3 ms·

>There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. I

>There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. I'm not following here. Who, specifically, is claiming that those who commit crimes shouldn't be held accountable (prosecuted, incarcerated, etc.) for those crimes because they had a rough childhood/suffered abuse/etc? Please do name names. As a mild example, just as being drunk is a reason for being obnoxious/nasty, it's not an excuse. As a person who is somewhat to the left of what other Americans call "progressives," (who are center/leaning center-left), I don't think that understanding something makes everything okay or that crimes should be ignored because of negative stuff in the perpetrator's past. In fact, I've never heard anyone make such a claim. Many folks (at least in the US, and I'm sure elsewhere too) have been abused by society and the legal system. And we should make every effort to combat that. However, there absolutely are folks who should be removed from society, as they've shown they cannot live in a society without harming it and/or those within it. And those people should be kept apart from society -- for the protection of society. >That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster). Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes. I think the knee jerk response would be about perspectives on poverty and class, but I think the more interesting response is that the criminal justice system already takes causes into account. Provoked Crimes of Passion are treated differently than premeditated ones. Questions of mental capacity are relevant to sentencing. We have things like the twinkie defense and temporary insanity. We have Justified homicide due to self-defense. In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others. Absolutely. Circumstances are usually relevant and should be examined. But GP[0] claimed that "progressives" argue that understanding the causes for the commission of crimes should "excuse" those actions. Which is an unsupported assertion and I reject it because, at least AFAIK, no one takes that position. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 Edit: Added the missing link, cleaned up prose.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    There’s a kind of thing that happens in these discussions where somebody makes a complaint about an extremist position and somebody else responds that nobody thinks that and the two are kind of talking past one another. To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.)
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.) That's as may be, but lots of people say lots of stupid/ridiculous/untrue things all the time. Who, in a position of power or influence (or reasonably adjacent to such power/influence), advocates such a view? I can say all sorts of things, ranging from the mundane ("I like coffee.") to the ridiculous ("There is an underground advance alien invasion base under Biscayne Bay."). And while that does mean I will make coffee for myself tomorrow morning, it most certainly doesn't mean that the Army Corps of Engineers will be planting nukes in Biscayne Bay to destroy those evil aliens. And it doesn't matter how many times I say it or to whom I say it, the Army Corps of Engineers aren't going to nuke Biscayne Bay. And no one should pay any attention to such ramblings. And so I have to ask, why are you giving credence to (as you readily state) what some unbalanced rando thinks about prosecuting crime. And not just giving such credence, you also claimed that such views were those of "progressives." You're now walking that back, but you (and that's what I responded to) implied that "excusing" criminal acts was somehow a "progressive" position. It is not, and never has been. There are those who claim that certain government officials routinely abduct babies and small children in order to murder them and extract some hormone to make them live longer. Overwhelmingly, at least in the US, the folks who make (and/or believe -- not the same thing) such claims almost exclusively supported one political party over another. Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things? By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct? I could give a host of other examples of other ridiculous tropes from the extremes. None of which have support from anyone with or near any real power. The upshot is that I took issue with you (specifically you, dionidium) smearing a broad group of folks (progressives) with a broad brush, claiming that an extreme stance by folks who may or may not consider themselves part of that group is the default belief of a group. That's a clear example of "othering"[0], in which you are attempting to besmirch folks with beliefs they do not hold. If you'd instead said something like "some extremist positions claim that people shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes if they had a bad childhood," I would have heartily agreed. But "othering" has no place in reasoned discourse. Don't like progressives? I'm sure you can find stuff that's actually true to beat up on them. But just making shit up is low effort and doesn't add to the discussion. [0] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 Edit: Added the missing link.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>Seems like a good idea. But no one (AFAIK) is trying to "excuse" criminal behavior even as we try to understand the causes. I think the knee jerk response would be about perspectives on poverty and class, but I think the more interesting response is that the criminal justice system already takes causes into account. Provoked Crimes of Passion are treated differently than premeditated ones. Questions of mental capacity are relevant to sentencing. We have things like the twinkie defense and temporary insanity. We have Justified homicide due to self-defense. In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others.

nobody9999 4y ago
>In reality, the justice system almost always takes causes into account. Just not all causes. The interesting question is why some but not others. Absolutely. Circumstances are usually relevant and should be examined. But GP[0] claimed that "progressives" argue that understanding the causes for the commission of crimes should "excuse" those actions. Which is an unsupported assertion and I reject it because, at least AFAIK, no one takes that position. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 Edit: Added the missing link, cleaned up prose.
- dionidium 4y ago
  There’s a kind of thing that happens in these discussions where somebody makes a complaint about an extremist position and somebody else responds that nobody thinks that and the two are kind of talking past one another. To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.)
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.) That's as may be, but lots of people say lots of stupid/ridiculous/untrue things all the time. Who, in a position of power or influence (or reasonably adjacent to such power/influence), advocates such a view? I can say all sorts of things, ranging from the mundane ("I like coffee.") to the ridiculous ("There is an underground advance alien invasion base under Biscayne Bay."). And while that does mean I will make coffee for myself tomorrow morning, it most certainly doesn't mean that the Army Corps of Engineers will be planting nukes in Biscayne Bay to destroy those evil aliens. And it doesn't matter how many times I say it or to whom I say it, the Army Corps of Engineers aren't going to nuke Biscayne Bay. And no one should pay any attention to such ramblings. And so I have to ask, why are you giving credence to (as you readily state) what some unbalanced rando thinks about prosecuting crime. And not just giving such credence, you also claimed that such views were those of "progressives." You're now walking that back, but you (and that's what I responded to) implied that "excusing" criminal acts was somehow a "progressive" position. It is not, and never has been. There are those who claim that certain government officials routinely abduct babies and small children in order to murder them and extract some hormone to make them live longer. Overwhelmingly, at least in the US, the folks who make (and/or believe -- not the same thing) such claims almost exclusively supported one political party over another. Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things? By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct? I could give a host of other examples of other ridiculous tropes from the extremes. None of which have support from anyone with or near any real power. The upshot is that I took issue with you (specifically you, dionidium) smearing a broad group of folks (progressives) with a broad brush, claiming that an extreme stance by folks who may or may not consider themselves part of that group is the default belief of a group. That's a clear example of "othering"[0], in which you are attempting to besmirch folks with beliefs they do not hold. If you'd instead said something like "some extremist positions claim that people shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes if they had a bad childhood," I would have heartily agreed. But "othering" has no place in reasoned discourse. Don't like progressives? I'm sure you can find stuff that's actually true to beat up on them. But just making shit up is low effort and doesn't add to the discussion. [0] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 Edit: Added the missing link.