12 ms·

Americans also have a uniquely individualistic philosophy of life. They are big on "personal responsibility" and free will. I see lots of people with no sympath

Americans also have a uniquely individualistic philosophy of life. They are big on "personal responsibility" and free will. I see lots of people with no sympathy for people who are caught up in the justice system, based on a belief that they "chose" to do whatever they did, and are inherently evil and deserve whatever they get. We love retributive justice here in the USA. That will be very hard to dislodge. It seems abundantly clear that there is no such thing as truly (i.e. supernatural) free will, and severe punishments do little to deter crime. The phrase "they are just x" gets thrown around a lot. They are just animals. They are just monsters. They are just evil. As if these qualities are discrete things that exist by themselves... What can we do to convince people that criminals are not, in fact, "just" bad people?

Crito 11y ago
The non-existence of supernatural free will is largely irrelevant; despite it not existing it is abundantly clear that we can modify expected behavior by offering rewards or punishments. Supernatural free will is not necessary in the slightest to explain this. > "severe punishments to little to deter crime." I have seen some evidence that this is the case specifically for the death penalty. I've seen little to suggest that it holds true throughout more general cases. Nevertheless, even if we rule out deterrence as a possibility, we're still left with incapacitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29). That undeniably does work, and it works damn well. The thought of being locked up in a cell may not deter a free man, and it may not cure a captured man, but it will prevent that man from victimizing innocent members of the general public again. You don't need silly concepts of supernatural souls or good and evil to benefit from incapacitation. No matter what we think of any of these issues, the fact of the matter is that Ted Kaczynski is unable to mail a bomb to people like you or I.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  While incapacitation is a valid need, the current American justice system appears to completely disregard the possibility of rehabilitation, especially for non-violent/victimless crimes. Incapacitation isn't so important when rehabilitation is possible, and accepting the lack of supernatural free will should help with acceptance of rehabilitation.
  - Crito 11y ago
    Incapacitation is an essential part of rehabilitation, unless you believe that every criminal can be fixed with a simple out-patient procedure. While rehabilitation is in progress but not yet complete, incapacitation is essential. As I see it, one of the biggest problems with the American justice system is pre-mature release. We are releasing criminals before they are known to be rehabilitated. If we're going to go with rehabilitation, then we need to scrap the idea of determining how long somebody will be incapacitated (imprisoned) during sentencing. The duration of incapacitation should be determined solely by how long rehabilitation takes. A doctor continues treatment for as long as treatment is necessary. You don't hear them say things like "Okay Mr Johnson, looks like you've got cancer. We're going to do chemo for 6 months, then you'll be done!" Rather, you get "we're going to start chemo, and we'll continue to monitor your progress." We also need to set sane expectations for our own abilities. What is the false-positive rate for rehabilitation? Does that false-positive rate, when considered with the severity of the crime, work out to a risk that we are willing to accept? What if 1% of captured and rehabilitated murderers go on to murder again? Is that an acceptable risk? What if it's 5%, or 10%? Are there crimes so awful that no false-positive rate is acceptable?
    - ahlatimer 11y ago
      While I agree with your general point -- that rehabilitation isn't determinable at sentencing -- I'd still make the argument that focusing on rehabilitation with no other change in the system would lead to more positive outcomes than our current system. Yes, keeping people in some rehab situation for as long as necessary but no longer would be ideal, simply allowing for some possibility of rehabilitation for the time that they are sentenced would still be a better situation than the one we have now. Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct. For an historical (and I believe this still happens in some cases?) example of how things can go wrong, take a look at the old state-run mental health system the US had.
      - Crito 11y ago
        Just tacking rehabilitation onto our existing system yields a hybridization of rehabilitation and punishment, where people are release either when they are rehabilitated, or when we have determined that they are punished enough. Whichever happened first would trigger the release. This leaves us with a system that deliberately releases non-reformed criminals back into the public. Maybe that is better than our current system, but I think we should certainly aspire for better. > "Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct" While that is true, I would argue that not incapacitating somebody for exactly as long as is necessary is itself injustice. It means that we will knowingly be imprisoning people longer than is necessary (obviously abusive) and it means that we will be knowingly releasing non-reformed criminals back into the public (I consider this to be abusive to the public.) Incapacitation determined on individual basis is a precise tool, a very sharp knife. In the hands of an authoritarian regime, it could be very dangerous. But in the hands of a liberal lawful society, it allows the least harm possible for everybody involved. We could deny ourselves these tools, for fear of what could be done with them (and in the process, cause certain unnecessary harm). Or we could strive to be the very best that we can be, and give ourselves the tools necessary to achieve that.
- jcromartie 11y ago
