2 ms·

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

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.

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.