4 ms·

> ineffective Get back to us if you ever have a loved one get murdered, raped, or assaulted. Justice is not solely about rehabilitation. It is very much about

> ineffective Get back to us if you ever have a loved one get murdered, raped, or assaulted. Justice is not solely about rehabilitation. It is very much about righteous punishment for doing evil. We can acknowledge that context and environment foster crime while also not tolerating crime. Personally, I don't give one care about the "why" of certain classes of crime. I have zero tolerance or empathy for the doers of violence. If you murder someone, your life is forfeit to me. If you rape someone, I hope you get locked away for a minimum of 20 years. If you seriously assault someone, you should have to do jail time.

afandian 4y ago
Do you have the same amount of confidence that the legal system can tell innocent people apart from guilty people?
- gxt 4y ago
  So because we're not perfect we should do nothing?
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  Yes. I have seen false conviction estimates ranging from 1 to 5 percent. All systems which involve any kind of classification will have a non-zero false positive rate. Does that mean we should do away with them? Of course not. We should simply seek to improve systems with better and better processes, while accepting that we might approach but never achieve zero false positives. What alternative would you propose? Doing away with criminal justice? Do you think murderers and rapists should be allowed to roam free? How about drug traffickers who knowingly distribute life destroying substances in their communities? Think of someone you really love. Maybe its your child, your parents, your partner, or a friend. Now imagine the pain and fear they would feel as they are murdered. What would they think and feel as they are choked to death? Or bludgeoned? The sheer terror. The pain. The senselessness of their life ending. Imagine that you find their corpse. Imagine the pain and horror you would experience. The hole in your heart. Really try to visualize this scenario. To feel it emotionally and with your senses. Now imagine the perpetrator going unpunished. Walking free. Or getting put on some cushy rehabilitation program to better their life. Does that seem right? Does it seem just? Does it seem fair? In my opinion, this discussion is way too academic, abstract, and one-sided. How about we focus on victims and their survivors?
  - kiba 4y ago
    In my opinion, this discussion is way too academic, abstract, and one-sided. How about we focus on victims and their survivors? It seems that victims and their survivors already have a wellspring of support, but not as much effort on reducing the number of perpetrators and victims in our society. We are focused on 'righting' the wrong rather than actually fixing it. Of course, you could incarcerate or execute these individuals, but that would not be a fix in the same way that starving people to death is a way of 'solving' the famine. Individuals, no matter how much 'free will' or 'agency' they have, are all subjected to cause and effect.
  - afandian 4y ago
    This conversation isn't in the context of the concept of prisons, or even crime and punishment in general. It's specifically about solitary confinement which, along with corporal punishment, is torture that does permanent damage to someone. If you're going to countenance torture (or capital punishment), the very least you can do is is consider the likelihood of them being innocent. Yes, the scene you describe is appalling. And, from reports, not uncommon in the States. Would I be in the right state of mind to make effective policy or humane decisions after that trauma? No. Would a reasonable person want revenge? Probably. Would a systematic revenge-based system lead to more or less miserable outcomes? The US has the highest rate of incarcerations in the world. Is that working? Putting so much effort into punshiment and so little into prevention smacks of revenge rather than wanting to actually improve things.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    So it is OK to inflict righteous punishment on the 5% of innocent prisoners? If we built a society that treated everyone with respect, we likely wouldn't have so much crime to begin with. If our social institutions were setup to remove children from abusive situations ASAP, if we lived in a world where baby formula didn't have to be locked up at grocery stores (seriously, that is very fucked up, anyone who needs baby formula should be able to go to a government provided store and get some no questions asked, no hoops to jump through), and if we lived in a world where parents didn't have to work multiple jobs with every changing shifts just to pay rent, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about crime so much. Instead we live in a world where minority children are treated worse in schools, where society assumes teenagers who aren't white are "up to some trouble", and in a world where those in power regularly show distain for life in general. We've had presidents go on TV defending torture, why the hell should some poor kid who has nothing in life start to feel empathy for anyone?
hashmap 4y ago
What you call "righteous punishment" is just revenge. You want revenge. It is a natural response to being wronged. But that is not justice. And it is no way to build a society. To be overly cliche, two wrongs do not make a right. The moral use of the penal system is to remove the danger from society, make restitution, and rehabilitate where possible. Those are not always possible. Torturing people held captive is its own crime, and one we are guilty of to a horrifying extent as a nation. To say nothing of the innocent people we subject to these horrors.
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  > that is not justice. This might be your opinion, but it is definitely not in keeping with any standard or common definition of justice: - https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose... - https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-we-punish https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-... - https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-th...
  - hashmap 4y ago
    This is not the argument you think it is - of course the people creating an unjust system will define their own system as just. We know that there are better ways, and appealing to tautology is just sort of burying one's head in the sand. https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-system-compares-to-the-us/288505cf-365b-4508-a850-5106f551ce3e https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-s...
    - next_xibalba 4y ago
      I am merely pointing out that your personal opinion of "what justice is" does not accord with the principles upon which the U.S. justice system is built (along with many others around the world). Any definition of justice is going to be arbitrary and subjective. I disagree with your definition. I see elsewhere in this thread that you take an absolutist stance with regard to your opinion on how justice should be done, one in which you're unwilling to acknowledge that it is possible to have differing opinions on what justice should be. That's fine. You're just out of sync with the majority opinion. And you will be ineffective in persuading a sufficient number of other people (see also Marjorie Taylor Green, AOC, etc). You also seem to be able to predict the future ("you're on the wrong side of history"). Again, that's fine (I'll take some stock tips if you can make those predictions too). I just disagree. I won't be replying further as your replies suggest to me an inflexibility and intolerance regarding this subject.
cryoz 4y ago
The point of prisons is to keep criminals away from the rest of society and prevent them from doing further harm.
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  That is one reason to imprison criminals. It is not the only reason. - https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose... - https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-we-punish https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-... - https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-th...
kiba 4y ago
Sounds like you're more interested in feeling good than actually fixing the problem that caused people to be assaulted. We can acknowledge that context and environment foster crime while also not tolerating crime. Are you interested in having less victims and less perpetrators in the future, or is punishment you're interested in for its own sake rather than as a potential tool?
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  You present a false dichotomy. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. What is your specific proposal? Do you think murderers and rapists should go unpunished or be allowed to remain free?
  - kiba 4y ago
    I am not interested in punishing beyond what is necessary to reduce harms. I think harms beyond shown benefit is cruel and arbitrary. What is your specific proposal? Do you think murderers and rapists should go unpunished or be allowed to remain free? I don't care about punishing them. I care about reducing and preventing harm to society.