  I completely agree. And I think we should separate incapacitation from the idea of retribution.
mikeash 11y ago
I don't know that this is uniquely American, but I agree that this happens and I think it's pretty scary. For example, in the discussions about recent high-profile police shootings, a lot of people just dismissed the whole thing once they found out about that the victims were themselves criminals. A disturbing number of people immediately stopped having any sympathy the moment they found out that e.g. Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store or that Eric Garner was selling cigarettes illegally. They would generally not come out and say that people deserve summary execution for these crimes, but that is essentially the argument that they end up making. If you can't even convince people that small-time criminals deserve to survive an encounter with the police, then good luck convincing them that they deserve fair treatment in court....
- theorique 11y ago
  A disturbing number of people immediately stopped having any sympathy the moment they found out that e.g. Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store or that Eric Garner was selling cigarettes illegally. They would generally not come out and say that people deserve summary execution for these crimes, but that is essentially the argument that they end up making. It's less that these men "deserved" death for what they did or didn't do, and more that they made decisions that spiraled out of control and led to unfortunate consequences - in Brown's case, physically attacking an armed police officer; in Garner's case, refusing to go along with police when asked ("resisting arrest"). Neither crime is punishable by death, but when you take actions that lead to police escalating use of force [1], the consequences are unpredictable and generally not going to be good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That's a different thing altogether. I have problems with that approach as well, but it's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who literally cease to care about Brown's and Garner's deaths the moment they found out that they were criminals. Not even getting into the specific police interactions, just straight to "well, he had just robbed a convenience store, so who cares?" I understand that you presumably don't believe that, but I saw a lot of people who did.
stephengillie 11y ago
One step is to teach people to see groups of others as individuals - looking into a rioting crowd, and seeing a sea of individuals who each have wants and dreams that are being trampled by something. Too many people get stuck into "grouping" people because it's cognitively easier. This makes it easier to strawman and hate a group.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Or maybe they're angry and deluded enough to think destruction will make people want to help them. I see that a lot.
  - jcromartie 11y ago
    Why do you think they are deluded in this way?
    - Kalium 11y ago
      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows... http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf Long story short, violence does not make other people want to help you or give you what you ask for. It makes those other people do the opposite. When people believe something the opposite of both basic sense and history for romantic reasons, I call them deluded. This is the case with those who argue that riots bring support to their viewpoints.
      - jcromartie 11y ago
        It's one thing to say that people are deluded when they act against their own interests. But how do you think someone would arrive at the conclusion that rioting would be helpful? Where do you think they got these "romantic reasons" that are actually bad for them?
        11y ago
im3w1l 11y ago
Well, you don't "will" yourself into a false arrest. That is a point I think even those who value retributive justice can appreciate.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  No, but running from police, or driving from them, could get you arrested. Running in the opposite direction as police shouldn't be a cause for suspicion or arrest.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    > Running in the opposite direction as police shouldn't be a cause for suspicion or arrest. Most people would think just the opposite. If you run then you are guilty of something, or trying to hide something. If you are actually innocent, then that can be sorted out when the cops question you, but either way running away isn't some kind of get out of jail free card to avoid the police.
    - stephengillie 11y ago
      > If you are actually innocent, then that can be sorted out when the cops question you... You can see how well that worked out for Freddie Gray.
      - res0nat0r 11y ago
        An exception to the rule doesn't really prove much in this case.
        stephengillie 11y ago
        It's cute that you think his situation was an exception.
        res0nat0r 11y ago
joshstrange 11y ago
>What can we do to convince people that criminals are not, in fact, "just" bad people? If you find out please let me know. I work in the corrections industry and I deal with this concept on a daily basis and I makes me ill...
mason240 11y ago
>based on a belief that they "chose" to do whatever they did, You don't think that people who commit crimes choose to commit then? What is controlling the minds of murders, rapists, arsonists, ect if not the people performing their actions?
- vijayr 11y ago
  Poverty, Mental Illness, wrong environment etc. There was a case where a guy robbed $100 from a bank, and just sat there waiting for the cops to show up. He had some medical condition and he believed if he went to jail, he'll get free healthcare (he couldn't afford to even buy a meal). That is one example of poverty. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples. And this is a guy who had worked for 30 years (or something like that) in a retail job and retired.
  - mason240 11y ago
    If they are incapable of controlling their own actions to point that they are being violent to society (as you say they are), then they need to be separated from society.

