4 ms·

I think it's a bit like saying all morbidly obese people can simply stop eating food and then they will lose weight. It's technically true, but it's unrealistic

I think it's a bit like saying all morbidly obese people can simply stop eating food and then they will lose weight. It's technically true, but it's unrealistic to the point of being vacuous in itself. In this case saying "it isn't that simple" means that we live in a completely different world, and experience completely different aspirations and incentives than the person in the article. You and I might think it simple to abide by the terms of parole if we were ever arrested. However, in reality, the people discussed in the article, black people trapped in poverty, do get drawn towards crime and do find it hard to stick to their parole. If you think that means they are deficient as people, then that is more than a little self serving. You might as well puff yourself up and tell yourself they are poor because they deserve to be poor, not because they were born into it. The simple truth is, if there is no incentive for a people to participate in mainstream society then it doesn't matter how hard you harry them, they won't participate. If jail seems like an inevitability, and meaningful work an impossibility, then the decision to inconvenience yourself in order to stick to the terms of your parole is not easy. If you want to modify a person's behaviour through punishment, then bad behaviour has to be punished fairly and then forgiven, followed by a chance to earn rewards through good behaviour. The situation described in the article is one of nothing but punishment, with inevitable results.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Poor black men are not helpless babies unable to make choices for themselves. And if a given individual (regardless of race or income) is a well-muscled 200lb helpless baby with uncontrollable violent impulses, he needs to kept away from the rest of us. The same is true of all sorts of other people with different experiences, aspirations and incentives - for example, child molesters, serial killers and radical islamic proponents ofhonor killings and FGM (don't google it if you don't know the acronym, you don't want to know). Asserting that people can't make choices about their life is, in legal terms, asserting their incompetence. Generally speaking, we institutionalize the incompetent. We don't allow them to run around harming themselves and others, sign contracts, and the like. You might as well puff yourself up and tell yourself they are poor because they deserve to be poor, not because they were born into it. Lets make this issue slightly less morality-based (striking the word "deserve") and more empirical. What evidence (if any) would convince you that poor people become and stay poor primarily as a result of their own choices? then bad behaviour has to be punished fairly and then forgiven, followed by a chance to earn rewards through good behaviour. The man in question was rewarded for good behavior, with parole. Taco Bell further rewarded him for good behavior with money. His bad behavior was punished, and at his next parole hearing further good behavior may be rewarded again. Does he also deserve cash prizes or trophies for not committing crimes?
- jbooth 13y ago
  It's a public policy issue. The guy in the example, from what we know, isn't a threat to society or involved in any crimes. He's working. Yet the system's on him so tightly that a single paperwork slipup from him and he's back to prison. I screw up on paperwork all the time, I'm sympathetic. Is this a good use of our tax money? Guy got out of prison and has a job, let's ride him with the parole system and put him back through the grinder for a year, see if he's a little harder and more bitter when he gets out, maybe gets into dealing drugs or armed robbery instead of that honest job BS. We have a big problem in this country with the most prisoners in the world and a pretty bad recidivism rate. We should be looking for opportunities to move those numbers in the right direction, not the wrong direction, and anyone can get behind that for entirely selfish reasons. Would you rather be paying to lock this guy up or having him pay taxes out of his paycheck?
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I don't know if it's good policy or not, nor was I arguing anything about that point. I was simply objecting to girvo's logical fallacy, and onetwofiveten's paternalistic assertions of black male incompetence. As for what the best policy on this matter is, I have no clue. That's a quantitative problem: is P(commits crime | violated parole) x cost of crime + value of deterrence > cost of incarceration? I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I doubt anyone else here does either.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      It doesn't take paternalistic assertions of black male incompetence to notice that the environment people come from shapes their options and eventually their decisions. Greenwich connecticut produces more stockbrokers than the marcy projects. Why? We could talk all day about it and probably argue on the particulars but certainly there's something there. You're missing some upside variables in your calculation, future tax revenue from paychecks and participation in the economy contributing to GDP. And what about future crimes from some kid who got locked up for typical teenage idiocy in a neighborhood with a high arrest quota and comes out of prison with few job options and a thorough criminal education? Locking someone up costs a lot more than the bill for jail time.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Poor black men are not helpless babies unable to make choices for themselves. And if a given individual (regardless of race or income) is a well-muscled 200lb helpless baby with uncontrollable violent impulses, he needs to kept away from the rest of us. The same is true of all sorts of other people with different experiences, aspirations and incentives - for example, child molesters, serial killers and radical islamic proponents ofhonor killings and FGM (don't google it if you don't know the acronym, you don't want to know). Asserting that people can't make choices about their life is, in legal terms, asserting their incompetence. Generally speaking, we institutionalize the incompetent. We don't allow them to run around harming themselves and others, sign contracts, and the like. You might as well puff yourself up and tell yourself they are poor because they deserve to be poor, not because they were born into it. Lets make this issue slightly less morality-based (striking the word "deserve") and more empirical. What evidence (if any) would convince you that poor people become and stay poor primarily as a result of their own choices? then bad behaviour has to be punished fairly and then forgiven, followed by a chance to earn rewards through good behaviour. The man in question was rewarded for good behavior, with parole. Taco Bell further rewarded him for good behavior with money. His bad behavior was punished, and at his next parole hearing further good behavior may be rewarded again. Does he also deserve cash prizes or trophies for not committing crimes?

jbooth 13y ago
It's a public policy issue. The guy in the example, from what we know, isn't a threat to society or involved in any crimes. He's working. Yet the system's on him so tightly that a single paperwork slipup from him and he's back to prison. I screw up on paperwork all the time, I'm sympathetic. Is this a good use of our tax money? Guy got out of prison and has a job, let's ride him with the parole system and put him back through the grinder for a year, see if he's a little harder and more bitter when he gets out, maybe gets into dealing drugs or armed robbery instead of that honest job BS. We have a big problem in this country with the most prisoners in the world and a pretty bad recidivism rate. We should be looking for opportunities to move those numbers in the right direction, not the wrong direction, and anyone can get behind that for entirely selfish reasons. Would you rather be paying to lock this guy up or having him pay taxes out of his paycheck?
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I don't know if it's good policy or not, nor was I arguing anything about that point. I was simply objecting to girvo's logical fallacy, and onetwofiveten's paternalistic assertions of black male incompetence. As for what the best policy on this matter is, I have no clue. That's a quantitative problem: is P(commits crime | violated parole) x cost of crime + value of deterrence > cost of incarceration? I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I doubt anyone else here does either.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    It doesn't take paternalistic assertions of black male incompetence to notice that the environment people come from shapes their options and eventually their decisions. Greenwich connecticut produces more stockbrokers than the marcy projects. Why? We could talk all day about it and probably argue on the particulars but certainly there's something there. You're missing some upside variables in your calculation, future tax revenue from paychecks and participation in the economy contributing to GDP. And what about future crimes from some kid who got locked up for typical teenage idiocy in a neighborhood with a high arrest quota and comes out of prison with few job options and a thorough criminal education? Locking someone up costs a lot more than the bill for jail time.