3 ms·

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 an

by 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?
- mulmen 3y ago
  I… am interested in philosophizing which is why I specifically asked for the philosophy. “Seems reasonable” and “baseball” aren’t compelling reasons for harsher punishment.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Apologies for misunderstanding. Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments? If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy? These questions leave aside the question of "how many strikes".
    - mulmen 3y ago
      > Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments? They don’t seem to work so… no? If you are convicted of a crime the individual offense and circumstances should be considered. Adding more punishment because someone failed to be persuaded by punishment seems ineffective at rehabilitation. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.” Maybe it makes sense to give up on a person and lock them up forever but if we are going to do that we should be honest and thoughtful about it. “Well baseball” doesn’t seem sophisticated enough to address what should be an exceptional action in a nuanced situation. > If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy? This is a good question. I guess my real objection to three strikes is that it seems both arbitrary (still willing to be wrong here but so far it’s just “baseball”) and mandatory. Similarly I’m also not a huge fan of minimum sentences. Let the judges… judge.
lmm 3y ago
You said "If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better." So suppose for the moment there is no fancy philosophy and the number is just some vague, messy human sense of how many chances someone ought to get before we throw the book at them. What, concretely, is your better proposal?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by mulmen 3y ago

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?

mulmen 3y ago
I… am interested in philosophizing which is why I specifically asked for the philosophy. “Seems reasonable” and “baseball” aren’t compelling reasons for harsher punishment.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Apologies for misunderstanding. Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments? If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy? These questions leave aside the question of "how many strikes".
  - mulmen 3y ago
    > Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments? They don’t seem to work so… no? If you are convicted of a crime the individual offense and circumstances should be considered. Adding more punishment because someone failed to be persuaded by punishment seems ineffective at rehabilitation. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.” Maybe it makes sense to give up on a person and lock them up forever but if we are going to do that we should be honest and thoughtful about it. “Well baseball” doesn’t seem sophisticated enough to address what should be an exceptional action in a nuanced situation. > If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy? This is a good question. I guess my real objection to three strikes is that it seems both arbitrary (still willing to be wrong here but so far it’s just “baseball”) and mandatory. Similarly I’m also not a huge fan of minimum sentences. Let the judges… judge.

lmm 3y ago

You said "If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better." So suppose for the moment there is no fancy philosophy and the number is just some vague, messy human sense of how many chances someone ought to get before we throw the book at them. What, concretely, is your better proposal?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]