you could have 100-member juries with unanimous verdicts required, but also execute anyone convicted of any crime.
- avisser 6y ago
  > Getting guilt right and what punishment to dispense to the guilty are different questions. I disagree. If your legal system executes people, they are inseparable questions. I would generalize to say that the more severe your sentences, the more those two questions are related.
  - _jal 6y ago
    It sounds like you two are disagreeing over the unmentioned error rate. If I get a parking ticket unjustly, it may piss me off, but it isn't a big deal. If I am convicted of a serious crime unjustly, it matters far more. Whereas the grandparent, I think, is asserting the guilt or innocence is (or should be) an objective fact independent of what anyone does about it.
  - bjt 6y ago
    I think you're arguing a different point. Sure there's a relationship, but these are not the same question: "Did Joe kill Dave?" "Given that we've decided that Joe did kill Dave, what should Joe's punishment be?"
    - unionpivo 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is that we've criminals being called in to court with literally hundreds of prior convictions and then they're let off with suspended sentences and then go straight back to what they were doing. FWIW, it's not evenly distributed in the US. We have jurisdictions like Chicago where violent offenders are released on probation after a few months or years only to reoffend. Further, these violent crimes aren't evenly distributed across Chicago, but rather they disproportionately affect poor, typically minority communities. It's well-known that crime (esp violent) is driving businesses (and jobs) out of these communities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Presumably these light-on-crime policies (and similarly "defund the police") are a misguided attempt to help these communities, since the criminal justice system is biased against the poor and minorities (and men, but that seems to not factor into any calculus); however, they're exacerbating the very problem they purport to solve. Indeed, Chicago appears to be on track for its most violent year since the gang wars of the early nineties, after decades of consistent, remarkable, commendable progress. For me, this underscores the importance of properly understanding the dynamics of the problem we're trying to solve--it's not sufficient to be well-intentioned or to have the right bumper sticker. It also highlights the importance of free-speech and open inquiry, since we can't collectively understand these dynamics without the kind of robust debate that proponents of political correctness and cancel culture aspire to suppress. And note that their intentions are presumably good--they don't want (at least some) hateful talking points to be espoused; however, the well-being of these communities isn't worth trading in exchange for the suppression of hateful talking points (never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?") and moreover prior to the mainstreaming of restrictive-speech ideals (let's say circa 2014-2015 but this is all pretty fuzzy), this really wasn't a problem--American society did a pretty good job of marginalizing those who would openly espouse hateful viewpoints (although some will advocate for a meaninglessly broad definition of 'hate' or would argue that any speech from anyone they don't like can fairly be considered a 'racist dogwhistle', but those kinds of bad faith arguments notwithstanding...) and things were gradually improving for everyone. Anyway, I apologize for going a bit off track. Hopefully this stream-of-consciousness prompts productive discussion and introspection.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

The difference is that crimes are usually done against other people. I as a citizen can usually defend myself against wrongdoing by other people, but I can only defend myself against state wrongdoing in the state's courts, with the state's rules. Being imbalanced one way is not as equally harmful as being imbalanced the other way.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Giving petty criminals a chance to reform is important since most petty crime is driven by factors other than inherent criminality of the individual but it should not be possible to just keep racking up petty offenses to the detriment of everyone who's victimized by them.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  Yes, but the argument of "detriment to everyone" is only used to further lengthen sentences, but never address any of the inputs that lead to such crime. And that's because of the draconian character of the US concerning law and punishment.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I agree that we need to work on the frontend problems that are driving so much crime and that we should prefer to be rehabilitative instead of punitive in our approach to crime; however, it's not obvious to me how being punitive dissuades us from addressing inputs--could you elaborate? (note that I'm a different 'throwaway' than the OP)

SquishyPanda23 6y ago

> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient The US system is overly harsh to some groups of people and overly lenient to others, and the imbalance creates its own set of problems. I would love to see sane prison reform based on data and science.