afandian 4y ago

Do you have the same amount of confidence that the legal system can tell innocent people apart from guilty people?

gxt 4y ago
So because we're not perfect we should do nothing?
next_xibalba 4y ago
Yes. I have seen false conviction estimates ranging from 1 to 5 percent. All systems which involve any kind of classification will have a non-zero false positive rate. Does that mean we should do away with them? Of course not. We should simply seek to improve systems with better and better processes, while accepting that we might approach but never achieve zero false positives. What alternative would you propose? Doing away with criminal justice? Do you think murderers and rapists should be allowed to roam free? How about drug traffickers who knowingly distribute life destroying substances in their communities? Think of someone you really love. Maybe its your child, your parents, your partner, or a friend. Now imagine the pain and fear they would feel as they are murdered. What would they think and feel as they are choked to death? Or bludgeoned? The sheer terror. The pain. The senselessness of their life ending. Imagine that you find their corpse. Imagine the pain and horror you would experience. The hole in your heart. Really try to visualize this scenario. To feel it emotionally and with your senses. Now imagine the perpetrator going unpunished. Walking free. Or getting put on some cushy rehabilitation program to better their life. Does that seem right? Does it seem just? Does it seem fair? In my opinion, this discussion is way too academic, abstract, and one-sided. How about we focus on victims and their survivors?
- kiba 4y ago
  In my opinion, this discussion is way too academic, abstract, and one-sided. How about we focus on victims and their survivors? It seems that victims and their survivors already have a wellspring of support, but not as much effort on reducing the number of perpetrators and victims in our society. We are focused on 'righting' the wrong rather than actually fixing it. Of course, you could incarcerate or execute these individuals, but that would not be a fix in the same way that starving people to death is a way of 'solving' the famine. Individuals, no matter how much 'free will' or 'agency' they have, are all subjected to cause and effect.
- afandian 4y ago
  This conversation isn't in the context of the concept of prisons, or even crime and punishment in general. It's specifically about solitary confinement which, along with corporal punishment, is torture that does permanent damage to someone. If you're going to countenance torture (or capital punishment), the very least you can do is is consider the likelihood of them being innocent. Yes, the scene you describe is appalling. And, from reports, not uncommon in the States. Would I be in the right state of mind to make effective policy or humane decisions after that trauma? No. Would a reasonable person want revenge? Probably. Would a systematic revenge-based system lead to more or less miserable outcomes? The US has the highest rate of incarcerations in the world. Is that working? Putting so much effort into punshiment and so little into prevention smacks of revenge rather than wanting to actually improve things.
- com2kid 4y ago
  So it is OK to inflict righteous punishment on the 5% of innocent prisoners? If we built a society that treated everyone with respect, we likely wouldn't have so much crime to begin with. If our social institutions were setup to remove children from abusive situations ASAP, if we lived in a world where baby formula didn't have to be locked up at grocery stores (seriously, that is very fucked up, anyone who needs baby formula should be able to go to a government provided store and get some no questions asked, no hoops to jump through), and if we lived in a world where parents didn't have to work multiple jobs with every changing shifts just to pay rent, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about crime so much. Instead we live in a world where minority children are treated worse in schools, where society assumes teenagers who aren't white are "up to some trouble", and in a world where those in power regularly show distain for life in general. We've had presidents go on TV defending torture, why the hell should some poor kid who has nothing in life start to feel empathy for anyone?