Crito 11y ago

The non-existence of supernatural free will is largely irrelevant; despite it not existing it is abundantly clear that we can modify expected behavior by offering rewards or punishments. Supernatural free will is not necessary in the slightest to explain this. > "severe punishments to little to deter crime." I have seen some evidence that this is the case specifically for the death penalty. I've seen little to suggest that it holds true throughout more general cases. Nevertheless, even if we rule out deterrence as a possibility, we're still left with incapacitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29). That undeniably does work, and it works damn well. The thought of being locked up in a cell may not deter a free man, and it may not cure a captured man, but it will prevent that man from victimizing innocent members of the general public again. You don't need silly concepts of supernatural souls or good and evil to benefit from incapacitation. No matter what we think of any of these issues, the fact of the matter is that Ted Kaczynski is unable to mail a bomb to people like you or I.

nitrogen 11y ago
While incapacitation is a valid need, the current American justice system appears to completely disregard the possibility of rehabilitation, especially for non-violent/victimless crimes. Incapacitation isn't so important when rehabilitation is possible, and accepting the lack of supernatural free will should help with acceptance of rehabilitation.
- Crito 11y ago
  Incapacitation is an essential part of rehabilitation, unless you believe that every criminal can be fixed with a simple out-patient procedure. While rehabilitation is in progress but not yet complete, incapacitation is essential. As I see it, one of the biggest problems with the American justice system is pre-mature release. We are releasing criminals before they are known to be rehabilitated. If we're going to go with rehabilitation, then we need to scrap the idea of determining how long somebody will be incapacitated (imprisoned) during sentencing. The duration of incapacitation should be determined solely by how long rehabilitation takes. A doctor continues treatment for as long as treatment is necessary. You don't hear them say things like "Okay Mr Johnson, looks like you've got cancer. We're going to do chemo for 6 months, then you'll be done!" Rather, you get "we're going to start chemo, and we'll continue to monitor your progress." We also need to set sane expectations for our own abilities. What is the false-positive rate for rehabilitation? Does that false-positive rate, when considered with the severity of the crime, work out to a risk that we are willing to accept? What if 1% of captured and rehabilitated murderers go on to murder again? Is that an acceptable risk? What if it's 5%, or 10%? Are there crimes so awful that no false-positive rate is acceptable?
  - ahlatimer 11y ago
    While I agree with your general point -- that rehabilitation isn't determinable at sentencing -- I'd still make the argument that focusing on rehabilitation with no other change in the system would lead to more positive outcomes than our current system. Yes, keeping people in some rehab situation for as long as necessary but no longer would be ideal, simply allowing for some possibility of rehabilitation for the time that they are sentenced would still be a better situation than the one we have now. Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct. For an historical (and I believe this still happens in some cases?) example of how things can go wrong, take a look at the old state-run mental health system the US had.
    - Crito 11y ago
      Just tacking rehabilitation onto our existing system yields a hybridization of rehabilitation and punishment, where people are release either when they are rehabilitated, or when we have determined that they are punished enough. Whichever happened first would trigger the release. This leaves us with a system that deliberately releases non-reformed criminals back into the public. Maybe that is better than our current system, but I think we should certainly aspire for better. > "Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct" While that is true, I would argue that not incapacitating somebody for exactly as long as is necessary is itself injustice. It means that we will knowingly be imprisoning people longer than is necessary (obviously abusive) and it means that we will be knowingly releasing non-reformed criminals back into the public (I consider this to be abusive to the public.) Incapacitation determined on individual basis is a precise tool, a very sharp knife. In the hands of an authoritarian regime, it could be very dangerous. But in the hands of a liberal lawful society, it allows the least harm possible for everybody involved. We could deny ourselves these tools, for fear of what could be done with them (and in the process, cause certain unnecessary harm). Or we could strive to be the very best that we can be, and give ourselves the tools necessary to achieve that.
jcromartie 11y ago
I completely agree. And I think we should separate incapacitation from the idea of retribution.

