6 ms·

First, a rant: I always get shocked about how the US justice system works, where punishing (and revenge) is obviously more important than protecting humans. He

First, a rant: I always get shocked about how the US justice system works, where punishing (and revenge) is obviously more important than protecting humans. He should have been released as soon as he posed no threat to others. If the US keeps its current course there will be more people inside prisons than outside of them in the future. He certainly has a lot of expectations. I can only imagine the pressure he is putting upon himself right now. My only advice is for him to find the first regular job he can. That will give him more time to learn programming (if he wants to do that) and release a bit of the pressure to succeed fast.

hvs 14y ago
I'm all for challenging the current US justice system, but I'm not sure why "posed no threat" is your only standard for who should be in prison. He did actually violate the property rights of other people. Prison, in mine and many others' opinions, is not just about rehabilitation.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Then slap an anklet on him and make him say sorry once a week until you're satisfied. "You violated our property rights, so we're going to feed, clothe, and house you for the next twenty years and resent you for it" is something a crazy person would say.
- eduardordm 14y ago
  I think because I live in an extremely violent place it changed the way I think about prisons. I'm not saying that you or me are right or wrong, really. Most criminals are already living in hell. You send them to a prison with this idea that you are punishing them with the clear intention of feeling good in some way (maybe closure?). What people lack of understanding is that prisons are not real punishment for those who are actually there. Some of them might even like it. So, prisons are not efficient in punishment nor rehabilitation. What are those things?
  - FaceKicker 14y ago
    > What people lack of understanding is that prisons are not real punishment for those who are actually there. Some of them might even like it. So, prisons are not efficient in punishment nor rehabilitation. Maybe they're not effective punishment or rehabilitation, but I would certainly say they're an effective deterrent. They might not be a punishment for anyone in there, but they could still be (and at least in my case, certainly are) seen as a punishment for some people who aren't in there. I would bet that a prison sentence is a much better deterrent than, say, volunteer hours or a fine. Whether deterring bank robberies is a valuable enough goal is a matter of opinion I suppose. Obviously this is all conjecture, if someone can pull up a study showing that prison sentences don't have any deterrent effect over other forms of punishment then I'd accept that I'm wrong... But I'd be somewhat shocked if that were the case.
    - ahoyhere 14y ago
      By the by, there's no definitive research that shows that prison sentences act as a deterrent against crime. And there's a lot of research on crime & punishment out there. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=do+prison+sentences+deter+crime https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q...
    - Pwnguinz 14y ago
      > if someone can pull up a study showing that prison sentences don't have any deterrent effect over other forms of punishment then I'd accept I'm wrong... Certainly: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm This is not some joe-schmoe study either, from the executive summary: "Fifty studies dating from 1958 involving 336,052 offenders produced 325 correlations between recidivism and (a) length of time in prison and recidivism or (b) serving a prison sentence vs. receiving a community-based sanction." In particular: "The essential conclusions reached from this study were: 1. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour. 2. On the basis of the present results, excessive use of incarceration has enormous cost implications. 3. In order to determine who is being adversely affected by prison, it is incumbent upon prison officials to implement repeated, comprehensive assessments of offenders’ attitudes, values, and behaviours while incarcerated. 4. The primary justification of prison should be to incapacitate offenders (particularly, those of a chronic, higher risk nature) for reasonable periods and to exact retribution." Summary points 1 and 4 are key: Prisons are not effective deterrence, but they are great tools for indirect retribution suffered by the victim(s). Also in response to your last comment "I'd be somewhat shocked [..]": There are plenty of things that goes against simple human intuition--that's what science is for. Believe the facts, and disregard intuition.
- outworlder 14y ago
  What is it about then? I see only one reason for a person to be locked up: 1- He poses a threat to society and should be removed, as not to endanger others. Prison it is not about education, it is not about rehabilitation. It is required to keep dangerous individuals from causing further harm (the other option would be the capital punishment). Prisons are also used as punishment, but that's a side-effect. There are other ways of having a non-violent (or no longer violent) person repay his debt to society. Putting people in prison for anything other than physical violence is ridiculous. In this case, there was likely violence involved, but we do not have details, so I'll refrain from trying to apply the reasoning to this case.