hashmap 4y ago

What you call "righteous punishment" is just revenge. You want revenge. It is a natural response to being wronged. But that is not justice. And it is no way to build a society. To be overly cliche, two wrongs do not make a right. The moral use of the penal system is to remove the danger from society, make restitution, and rehabilitate where possible. Those are not always possible. Torturing people held captive is its own crime, and one we are guilty of to a horrifying extent as a nation. To say nothing of the innocent people we subject to these horrors.

next_xibalba 4y ago
> that is not justice. This might be your opinion, but it is definitely not in keeping with any standard or common definition of justice: - https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose... - https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-we-punish https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-... - https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-th...
- hashmap 4y ago
  This is not the argument you think it is - of course the people creating an unjust system will define their own system as just. We know that there are better ways, and appealing to tautology is just sort of burying one's head in the sand. https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-system-compares-to-the-us/288505cf-365b-4508-a850-5106f551ce3e https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-s...
  - next_xibalba 4y ago
    I am merely pointing out that your personal opinion of "what justice is" does not accord with the principles upon which the U.S. justice system is built (along with many others around the world). Any definition of justice is going to be arbitrary and subjective. I disagree with your definition. I see elsewhere in this thread that you take an absolutist stance with regard to your opinion on how justice should be done, one in which you're unwilling to acknowledge that it is possible to have differing opinions on what justice should be. That's fine. You're just out of sync with the majority opinion. And you will be ineffective in persuading a sufficient number of other people (see also Marjorie Taylor Green, AOC, etc). You also seem to be able to predict the future ("you're on the wrong side of history"). Again, that's fine (I'll take some stock tips if you can make those predictions too). I just disagree. I won't be replying further as your replies suggest to me an inflexibility and intolerance regarding this subject.

cryoz 4y ago

The point of prisons is to keep criminals away from the rest of society and prevent them from doing further harm.

next_xibalba 4y ago
That is one reason to imprison criminals. It is not the only reason. - https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose... - https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-we-punish https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-... - https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-th...

kiba 4y ago

Sounds like you're more interested in feeling good than actually fixing the problem that caused people to be assaulted. We can acknowledge that context and environment foster crime while also not tolerating crime. Are you interested in having less victims and less perpetrators in the future, or is punishment you're interested in for its own sake rather than as a potential tool?

next_xibalba 4y ago
You present a false dichotomy. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. What is your specific proposal? Do you think murderers and rapists should go unpunished or be allowed to remain free?
- kiba 4y ago
  I am not interested in punishing beyond what is necessary to reduce harms. I think harms beyond shown benefit is cruel and arbitrary. What is your specific proposal? Do you think murderers and rapists should go unpunished or be allowed to remain free? I don't care about punishing them. I care about reducing and preventing harm to society.