mikeash 11y ago

I don't know that this is uniquely American, but I agree that this happens and I think it's pretty scary. For example, in the discussions about recent high-profile police shootings, a lot of people just dismissed the whole thing once they found out about that the victims were themselves criminals. A disturbing number of people immediately stopped having any sympathy the moment they found out that e.g. Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store or that Eric Garner was selling cigarettes illegally. They would generally not come out and say that people deserve summary execution for these crimes, but that is essentially the argument that they end up making. If you can't even convince people that small-time criminals deserve to survive an encounter with the police, then good luck convincing them that they deserve fair treatment in court....

theorique 11y ago
A disturbing number of people immediately stopped having any sympathy the moment they found out that e.g. Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store or that Eric Garner was selling cigarettes illegally. They would generally not come out and say that people deserve summary execution for these crimes, but that is essentially the argument that they end up making. It's less that these men "deserved" death for what they did or didn't do, and more that they made decisions that spiraled out of control and led to unfortunate consequences - in Brown's case, physically attacking an armed police officer; in Garner's case, refusing to go along with police when asked ("resisting arrest"). Neither crime is punishable by death, but when you take actions that lead to police escalating use of force [1], the consequences are unpredictable and generally not going to be good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
- mikeash 11y ago
  That's a different thing altogether. I have problems with that approach as well, but it's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who literally cease to care about Brown's and Garner's deaths the moment they found out that they were criminals. Not even getting into the specific police interactions, just straight to "well, he had just robbed a convenience store, so who cares?" I understand that you presumably don't believe that, but I saw a lot of people who did.

stephengillie 11y ago

One step is to teach people to see groups of others as individuals - looking into a rioting crowd, and seeing a sea of individuals who each have wants and dreams that are being trampled by something. Too many people get stuck into "grouping" people because it's cognitively easier. This makes it easier to strawman and hate a group.

Kalium 11y ago
Or maybe they're angry and deluded enough to think destruction will make people want to help them. I see that a lot.
- jcromartie 11y ago
  Why do you think they are deluded in this way?
  - Kalium 11y ago
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows... http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf Long story short, violence does not make other people want to help you or give you what you ask for. It makes those other people do the opposite. When people believe something the opposite of both basic sense and history for romantic reasons, I call them deluded. This is the case with those who argue that riots bring support to their viewpoints.
    - jcromartie 11y ago
      It's one thing to say that people are deluded when they act against their own interests. But how do you think someone would arrive at the conclusion that rioting would be helpful? Where do you think they got these "romantic reasons" that are actually bad for them?
      - 11y ago

im3w1l 11y ago

Well, you don't "will" yourself into a false arrest. That is a point I think even those who value retributive justice can appreciate.

stephengillie 11y ago
No, but running from police, or driving from them, could get you arrested. Running in the opposite direction as police shouldn't be a cause for suspicion or arrest.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  > Running in the opposite direction as police shouldn't be a cause for suspicion or arrest. Most people would think just the opposite. If you run then you are guilty of something, or trying to hide something. If you are actually innocent, then that can be sorted out when the cops question you, but either way running away isn't some kind of get out of jail free card to avoid the police.
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    > If you are actually innocent, then that can be sorted out when the cops question you... You can see how well that worked out for Freddie Gray.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      An exception to the rule doesn't really prove much in this case.
      - stephengillie 11y ago
        It's cute that you think his situation was an exception.
        res0nat0r 11y ago

joshstrange 11y ago

>What can we do to convince people that criminals are not, in fact, "just" bad people? If you find out please let me know. I work in the corrections industry and I deal with this concept on a daily basis and I makes me ill...

mason240 11y ago

>based on a belief that they "chose" to do whatever they did, You don't think that people who commit crimes choose to commit then? What is controlling the minds of murders, rapists, arsonists, ect if not the people performing their actions?

vijayr 11y ago
Poverty, Mental Illness, wrong environment etc. There was a case where a guy robbed $100 from a bank, and just sat there waiting for the cops to show up. He had some medical condition and he believed if he went to jail, he'll get free healthcare (he couldn't afford to even buy a meal). That is one example of poverty. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples. And this is a guy who had worked for 30 years (or something like that) in a retail job and retired.
- mason240 11y ago
  If they are incapable of controlling their own actions to point that they are being violent to society (as you say they are), then they need to be separated from society.