  - gavinlynch 14y ago
    >> "Prisons are also used as punishment, but that's a side-effect. There are other ways of having a non-violent (or no longer violent) person repay his debt to society." Is this accurate? Depriving someone of normal civilian rights seems pretty punitive to me. And regarding other ways for people to repay their debts to societies: I'm interested in hearing what else we could be doing with these people.
    - outworlder 14y ago
      Well, if you will allow wikipedia quotes: >For most of history, imprisoning has not been a punishment in itself, but rather a way to confine criminals until corporal or capital punishment was administered. > I'm interested in hearing what else we could be doing with these people. "These people" casts a very wide net. My personal point of view: any time that someone is convicted because of material/monetary damages, this individual should not be locked up. He should be paying for that in some other way. Some other way could be with labor - or simple fines. Violent crimes, on the other hand, are a different matter. Take the China or the US approach, I don't particularly care, as I want those people removed from the society the fastest way possible. This case in particular is pretty severe, as it involved firearms and threatening people. I do not have much sympathy for the guy because of that. However, since he was released, his criminal record should be sealed. After all, if he was released, then he is assumed to have "paid off" his debt and also presumed non-violent. Either let people really pay for their crimes or keep them locked up indefinitely. Releasing unemployable people is not a good thing to do. If anything, this person is now much more likely to commit crimes, as legal work opportunities are greatly reduced. Not to mention living with other criminals for most of his adult life...
- cgag 14y ago
  I feel like our system probably shouldn't really cater to sadists.
testimoney 14y ago
Prisons is not only about threat to others, its also about punishment. Someone could maybe kill a whole family, then after a year in prison have an "enlightenment", become religious, have regrets about the killing, and knowing himself that he won't do it again, he still deserves his full prison sentence!
- scarmig 14y ago
  That's moralizing. Punishment is something parents do to their kids or churches do to their congregants. I certainly understand why people strongly believe the prison system should be used to try to balance the grand metaphysical scales of justice, but I tend to think it should be used to make society safer and better. Thinking that criminal justice should be about personal punishment, not social outcomes, is what leads to people being thrown in prison for selling sex or consuming drugs.
- Geee 14y ago
  You're wrong. The whole system should be based on crime prevention, not punishment. There should be better predictors of how likely a person is going to repeat the crime and keep him locked up for that amount of time. Also, predictors of how likely it is for someone to make their first crime, so it could be prevented in the first place. I'm pretty sure that it's possible to predict future criminals from their Facebook data etc, and just send those people somewhere else where their environment matches their behavior.
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    > Also, predictors of how likely it is for someone to make their first crime, so it could be prevented in the first place. They have those, and they're quite accurate. They're also illegal.
  - csense 14y ago
    > predict future criminals from their Facebook data etc, and just send those people somewhere else Sending someone to Siberia because there's a possibility that they might commit a crime in the future? Welcome to Soviet Norightsistan, comrade.
kjackson2012 14y ago
He shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. End of story. If he knew that bank robbing was a crime and he committed it anyway, he deserves whatever punishment was meted out to him. People could (or may) have been killed over his greed for money. That being said, I have no problems with the notion of helping ex-cons try to turn their lives around, after they've paid their debt to society. I am a supporter of Delancey Street organization in SF, which helps ex-cons reintegrate with society by giving them jobs in the moving industry, cooking, selling Christmas trees, etc.
- syedkarim 14y ago
  He told me the details of his crime: No one was injured. And he has completed his entire sentence.
  - kjackson2012 14y ago
    I'm glad, and I hope he is able to reintegrate back into society easily. There are programs like the Delancey Street program in SF that help ex-cons reintegrate by providing them with jobs and support. And then he should try to go to school and further educate himself at night time. Hopefully he gets a break, but he needs to realize it's a tough road ahead, since many people without criminal records are still unemployed, and having a felony conviction will likely make it very hard for him. If he joins a religious organization, maybe he can get help through them as well.
    - syedkarim 14y ago
      Unfortunately, SF is infinitely more progressive than rural Indiana, so those types of programs will be harder to come by. But this suggestion will definitely go on the list.
      - cema 14y ago
        The word progressive does not seem to mean what it used to mean.
newbie12 14y ago
