3 ms·

An even more interesting question is how HN justifies the reaction you're getting for this comment in this thread with the reaction you'd get for the same comme

An even more interesting question is how HN justifies the reaction you're getting for this comment in this thread with the reaction you'd get for the same comment in one of our typical "complain about the court/prison system" threads. Only so much flagrant cognitive dissonance can sail under the flag of "the community is not homogenous and people pick and choose where to comment". We can pick the "law, order and punishment" route or we can pick the rehabilitation route but lets at least be consistent once we've chosen a path. Picking and choosing on a case by case basis enables all sorts of terrible miscarriages of justice.

lupire 4y ago
You are saying that the people who think that smoking pot deserves less punishment than stealing $1B, are the dissonant ones?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  I'm saying that the people who advocate for or cheer on others advocating for "keep nonviolent criminals out of prison" in one context and then advocate for the opposite or don't let out a peep when others do in the case of a crime they don't like are exhibiting noteworthy amounts of cognitive dissonance. And IMO such cognitive dissonance is fundamentally incompatible with equality under the law. I'm also saying that "advocating for keeping nonviolent criminals out of prison in one context" and "advocating for the opposite in other contexts" happen to consistently to be explained by selection bias alone.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Is it the same people though?
  - asadotzler 4y ago
    Non-violent is a big category. If I'm smoking a joint alone on a boat on the lake, I'm breaking a federal law, so I'm a non-violent criminal. My crime has literally zero impact on others. If I steal millions of dollars from my customers via financial crime, causing people, families, and businesses to go under, leading to marked decrease in their standard of living, including potential impact on housing, healthcare, and other critical components of survival, then I've caused real harm to others, violent or not. Do you see how those two non-violent crimes are materially different? I'm all for reducing the use of prisons, and though both contribute value to society, I'm generally more interested in using prisons and the threat of prisons for rehabilitation and reintegration than for punishment and deterrence. Having said that, non-violent isn't as interesting a measure to me as scope of impact. A CEO of a company that decides to externalize some costs by poisoning the water or air supply making the local population demonstrably sicker may not have carried a knife, but the scope of his impact could be far greater than some homeless guy who stabbed someone in the arm. The first is clearly non-violent while the second is clearly violent, but the truth is, I'd far rather see the poisoning CEO in prison than the stabby homeless guy.
starkd 4y ago
The courts do this all the time. This is why justice is symbolized by a scale that is a constant balancing act between justice and mercy.

lupire 4y ago

You are saying that the people who think that smoking pot deserves less punishment than stealing $1B, are the dissonant ones?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
I'm saying that the people who advocate for or cheer on others advocating for "keep nonviolent criminals out of prison" in one context and then advocate for the opposite or don't let out a peep when others do in the case of a crime they don't like are exhibiting noteworthy amounts of cognitive dissonance. And IMO such cognitive dissonance is fundamentally incompatible with equality under the law. I'm also saying that "advocating for keeping nonviolent criminals out of prison in one context" and "advocating for the opposite in other contexts" happen to consistently to be explained by selection bias alone.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Is it the same people though?
- asadotzler 4y ago
  Non-violent is a big category. If I'm smoking a joint alone on a boat on the lake, I'm breaking a federal law, so I'm a non-violent criminal. My crime has literally zero impact on others. If I steal millions of dollars from my customers via financial crime, causing people, families, and businesses to go under, leading to marked decrease in their standard of living, including potential impact on housing, healthcare, and other critical components of survival, then I've caused real harm to others, violent or not. Do you see how those two non-violent crimes are materially different? I'm all for reducing the use of prisons, and though both contribute value to society, I'm generally more interested in using prisons and the threat of prisons for rehabilitation and reintegration than for punishment and deterrence. Having said that, non-violent isn't as interesting a measure to me as scope of impact. A CEO of a company that decides to externalize some costs by poisoning the water or air supply making the local population demonstrably sicker may not have carried a knife, but the scope of his impact could be far greater than some homeless guy who stabbed someone in the arm. The first is clearly non-violent while the second is clearly violent, but the truth is, I'd far rather see the poisoning CEO in prison than the stabby homeless guy.

starkd 4y ago

The courts do this all the time. This is why justice is symbolized by a scale that is a constant balancing act between justice and mercy.