I'm fascinated by your response. You admit outright that you don't care what studies say, yet you think your opinion on how society should be run is valid. Can

I'm fascinated by your response. You admit outright that you don't care what studies say, yet you think your opinion on how society should be run is valid. Can we explore that? First, I need to point by point respond to your comment, I simply can't help myself. If you aren't interested, I'd be grateful if you could jump to my TLDR and explore with me my question. > But it's the evidence I've seen with my own eyes, not something I've read in some paper or study Known as "anecdotal evidence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence > "Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence." > My evidence is (I see no other way to put it than to be frank) just common sense. No, it isn't, because it isn't common to me and other people that are in favor of evidence-based judicial methods, nor in general, left-leaning people. I notice a tendency of conservative ideology to claim "common sense" for their principles, but this seems to have usually just meant "the traditional beliefs I hold, backed by anecdotal evidence, confirmation and selection bias, and arrived at by refusing to think past the very first principle conclusion of a subject." A good example is "build the wall." Immigrants are coming in and that's Bad, for whatever reason. Simple, build a wall, that'll keep them out. I've seen fences keep my dogs in the backyard. It all works! This example is unrelated to the current topic, more representation of the style of thinking I believe necessary to maintain positions that fly directly in the face of evidence and deeper analysis. > I've met plenty of people in my life. I've seen humans and I know how humans behave. When there is threat of punishment, legitimate actual punishment, people fall into line. This argument could be used to justify, for example, corporeal punishment, which has been demonstrated to not work. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-pu... It's another great example of why your self-assured "common sense" position fails. "If I threaten to beat my children, they stop stealing candy." No, they simply get better at stealing candy in a way that you don't notice, because you selected for avoiding traumatic punishment, not correcting behavior. Ample evidence holds this to be true and it is now the generally agreed upon medical consensus in child rearing, in short, it is "common sense" for those in the know. > You have to know this to be true - it's literally human nature. I don't know this to be true, it contradicts my experience, driven by a considered and researched approach to interpersonal relationships. Dale Carnegie is considered by many to be the foremost expert in interpersonal relationships and effective communication - where does he recommend "threat of punishment" in interpersonal relationships? Instead, he recommends empathy, treating others like equals, calmness, and clear communication. These are incompatible with harsh punishment. Try this on for size: who gets better results, the asshole boss wielding the stick, or the boss that puts in the effort to get to know their team, communicate expectations, and shares and celebrates wins? Pick up any startup book recommended by all these ycombinator folks, see what type of boss they recommend you be. Regarding your teacher example, I was once a teacher, and I come from a family of teachers. I'm not arguing for teachers to be pushovers, but the "harsh teachers" don't really get good results, at best they might get a quiet classroom. Is that what you want to measure and select for? > Punishments work. Deterrence works. Hammurabi code logic, and punishment + deterrence aren't as effective judicial strategies as restorative justice and rehabilitation of criminals. Example: Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway with the lowest recidivism rates in the world. > Norway's prison system is renowned as one of the most effective and humane in the world. Yet somehow this "least punitive" justice system on earth has the best results. This contradicts your "common sense." > Another thing I personally know is that you can't take any shit. If people start trying to test your shit, test your boundaries, you have to stamp that behavior out immediately, or it will intensify. Trying to apply your own interpersonal philosophy like this to a society's judicial strategy alone seems flawed. This is vague, which alone means we shouldn't be basing policy off of it. It also doesn't sound to me like a very developed personal philosophy. People have been writing about interpersonal philosophy for a while and I'm surprised this simplistic "smash those that give you shit" style didn't evaporate upon first reading of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. > There exists bullies and sociopaths out there, and they will keep raising the bar of abuse. Ironically, those in my camp find the "retributive justice" arguments you're making to be sociopathic. You see a homeless drug addict and immediately jump to "throw this degenerate in prison," rather than the more empathetic take of wondering what caused the person's life to fall to such a wretched state. You'd rather spend the money keeping them behind bars, punishing them for their "personal failings," than spend (demonstrably less) money trying to help them. As a former conservative, I believe this is because empathy, especially for perceived degenerates, feels icky and feels like weakness, which is an intolerable personal feeling to have. Forgive me for reaching so far if this isn't how you feel, but this is what I perceive that other still-conservative people believe. > So in my view, tolerating petty crimes only leads to people pushing boundaries and more and more violent crime. There isn't evidence to support this, and also this ignores that the definition of "crime" can change. Example, there's no good reason for weed to be illegal, and yet alcohol to be legal, considering alcohol is the far more dangerous drug. We saw exactly what is to be expected when alcohol is made illegal: the formation of alcohol cartels (mafia) that took over the streets. When prohibition ended, their power (income) was cut into pieces and the era of the mafia ended. No, going to war with them in the streets didn't solve it, ending prohibition did. And yet by your logic every person smoking weed on a street in Texas is technically a criminal. By tolerating their action we "tolerate more violent crime." The logic doesn't hold. > I feel that our society should not tolerate such disorderliness, and instead should actively shun and punish such behavior, in order to strongly incentivize people to become productive and contributing members of society. We tried that, and it doesn't seem to work. It turns out the best solution to homelessness is simply housing the homeless. "Housing First" is what I'm describing, and evidence shows it works better than what you're suggesting: https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/ https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/ It's also gross that what you're arguing for is kicking a beaten dog. > society needs to help these people get control of their lives. It's super weird to me that to the extent you're willing to acknowledge society has responsibility to their fellow man (who happen to be homeless), it's only to argue that we must essentially brutalize them to make them feel even worse about being homeless / drug addicts / whatever. > Have I seen studies or other acceptable documentation for my conclusion? Nothing that I can specifically remember, or at least nothing that I have at hand That's because there are none. That's because your position is based on feelings, not facts. > But I don't feel I NEED documentation. As an engineer, if I said this in a meeting about considering which technology to choose for a given application, I would be fired. I don't know why you think this is an acceptable way to opine about social issues, literally willfully ignorantly. > It's just so obvious to me that punishing crime serves to deter crime, and the harsher the punishment, the stronger the deterrent You are partially correct, but then entirely incorrect, regarding harsher punishment being a stronger deterrent: > "The certainty of being caught is a vastly more "powerful deterrent than the punishment. > "Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime." https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf > I personally don't commit any crimes I don't believe you. Have you weighed every lobster you ever purchased? Ever picked up a feather without first checking it wasn't a bald eagle feather? Ever divert storm sewer water for fun? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-criminal-unfair-column/70630978/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-... There may be as many 300,000 federal regulations that carry criminal penalties. What's your bet you've never broken a single one? (hint: you basically can't possibly know, and this is why you should never talk to cops btw) > and I feel that harshly punishing things like vandalism or burglary will only make society better for all law-abiding citizens. This is reactionary rhetoric that just "others" undesirables and is why people like me push back so hard, btw. There's no such thing as a "law-abiding citizen" as I explained earlier. I don't want to get too much into the weeds of this, how cops are trained to see everyone as a potential enemy etc etc, but this is where this rhetoric from my position comes from. TLDR Though you're self admittedly willfully ignorant, as in, by your own admission uninterested in reading into effective judicial strategies (or even really effective interpersonal relationship strategies), you hold strong opinion on how society should be run and believe you know enough that the rest of us should adopt your strategies. Why should we do that?