You don't know the details of the crime. For a sentence that long, it likely involved a firearm or some type of physical violence. Protecting the public probably meant locking this guy up until he reached middle age. Having said that, now that he's paid his debt, it does seem like the system should do more to help him return to productive society.
- syedkarim 14y ago
  Yes, a firearm was involved. It was not, however, discharged. Nor was anyone injured during the offense. This was his first offense; he thought (irrational, of course) it was his only option after his small business started falling apart.
  - elliptic 14y ago
    Oh, that's good to know. What if a security guard had pulled a weapon on him? Would anyone have been injured then? Or what if one of the other customers had rushed him? I used to think that a man (it's almost always a man) brings a loaded gun to a crime for one reason - to murder someone who got in his way. I've since mollified my stance on that, but still, the fact that no-one was injured isn't in itself really exculpatory.
    - syedkarim 14y ago
      We're assuming, of course, that the gun was loaded.
  - pc86 14y ago
    Involving a firearm in the commission of a crime is an instant ticket on the Felony Express. If he hadn't had a gun (first offense or not, discharged or not, loaded or not, real or not) he likely would have been out a long time ago. When you have a gun in that situation the number of things that can go wrong increases by an order of magnitude. The adrenaline could make him pull the trigger when he didn't really mean to. Someone in the bank tackling him could make it go off. Hell, it could jam and he could blow his own hand off. I'm glad he's turned his life around but we can't have people committing armed robbery and going back out onto the street in three months.
chank 14y ago
Remember, the US prison system is for profit. So that probably had something to do with his lengthy term.
Zimahl 14y ago
I'll agree with the first regular job. He's been socially isolated for 18 years and probably has very little ability to function in the real world. A job at Pizza Hut or Starbucks will put some money in his pocket, get him self-sufficient, and interacting with people. He'll be able to rent an apartment and then he can spend time coding and learning in his off hours. While he's doing that he's going to have to hit the pavement and find someone willing to take a chance on him. That will be the tough part. He needs to build a resume. Contracting might be a good way to start. Lots of luck to him. Have him start a blog so we can follow how it's going. I'd find the insights into the prison system and his work toward the future very interesting, if he's will to share.
- syedkarim 14y ago
  I'll definitely suggest the blog to him. While researching his situation I came across someone on Quora who was just recently released after 25 years. He writes extensively on the subject you're curious about: http://michaelsantos.com/ http://michaelsantos.com/ http://www.quora.com/Michael-Santos-4 http://www.quora.com/Michael-Santos-4
  - outworlder 14y ago
    One quote from those links in particular stands out: > "The links above provide definitive proof that a prisoner can indeed write books. Bringing those books to market, however, could expose the person in prison to disciplinary problems. Since I brought many books to market during my lengthy odyssey, authorities frequently charged me with the disciplinary infraction of “conducting a business.” They locked me in solitary confinement numerous times and they frequently uprooted my family by transferring me in chains to prisons across state lines. " I think that inmates should not be able to "conduct business" if they are illegal, indeed. And should not have cellphones or anything of the sort. But in this case, the guys should have been congratulated and his sentence reduced somewhat.
- gknoy 14y ago
  > he's going to have to ... find someone willing to take a chance on him. He needs to build a resume. Contracting might be a good way to start. These are very good points. The conceptual difference between a contractor and an employee may make it a lot easier to find rewarding work for someone that would "fail" most companies' background checks.
fearless 14y ago
The US prison system is messed up, but mostly with regard to nonviolent/drug offenders. I am very libertarian, but I don't think this is a valid criticism in this case. Robbing a bank is not "making a mistake once". Buying coke or shoplifting is making a mistake. Bank robbery is a premeditated, violent, serious crime, and society is right to punish it severely. If you're committing bank robbery, you're likely also committing lots of other crimes: assault, threats, criminal confinement, fleeing police, etc.
kbenson 14y ago
> First, a rant: I always get shocked about how the US justice system works, where punishing (and revenge) is obviously more important than protecting humans. A simplistic view of how the currently policy such came about will probably do little to help change it, as arguments against it from that point will not sway people who don't believe that's the cause. Possible other reasons someone might favor longer prison sentences (by no means exhaustive): * Crime deterrence through harsher penalties. * The perception that these are inherently bad people, and should be kept away from society for as long as possible. * Corporate/union entities that benefit from a larger prison system. Unless you target the actual reason someone holds a view, it's hard to argue against it effectively (but not impossible, you can just provide so many negatives that whatever positives they think they get are overwhelmed).

