4 ms·

Why three? Because baseball? It seems so arbitrary. Recidivism is a real issue but what’s so magical about three strikes? Why not five, or one, or 47?

• oliv__ 3y ago
  One can be a mistake. Two is recidivism, it's bad but we can give you another chance. Three: you blew it. Do not pass go, go directly to jail
  • mulmen 3y ago
    Go directly to jail. Like… Monopoly? It still feels arbitrary to me. If two is recidivism then so is three right? So is three be life? That doesn’t seem right. Shouldn’t we be trying to minimize recidivism?
    • philwelch 3y ago
      If you wanted to minimize recidivism you’d have a life sentence for every crime.
      • mulmen 3y ago
        Only if we ignore crimes committed in prison.
        • philwelch 3y ago
          Solitary confinement and/or death penalty then. Obviously, minimizing recidivism isn’t our only requirement.
    • concordDance 3y ago
      I think the idea is that a "good" person can still have a (small) rate of criminality. If you kill after one crime you'll kill many good people, if you do so after 2 you'll still kill good people. But the odds of a good person committing 3 crimes are low enough to go for it.
• lmm 3y ago
  Do you think it should be five, or one, or 47? It is kind of arbitrary, there's nothing so magical about it. Two or four would be just as good or at least not a whole lot worse; one seems overly harsh, and five seems overly lenient. Social policy is not an exact science, and we make these decisions democratically; most people seem to have a sense that people should get a few chances, but there should be a point at which they get the book thrown at them. Better to try and draw the line in a place that makes sense, and tweak it if necessary, than to be paralysed by indecision because you can't decide exactly where the line should be.
  • mulmen 3y ago
    > Do you think it should be five, or one, or 47? No. I don’t have a preference for the specific number. I am asking by which reasoning we decided on three. If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better. In other words do we have a framework for deciding on additional punishment for repeat offense?
    • lmm 3y ago
      > I am asking by which reasoning we decided on three. If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better. If you think we can do better then what's your concrete proposal for doing better. 2? 4? Paying a philosophy department to crank out papers until we spot one we like?
      • mulmen 3y ago
        Well, I don’t think there’s a one size fits all number. I’m not even convinced previous convictions should be considered in sentencing. I am not asking for answers from philosophers. I am asking for a description of the reasoning behind the existing three strikes policies. A philosophy is just a framework of thinking. It doesn’t have to be created by intellectuals.
        • DiggyJohnson 3y ago
          Three seems like a reasonable number. Not too high and not too low. Like a more relaxed version of "fool me once, shame on you...". I'm surprised by your second line because it seems like you're the one philosophizing. I bet nobody has ever written down a "reason" for three strike policies for criminals/sentencing/etc. It just seems like a reasonable number, and we have the baseball metaphor to back it up. How are we supposed to answer your question if you're not interested in philosophizing?
• hackernewds 3y ago
  how could one ever reach a number? because let's say after 7 issues there's a 80% chance they won't reform. so then why 80%? it's a good chance, don't worry too much about where the line in the sand is drawn. I've seen multiple teams at work also bogged down by this. if there were a name for this phenomenon, I'd love to know
  • mulmen 3y ago
    Well 7 and 80 are both mare up numbers. I think details matter and that reality is messy. So I don’t think an arbitrary number that feels good is the right way to go.