23 ms·

> There's still a strong culture in the US that fetishizes punishment. A No, you just don't understand the civilization you were born into. It's not a fetish.

> There's still a strong culture in the US that fetishizes punishment. A No, you just don't understand the civilization you were born into. It's not a fetish... it's the point. If government promises to punish transgressors, then individuals will refrain from vigilante justice. This punishment is done, because our monkey morality demands it. There are a few secondary goals. We also seek to sequester the offender away from society, so they can't do more injury. We hope (mostly in vain) that public acknowledgement of the punishment acts as a deterrent. > They don't care how many innocent people get caught up in it Can't speak for anyone else, but I care about that. It's mostly easy policy fixes too. If prosecutors were barred from using plea bargaining (we don't have to ban it absolutely, limit it to 1% of the cases they see per calendar year), some large chunk of the wrongly-convicted would avoid that fate. Absolutely demolish bail bonding as an industry. Hell, if you really want to fix stuff... Prohibit eyewitness testimony in court, including but especially confessions (they can be useful as investigative leads, but aren't evidence of anything except some really perverse human psychology). Who am I supposed to talk to to get the policy fixes implemented? Maybe it's not the attitude problem you think it is.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> because our human morality demands it. This impulse pre-dates hominids by quite a bit. It's shared with some non-mammalian birds.
sokoloff 3y ago
> Prohibit eyewitness testimony in court The Constitution* enshrines the right to face your accuser in open court. That to me seems proper; why do you propose to eliminate it (what gain do you expect)? If you want to eliminate that right, there is a process for amending the Constitution laid out in the document itself. * Technically, the Sixth Amendment.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > The Constitution* enshrines the right to face your accuser in open court. Sure. They'll get to see the face. Of course, for the vast majority of crimes, the accuser is the state. > That to me seems proper; why do you propose to eliminate it Because we don't allow dream interpretation, tarot card readings, or other nonsense to be admitted as evidence either. You know how every few months you hear of some black man that has been in prison for rape for 30 years, until DNA evidence exonerates? Behind every one of those convictions there was some sobbing woman on the stands pointing a finger at him. Eyewitness testimony is junk of the lowest grade, below even those tarot cards I joked about. But yeh, they'll get to sit in the same courtroom with any accusers, we just won't let the accusers get up and make up bullshit that they believe are infallible memories. This isn't a constitutional issue. Legislation is absolutely permitted to set standards of evidence.
- kmoser 3y ago
  The problem isn't so much the admitting of eyewitness testimony, it's the weight given to it and, in your example, the addition of racism that leads to false convictions. As long as there is racism, there will be false convictions.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    No. As long as organic eyeballs and meat brains are involved, there will be false convictions. Human memory isn't video recording. Eyewitness testimony has to be rid of, or we're all just going to keep suffering for its inevitable, constant, and all too common failures.
    - kmoser 3y ago
      So you think video recording always shows the absolute truth and can never be misinterpreted? Any evidence can be misinterpreted. While I agree that eyewitness testimony has been shown to be nowhere near as reliable as most people think, it still has value.
autoexec 3y ago
> It's not a fetish... it's the point. If government promises to punish transgressors, then individuals will refrain from vigilante justice. Punishment itself isn't the problem, some people should be punished with prison time. The people who fetishize punishment aren't content with restricting people's freedom, keeping them separated from the their loved ones, and having years of their life lost. They know that prisoners are beaten, and raped, and kept in solitary for years, and forced to eat rotten food infested with maggots, and are denied basic hygiene or healthcare, and are being cooked to death in cells without AC, and they'll actively oppose any efforts to improve conditions for inmates. We knowingly allow prisoners to be tortured year after year and decade after decade and it isn't because nobody wants things to be that way. > Who am I supposed to talk to to get the policy fixes implemented? It's a problem because politicians know it's popular to be as tough on crime and as cruel to prisoners as possible. People like Joe Arpaio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio) get elected again and again because they're abusive sadists hurting the "right kind of people". If you can find someone willing to run on prison reform you can back them, but otherwise all you can do is reach out to your representatives. Your proposed policy fixes all seem like great ideas.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> because our human morality demands it. This impulse pre-dates hominids by quite a bit. It's shared with some non-mammalian birds.

sokoloff 3y ago

> Prohibit eyewitness testimony in court The Constitution* enshrines the right to face your accuser in open court. That to me seems proper; why do you propose to eliminate it (what gain do you expect)? If you want to eliminate that right, there is a process for amending the Constitution laid out in the document itself. * Technically, the Sixth Amendment.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> The Constitution* enshrines the right to face your accuser in open court. Sure. They'll get to see the face. Of course, for the vast majority of crimes, the accuser is the state. > That to me seems proper; why do you propose to eliminate it Because we don't allow dream interpretation, tarot card readings, or other nonsense to be admitted as evidence either. You know how every few months you hear of some black man that has been in prison for rape for 30 years, until DNA evidence exonerates? Behind every one of those convictions there was some sobbing woman on the stands pointing a finger at him. Eyewitness testimony is junk of the lowest grade, below even those tarot cards I joked about. But yeh, they'll get to sit in the same courtroom with any accusers, we just won't let the accusers get up and make up bullshit that they believe are infallible memories. This isn't a constitutional issue. Legislation is absolutely permitted to set standards of evidence.
kmoser 3y ago
The problem isn't so much the admitting of eyewitness testimony, it's the weight given to it and, in your example, the addition of racism that leads to false convictions. As long as there is racism, there will be false convictions.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  No. As long as organic eyeballs and meat brains are involved, there will be false convictions. Human memory isn't video recording. Eyewitness testimony has to be rid of, or we're all just going to keep suffering for its inevitable, constant, and all too common failures.
  - kmoser 3y ago
    So you think video recording always shows the absolute truth and can never be misinterpreted? Any evidence can be misinterpreted. While I agree that eyewitness testimony has been shown to be nowhere near as reliable as most people think, it still has value.

autoexec 3y ago

> It's not a fetish... it's the point. If government promises to punish transgressors, then individuals will refrain from vigilante justice. Punishment itself isn't the problem, some people should be punished with prison time. The people who fetishize punishment aren't content with restricting people's freedom, keeping them separated from the their loved ones, and having years of their life lost. They know that prisoners are beaten, and raped, and kept in solitary for years, and forced to eat rotten food infested with maggots, and are denied basic hygiene or healthcare, and are being cooked to death in cells without AC, and they'll actively oppose any efforts to improve conditions for inmates. We knowingly allow prisoners to be tortured year after year and decade after decade and it isn't because nobody wants things to be that way. > Who am I supposed to talk to to get the policy fixes implemented? It's a problem because politicians know it's popular to be as tough on crime and as cruel to prisoners as possible. People like Joe Arpaio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio) get elected again and again because they're abusive sadists hurting the "right kind of people". If you can find someone willing to run on prison reform you can back them, but otherwise all you can do is reach out to your representatives. Your proposed policy fixes all seem like great ideas.