hvs 14y ago

I'm all for challenging the current US justice system, but I'm not sure why "posed no threat" is your only standard for who should be in prison. He did actually violate the property rights of other people. Prison, in mine and many others' opinions, is not just about rehabilitation.

Cushman 14y ago
Then slap an anklet on him and make him say sorry once a week until you're satisfied. "You violated our property rights, so we're going to feed, clothe, and house you for the next twenty years and resent you for it" is something a crazy person would say.
eduardordm 14y ago
I think because I live in an extremely violent place it changed the way I think about prisons. I'm not saying that you or me are right or wrong, really. Most criminals are already living in hell. You send them to a prison with this idea that you are punishing them with the clear intention of feeling good in some way (maybe closure?). What people lack of understanding is that prisons are not real punishment for those who are actually there. Some of them might even like it. So, prisons are not efficient in punishment nor rehabilitation. What are those things?
- FaceKicker 14y ago
  > What people lack of understanding is that prisons are not real punishment for those who are actually there. Some of them might even like it. So, prisons are not efficient in punishment nor rehabilitation. Maybe they're not effective punishment or rehabilitation, but I would certainly say they're an effective deterrent. They might not be a punishment for anyone in there, but they could still be (and at least in my case, certainly are) seen as a punishment for some people who aren't in there. I would bet that a prison sentence is a much better deterrent than, say, volunteer hours or a fine. Whether deterring bank robberies is a valuable enough goal is a matter of opinion I suppose. Obviously this is all conjecture, if someone can pull up a study showing that prison sentences don't have any deterrent effect over other forms of punishment then I'd accept that I'm wrong... But I'd be somewhat shocked if that were the case.
  - ahoyhere 14y ago
    By the by, there's no definitive research that shows that prison sentences act as a deterrent against crime. And there's a lot of research on crime & punishment out there. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=do+prison+sentences+deter+crime https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q...
  - Pwnguinz 14y ago
    > if someone can pull up a study showing that prison sentences don't have any deterrent effect over other forms of punishment then I'd accept I'm wrong... Certainly: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm This is not some joe-schmoe study either, from the executive summary: "Fifty studies dating from 1958 involving 336,052 offenders produced 325 correlations between recidivism and (a) length of time in prison and recidivism or (b) serving a prison sentence vs. receiving a community-based sanction." In particular: "The essential conclusions reached from this study were: 1. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour. 2. On the basis of the present results, excessive use of incarceration has enormous cost implications. 3. In order to determine who is being adversely affected by prison, it is incumbent upon prison officials to implement repeated, comprehensive assessments of offenders’ attitudes, values, and behaviours while incarcerated. 4. The primary justification of prison should be to incapacitate offenders (particularly, those of a chronic, higher risk nature) for reasonable periods and to exact retribution." Summary points 1 and 4 are key: Prisons are not effective deterrence, but they are great tools for indirect retribution suffered by the victim(s). Also in response to your last comment "I'd be somewhat shocked [..]": There are plenty of things that goes against simple human intuition--that's what science is for. Believe the facts, and disregard intuition.
outworlder 14y ago
What is it about then? I see only one reason for a person to be locked up: 1- He poses a threat to society and should be removed, as not to endanger others. Prison it is not about education, it is not about rehabilitation. It is required to keep dangerous individuals from causing further harm (the other option would be the capital punishment). Prisons are also used as punishment, but that's a side-effect. There are other ways of having a non-violent (or no longer violent) person repay his debt to society. Putting people in prison for anything other than physical violence is ridiculous. In this case, there was likely violence involved, but we do not have details, so I'll refrain from trying to apply the reasoning to this case.
- gavinlynch 14y ago
  >> "Prisons are also used as punishment, but that's a side-effect. There are other ways of having a non-violent (or no longer violent) person repay his debt to society." Is this accurate? Depriving someone of normal civilian rights seems pretty punitive to me. And regarding other ways for people to repay their debts to societies: I'm interested in hearing what else we could be doing with these people.
  - outworlder 14y ago
    Well, if you will allow wikipedia quotes: >For most of history, imprisoning has not been a punishment in itself, but rather a way to confine criminals until corporal or capital punishment was administered. > I'm interested in hearing what else we could be doing with these people. "These people" casts a very wide net. My personal point of view: any time that someone is convicted because of material/monetary damages, this individual should not be locked up. He should be paying for that in some other way. Some other way could be with labor - or simple fines. Violent crimes, on the other hand, are a different matter. Take the China or the US approach, I don't particularly care, as I want those people removed from the society the fastest way possible. This case in particular is pretty severe, as it involved firearms and threatening people. I do not have much sympathy for the guy because of that. However, since he was released, his criminal record should be sealed. After all, if he was released, then he is assumed to have "paid off" his debt and also presumed non-violent. Either let people really pay for their crimes or keep them locked up indefinitely. Releasing unemployable people is not a good thing to do. If anything, this person is now much more likely to commit crimes, as legal work opportunities are greatly reduced. Not to mention living with other criminals for most of his adult life...
cgag 14y ago
I feel like our system probably shouldn't really cater to sadists.

