4 ms·

> those are people who have been convicted of a crime and want to commit another one FWIW, this is why i said "anti-social" and not criminals in my original po

> those are people who have been convicted of a crime and want to commit another one FWIW, this is why i said "anti-social" and not criminals in my original post. I think with many habitual abusers, the warning signs are there for a long time (often from childhood) before they break the law and before they are convicted. > "permanently can't own a gun" This points to other issues with the current system of punishments. OOH you have people claiming prison is meant for rehabilitation and released prisoners are to be considered fully rehabilitated, having paid their debt (which they argue is to society and not the victim) and not longer a threat to society. OTOH you have the reality that many people are repeat offenders and that also some people can genuinely change (or at least maintain the facade of internal change for the rest of their life). Maybe what we need is a post-prison evaluation to determine which case we're dealing with and whether restrictions (if any) should be temporary or permanent. --- FWIW regarding domestic violence, I think any target of it would be crazy to stay with the aggressor in the same household. People who commit it are often deeply and inherently anti-social without a way to treat them. Instead, as a society, we should be looking for ways to ease the process of their targets separating from them permanently. Case studies of what this kind of abuse looks like should be part of primary education, the abuser should be required to pay for housing for a reasonable period of time so the target can move away, etc.

AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
> FWIW, this is why i said "anti-social" and not criminals in my original post. I think with many habitual abusers, the warning signs are there for a long time (often from childhood) before they break the law and before they are convicted. But then what are you proposing to do? Tell people they lose a right based on vibes even though they've never been convicted of anything? > Maybe what we need is a post-prison evaluation to determine which case we're dealing with and whether restrictions (if any) should be temporary or permanent. Maybe we should reorient prisons into places that actually rehabilitate prisoners and then release the ones that are actually rehabilitated. > FWIW regarding domestic violence, I think any target of it would be crazy to stay with the aggressor in the same household. This is one of the things which is hard for the system to tell from the outside. There are legitimate predators with no record because they have the right friends. Then there are alcoholics who are violent drunks and therefore have a record, but haven't had a drink in ten years and then everything seems fine until they have a relapse. Or the exact same thing except that they stay clean and then everything actually is fine. There are also people who live with an occasionally violent partner because the alternative was their relentlessly violent parents. I find it hard to judge people who have only bad options and then pick one of them. > the abuser should be required to pay for housing for a reasonable period of time so the target can move away, etc. The situation commonly happens to begin with because they're both poor and can only stay above water by sharing accommodations. If you want shelters then build shelters; we don't need things that would only work when the perpetrator has enough money to lawyer their way out of it anyway.
- martin-t 7mo ago
  > then release the ones that are actually rehabilitated Yep. The issue becomes what do to with those who are not or cannot be rehabilitated. But maybe it would be politically tenable, after all, some places have "three strike laws" which are essentially a heavy handed way to get a similar effect. > they lose a right based on vibes > hard for the system to tell from the outside Same issue. The people close to the person know but are hard to prove to outsiders. BTW I wouldn't call it vibes. It's vibes if you've seen it the first time and haven't had any education about cluster B disorders. When you have seen a few people with them and know the names and patterns, you can have a fact based discussion about what drives the person to do what they do and what the probabilities of harmful acts are. For example, if somebody has a documented pattern of bullying others, especially from childhood, it should reduce their rights unless they prove they have undergone successful treatment. It's common to give child offenders more leeway but I think it should be the opposite. Those who offend from childhood do so because they haven't yet learned to hide their nature and abusers are who they really are internally. > There are also people who live with an occasionally violent partner because the alternative was their relentlessly violent parents Maybe the real problem here is housing. The second problem here is that violent (physically or emotionally) people get to keep their property instead of the target, especially when they clearly use the property as leverage against the target. > enough money to lawyer their way out of it Yes another systemic issue. We should do studies about the effects of layers on the outcome of cases. Maybe they happen but I haven't heard about any. We should redefine laws to close loopholes and make them as simple as possible so the need for lawyers is reduced as much as possible - I think the need for layers is a symptom/metric of the system not working. We could also cap the allowed spending on layers.

AnthonyMouse 7mo ago

> FWIW, this is why i said "anti-social" and not criminals in my original post. I think with many habitual abusers, the warning signs are there for a long time (often from childhood) before they break the law and before they are convicted. But then what are you proposing to do? Tell people they lose a right based on vibes even though they've never been convicted of anything? > Maybe what we need is a post-prison evaluation to determine which case we're dealing with and whether restrictions (if any) should be temporary or permanent. Maybe we should reorient prisons into places that actually rehabilitate prisoners and then release the ones that are actually rehabilitated. > FWIW regarding domestic violence, I think any target of it would be crazy to stay with the aggressor in the same household. This is one of the things which is hard for the system to tell from the outside. There are legitimate predators with no record because they have the right friends. Then there are alcoholics who are violent drunks and therefore have a record, but haven't had a drink in ten years and then everything seems fine until they have a relapse. Or the exact same thing except that they stay clean and then everything actually is fine. There are also people who live with an occasionally violent partner because the alternative was their relentlessly violent parents. I find it hard to judge people who have only bad options and then pick one of them. > the abuser should be required to pay for housing for a reasonable period of time so the target can move away, etc. The situation commonly happens to begin with because they're both poor and can only stay above water by sharing accommodations. If you want shelters then build shelters; we don't need things that would only work when the perpetrator has enough money to lawyer their way out of it anyway.

martin-t 7mo ago
> then release the ones that are actually rehabilitated Yep. The issue becomes what do to with those who are not or cannot be rehabilitated. But maybe it would be politically tenable, after all, some places have "three strike laws" which are essentially a heavy handed way to get a similar effect. > they lose a right based on vibes > hard for the system to tell from the outside Same issue. The people close to the person know but are hard to prove to outsiders. BTW I wouldn't call it vibes. It's vibes if you've seen it the first time and haven't had any education about cluster B disorders. When you have seen a few people with them and know the names and patterns, you can have a fact based discussion about what drives the person to do what they do and what the probabilities of harmful acts are. For example, if somebody has a documented pattern of bullying others, especially from childhood, it should reduce their rights unless they prove they have undergone successful treatment. It's common to give child offenders more leeway but I think it should be the opposite. Those who offend from childhood do so because they haven't yet learned to hide their nature and abusers are who they really are internally. > There are also people who live with an occasionally violent partner because the alternative was their relentlessly violent parents Maybe the real problem here is housing. The second problem here is that violent (physically or emotionally) people get to keep their property instead of the target, especially when they clearly use the property as leverage against the target. > enough money to lawyer their way out of it Yes another systemic issue. We should do studies about the effects of layers on the outcome of cases. Maybe they happen but I haven't heard about any. We should redefine laws to close loopholes and make them as simple as possible so the need for lawyers is reduced as much as possible - I think the need for layers is a symptom/metric of the system not working. We could also cap the allowed spending on layers.