testimoney 14y ago

Prisons is not only about threat to others, its also about punishment. Someone could maybe kill a whole family, then after a year in prison have an "enlightenment", become religious, have regrets about the killing, and knowing himself that he won't do it again, he still deserves his full prison sentence!

scarmig 14y ago
That's moralizing. Punishment is something parents do to their kids or churches do to their congregants. I certainly understand why people strongly believe the prison system should be used to try to balance the grand metaphysical scales of justice, but I tend to think it should be used to make society safer and better. Thinking that criminal justice should be about personal punishment, not social outcomes, is what leads to people being thrown in prison for selling sex or consuming drugs.
Geee 14y ago
You're wrong. The whole system should be based on crime prevention, not punishment. There should be better predictors of how likely a person is going to repeat the crime and keep him locked up for that amount of time. Also, predictors of how likely it is for someone to make their first crime, so it could be prevented in the first place. I'm pretty sure that it's possible to predict future criminals from their Facebook data etc, and just send those people somewhere else where their environment matches their behavior.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  > Also, predictors of how likely it is for someone to make their first crime, so it could be prevented in the first place. They have those, and they're quite accurate. They're also illegal.
- csense 14y ago
  > predict future criminals from their Facebook data etc, and just send those people somewhere else Sending someone to Siberia because there's a possibility that they might commit a crime in the future? Welcome to Soviet Norightsistan, comrade.

kjackson2012 14y ago

He shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. End of story. If he knew that bank robbing was a crime and he committed it anyway, he deserves whatever punishment was meted out to him. People could (or may) have been killed over his greed for money. That being said, I have no problems with the notion of helping ex-cons try to turn their lives around, after they've paid their debt to society. I am a supporter of Delancey Street organization in SF, which helps ex-cons reintegrate with society by giving them jobs in the moving industry, cooking, selling Christmas trees, etc.

syedkarim 14y ago
He told me the details of his crime: No one was injured. And he has completed his entire sentence.
- kjackson2012 14y ago
  I'm glad, and I hope he is able to reintegrate back into society easily. There are programs like the Delancey Street program in SF that help ex-cons reintegrate by providing them with jobs and support. And then he should try to go to school and further educate himself at night time. Hopefully he gets a break, but he needs to realize it's a tough road ahead, since many people without criminal records are still unemployed, and having a felony conviction will likely make it very hard for him. If he joins a religious organization, maybe he can get help through them as well.
  - syedkarim 14y ago
    Unfortunately, SF is infinitely more progressive than rural Indiana, so those types of programs will be harder to come by. But this suggestion will definitely go on the list.
    - cema 14y ago
      The word progressive does not seem to mean what it used to mean.

newbie12 14y ago

You don't know the details of the crime. For a sentence that long, it likely involved a firearm or some type of physical violence. Protecting the public probably meant locking this guy up until he reached middle age. Having said that, now that he's paid his debt, it does seem like the system should do more to help him return to productive society.

syedkarim 14y ago
Yes, a firearm was involved. It was not, however, discharged. Nor was anyone injured during the offense. This was his first offense; he thought (irrational, of course) it was his only option after his small business started falling apart.
- elliptic 14y ago
  Oh, that's good to know. What if a security guard had pulled a weapon on him? Would anyone have been injured then? Or what if one of the other customers had rushed him? I used to think that a man (it's almost always a man) brings a loaded gun to a crime for one reason - to murder someone who got in his way. I've since mollified my stance on that, but still, the fact that no-one was injured isn't in itself really exculpatory.
  - syedkarim 14y ago
    We're assuming, of course, that the gun was loaded.
- pc86 14y ago
  Involving a firearm in the commission of a crime is an instant ticket on the Felony Express. If he hadn't had a gun (first offense or not, discharged or not, loaded or not, real or not) he likely would have been out a long time ago. When you have a gun in that situation the number of things that can go wrong increases by an order of magnitude. The adrenaline could make him pull the trigger when he didn't really mean to. Someone in the bank tackling him could make it go off. Hell, it could jam and he could blow his own hand off. I'm glad he's turned his life around but we can't have people committing armed robbery and going back out onto the street in three months.

chank 14y ago

Remember, the US prison system is for profit. So that probably had something to do with his lengthy term.

Zimahl 14y ago

I'll agree with the first regular job. He's been socially isolated for 18 years and probably has very little ability to function in the real world. A job at Pizza Hut or Starbucks will put some money in his pocket, get him self-sufficient, and interacting with people. He'll be able to rent an apartment and then he can spend time coding and learning in his off hours. While he's doing that he's going to have to hit the pavement and find someone willing to take a chance on him. That will be the tough part. He needs to build a resume. Contracting might be a good way to start. Lots of luck to him. Have him start a blog so we can follow how it's going. I'd find the insights into the prison system and his work toward the future very interesting, if he's will to share.

syedkarim 14y ago
I'll definitely suggest the blog to him. While researching his situation I came across someone on Quora who was just recently released after 25 years. He writes extensively on the subject you're curious about: http://michaelsantos.com/ http://michaelsantos.com/ http://www.quora.com/Michael-Santos-4 http://www.quora.com/Michael-Santos-4
- outworlder 14y ago
  One quote from those links in particular stands out: > "The links above provide definitive proof that a prisoner can indeed write books. Bringing those books to market, however, could expose the person in prison to disciplinary problems. Since I brought many books to market during my lengthy odyssey, authorities frequently charged me with the disciplinary infraction of “conducting a business.” They locked me in solitary confinement numerous times and they frequently uprooted my family by transferring me in chains to prisons across state lines. " I think that inmates should not be able to "conduct business" if they are illegal, indeed. And should not have cellphones or anything of the sort. But in this case, the guys should have been congratulated and his sentence reduced somewhat.
gknoy 14y ago
> he's going to have to ... find someone willing to take a chance on him. He needs to build a resume. Contracting might be a good way to start. These are very good points. The conceptual difference between a contractor and an employee may make it a lot easier to find rewarding work for someone that would "fail" most companies' background checks.

fearless 14y ago

The US prison system is messed up, but mostly with regard to nonviolent/drug offenders. I am very libertarian, but I don't think this is a valid criticism in this case. Robbing a bank is not "making a mistake once". Buying coke or shoplifting is making a mistake. Bank robbery is a premeditated, violent, serious crime, and society is right to punish it severely. If you're committing bank robbery, you're likely also committing lots of other crimes: assault, threats, criminal confinement, fleeing police, etc.

kbenson 14y ago

> First, a rant: I always get shocked about how the US justice system works, where punishing (and revenge) is obviously more important than protecting humans. A simplistic view of how the currently policy such came about will probably do little to help change it, as arguments against it from that point will not sway people who don't believe that's the cause. Possible other reasons someone might favor longer prison sentences (by no means exhaustive): * Crime deterrence through harsher penalties. * The perception that these are inherently bad people, and should be kept away from society for as long as possible. * Corporate/union entities that benefit from a larger prison system. Unless you target the actual reason someone holds a view, it's hard to argue against it effectively (but not impossible, you can just provide so many negatives that whatever positives they think they get are overwhelmed).